I recently engaged some Cult members on social media regarding the president's recent remarks on the Crusades at Friday's prayer breakfast. I realized as soon as he made them that bowels would be blown to such a great degree inside the bubble that, from the outside, it would have a decidedly deep brown hue. Sure enough, I was correct. Among the comments in a recent thread...
-We don't need our president focusing on things that happened during the Crusades. We need a president to focus on the threats that face our country today. Obama's remarks at the Prayer Breakfast were a joke.
-Our president is a joke
-...his remarks were so far out of the realm of what is happening that you wonder who the hell wrote that! You have a country of 6 million people (Jordan) taking the lead on the most dangerous situation affecting the whole world. Where is the "Most powerful man in the world"? Hosting illegal aliens. That calls for a big WOW!!!!
-Everything he says is a joke
if it wasnt for the terrorists back then, there wouldn't have been any crusades!!
-I want a real president , a real American president ! One that says this is going to be one nation under God ! I want to hear a president with the balls to say , this is America this is how we do it here , and you knew this on the ride over . So if you don't like our customs and way of life go home . If interest on a loan offends you don't borrow money . If the pledge of allegiance offends you go home . It's not the "in god we trust" that really offends them . It's the first sentence . I pledge allegiance to the United States of America , would only offend someone that immigrated to the USA that doesn't plan allegiance ! Why would allegiance be such an insult to a person who technically wanted to be in the USA ? You answer that one yourself.
-He is a MOSLEM POS
When people opine about the United States declining, these comments (from six different people) are the exact reason why.
16 comments:
You just are NEVER going to get the voices in your head concept, are you?
Willfully ignorant is no way to go through life son.
Oh, I get it, juris. You and the other four commenters from TSM think that your views are somehow separate from current conservative dogma. Out of the five, you show the most promise in terms of not towing the Cult line but you still share some of the base views (economics, less government, guns). You have also asserted that people like this aren't representative of conservative views in general.
Both of these ideas are patently false, based on what you guys continually assert on here (especially Guard Duck) and the Republican party platform. So, no, there are no voices in my head. This is what conservatives are all about these days and especially in the last 6 years.
You and the other four commenters from TSM think that your views are somehow separate from current conservative dogma.
Classic M, just classic. It never is about what you do - it is always about somebody else. You are about as reflective as a brick wall, and just as sharp as one I might add.
Even now, you can't actually engage with what is before you - just a little made up thing inside your head. That is all you talk to, and all you hear.
Y'know, juris, you should just give in and come over fully to the liberal side of life. You are an atheist, anti-intervention, could give two shits about social issues like abortion and gay marriage, legalize all drugs kind of fellow. All you need to lose is the gun humping, the failed economic theory and the pathological hatred of the federal government and you'd be home free!
It never is about what you do - it is always about somebody else. You are about as reflective as a brick wall, and just as sharp as one I might add.
Yesiree. So reflective that right after criticizing 'conservative dogma', he posts a great piece of 'progressive dogma' in the Chris Rock graphic.
So reflective that after being shown to be completely and utterly wrong regarding his belief that M-T would have changed the outcome in the straw purchaser piece - that rather than discussing how and why he was wrong and what the actual facts are - he.....just.....disapears.
Hey, GD, where's that link you promised me about the definitional problem of rape?
You are an atheist, anti-intervention, could give two shits about social issues like abortion and gay marriage, legalize all drugs kind of fellow
So how would that put me in the same political camp as you?
gun humping, the failed economic theory and the pathological hatred
and why should I listen to someone who doesn't actually listen to what I say, nor can he even come close to describing my politics?
You see, you only converse with the ji in your head, not me.
Hey, GD, where's that link you promised me about the definitional problem of rape?
After you disappeared rather than honestly discussing the straw buyer thread I figured you have decided to not be bothered to have a grown up discussion. Why try if you won't?
I've explained to you previously that I won't engage you much regarding gun issues because you simply aren't rational and are far too biased. That thread illustrated that you'd rather behave like a child than debate honestly. The fact that you are still trying to bait me is a testament to this fact.
Since you will not produce a link, I have no choice but to conclude that either there never was a link, there was one and you got pwned on it, or you are simply acting like a child (again) by not putting it up here. In short, you are full of shit, GD.
Anything you write here or in the other imaginary places you post should be taken seriously. Now, if you change your behavior, as I have explained previously, then I'll be happy to have discussions with you when I have the time.
I've explained to you previously that I won't engage you much regarding gun issues because you simply aren't rational and are far too biased
Projection, again.
Since you will not produce a link
Double standards, again.
In short, you are full of shit,
Projection, in spades.
Now, if you change your behavior, as I have explained previously, then I'll be happy to have discussions with you when I have the time.
Ah, if your commenters applied the same standard to you, you might just die from loneliness.
That thread illustrated that you'd rather behave like a child than debate honestly.
Please do tell how I behaved like a child.
Was it when I told you that you were incorrect regarding your belief that M-T would have changed anything....
Or was it when I told you that discussing hypothetical situations based upon M-T would be pointless until you corrected your misconceptions that led to you being incorrect in the first place?
Face facts Mark, you've been acting like a brat throwing a tantrum. You refuse to discuss anything honestly. You won't provide sources. You refuse to explain your conclusions.
Ha! Exactly that. In the very thread where you expect me to provide you a link you never once provided a scrap of explanation for you wild conclusions. I provided plenty of explanation for mine, you provided nothing.
Fine. Here's the link. It's been up for days. I've made it as neutral as possible. I have a feeling that once you see it you are going to go over and act like a pigeon playing chess. Let's see how mature you are and prove me wrong on that.
http://www.quora.com/What-are-your-opinions-on-this-blog-exchange
Let's also see how mature you are and tell me how I acted irrationally in the straw buyer thread. Since I didn't, you're going to have a hard time doing that.
Alright, first of all, that's not the question you were supposed to post. It was this one.
Define rape in a way that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?
Not surprising that you instead put up a post rooted in insecurity about who won the blog argument. As Rob correctly noted,
When an argument degenerates into an argument about the argument, or an argument about personalities, rather than an argument about the underlying question, then both sides have lost. There was a wasted opportunity here to have had a real debate.
This is what you do all the time, GD. You don't want to actually discuss the issue (especially if it makes conservatives look really bad) so you twist it into an argument about an argument, more specifically about me. This is what pedantic and semantic gaming does. I suspect, however, this is your intent. You know you can't "win" so we both have to "lose."
It's no wonder the question got so few views. Who wants to read this long drivel? Now, if you are still up to a challenge, I say you post the question I thought you were originally going to post. I posted something along a similar line.
http://www.quora.com/What-exactly-is-a-definitional-problem-with-rape
Note the tags I put in the question. You should put those in your question. I'd also word the question like this:
Is there a way to define rape that can be used in a law that bans late term abortions that actually has an ability to prevent easy circumvention of the law?
Tag "Politics" "Rape" "Women's health" and "Women"--the latter two of which I just tagged in my question which doesn't have very many views as well, although I didn't spend much effort promoting it.
Context mark. That was the point of my question. I asserted that you missed the context of the subject. You denied doing so. The question was asked in order to show you the context that you were denying. Asking the question out of context would have shown nothing. Taking things out of context leads to utter misunderstandings. Kinda like you misunderstanding the entire topic.
Oh, and as Rob correctly noted, you had plenty of opportunity for a real debate. Remember I was the one practically begging you to explain you position.
Oh, and as Rob correctly noted, you had plenty of opportunity for a real debate. Remember I was the one practically begging you to explain you position.
Post a Comment