1. matter of character
2. matter of judgment
flunks both.
<<Have you ever seen a Liberal comment negatively on the appearance of a conservative?>>
Not a liberal who was running for - - or holding - - public office, no. It seems to be a conservative characteristic exclusively. Senator Macacawitz, for example, shares this endearing trait. So does the "President's" mum, the lovely Bar, but as a political wife and mother, I guess she doesn't qualify as an office-holder or candidate. To the extent that liberals have ridiculed the appearance of Ann Coulter, yes I have seen that happen. They are liberal media people, none of them are asking for my vote and none of them hold an office that requires them to represent everybody in their constituency.
<<That fine art of rationalization shines once again, for all to see.>>
That the distinction I made is valid, reasonable and practical, of course, sails right over your head. Fine art of rationalization my ass. How about the everyday exercise of simple common sense?
<<Funny, I coulda swore you were one of those laughing right along [at Coulter's appearance.]>>
Good thing you didn't, it would have been adding perjury to your usual habit of lying. I don't go out of my way to condemn everything that happens to every conservative, whether I agree with it or not, but of course I never said it was OK to diss the looks of a conservative or anyone else, and I never would say anything like it.
<<"Though I may laugh hysterically at demeaning portrayals of conservatives like Coulter & Rice, be it in commentary or cartoon format, and ususally agree with such a portrayal, I've never said it was ok to diss conservatives over their looks.">>
You're just like your hero, Bush. When one lie is exposed, just make up another one. Not only did I never say it was ok to demean the looks of a woman (or a man or a child, for that matter!) neither did I ever "laugh hysterically" (or otherwise) at demeaning portrayals of their physical appearances. They are morally repulsive individuals both, and so of course I demean them, and laugh when others do so, but for what they do and say, certainly never for how they look.
<<Did your mother never teach you the "actions speak louder than words" lesson?>>
Yes
Bt, can you get me access to the prior saloon's archives so that I can show Tee the multiple examples he claims are non-existant?
Bt, can you get me access to the prior saloon's archives so that I can show Tee the multiple examples he claims are non-existant?Is this worth even a fraction of the effort it will require? Can someone express an opinion about the appearance of a celebrety or leadership personality without becomeing an example of shallow ?
Bt, can you get me access to the prior saloon's archives so that I can show Tee the multiple examples he claims are non-existant?Is this worth even a fraction of the effort it will require? Can someone express an opinion about the appearance of a celebrety or leadership personality without becomeing an example of shallow ?
Well Plane, the issue was Tee supposedly calling me a liar for reminding folks that when in the prior forum, I vividly recall how often he gleefully agreed and enjoyed those compltely pathetic castigations of Rice. Be it as Aunt Jemima, or other very demeaning caricatures. I recall his postings of his enjoyment and justification for such. Obviously there won't be any examples in this forum, because of how recent it is. And that's what Tee is banking on, with this effort to call me a liar. If he want's to be dishonest and claim he never did, I simply wanted to prompt the request to show him how wrong he is.
It's all about the invalid claim of me being a supposed liar, when he knows how bogus an accusation it is
Think about the origional subject of the thread , could you have been distracted from any subject so easily? This is not about me or you , unless it is , but it isn't. If you have got to defend yourself each time then you will spend little time on the points in which you are being convinceing. Let me call you a liar , and you are suddenly talking about you and me . Hip deep in the alligators you have forgotton that you are here to drain the swamp. Let someone who calls you a liar see his shot be a clean miss.
Think about the origional subject of the thread , could you have been distracted from any subject so easily? This is not about me or you , unless it is , but it isn't. If you have got to defend yourself each time then you will spend little time on the points in which you are being convinceing. Let me call you a liar , and you are suddenly talking about you and me . Hip deep in the alligators you have forgotton that you are here to drain the swamp. Let someone who calls you a liar see his shot be a clean miss.
That was my goal, but your point is well made
Aunt Jemima" was not a reference to Rice's appearance, you dolt, it is the feminine version of "Uncle Tom," a servile black who promotes his own self-interest by serving white racists despite the harm they do to the black population as a whole. She's "Aunt Jemima" because she's a black woman in the service of white racists, not because of her looks. She doesn't look anything like Aunt Jemima.
<<Well Plane, the issue was Tee supposedly calling me a liar for reminding folks that when in the prior forum, I vividly recall how often he gleefully agreed and enjoyed those compltely pathetic castigations of Rice. Be it as Aunt Jemima, or other very demeaning caricatures. >>
"Aunt Jemima" was not a reference to Rice's appearance, you dolt, it is the feminine version of "Uncle Tom," a servile black who promotes his own self-interest by serving white racists despite the harm they do to the black population as a whole. She's "Aunt Jemima" because she's a black woman in the service of white racists, not because of her looks. She doesn't look anything like Aunt Jemima.
I don't see how using a race based pejorative could be anything other than a racist statement.
Needless to say, it was the OLD "Aunt Jemima" to whom I was comparing Condoleeza Rice, and needless to say, the two bear no physical resemblance to one another at all.
It was hilarious to read plane's and sirs' accusations of racism. Two Republicans screaming "racism" at an attack on blacks who join the racists' team. Once again, fooling absolutely nobody with their amateurish and juvenile sophistry.
So, becuase I am a Republican , then it follows I must be a racist. Interesting, considering I am 1/4 Cherokee, huh? Be honest here: there are racists unfortunately in both parties (and other Parties as well). By your train of logic, then northern Republicans like Chafee are racists as well...
"...the Republicans are the party which attracts most, if not all, of the racists in America, by no accident)... "
I consider this to be a false Premise. It seems to be a widely accepted false premise.
I think that the Premise that Republicans reaped the harvest of racist and disaffected Democrats is demonstrably untrue , in those years there was George Wallace to get and measure those voters , what that vote amounts to can be seen in the amount of support that George Wallace enjoyed.
You'd have to be a Klansman in full regalia to get thrown out of the Republican Party for racism.
Why not move into the present, when all the racists LEFT the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans?
Byrd's KKK membership was a long time ago and I'm sure he has apologized for it many times.
That answer your [incredibly stupid] question?
<<Show us that laundry list of racist Republicans, and more importantly HOW they are racist. >>
Here are the ones I can think of right now:
Senator Macacawitz...Trent Lott...Republican National Committee. This is just the more blatant stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
In answer to the idiotic question whether Byrd ever apologized for his Klan activities (idiotic because it's inconceivable that he could remain in ANY political party today without apologizing - - even Trent Lott had to pretend he was sorry for what he said, and that was in the Republican Party)
Again with the undated accusations. NOBODY denies the guy ONCE was a racist. What is the point of this vaguely worded bullshit? Come up with some dates and maybe somebody will take you seriously.
Lott has a lot of other racist baggage, but you'll have to get off your ass and look for it yourself if you don't take my word for it.
You and Ami both asked if Byrd had ever apologized. Probably the stupidest question either of you have asked in the past 48 hours.
....Otherwise you can take what I say or leave it.
when challenged I always back up what I said with sources.
when challenged I always back up what I said with sources.
ROFLMAO
Funniest thing I've heard in quite a while.
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_19.gif)
if I could interrupt your merriment for just a moment - - if you had any specific instance in mind where I actually failed to back up anything I was challenged on with facts?
But I was wondering - - if I could interrupt your merriment for just a moment - - if you had any specific instance in mind where I actually failed to back up anything I was challenged on with facts?
I could keep on embarrassing you with your lies and ineptitude all day, Ami, but I don't have the time, unfortunately. I'm going to do you a favour and call it a day. You are wasting my time.
But I was wondering - - if I could interrupt your merriment for just a moment - - if you had any specific instance in mind where I actually failed to back up anything I was challenged on with facts?
Well, this one goes back a while, but it's based on solid physical science, so it should be easy to document.
Show how a standard McDonalds coffee cup can hold the pressure differential required to make a 190 degree sample of coffee "spontaneously boil."
Note: the calculated atmospheric differential required is approximately 350 millibars.
(This was one of your earlier "obviously" proofs.)
There is no cumpulsion to conduct reasearch , when it is done it is a volentary effort and stands as work done out of generosity.
To those Republicans who continue to deny in the face of all common sense and historical fact that the Southern Strategy was an attempt by Republicans to capture white racist votes, get over it. Ken Mehlman has already apologized for it!!!! - -
Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html - July 14, 2005 (Mehlman speech to NAACP)
<<However, in this case, MT said that he was "obviously" right and would not hear of any evidence to the contrary.>>
What case are you talking about?
What case are you talking about?
The only way I could see to resolving the matter expeditiously was to conduct our own experiments and I am just not that much into it. If I got burned doing it, I'd have to sue you.
<<We were waxing nostalgic for a time when you were in contradiction to the laws of phisics but still held your ground tenaciously.>>
Well, first you claim that I would hear no evidence to the contrary, and now you are saying that I held my ground tenaciously.
The fact is that I did hear your "evidence" (I would say, reasoning) to the contrary, but I just didn't find it all that convincing. I liked my own reasoning better. The only way I could see to resolving the matter expeditiously was to conduct our own experiments and I am just not that much into it. If I got burned doing it, I'd have to sue you.
they had to talk in code words like "states' rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action."
First I ever heard of it. What's the context?
"States' rights" in this context was not code word for holding back civil rights,
I was actually wiping the floor with Ami,
Well it's possible I'm wrong. I just don't know all that much about the demographic shift you're talking about, other than in the most general terms. I'm prepared to concede the possibility that demographics have diluted racism but I'd be amazed if substantial pockets weren't still left in the affluent suburbs, and small towns.
The rest of your post - - juvenile bullshit that I have no interest in responding to. But thanks for the effort.
Well it's possible I'm wrong. I just don't know all that much about the demographic shift you're talking about, other than in the most general terms.
Considering I've lived in the south for many years (and just recently moved back to the southeast), in many other areas of the US, and a number of foreign countries, I would say that I probably have more experience with comparing racism in the US southeast than you do. And, as I've claimed several times in the past, while I've found racism everywhere I've gone, there is less racism in the southeast than there is in the northeast, upper midwest, and western states. Yes, New York City residents are more racist than those living in Charlotte, NC. Or even the rural areas of the southeast. And I will stand by that statement.