giddyup has mastered the "what, me worry," fake-innocent defense of hate radicals. "He has a right to his opinion," indeed. giddyup would defend the KKK (not as a free speech issue, but as a 'well, don't they have a legitimate opinion, too?' issue) and pretend to wonder why people are getting bent out of shape. Said it before, I'll say it again: giddyup is a moderate when it comes to racism. For his next trick, he will pretend he has no idea why people say such things about him.
I have to agree. While I happen to like Giddy, despite his occasional forays into the absurd, I can be pretty absurd myself when the mood arises. Not the same way, of course. Giddy has a unique skill in that regard.
So basically you are saying that the choice of "Hitler" and "Stalin" was meant to be shot at Obama rather than an innocent comparison about pragmatism.
I'm not getting that inference is much more legitimate than outright assertion. Sowell's choices for pragmatic comparison surely flavored his argument but his actual charge was quite tame. Last time I checked, Sowell was a black man so I'm not sure where you see the race card being played by him against Obama. How convenient to describe anyone who disagree with you as being ruled by fear and paranoia. You must win a lot of contests that way! I think Sowell if referring to some kind of end game there... Have you not heard of the new GM: Government Motors? That's why I sad something to the effect of "further" intruding... GM is a start, huh? I know that. I was just pointup up that you just completely dodged the question. I could found a thousand and one demonizations of just those two guys here on this board if I cared to search
Giddyup has mastered the art of not getting hysterical about anything anyone says. Someone disagrees with Obama and the race card gets pulled-- even if the critic is a black man himself, Sowell. Let me know when you ever find me defending the KKK-- even the free speech argument gets no respect from me in their regard. Batman, you should be ashamed that you would say such a thing on such flimsy evidence and without knowing me personally. It's just further evidence of your basic meanness from "high above." I know why people such as you assert things like this; I just can't believe that you still do it. You're smarter than that just not more generous than that.
Disappointed in you, deckard. Did you just call me a racist, too? Giddyup not afraid to peek into dark corners...
As I said in another response, those choices certainly added a strong flavor to the observation about pragmatism. Sowell could have chosen less inflammatory comparisons, but on the other hand he could have marshaled a more direct and destructive criticism as well. Inference is not more powerful than actual substance. Excuse me while I go do my third-grade reading homework!
What?? I just think you sometimes go a bit wacky on certain topics, giddy. The thought that you might be a racist never occured to me. You're not, are you?
You quoted Batman's assertion that I am a racist and your first sentence was "I have to agree." I believe that you were referring to the part you bolded but more importantly you should have deleted his offending remarks. I'm all about prodding the discussion, so you may never know exactly where I stand. This is a playground not a referendum.
Where did he say you were a racist in that post? I thought he was describing what he saw as your rational for defending groups you don't agree with, or something to that affect.
I didn't say you were a racist; I said you were a moderate when it comes to racism. I don't mean that you're moderately racist; I mean that when it comes to racists, you act as a moderate toward them. When I say that, I'm being generous. What you really do is act as an apologist. But it's not just racists you do this with, it's any hateful radical. You play the aw shucks game around here, but you do it in defense of the most hateful rhetoric to be found on the internet or elsewhere. From dishonest, disingenuous chain mails to Ted Nugent to Sowell making soft comparisons to Hitler, you never met a hate monger you didn't like and defend. In the face of that, you look pretty silly playing the victim.
You only think you know me. Mostly I play off the guys who make outrageous claims. There's no need for aw shucks moderation about un-radical issues. Not everyone is aligned with your labels... you gotta remember that. I "never met a hate monger that (I) didn't like and defend." Really? I'll stick with "Aw Shucks" and you can have "The High Horse."
^^^Poor baby. When you defend the Hagees and the Nugents and the Sowells and the Coulters of the world, you give up the right to play the victim.
My horse could be an inch up off the ground and I'd still look down on Ann Coulter. Shame you can't say the same.
I've heard of government motors as a nickname based in ignorance. Not in an actual practice. I don't care what race Sowell is. That doesn't change his paranoia, and fear. He provided zero evidence as to there going to be an endgame that he asserts. inference is at least as important if not more important than direct statements. Please stop trying to act like the fact that he infers something means he didn't say it or mean it. I'm not describing anyone who disagrees with me as being afraid and paranoid. I'm describing someone who doesn't agree with me, because of imaginary reasons, and things that are untrue as being based on fear and paranoia.
