The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[candycorn]

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Yes. You lost the argument. If your point was how lame your argument was, yes the responses re-enforced it quite well. Thanks.

Going twice!

Gone as in you've been blown out of the water.

 

[westwall]

Yes, it's very shocking when you start with an adversarial OP (see trolling) and people respond in kind. Truly shocking.

If you were smart you would have ignored the obvious baiting nature of the thread and posted example of how you are kind, and forgiving, and tolerant. Instead, TK played all of you like a fiddle.

Is that right? You see it like that huh? Excellent judgement.

I'm a liberal Democrat silly person. You are all progressives. You, give people like me, a bad name, so yes, I DO have excellent judgment.

 

[westwall]

Yes. You lost the argument. If your point was how lame your argument was, yes the responses re-enforced it quite well. Thanks.

Going twice!

Gone as in you've been blown out of the water.

Yeah, sure he has Delusion thy name is progressivism.

 

[mudwhistle]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

This is GOP logic.

We are 90% white.

We would like to have more women. We would also like to have more blacks, Hispanics, and minorities. We'd also like to have more LGBTs in our ranks.

For some reason, those sluts, bitches, homies, spics, wetbacks, and gooks, rag heads, turban cowboys, queers, lezbos, fudge packers, and sick twisted freaks hate us.

They're the intolerant ones; we're not.​

No, let go into black churches and put on our best fake Southern accent and start screaming "I AIN'T NO WAYS TIRED.....!!!"

Or make jokes about how you have to be a Pakistani just to walk into a 7/11.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Elton John would be very upset right now. LOL. Nope. No love here. Only trolling.

Yes, it's very shocking when you start with an adversarial OP (see trolling) and people respond in kind. Truly shocking.

If you were smart you would have ignored the obvious baiting nature of the thread and posted examples of how you are kind, and forgiving, and tolerant. Instead, TK played all of you like a fiddle.

hahahahahahaha

 

[Pogo]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. Any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

 

[Steinlight]

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

The guy has soft skin for a self proclaimed "templar", geez...

Couldn't handle the "arena" I guess.

 

[candycorn]

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

He feels threatened by reality. Speaking of the Devil, just got through listening to the slate weekly podcast where they were talking about immigration reform. In the show notes, CBS Chief Political Director John Dickerson pointed out the following:

There are 108 majority-minority House districts in the United States. Republicans represent nine of them.

There was another stat about the typical GOP district being 75% Caucasian and the typical DNC district being 51% Caucasian otherwise. I may have not reported that accurately--its not in the show notes.

Check it out at:
The Gabfest on Obama's State of the Union, the House GOP's immigration reform principles, and Ezra Klein's new journalism venture.

It's a comical stance taken by a ridiculous poster; his claiming victory is the biggest laugh any of us will have today.

 

[Pogo]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread.

Then it's odd that these are the first four lines of the OP, don't you think?
We reveal more by what we go out of our way to deny...

Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Political parties have collective "feelings"??

What is this one party that "purports to be the champions of tolerance" then? Link? And what does the other party purport?

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Take apart your own strawmen on your own time, Bub. These are after all your assumptions. Now if you had started with quantifiable facts, then you could go somewhere. Too bad. Post 5 pretty much sums it up.

TK just hates it when I point out his fallacies. He'll prolly lapse into obscure Latin now.

 

[mudwhistle]

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

He feels threatened by reality. Speaking of the Devil, just got through listening to the slate weekly podcast where they were talking about immigration reform. In the show notes, CBS Chief Political Director John Dickerson pointed out the following:

There are 108 majority-minority House districts in the United States. Republicans represent nine of them.

There was another stat about the typical GOP district being 75% Caucasian and the typical DNC district being 51% Caucasian otherwise. I may have not reported that accurately--its not in the show notes.

Check it out at:
The Gabfest on Obama's State of the Union, the House GOP's immigration reform principles, and Ezra Klein's new journalism venture.

It's a comical stance taken by a ridiculous poster; his claiming victory is the biggest laugh any of us will have today.

Just like the way they took over California, flood the states with Hispanics. One state alone has 54 electoral votes because of their massive new population, and the state carries every election for them. They only need 16 states to win an election if they get CA, PA, and OH. The GOP takes more states but you rig elections in states like FL, NJ, NY, MN, WS, they're trying to take Texas the same way, and it doesn't matter how many states the GOP takes. More than half of the country doesn't want Democrats in power but they end up with them anyway. That's the reality.

They have the media to tell their lies for them and they steal election after election all the while they destroy the economy and the Dems piss all over you.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is what you get when you elect shady characters with poor policies and nothing but hate and envy to sell to their followers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread.

Then it's odd that these are the first four lines of the OP, don't you think?
We reveal more by what we go out of our way to deny...

Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

Political parties have collective "feelings"??

What is this one party that "purports to be the champions of tolerance" then? Link? And what does the other party purport?

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Take apart your own strawmen on your own time, Bub. These are after all your assumptions. Now if you had started with quantifiable facts, then you could go somewhere. Too bad. Post 5 pretty much sums it up.

TK just hates it when I point out his fallacies. He'll prolly lapse into obscure Latin now.

Guess what, we call that a non sequitur. Along with ad hominem. That's latin I know for your argument sucks and you know it all you have to do is sling mud instead of intelligent points.. You made my point for me that very moment. Even a westwall a liberal acknowledged it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Come on Pogo, I dare you to make one intelligent point.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The only thing TK ever does is mis-characterize the opposition. There is a reason there are more female democrats, black democrats, and Hispanic democrats in the House and Senate...more women, blacks, and Hispanics vote democratic. By definition, they are the more inclusive party.

As for liberals versus conservatives on the "inclusive battle", you'd have ideologues on both sides but since more liberals identify with the democrats and more conservatives identify with republicans, it's self-evident who is more inclusive.

TK lost the argument about 5 pages ago but he's simply dumb enough to not realize it; plus he hasn't got anything else to do today, or tomorrow, or next week, month, year....

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

Yeah.....who made a threat?

 

[TemplarKormac]

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

Pogo, one of your replies was pulled earlier by Doc. He said you threatened me in some manner. I didn't report you, someone else did apparently. Go back a few pages and see his red post, I suggest you inquire further.

 

[Pogo]

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?

2) Bill Maher refers to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as "Boobs":

Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Both (1) and (2) involving plays on words, one notes...

3) Black Tea Partier Mia Love reacts to Liberal Racism and misogyny after her appearance at the RNC in 2012:

Black Tea Party Conservative Mia Love Reacts to Democrats Racist Attacks After RNC Appearance - YouTube

Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Methinks you should watch your own stuff before you post it rather than creating points and threads on the basis of what some clown named a YouTube video, because this one made no point at all. This entry has as much basis as this bullshit thread from yesterday. That is, none.

4) Bill Maher attacks Sarah Palin's son:

Bill Maher Appeals to His Lower-Intellect Audience: Attacks Sarah Palin's Son Trig - YouTube

Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe.

And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?
------------------------------------------------------------------

On race, they claim to be for the black citizen, except if you are Mia Love, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Stacey Dash or a black Republican in general. Should a black person defect to the other side, this is the result:

Twitter Explodes After Actress Stacy Dash Endorses Mitt Romney As 'The Only Hope For Your Future'

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ?Only Choice for Your Future? | TheBlaze.com

"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent

The Wikipedia entry for GOP House candidate Mia Love was edited to include racist, misogynistic slurs after her rousing convention speech Tuesday night, Twitchy reported.

Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, happens to be a black female.

After the Wikipedia entry was defaced, it called Love a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”

Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs; media silent - National Elections | Examiner.com

"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

------------------------------------------------------------------

As for homosexuals, and the aspect of bigotry, President Barack Obama showed no real concern for the hopes and feelings of the gay community by repeatedly shifting his stances on gay marriage from 1996 until the first term leading up to his re-election campaign. To put it mildly, they were used as pawns for his political agenda:

Full circle

Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Just two years later, on another Outlines questionnaire, Obama wasn’t so sure. Did he favor legalizing same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he co-sponsor it? "Undecided."

Later years offered greater clarity — and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..."

He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

When he wrote his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

He said his doubts didn't make him a bad Christian — but human, limited in his understanding of God’s purpose and therefore "prone to sin."

"When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must continually be open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

Still, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay-oriented cable TV channel, he spoke instead about his support for civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" — but not for legal recognition of "marriage" between same-sex couples. It should be up to religious denominations to determine whether they wanted to recognize that as marriage or not, he said.

In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

He later added: "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."

In November 2008, he said much the same thing to a rather different audience: MTV.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage | PolitiFact

ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

----------------------------------------------

As for their tolerance for people of faith, they were seen striking the word "God" from their platform in 2012 during their convention in Charlotte. They did later revise their platform to return those words to the platform, not 24 hours later:

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ‘God-Given’ From Platform

CHARLOTTE — For Democrats, there is no God in 2012 — at least as far as the party’s platform is concerned.

Nor is there a Jerusalem.

Democrats removed those two words, and the passages surrounding them, from the 2012 party platform as it was released this week.

Wha?? Speeches and platforms are EDITED?? Who knew!? I always thought they were hand-delivered to each party by a man riding n a flaming pie.

In Charlotte on Monday, the Democratic National Committee released its 2012 party platform after the DNC Platform Committee approved it under the leadership of Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker. The Platform Drafting Committee, led by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, gathered feedback for an initial draft in Minneapolis over the summer.

Gone are three sentences identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, now and forever. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the 2012 document, after the 2008 version included this mention:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Perhaps because no country in the world recognizes it either. Damn Democrats are everywhere, huh!?

Also gone is this reference to Hamas:

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.

President Obama has publicly endorsed a two-state solution for Israel. Disagreements between his administration and Israel have at times become public, as the president has opposed new settlement construction, and the Jewish state’s more hawkish supporters have relentlessly criticized him for his handling of U.S./Israeli relations.

“The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Your POINT, sir?

Also gone is a previous reference to “God.”

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform mentioned “God” once, in this passage (emphasis added):

We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

Explaining the removal, a Democratic official explained: “The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ?God-Given? From Platform - ABC News

You're rambling again; you cited this above. And once again, how exactly does a political party's editing its own platform and campaign speeches become "intolerant" simply because you're not one of the editors?

So are they the party of tolerance? That is for you the reader to decide.

What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exhuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[candycorn]

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

He feels threatened by reality. Speaking of the Devil, just got through listening to the slate weekly podcast where they were talking about immigration reform. In the show notes, CBS Chief Political Director John Dickerson pointed out the following:

There are 108 majority-minority House districts in the United States. Republicans represent nine of them.

There was another stat about the typical GOP district being 75% Caucasian and the typical DNC district being 51% Caucasian otherwise. I may have not reported that accurately--its not in the show notes.

Check it out at:
The Gabfest on Obama's State of the Union, the House GOP's immigration reform principles, and Ezra Klein's new journalism venture.

It's a comical stance taken by a ridiculous poster; his claiming victory is the biggest laugh any of us will have today.

Just like the way they took over California, flood the states with Hispanics. One state alone has 54 electoral votes because of their massive new population, and the state carries every election for them. They only need 16 states to win an election if they get CA, PA, and OH.

I go to Cali quite often. Do you know why there is a gazillion people out there? It's incredibly beautiful, incredibly beautiful, and, yes, it's incredibly beautiful. There are few places as gloriously beautiful on earth. Arizona is a very distant second in my view.

The GOP takes more states but you rig elections in states like FL, NJ, NY, MN, WS, they're trying to take Texas the same way, and it doesn't matter how many states the GOP takes.

Gee, another victimization post.

Congratulations on not blaming the media for once. I'm sure you'll get around to it.

Nobody is rigging elections; the electoral college is set up in such a way that currently doesn't favor the GOP. Were you complaining about it when Reagan was getting 49 states? Probably not.

More than half of the country doesn't want Democrats in power but they end up with them anyway. That's the reality.
[/qoute]
Re-count the popular votes.... There is your reality.

They have the media to tell their lies for them and they steal election after election all the while they destroy the economy and the Dems piss all over you.

Oh...I should have known better...here is where you blame the media.

 

[Pogo]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread.

Then it's odd that these are the first four lines of the OP, don't you think?
We reveal more by what we go out of our way to deny...



Political parties have collective "feelings"??

What is this one party that "purports to be the champions of tolerance" then? Link? And what does the other party purport?

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Take apart your own strawmen on your own time, Bub. These are after all your assumptions. Now if you had started with quantifiable facts, then you could go somewhere. Too bad. Post 5 pretty much sums it up.

TK just hates it when I point out his fallacies. He'll prolly lapse into obscure Latin now.

Guess what, we call that a non sequitur. Along with ad hominem. That's latin I know for your argument sucks and you know it all you have to do is sling mud instead of intelligent points.. You made my point for me that very moment. Even a westwall a liberal acknowledged it.

Did I call it or what?

Well it's not obscure Latin, yet you did manage to get 'em both wrong; neither can apply here. Non sequitur means 'it does not follow'. An assessment of your fallacy doesn't need to 'follow'. Conclusions do the following. I didn't make conclusions. You did. And I'm pointing out that they're based on strawmen.

And ad hominem (as we learned earlier in the week, didn't we??) means an attack on the person. I posted nothing about your person; I posted about your arguments, and the flaws therein.

Ya really need to learn this shit before you start flinging Latin and expect people to fall away in a dead faint as if you're some kind of lawyer or Roman or sump'm. Posters here ain't stupid. You bring your A game, or suffer the consequences.

Speaking of which --- how the fuck do you figure Westwall backed you up here? Where did he reference that post?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Then it's odd that these are the first four lines of the OP, don't you think?
We reveal more by what we go out of our way to deny...



Political parties have collective "feelings"??

What is this one party that "purports to be the champions of tolerance" then? Link? And what does the other party purport?



Take apart your own strawmen on your own time, Bub. These are after all your assumptions. Now if you had started with quantifiable facts, then you could go somewhere. Too bad. Post 5 pretty much sums it up.

TK just hates it when I point out his fallacies. He'll prolly lapse into obscure Latin now.

Guess what, we call that a non sequitur. Along with ad hominem. That's latin I know for your argument sucks and you know it all you have to do is sling mud instead of intelligent points.. You made my point for me that very moment. Even a westwall a liberal acknowledged it.

Did I call it or what?

Well it's not obscure Latin, yet you did manage to get 'em both wrong; neither can apply here. Non sequitur means 'it does not follow'. An assessment of your fallacy doesn't need to 'follow'. Conclusions do the following. I didn't make conclusions. You did. And I'm pointing out that they're based on strawmen.

And ad hominem (as we learned earlier in the week, didn't we??) means an attack on the person. I posted nothing about your person; I posted about your arguments, and the flaws therein.

Ya really need to learn this shit before you start flinging Latin and expect people to fall away in a dead faint as if you're some kind of lawyer or Roman or sump'm. Posters here ain't stupid. You bring your A game, or suffer the consequences.

Speaking of which --- how the fuck do you figure Westwall backed you up here? Where did he reference that post?

Westwall came in and said that TK's argument was just peachy and stuff.

 

[Pogo]

Come on Pogo, I dare you to make one intelligent point.

You want me to pare all that down to ONE now?

How conveeeeeeenient.