Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
In other news, I've discoverd LW's real identity.
Quote:
Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped
Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.
Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.
The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)
Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).
When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Athletic Supporter wrote:
In other news, I've discoverd LW's real identity.
Quote:
Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped
Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.
Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.
The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)
Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).
When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.
Give this a new thread!!!! I want to discuss the living fuck out of Pat Sajak the insane conservative blogger!!!
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Athletic Supporter wrote:
In other news, I've discoverd LW's real identity.
Quote:
Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped
Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.
Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.
The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)
Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).
When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.
Post subject: Pat Sajak - The Insane Conservative Blogger
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:35 pm
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
Time to Amend the Amendments?
Whether it’s David Letterman’s lists, the Lord’s Commandments or The Bill of Rights, we seem to gravitate toward placing things in groups of ten. However, in most cases, ten can be a bit much for us to handle. Dave’s lists would be funnier if the two or three least amusing items were dropped. And, of course, many of us would go to sleep with clearer consciences if a select few of The Ten Commandments were decommissioned.
However, when it comes to The Bill of Rights, that’s where a lot of people really get selective. Liberals, in particular, seem to enjoy “cherry-picking” those first ten amendments. They like The First Amendment very much. They hate The Second. They seem to be in favor of most of them between three and eight (bail, search and seizure, trial by jury and stuff like that). I don’t think they realize nine and ten are there. If they did, I can’t imagine they would approve, given the assignment of powers away from the Federal Government and toward the States and the People.
Most folks in my business tend to focus on The First Amendment because they seem to like its provisions, particularly the notions of free speech and a free press. (They do lean toward misinterpreting the section concerning religion, in that it merely prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.) Other than crying “fire” in a crowded theater (or maybe allowing Conservative speakers on most college campuses), Liberals tend to define themselves and “absolutists” when it comes to The First Amendment. They fear the infamous “slippery slope” of censorship. That’s why pornography is protected just as staunchly as The New York Times. [Insert your own joke here.]
The Second Amendment is a different matter. There are two schools of thought from the Left. One says that, since the amendment speaks of a militia, there was no intent to allow and protect individual gun ownership. Still, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear to me.
The other school of thought is that the Founders could not possibly have foreseen the advances in weaponry nor imagined the horrible problems of drugs and gangs that have sprung up in our modern society. Therefore, we must either disregard, re-interpret or re-write the amendment to reflect the reality of the times. I have to admit that I see some merit in this argument. The days of Uzis and machine guns are a long way off from the weaponry of the 18th Century.
But, be careful, Second Amendment foes, this is where the slope gets positively greasy. Using the logic that the Founders couldn’t have foreseen changes, how could they have possibly imagined the absolute saturation of media in our lives? How could they have begun to fathom the Internet or satellite television? Could they, in their wildest dreams, have conceived of a day when the most vile pornography imaginable could be sent directly to your home desktop without your consent?
Is it time to look at The Second Amendment through 21st-Century eyes? Maybe. But maybe it’s time to look at The First Amendment, too.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Pat Sajak wrote:
But, be careful, Second Amendment foes, this is where the slope gets positively greasy. Using the logic that the Founders couldn’t have foreseen changes, how could they have possibly imagined the absolute saturation of media in our lives? How could they have begun to fathom the Internet or satellite television? Could they, in their wildest dreams, have conceived of a day when the most vile pornography imaginable could be sent directly to your home desktop without your consent?
Y'know ... full penetration pornography dates back to the ancient Greeks, so I bet the forefathers could have seen it in their WILDEST dreams. Where did I read that??? Damn it!
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:44 pm Posts: 8910 Location: Santa Cruz Gender: Male
towelie wrote:
I believe Vanna White is incapable of thought.
I was under the impression that Vanna White died about 8 years ago and was replaced by an android. I think she may be capable of thought, but only within her programming. And it seems like her programming has been limited to revealing letter blocks and draining swimming pools.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
Buggy wrote:
towelie wrote:
I believe Vanna White is incapable of thought.
I was under the impression that Vanna White died about 8 years ago and was replaced by an android. I think she may be capable of thought, but only within her programming. And it seems like her programming has been limited to revealing letter blocks and draining swimming pools.
I believe you are correct.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Pat Sajak wrote:
Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
So, because Pat Sajak has one crazy friend that won't admit that Scalia isn't quite as evil as Hitler or at least evil in different ways, all Liberals are beligerant debaters?
Also, how does the bold statement not demonstrate the "superiority" attitude that he's complaining about in liberals?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
just_b wrote:
Pat Sajak wrote:
Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
So, because Pat Sajak has one crazy friend that won't admit that Scalia isn't quite as evil as Hitler or at least evil in different ways, all Liberals are beligerant debaters?
Also, how does the bold statement not demonstrate the "superiority" attitude that he's complaining about in liberals?
His whole piece is full of his own superiority attitude. I love his condescending tone, as if he's writing for children.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
Stereotyping a group of people based on their political beliefs is bad, right Pat?
_________________ This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:35 am Posts: 1311 Location: Lexington
godeatgod wrote:
People who shouldn't have political opinions, hmmm....
That might apply to everyone on this forum, myself included.
I'm really impressed with how many of you are responding .
Your blistering retorts only serve to perpetuate distorted truths. I am sure its fun to hurl insults at a fairly innocous "celebrity" who will never reply (and I am guilty of it too), but why not take the high road and address his innacuracies with substantiated arguments?
P.S.
Your mom.
_________________
punkdavid wrote:
Make sure to bring a bottle of vitriol. And wear a condom so you don't insinuate her.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm Posts: 39920 Gender: Male
deathbyflannel wrote:
godeatgod wrote:
People who shouldn't have political opinions, hmmm....
That might apply to everyone on this forum, myself included.
I'm really impressed with how many of you are responding .
Your blistering retorts only serve to perpetuate distorted truths. I am sure its fun to hurl insults at a fairly innocous "celebrity" who will never reply (and I am guilty of it too), but why not take the high road and address his innacuracies with substantiated arguments?
P.S.
Your mom.
WTF mate? Pat Sajak can totally lick my sack, and if he were here I'd say it to his face.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Give this a new thread!!!! I want to discuss the living fuck out of Pat Sajak the insane conservative blogger!!!
.