Point of order.
Amber Lamps is neither old, stupid, or a loser … she’s just aloof.
CMC fnord!
How swiftly the memes die. 
Wait, THIS thread? Of all the threads I really think this one is far more blatant. He actually clipped quotes out of context, then professed it shows what each person really meant. Then he linked to a propaganda piece. Then he got all bent out of shape when we called him on it.
And my personal favourite is this one, in which Sarah Palin was not proven right, nor was there a trick by the government, or a death panel (except for what the hospital did).
The guy actually linked to a google search that was “evolution vs creationism” as some sort of proof that liberals caused conservatives to be ignorant about evolution.
He won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. And I’ll stake $20 on that.
Not everyone’s.
Correct.
Correct.
I’ll admit to being partisan, but certainly no more so than many of the board’s liberal posters.
Never.
Perhaps on occasion, but not on purpose.
Nope, never said it - ain’t gonnna defend it.
Incorrect. I post like I do because many of the board’s liberal posters are arrogant, superior, outrageously partisan jerks. The board itself is populated largely by very knowledgeable, very helpful, very sympathetic, and very good people. Unfortunately they then not to be the ones offering political opinions.
Nope. It has nothing to do with your being liberal or me being conservative. It has to do with you and a lot of other posters around here being so obnoxiously liberal.
I just said that.
I have no idea how the board’s other conservative posters view me, but given that they generally have chosen a different approach I suspect you may well be right. Still, we all have to be true to ourselves, eh? I wouldn’t think of suggesting to another conservative poster that they change their style to suit me, and I wouldn’t imagine any of them would suggest that I alter my style to suit them.
And then there’s the fact that the board’s conservative posters, being the believers in individual responsibility that we are, very, very, rarely come to each other’s defense in the first place. We each believe that our brethren can handle their own battles, and we know that that they expect us to do the same. I can’t think of a genuine conservative dog pile against a liberal poster in all the time I’ve been here…or even an attempt at one.
Sure, I have. I’ve made several in this very thread.
Natually I view this as opinion, not fact.
I declare victory only on rare occasion, and never in order to run off to do it in another thread. Still, the number of times I declare victory vs. the number of times my opponents declare victory over me is exceedingly small.
There are no lies there to answer for.
Why am I wasting my time on anyone who could post such sophomoric shit?
Oh, well…once more unto the breach:
That would be because the poster involved and I have a lengthy history of acrimony and it was my belief that he was simply trying to yank my chain. And the requested cite, which was for instances of liberal sources talking about creationism vs. evolution, thus creating the impression in many people’s minds that evolution is alleged to be the scientific counterpoint to creationism with regard to how life on earth came into being. There is absolutely no question that for many decades liberals have been laughing at creationists and pointing to evolution as the alternative explanation for life, usually claiming that while evolution doesn’t have all the answers as to how life began, it’s at least pointing the way (which also explains why so many people refer to the “theory of evolution”, another term that liberals are largely responsible for creating but which they now laugh at people for mentioning.)
It may not have been the search phrase for what I was supposed to be looking for as redefined by my opponents, but it was the correct search phrase for what I was talking about and originally said.
You’re referring to Inigo Montoya’s response to my simple (and factually correct and WIki-cited) observation that the Tea Party has no specific leadership or spokesmen, perhaps?
But, but, I’d hate to miss it. When does it start?
Well, what can I say? I pays my dues and I speaks my mind. That’s the way it works around here, right?
Still, the board’s other conservative posters are more than capable of thinking and speaking for themselves and they certainly don’t need you to express what they’re thinking, now do they? So how’s about you limit your comments to whatever finds itself ricocheting around inside your skull and attempting to pass itself off as a thought, and let everyone else speak for themselves, mmkay?
And on preview I see that a whole new rash of shit has occurred while I’ve been answering the latest rash of shit that has occurred. You see what happens? I make a simple observation to the effect that the Tea Party has no central leadership or spokesman and look what a clusterfuck the ignorance-fighting liberals of the SDMB have turned this simple, accurate statement into. We’ve got everything from Elton John to Sarah Palin to umpteen other threads being drug in here trying to prove…what? That I don’t the time to screw around trying to answer them all. Well, on that count you’re correct. I’m done here for tonight.
At this point I figure we’re free to call the tea party anything we want - they’re not sufficiently unified or organized to argue, and no individual speaks for them, anyway.
[
There it is. The Tea Party now has a declared leader. And she is bugnuts. Obviously, she has a few bugnuts supporters, too, since she claims to have collected more than US$14 million since June. No telling if that all came from 14 wealthy people or what, tho.
Let me ask you this: What can the tea party do for me?
Can you help me get a job? What can you offer me that i cannnot get from democrats?
Where were you hyperpatriots when Bush II was declaring wars he couldn’t pay for, giving his ultrarich friends tax cuts he couldn’t pay for?
Why are you now pitching a bitch that Obama wants to end wars we AS A COUNTRY can’t afford, end tax cuts we cannnot afford, and end other bad things your homeboy Dubya did?
Why is it wrong to want to close Guantanamo and end use of tortures like waterboarding?
What’s up with your extreme pro-life agenda? What gives you the right to tell me how i have to spend my money, and why do i have to lose access to birth control because you don’t approve of it?
What’s with that crazycake Christine O’Donnell and masturbation?
And for the love of cupcakes, what is it with you people and “smears” when you are caught on tape spreading bullshit? What makes it a smear when your candidates are DUMB enough to put pictures on THE INTERNET of themselves in Nazi uniforms?
nvm
It starts when you shut your trap and start letting facts shape your opinions (logic) and stop letting your opinions shape your facts (sophistry).
You’re a joke here. Your persistent trolling for abuse always reminds me of Adam Sandler’s “The Peeper.” You should really just leave, you wouldn’t be missed.
I can take very little of your ignorant frothing. (And apparently you prefer to stick to frothing, since you’ve never answered any of my insightful posts! :D) But since you reference a non-SA post, I read it. Here it is:
This seems a rather accurate portrayal of the redneck views of many right-wing voters. Obviously they’re not “intellectual” views, but Beck-Palinism wouldn’t exist if only intellectuals led policy discussion.
I don’t know (or much care) if the views SteveG1 describes are your views, Mr. Starving (for intellect?), but if you cared about your reputation here, you’d spend more time explicitly denouncing such views, rather than implicitly embracing them.
The most ignorant part about Starving Artist isn’t that he’s conservative, or that he’s so blindly partisan that he’ll spew what ever conservative ideology he happened to find that day, it’s that he’s redefined the very meaning of conservative and liberal in his warped and twisted little way.
Quite literally, he has set it up such that *conservative is good, liberal is bad. * A conservative is someone that does, or tries to do something that is honest and true. The opposite of that is a liberal, one who does something that is bad. A conservative politician is thus someone that does good things, and if the thing he does is bad than it wasn’t a conservative it was a liberal. A conservative can’t put forth liberal [wrong] policies, because then they aren’t conservatives, they become liberals. Which in the end, makes him the perfect conservative.
Not quite. Only Sikh men wear dastar, but the word turban refers to any wound headdress, which are common among other South Asian, Middle Eastern and African cultures.
There are a number of Arab states where men normally wear turbans called amamah, such as Oman.
Ask not what your tea party can do for you; ask what you can do for your tea party.
The various provisions in the “Contract from America” are either nonsensical, meaningless, or empty rhetoric. Usually some combination of the three. The Tea Partiers have no coherent economic goals whatever, have virtually no understanding of Constitutional law, and generally seem to have no idea what they’re so mad about.
If the closest thing the Party has to an “official document” made even the slightest bit of sense it would do a lot to lessen the Party’s image as a bunch of racist idiots.
Last night Stephen Colbert interviewed Brendan Steinhouser (video here, interview starts at 14min).
Steinhouser was introduced as “one of the leaders of the Tea Party Movement.”
Good interview for anyone interested. Colbert tries pretty hard to trap the guy and push and agenda and actually fails pretty bad.
An interesting note: Steinhouser describes the movement starting in the fall of 2008 to protest TARP started by then Pres. Bush. But then admits no one gave a shit until the spring after Obama took office.
Blames the government for the rise in house prices.
He also describes the Tea Party as a “centrist movement” and considers Obama to be on the fringe. “We are on the dead center of American Politics.” Considered Clinton to be a centrist.
Claims not to support Christine O’Donnell.
Claims the Tea Party will keep the Republican Party in check.
At 19:20 they go through endorsements. The way it’s presented, Freedom Works (Dick Army’s organization) seems to be the main body of the Tea Party, and give it’s support to candidates he likes. But then Steinhouser admits “anyone can run as a member of the Tea Party.” He seems to have disavowed O’Donnell, Iott (nazi guy), and Paladino.
Steinhouser says the message of the Tea Party is lower taxes and smaller government. But also says the main point is the deficit/national debt.
Colbert asks point blank about “the gays.” Steinhouser’s response is to say “'I’ll let people have their own opinions.”
Good interview, worth watching.
Note, I said “in the last month.” I also have no idea what search you tried to link to.
Oh, look, more lies!
And more. They do just stack up, don’t they.
I can’t imagine why people would sometimes react to policies based in fear, ignorance, cupidity, and hate in a negative manner, either. Certainly, the only explanation is that liberals are morally bankrupt.
I know. That’s why I specified “*known for *wearing turbans.” Sikhism *requires *a specific headdress that is pretty much what your average American will picture when they hear the word turban; Islam has no such requirement, though there are plenty of primarily Muslim cultures that wear some type of head wrap/drape.
The studio audience had a good laugh at that!
Not really surprising. Part of the human condition to assume you’re normal and everyone else is on the fringe.
For me, the followup question would be, “are you lying or are you delusional?”
I would like to bump this question. Can anyone answer it? Everywhere I look the Tea Party candidates are socially conservative.
Ha ha ha fucking ha. I suppose they want me to stand around with a misspelled sign, like a yutz, while they chip away at my rights.
Way to answer the question, shit-for-brains.