Our side criticizes policy and demands honesty and accountability from our elected officials. Your side calls Mexicans "wetbacks," calls reporters ugly and says that 9/11 widows are glad their husbands died. And you honestly want to act like it's a zero sum game. You're freaking crazy. You defend hatemongers like Coulter and then you cry when someone uses the "f" word. That's swell. What does this even mean? Why do we have such crazy people representing the right here? Giddyup, ROXRAN, basso, gwayneco... They are all just totally freaking insane. They make bigtexxx seem reasonably level headed.
That is the most biased re-capitulation of an argument that I've ever seen. Are you calling mc mark a "hatemonger?" It means what it says. You can run but you can't hide. It was you who said that animals in the food chain deserve just as much protection as babies in the womb... or somesuch nonsense.
Good, you should hear it loud and clear because it is the truth, and has been backed by the facts. That is an attack on the substance of what Condi talks about. It isn't the same as going out in public and making her the butt of stupid joke implying that she is so Ugly that she would be a worthy punishment for someone sent to hell. It is incredibly ungentlemanly of you to defend this. It is indecent of the congressman to make that kind of personal remark in public in the first place. As far as Murtha, Kerry and the rest being attacked, I would like you to show me where they have said because they served in the military they can't be questioned. You won't find it because they have never said that. However, if someone attacks their record or calls decorated war veterans cowards then they have a right to mention their service. It doesn't mean they are asking for a hands off.
It's not biased at all. It's a direct recap of the things we've complained about and the things you've complained about. You whine that I use words like "liar" and "bigot," but I do so in response to policy issues. When I call Bush or Condi a liar, I explain why. Then you call me a hater. You don't even argue the merits. You just say I shouldn't use the word "liar." You know, even to describe someone whose lies I've just finished reporting. Meanwhile, your side is the side of Ann Coulter, who gives us nothing but the most vile hate speech while you give her nothing but applause. Why don't you try to explain the bias in my last post? Right, because you can't. No, crazy. Of course I'm not and only a crazy person would get that from what I wrote. I was just ridiculing you for crying over mark using a curse word while defending Coulter's hate speech. What??? Seriously, you are off your head. I am vegan and I have a very moderate, considered opinion about abortion -- I am basically pro-life but I am against criminalizing abortion. I am very much in favor of doing everything we can to reduce abortions in this country though by reducing unwanted pregnancies, particularly through access to contraception, health care and sex ed. Are you still whining about me claiming to be more pro-life than you are? I am. Sorry, crazy.
But see? It's the new Coulter talking point. gweenie used it today and now giddy is. That strawman of liberal infallibility. It's a deflection away from any substantive debate on anything. And giddy claims he doesn't take Coulter seriously.
I might have criticized your use of the words "liar" or "bigot" five times over the course of five years. As the parent of a 4YO and a 6YO I can say with all certainty that that does not constitute whining. Since you keep ignoring the facts, I did criticize Coulter's choice of words and I asked people to look at the kernel of truth within them. I've reminded you of this several times and you continue to tromp right past it. How about this parallelism? Freely substituting from Batman's quote: "Your (Democratic) side calls Marines murderers, calls President Bush stupid and says that supporters of the war don't care if Iraqi civilians die." Do you think that is a fair re-capitulation of your "side?" All of that is said regularly here and elsewhere.
Murtha only spoke about what he knows. He spoke about it after talking to top Military brass. He has first hand experience at combat and the stress he called. He made that declaration in a plea to take the mental well being of the rest of the soldiers into consideration. It might be fair to criticize him for being the judge and jury, but it is a far cry from the kinds of attacks we are talking about.
Telling me to stop using those words, even once, while defending the people who actually lied or engaged in bigotry is whining in my opinion. If you don't like that word, choose another. It's all the same. I'm not tromping past anything. It's beyond offensive that your only criticism of the incredible things Coulter said is her "choice of words." And you didn't even really criticize her choice of words either except to say you thought she'd been misinterpreted and even floated a hilarious second definition of "enjoy" to try to imply she didn't mean a thing that she clearly meant. It's like a total flashback to "maybe 'wetback' is a term of endearment where Nugent's from." It's partly fair, but mostly not. And it's not a "parallelism," by any means, most because -- unlike my previous quote -- it's full of hyperbole, it's half the picture at best and in most cases it's spun to make it seem ridiculous. The things I said in my post were pretty much verbatim quotes from conservatives, defended repeatedly by you. I've never said any of the things above except that Bush is stupid, which he just probably is. That's a relative thing though. I don't think he's especially stupid to be an average person, I just think he's far too stupid to be president in these dangerous times, as evidenced by how bad he's been at it. Breaking it down: My side only calls the Marines that commit murder murderers. If your side doesn't call them that, why not? I mostly think Bush is stupid because he acts stupid and he talks stupid, but I don't really know for sure that he is stupid. Maybe he isn't. Maybe he just puts on a hell of a good act. I do know that he's wrong and incompetent and deeply dishonest. But here's the thing about that: I've explained why I think those things in detail and it is all in response to policy and his record -- unlike virtually any of your knocks on war opponents or liberals. I wouldn't ever say that war supporters don't care about Iraqi civilians, but I would certainly say they don't care enough about them. If they did care enough about them (or about American troops), they would only support going to war when it was absolutely necessary and, even then, as a very last option.
Jesus Christ people! Both sides are whining and defending a comment made in jest about a white house reporter being unattractive. Then both sides spew venom at each other about **** you've rehashed on this board roughly 20,000 times. #1 - Sometimes I think y'all argue just to watch yourself type. #2 - if you're this angry, get laid more often. Please?
You regularly call people who opposed gay marriage bigots. Why is having a particular view on the place and the sanctity of marriage in any way bigoted? Is it related to the way you called my amusement about a man in a dress homophobic? You sure are good at name-calling. Beyond offensive is a bit melodramatic. Coulter's word choice was stark. That was the second of two definitions in the dictionary for "enjoy." I'll take note, though, that you found it hilarious (note to self-- send those dictionary folks a certified letter tomorrow...) You still haven't picked up the gauntlet to recast Coulter's line that you found so offensive without using the word enjoy. I want to see what you think she meant... Hyperbole! Hell yes... Murtha calling those marines murderers is at least hyperbolic. BTW, that's pretty much a direct quote from Murtha. In using "stupid" to describe Bush I'm sure I've "quoted" a dozen or more posters here and untold numbers of liberal bloggers. And likewise, I've read a number of times here and elsewhere that conservatives don't give a whit about Iraqis live or dead. So which part is "mostly fair but not?" Based on what evidence? When was the trial? What did the jury decide? Otherwise you are just politicking. I'm in the rebuttal mode most of the time. Maybe not you but I've read it here and elsewhere many, many times. I'm just going against your side for whom you happen to be bearing the flag.
Since that view is disciminates against a group of people then it is in every way bigoted. To have a fear that the sanctity of marriage is somehow threatened by people who wish to be allowed to marry someone they love only backs that up.
They are bigots the same as the people that once opposed interracial marriage on the grounds of defending the sanctity of marriage were. I've explained this many times. Do a search if you're still confused. I'm well aware of that definition of "enjoy." The thing is, you are the only person in the world arguing that that's what she meant. That's not for nothing. "I've never seen anyone take pleasure in their husbands' death so much." If you don't think this is what she meant, you are insane. But then, you are insane. I don't remember the exact Murtha quote. You should post it. If he called them murderers before they've been tried, that's over the top. They are certainly accused murderers though. That does not mean that my side "calls Marines murderers," which implies we feel that way about Marines in general and not just the ones accused of murder. Contrary to repeated, bogus assertions on this board and elsewhere, neither I nor liberals generally get excited about bad news from Iraq nor from the revelation that a small minority of American troops might have committed war crimes. There is nothing to be gained politically for us here. But I don't understand why you and your people want so badly to cover up the truth about the bad things that happen over there nor why you get angry at people for reporting them nor why your first concern isn't getting to the bottom of things and punishing those that deserve it such that they don't hamper the war effort nor good soldiers' reputations generally. Is that supposed to be a defense for misrepresenting your opponents' arguments? Weak. I really cannot believe that you think that or anything from your list in any way compares to the vicious **** coming from your side of the aisle over the last few years, **** which you have happily defended again and again (complete with smilies). I just can't.
We are getting into that dicey area where what one means with one's words is very important. I am wholly in favor of civil unions which give gay couples all the legal rights they seek (adoptioin, health benefits, retirement benefits, visitation rights, etc). This however seems not to be enough and there is clamoring for "marital rights" which seem to involve churches and religious traditions. Obviously with a divorce rate hovering around 50%, heterosexuals have no ground to stand on when it comes to the exclusivity of long-term partner arrangements, but no one has the right to tell the church that it has to change its religious traditions regarding marriage.
Civil unions are "separate but equal," which has been established by the Supreme Court in this country to be inherently inequal. No one has suggested telling any church that they have to perform gay marriages. I will call any church that refuses to bigoted, but no one has suggested forcing them to perform gay marriages. That is a paper tiger. The only question here is whether or not our government will apply different, discriminatory rules to homosexual couples than to heterosexual couples
What, literally, will marriage afford gay couples that civil unions will not? How is "marriage" different from "civil union?"
