[QUOTE=Shodan]
Of course, we have seen actual criticism of, for instance, Mother Teresa, who was also Christian.
[/quote]
Attacks on people who are Christian are attacks on Christianity itself?
Had you actually paid attention to any of the many threads on those subjects, you would have noted that many of those who share the (non)religious views of Der Trihs, pseudo triton ruber ruber, and badchad are disgusted by the way they espouse those views. But that, of course, would require paying attention, an action of which you do not seem capable.
Actually, people like Dinsdale and Der Trihs do support them, and on this board. So Starving Artist is correct that, on the SDMB, there is support for the Iraqi insurgents to win even though they engage in terrorist acts, but a desire for the US to be defeated because of what are perceived as the same sort of acts.
[/QUOTE]
I had actually typed in something about “no one but Der Trihs”, but I deleted it, because I didn’t want to get bogged down in an argument over either (a) what “support” really means in a context like this, or (b) how relevant DT and his ilk are.
But I will certainly amend “…and no one supports” to “…and pratically no one, certainly no prominent left wing figure of any influence or import, and at most a few fringe dopers, supports”.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Go ahead then. Show us. I asked you to support your assertions on the previous page, and so far you’ve shown no sign of doing so.
This, of course, is typical of your tactics on this board. It should be pinned to the front page as the Starving Artist Debating Strategy.
Make a ridiculous claim about liberals/leftists, either those on this board, or those in America more generally.
Get asked by other Dopers to provide some evidence for your assertions.
Say that you know it’s true, and that you could find a bunch of cites, but that there’s no point doing do because no-one will accept them.
Proceed to do provide absolutely no evidence of your assertions, all the while continuing to claim that you’ve proved your point.
Go to (1).
[/QUOTE]
That’s not entirely accurate. He will, occasionally, provide a cite to something that says precisely the opposite of what he’s claiming, and when people point that out, will whine about “nitpickers.”
Just to make the obvious comment: quite often someone here pits a rightwing fucktard, and most of the board, conservative and liberal alike, comes out to condemn the fucktardery, with one or two extremists rising to his defense. Somewhat less often but still noticeable, someone here pits a leftwing fucktard, with almost exactly the same results, only the wingery of the extremists changing.
And I do like “leftard” as a convenient portmanteauing of “leftwing fucktard” – but the question then is whether a squad of leftards would be commanded by a leftenant, whether the Arms of England depict leftards, etc. (Or is it gauche of me to ask? :D)
Dang, I was just gonna link to that TalkingPointsMemo post. And I especially agree that naming the particular people who passed along the particular slurs is good strategy. Vague blaming of “Fox News” or the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” isn’t helpful. Naming Steve Doocy IS.
This story is going to last about one more week. A huge backfire against the RWFT who made up this story and the RWFTs who repeated it. The deniability factor of “I’m just talking about stories that are being reported” just won’t fly as well as it used to.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Great response. I’m glad he peeled some paint off of Fox. He appears to have learned something from what happened to kerry.
[/QUOTE]
Agreement. Good to see a lefty with some cojones.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Of course, we have seen actual criticism of, for instance, Mother Teresa, who was also Christian.
[/QUOTE]
So what if she was a Christian: she was also a douchebag, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. No one seems able to put up a coherent defense of her beyond saying “tut tut, how dare you insult Mother Teresa!” Until you are prepared to do so, maybe try dropping this as an example of some sort of criminally crazy irrational outrage directed at Christians in general, as opposed to a specific douchebag in particular.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Attacks on people who are Christian are attacks on Christianity itself?
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think that was tomndebb’s point. He was making the claim that the attacks on Christians on the SDMB were really attacks only on the American religious right, and that left-wing Christians were not attacked. Mother Theresa was a counter-example of a Christian who was not a member of the American religious right, and who still gets flamed.
That’s fair enough. But see the thread in GD about how 22% of Americans want Bush to fail in Iraq.
We could get bogged down (as you mention) in nitpicks about whether or not this constitutes support for terrorists, but it is certainly sharing one of their goals, which is to defeat the efforts to set up a reasonable government in Iraq. So this kind of hatred is not quite as fringe as you might be suggesting.
The only thing wrong with this is that “somewhat less often” is a fairly severe over-statement. A third, or a fifth, or a tenth less often might be closer to the mark.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
What does it benefit the Times to risk conspiring to publish a completely baseless slander about someone they already believe to be cunning and ruthless to the extreme?
[/QUOTE]
How can you have lived this long in this world and remained this clueless about how it works? Lordy.
“What it benefits them” is tending to their large target market of partisan visceral Clinton-haters, a variety of person that so mystifies you that you don’t easily accept they exist, and not incidentally raises their web site hit count.
