gohornedfrogs
Tier 1
I know it did. All these posts and STILL not one liberal with the courage to address the subject matter of the thread. Irony..........its a wonderful thing.....
So calling somebody a "big time coward" is not a personal attack?
Libtard Rachel Maddow caught lying AGAIN about Wisconsin situation
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
So calling somebody a "big time coward" is not a personal attack?
The Dude
New Member
I did not single out anyone with the usage of that term. Furthermore,.....what does any of this have to do with......THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE THREAD.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh,...I just LOVE the smell of burning IRONY early in the morning. :tongue:
gohornedfrogs
Tier 1
I'm not sure you understand that concept.
sous vide
Member
2 important questions:
Is it ironical to massacre the term "irony"?
Is calling someone full of irony against board rules?
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
It's either a personal attack or an accurate description.
Matter of perspective, I suppose.
Tucson Frog
New Member
An-Cap Frog
Member
Never put your hypocrometer in the microwave...I learned that the hard way...
An-Cap Frog
Member
It was my understanding that there would be no math...
STL Frog
New Member
Friend, I think you need some help: I'm already on record as to how I feel about the term "libtard." So please, before you start perpetuating nonsense about my positions, check yourself.
As far as the "much bigger deal" perhaps you also missed my larger point which I naively assumed was obvious: Baseless accusations of racism - casually and repeatedly - tossed around by prime time cable news anchors, award-winning columnists, and prominent elected Democratic officials IS a bigger deal than some random dude's deragatory remarks on a know-nothing chat forum. If you can't discern between the two (don't worry, plent of others on this board can't either), than I've nothing else to say other than we happen to live in separate realities.
gohornedfrogs
Tier 1
Or, maybe they just don't give a rip about the original topic, or that it's so irrelevant that it doesn't even warrant a response. No one has any more contempt for Madcow than me, but I'm not obligated to respond every time a thread is posted that shows what we already know -- that she's a fraud...
But by all means, continue with the insults.
gohornedfrogs
Tier 1
And I agree that you have found the bigger issue...
Hey Whisky Dude...are you calling STL a "BIGTIME COWARD" for not staying on topic?
dustinater@sbcglobal.net
Member
I certainly didn't intend to perpetuate any nonsense about your position.
I made what I thought was a fairly non controversial request. Your post seemed to imply that I was raising hell about it. That's what I meant by making it a much bigger deal. You didn't try and defned it like the other 2.
Are there much worse things said by people every day? Of course. I don't think I ever said libtard was the worst thing ever. The problem is that I have zero impact on what a congress person, or blogger, or msm person says. I don't watch or listen to any of that crap.
I can't control what anyone says on here, but I thought I'd try.
Is it a huge deal one way or the other if he keeps saying it? No. It's not costing me any sleep at night.
Duquesne Frog
Member
Or none of us watch her and don't care what Whisky's opinion is of her ...
STL Frog
New Member
That's fair, Uni.
KillerFrog InD KitchenSink
Active Member
I think with a relatively small sample of (mostly) Frog fans, making an effort to be as couth as possible is a reasonable request. It's entirely reasonable to say "hey, man, that's too far".
Is it baseless? We've got quite a bit of polling that suggests a racial sensitivity within some sectors of the Republican party. Frankly, some of those bloggers and numbskulls within the tea party and conservative ranks tend to reinforce those observations.
Frankly, your denial that it exists at all is what's most harmful. You've turned into Baghdad Bob on that issue. As a former conservative, even I would have to admit that I knew at the time that racists dwelled within the Republican party in fairly substantial numbers. I understand why candidates would deny it, so as not to upset their base, but why couldn't a voter accept it?
Do Democrats get some votes from more radical people in search of social change? Sure. Do Republicans get a lot of votes from people that don't know about all this "diversity" and can't quite "get used to seeing a black man with a white woman" and thinks blacks have character flaws and wants to move away from minority areas and so on? It would take either someone completely out of touch with reality to think that doesn't exist in measurable numbers, or someone who's lied to himself.
We have a lot of people alive today who lived during the civil rights era, and not all of them marched with MLK. Not all of them changed with the times. They are staunch conservatives. They are a product of the era in which they grew up and they are not destined to become enlightened just because we think they must have.
The Democrats have their share of extremists, but so do the Republicans. The difference is that a lot of the extremists in the Republican party look like your granddaddy or your cousin Billy.
An-Cap Frog
Member
No, your denial that racist voters exist, particularly in the older demographic groups in the Republican party, is the problem. It fails the polling test and it fails the eyeball test.
You've repeatedly tried to put words in my mouth that I've called all Republicans racists. If Joe Wilson were here today, his catchphrase would be useful.
The Republican party has several schisms within it and various bases with different motivations. However, there's little doubt among serious political observers that a certain percentage of the base is motivated to vote Republican because they believe the Democratic party is the one for blacks and welfare.
