Contributors

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Serendipity

Given the recent line of comments in various threads and what we here daily from the GOP, I thought this quote would very appropriate today.

What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
--Robert Kennedy

19 comments:

sw said...

and what do you say about your opponents markadelphia? the gop doesnt have any power right now, but you know that and it doesnt seem to phase you.

juris imprudent said...

M, I don't think you are an extremist - you're just a partisan hack (and a poorly equipped one at that).

If you think I'm an extremist, well, then allow me to quote another Senator: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".

Anonymous said...

Kettle, meet pot.

(And Mark, you're not my "opponent" - be wary any man who chooses to label those who don't share his views as such.)

Tom said...

You’re implying that this is more a phenomenon of the right? Could you provide some example of that? I see areas on the right where this would apply, but in the last decade or two, it seems to be more of a left wing phenomenon. The left has no tolerance for alternate viewpoints within their party (a good liberal like Joe Lieberman ostracized for differing on just a couple issues). The left has no tolerance for an alternate viewpoint on global warming (in fact, to even debate the issue is ridiculed). The left has no tolerance for religion, particularly Christianity (see the banishment of any religious symbol from public spaces, schools, etc.). The left has no tolerance for those who support a true reading of the constitution (see the 2nd Amendment). The left has no tolerance for those that oppose their viewpoints (see Carrie Prejean’s agreement with the President on gay marriage and what that has cost her.), etc. This is not to say that there are not examples of intolerance on the right, but I think you’re grossly overstating this when the left is at the least equally as intolerant.

Mark Ward said...

Tom, if that were the case...that the left is more intolerant...what's the equivalent of a RINO on the right? Why does the right continually ridicule the left for being so "weak and accepting" of people? (see: multi-culti bullshit)

Joe Liberman campaigns for McCain-Palin and yet still gets to caucus with the Democrats. They forgave him. Show me the Republican who campaigned for Obama and was forgiven. How about the Republican congressmen who told the town hall last summer to stop watching Glenn Beck and was booed? How did Cheney treat Powell, hmm?

Climate Change-should not be a left or right issue. Now, of course, it's ONLY the "left" that is ignoring data even though the naysayers have been doing it for years.

Religion-stop watching Glenn "war on Christmas" Beck. Funny that a group that supposedly hates the victim culture whines like one all the fucking time. Oh, and the left aren't all atheists. In fact, many are part of the emerging church which, funnily enough, the right has no tolerance for at all.

A "true" reading of the Constitution. Would that be like a "true" reading the Bible? Thanks for proving my point about intolerance on this subject. There is only one way--OUR WAY--OUR VILL-SEIG HEIL!!!!!

Gay Marriage-the fact that the President is against gay marriage and yet the gay community still supports him overwhelmingly essentially means your statement makes no sense.

So, no, Tom...the left is not equally intolerant. As I have stated many times on here, the base are better armed, better organized, and more in number in their intolerance. The fundamental problem the right has with the left is that they are weak, wishy washy, feeling oriented, and too accepting. These days, the base's raison d'etre is based on two things: intolerance and a complete inability to accept responsibility for anything.

Anonymous said...

"... and a complete inability to accept responsibility for anything."

That's funny coming from you, Mark. Are you planning to accept responsibility for your statements and their demonstrated inaccuracies?

donald said...

Are you ready to post under an actual name? You can pick any name you know. Until he or she does, Mark, I wouldn't take anyone seriously, discussing responsibility, who posts under the name "Anonymous."

Anonymous said...

Keep deflecting, children...
I'll ask you the same thing, then, Donald. Care to provide a full name, address, phone number, or even an e-mail?

The only identifying characteristic you have is a single name with no reference outside of the context of this blog.

I could just as easily post under the name "donald."

Anonymous said...

Addendum...

...are you guys *really* suggesting that if I so much as post under the name "Not Anonymous" you'll start dealing with the last month of comments on here, actually acknowledge the beat-down that was the corporate force thread, back up your arguments, and actually post evidence when asked for it?

Because so far, you haven't done that for any other "conservative" posting here.

Mark ignores the comments put on here which include data, evidence, and logical thought and pretends they do not exist. That he and you do the same for me because I post anonymously is a laughable idea.

You have the same ability to redress and deal with my comments that you do for anyone else. You lack only a definite name (which, as I've stated, could be easily duplicated). You can quote what I write, you can refer back to previous posts on here (at least, you're able to if you have at least half the IQ of the average yam, as my writing style is somewhat distinctive)...

...really, I need to enumerate this for you?

donald said...

"Care to provide a full name, address, phone number, or even an e-mail?"

I don't have to. In fact, "donald" is not my real name. If you like, I will change it to Angus and you can be the new Donald. The details you are asking for are not the same thing. Stop being silly.

As far as addressing issues and points on here, I think Mark has made it pretty clear that people can address whatever they want to address. I think many who read here will agree that debating some commenters here is an exercise in futility.

Anonymous said...

"The details you are asking for are not the same thing. Stop being silly."

No, you're questioning my lack of a title or a handle as having something to do with validity of argument. That isn't just fucking silly - that's like refusing to debate because someone's socks aren't the right color. When you demonstrate a correlation between my refusal to put down a title and fault with argument, I'll accept it.

"I think Mark has made it pretty clear that people can address whatever they want to address"

Which is absolutely fine. I'll be more than glad to continue to rub your faces in your own lies and nonsensical bullshit. You can ignore it and reality all you want.

"I think many who read here will agree that debating some commenters here is an exercise in futility."

Yes, we all feel that way dealing with you people. It's like trying to convince a brick that it might be part of a wall.

But if you can demonstrate any area where Juris (for example) has entirely failed to back up a statement and continued to make that statement after being proven unequivocally wrong, I'll be happy to taut that until he corrects it as well.

Until then, you, Mark, and your ilk still maintain that corporations (presumably regularly) use force against consumers in the United States without evidence.

You continue to play your partisan games, too, but children will be children.

Anonymous said...

"I think many who read here will agree that debating some commenters here is an exercise in futility."

Actually, y'know what, I'm stepping back to this, because from the corporate abuse thread alone, I'm calling bullshit.

Which commenters? In what case has it been futile?

Because right now, I'm having to debate with you that having or not having a single title apart from "Anonymous" has something to do with the validity of argument. Which would might be something other than insanely fucking stupid if we were discussing, say, the nature of anonymity.

But we're not, kids. We're discussing things like corporate force and partisanship.

No wonder Mark's readership and commenting has rapidly declined.

I should stop bothering. It's getting tiring watching the carnival of retardation that is Markadelphia.

julia said...

Agreed, donald or angus....whatever you decide to call yourself. I don't post on here much-just kinda started though-because I know that I will be labeled a RINO.

Mark Ward said...

"No wonder Mark's readership and commenting has rapidly declined."

Actually, my readership has increased quite a bit in the last couple of months. Normally I get around 200 regular readers but now I am up to around 300. It's not the 1K that Kevin gets but it's not bad considering I don't put any effort into advertising.

GrumpyOldFart said...

Personally I thought "Not Anonymous" was an excellent choice.

Kevin said...

"The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents"

Flat-earthers, civil-war re-enactors...

Kevin said...

I dunno, I'm kinda liking "The New Donald"...

juris imprudent said...

...what's the equivalent of a RINO on the right?

Sheesh, you've forgotten the link I gave you from The Nation castigating the Dems from swing-districts (won by McCain no less) and their lack of support for nationalized healthcare?

OK, I guess there isn't a clever nick-name, other than Blue-Dogs, but that is your "DINO".

Anonymous said...

"Actually, my readership has increased quite a bit in the last couple of months."

Fair enough. I don't have access to those figures and was extrapolating based on the (apparently) declining comments.

Are you going to address the rest of my post?