FWIW, I’m happy when a liberal douche gets ass cancer or whatever. I like it when bad things happen to bad people. So, Shodan, I’m doing my part to balance out the equation.
As I explained in my earlier post, this is not what “tolerance” means.
And conservatives like ralph124c or Lonesome Polecat gloating over his death.
And you get liberals like Robot Arm and joebuck20 saying that as much as they disagree with the guy, they don’t want him to suffer and hope he recovers.
No, I think that was in the spirit of the OP. Brad Pitt’s daughter’s clothing choices is a stupid thing to report on. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan is not a stupid thing to report on. (Dunno about many of the civilians being three years old though – was it a school or a hospital or something?)
Oh, I know. Like in the gifts-are-for-kids thread, the OP was told that even if she wasn’t going to get any Christmas gifts at all, from anyone, even her parents, she should be glad she at least had a family and could spend Christmas with them. Which I daresay she kept telling herself. It’s like as long as you have air, water, and something to keep the elements out, you’re not allowed to want, or even be wistful for, anything else.
The question, though, is there a difference in your mind between “liberal douche” and “liberal”?
I’m usually not one to laugh at the misfortune of others, but this is a guy who called a rival’s wife and mocked her miscarriage on the air. This piece of shit deserves everything he’s getting.
Seriously? Whoa. This just stopped me in my tracks.
And I sobered up from my gleeful hatred of Faux-‘Newscasters’, and I said a quick prayer for the guy and his family.
**In your face, Fundies! A pro-choice, anti-gun Obama-worker loves Jesus!
Ha! Wrap your shriveled hate-dessicated minds around that.**
Nope. He was a general scold, arguing for a general return to morality and virtue. He made no exception for the various vices that he didn’t bother to mention that are generally accepted as vices. Gambling at all, even in small amounts, is a traditional vice. Gambling enough money to feed all of Haiti for a year is vice. That he avoided mentioning gambling when he is decrying all traditional vices for the sole purpose of saying he is not a hypocrite if and when he is finally caught makes him inappropriate to be a general purpose scold. All of us have vices, that is why we normally leave scolding of the sort that Bennett was making lots of money off of and then gambling it away to institutions so that the individual member’s vices don’t make the message hypocritical and hilarious. St. Augustine traditionally used this as pointing out that being baptized by the Church got one past the sinning state of the potentially corrupt priest. Bennett set himself up as an institution on morality and virtue. His lack of traditional virtue and the extent of his vice make it hypocritical and ridiculous, inviting the public to treat all exhortations to virtue as a sick Elmer Gantry joke, which is how Bennett is now viewed.
That is not to say that you did not make a noble effort on Bennett’s behalf, as Bennett did himself. But the intellectual dishonesty of putting together a plausible syllogism that pissing away $8 million plus is not a vice and hypocrisy coming from someone who claims general virtuousness, is simply a further warning that those who make such arguments make them not out of a desire to show humility and help fellow sinners, but because there is a buck to be made out of it. So much less money is being made by Bennett now that it is actually encouraging to know that so much of the public is disgusted by his hypocrisy. Even as a technical point, he always railed against excess, immoderation and addiction.
Well, I’m sure there’s a difference between what I mean by liberal douche and what Shodan means by liberal. I just mean fiscal liberals, but I think Shodan includes social liberals in that term (I’m a social liberal though).
Says you. Bennett obviously disagrees.
What’s so hard for you to grasp here?
That comes from having his had up his ass for so long. Now I wish he would lose his voice too.
A cask of Amontillado perhaps?
Suck on it tax boy.
I haven’t read Bennet so I’m just asking. Did he specifically say he didn’t think gambling was a vice or did he just not mention it?
Not my question. Does making someone a liberal automatically make them a douchebag in your mind? That is, is the phrase “liberal douchebag” as redundancy? Or are there liberals who you think are not douchebags?
In Bill Bennet’s case, its more a lack of math skills and common sense. His gambling wasn’t anything remotely rational, he was addicted to high-stakes slot machines. He would have been better off just writing them a check and saving the air fare to Vegas. What a maroon.
The distinction is between disagreeing, even strongly, with someone’s opinions, and hoping they die a painful death because they hold those opinions. Everybody on the SDMB does the first, liberal and conservative alike. The second is confined pretty much only to the left side hereabouts.
That’s why people like Miller are pretending not to understand the difference between respecting people and agreeing with their opinions. Decent people do the first even when they can’t do the second. Liberals who can’t do the first with anyone who disagrees with them on their hot button issues are not, therefore, behaving like decent people.
Tony Snow dies, and we get the assholery already mentioned. Diogenes says he hopes Reagan’s corpse is dug up and sodomized. Boyo Jim says he hopes Glenn Beck dies.
Ted Kennedy dies, and mswas is banned for too often mentioning that Kennedy got drunk, drove off a bridge, abandoned a woman he was trying to fuck to drown and then lied about it.
In a way it’s too bad, but in a way it is OK. It makes it easy to see who is arguing their politics based on principle, and who is motivated merely by hate.
Regards,
Shodan
**mswas **banned for begging the mods to ban him. Kennedy had nothing to do with it.
And why do you get to be the one who not only decides what the world in general should accept as a vice, but also decide in Bennett’s specific case?
And why can you do do it unselfconsciously in a thread started for the precise purpose of castigating those who inaccurately see hypocrisy in others by imputing general beliefs to specific people who don’t share them?