Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 06:21 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 09:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:32 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 11:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:20 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:24 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:54 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:55 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:06 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:39 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:13 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:53 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:51 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:31 +0100
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:13 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed084049-76f9-4073-9ea5-42bf7c06a155@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330646 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 7:15 AM, in article n1afdm$opo$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >>> Oh, I've seen it in the past but ignored it. > >> > >> He's using the same routine on you he always tries and that is twisting > >> your words and trying to attribute statements to you that you've never > >> made. > >> That's one reason why it's trivial to point out snit's lies. > >> > >> Get ready for snit to fall on his sword though because you are his only > >> supporter in cola and he doesn't want to lose that. > > > > The very fact that he is constantly talking about imaginary Christian > > "atrocities" bothers me. > > I have spoken of the Iraq war. An atrocity done in the name of the Christian > deity. Bull. I don't give a crap what Bush personally said, it wasn't a war driven by religion no matter how many times you screech it for the purposes of this argument. Elsewhere I saw you argue it was about oil, another of your arguments claimed revenge for Bush's father. You just keep tossing crap against that hopefully sticky wall, don't you? > But there are others. > > <http://reut.rs/1MFdg8v> The were defending themselves from Muslim rebels. From your reference: "The mostly Christian or animist "anti-balaka" militia took up arms in 2013 in response to months of looting and killing by mostly Muslim Seleka rebels who had toppled President Francois Bozize and seized power in March the same year." > Then their is the Bosnian Genocide (ethnic cleansing backed by Christian > factions), the Holocaust itself (tied to centuries of Christian > anti-Semitism), American slavery, destruction of native American cultures as > well as massive ethnic cleansing, and more > (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism>). All of these backed > by many Christians. With whatever Christian tie in you could ever make here (and there are some, in my opinion), these events happened decades ago, at the least. What's so bad about looking at today for you? > Now did ALL Christians back these? Of course not - just as not all Muslims > back the violence done in the name of or tied to their religion or religious > leaders! It's not merely a matter of what someone "backs" (or what *you* claim someone "backs"), it's a matter of the system of justice in place NOW, the culture as it is NOW, etc. > I think it makes more sense to join together and denounce such atrocities > than to try to figure out if Christians or Muslims are the ones doing more > harm! Given that there won't be a "join together" jamboree any time soon, I think it makes more sense to hold people accountable for their actions today. If they want to argue that today's actions are in response to yesterday's, let them take that up with the courts. > Really, isn't that the better way to deal with such things than going > back and forth seeing who can find more evil acts done in the name of > religion and horrid quotes from holy books? Strange that you ask that, being it's exactly what you are doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1avpr$tod$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330646 |
On 2015-11-03 1:06 PM, Snit wrote a lot of stuff. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdfhe80.afe@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330490 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 3:41 PM, in article n18olm$582$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > ... >>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>> >>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >>> at least with Muslims, you. >>> >>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >> >> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >> > Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT be > inferior but be reprehensible? > > But you will not find many liberals saying this about people based on their > religion or race or culture. They might say it based on people's actions. > Big difference (and, as with all things, you might find some exceptions and > find some liberals doing this, but it is clearly more common with > conservatives). > Just because conservatives recognize that a particular religion is an insane, violent cult, that doesn't make them racist. Just because conservatives value the cultural norms that have been in place in the US for most of its existence doesn't make them racist. It just comes down to some people know how to behave themselves in civilized society and some don't. You can't go around cutting people's heads off, and you can't go around robbing liquor stores and playing the 'knockout game'. Oh, and pull your pants up and stop cussing in public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfaf4e.093@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330516 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 4:10 PM, in article sdfhe80.afe@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 3:41 PM, in article n18olm$582$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>>>> >>>>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>>>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll >>>>> and, >>>>> at least with Muslims, you. >>>>> >>>>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >>>> >>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>> >>> Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT be >>> inferior but be reprehensible? >>> >>> But you will not find many liberals saying this about people based on their >>> religion or race or culture. They might say it based on people's actions. >>> Big difference (and, as with all things, you might find some exceptions and >>> find some liberals doing this, but it is clearly more common with >>> conservatives). >> >> Just because conservatives recognize that a particular religion is an >> insane, violent cult, that doesn't make them racist. > > Straw man. > Nope. What you call racism is not racism. >> Just because conservatives value the cultural norms that have been in place in >> the US for most of its existence doesn't make them racist. > > Straw man. > Nope. >> It just comes down to some people know how to behave themselves in civilized >> society and some don't. You can't go around cutting people's heads off, and >> you can't go around robbing liquor stores and playing the 'knockout game'. >> Oh, and pull your pants up and stop cussing in public. > > Straw man. > Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18sd0$keu$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330490 |
On 2015-11-02 5:52 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 3:41 PM, in article n18olm$582$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > ... >>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>> >>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >>> at least with Muslims, you. >>> >>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >> >> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >> > Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT be > inferior but be reprehensible? You can wrestle with your generalizations as much as you want, I have no interest in them myself. < snip > -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18v2e$teu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330528 |
On 2015-11-02 6:54 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 4:44 PM, in article n18sd0$keu$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 5:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 3:41 PM, in article n18olm$582$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>>>> >>>>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>>>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll >>>>> and, >>>>> at least with Muslims, you. >>>>> >>>>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >>>> >>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>> >>> Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT be >>> inferior but be reprehensible? >> >> You can wrestle with your generalizations as much as you want, I have no >> interest in them myself. > > I am asking about your comment: how can Muslims be, in your view, > "reprehensible" but not "inferior"? That seems like a pretty big > inconsistency (though it can be rectified if you think everyone is > "reprehensible". How does a group being worthy of blame and rebuke cause them to be inferior, pray tell? It's not an inconsistency, you're just baiting me into saying something other than what I said. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n190ko$2is$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330537 |
On 2015-11-02 7:46 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:30 PM, in article n18v2e$teu$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > ... >>>>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>>>> >>>>> Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT >>>>> be inferior but be reprehensible? >>>>> >>>> You can wrestle with your generalizations as much as you want, I have no >>>> interest in them myself. >>>> >>> I am asking about your comment: how can Muslims be, in your view, >>> "reprehensible" but not "inferior"? That seems like a pretty big >>> inconsistency (though it can be rectified if you think everyone is >>> "reprehensible". >> >> How does a group being worthy of blame and rebuke cause them to be >> inferior, pray tell? It's not an inconsistency, you're just baiting me >> into saying something other than what I said. > > Above you deny saying Muslims are inferior and then directly say they are " > reprehensible people". > > ----- > I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. > I said that they were reprehensible people and they are. > ----- > > Seems to me that is an inconsistency. You can believe what you wish, I have no interest in arguing your interpretation. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n193ie$a62$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330548 |
On 2015-11-02 8:02 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:57 PM, in article n190ko$2is$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 7:46 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 5:30 PM, in article n18v2e$teu$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>>>>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group NOT >>>>>>> be inferior but be reprehensible? >>>>>>> >>>>>> You can wrestle with your generalizations as much as you want, I have no >>>>>> interest in them myself. >>>>>> >>>>> I am asking about your comment: how can Muslims be, in your view, >>>>> "reprehensible" but not "inferior"? That seems like a pretty big >>>>> inconsistency (though it can be rectified if you think everyone is >>>>> "reprehensible". >>>> >>>> How does a group being worthy of blame and rebuke cause them to be >>>> inferior, pray tell? It's not an inconsistency, you're just baiting me >>>> into saying something other than what I said. >>> >>> Above you deny saying Muslims are inferior and then directly say they are " >>> reprehensible people". >>> >>> ----- >>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. >>> I said that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>> ----- >>> >>> Seems to me that is an inconsistency. >> >> You can believe what you wish, I have no interest in arguing your >> interpretation. >> > I am asking you what you mean. No, you are not. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n197a1$ds5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330564 |
On 2015-11-02 9:00 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 6:47 PM, in article n193ie$a62$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 8:02 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 5:57 PM, in article n190ko$2is$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 7:46 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 5:30 PM, in article n18v2e$teu$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>>>>>>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unless everyone is, in your view, reprehensible how can any one group >>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>> be inferior but be reprehensible? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can wrestle with your generalizations as much as you want, I have no >>>>>>>> interest in them myself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am asking about your comment: how can Muslims be, in your view, >>>>>>> "reprehensible" but not "inferior"? That seems like a pretty big >>>>>>> inconsistency (though it can be rectified if you think everyone is >>>>>>> "reprehensible". >>>>>> >>>>>> How does a group being worthy of blame and rebuke cause them to be >>>>>> inferior, pray tell? It's not an inconsistency, you're just baiting me >>>>>> into saying something other than what I said. >>>>> >>>>> Above you deny saying Muslims are inferior and then directly say they are " >>>>> reprehensible people". >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. >>>>> I said that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Seems to me that is an inconsistency. >>>> >>>> You can believe what you wish, I have no interest in arguing your >>>> interpretation. >>>> >>> I am asking you what you mean. >> >> No, you are not. >> > > I am. What do you mean when you say deny saying Muslims are inferior but are > reprehensible. I do not follow. Then don't. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <049117dd-a1f3-433d-a080-7763754a5c91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330427 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > > >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > >> > > >>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > > >>>> > > >>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > > >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > > >>> > > >>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > > >> > > >> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > > >> > > > > > > Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > > > being too leftist even by their insane standards. > > > > > Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and > > Muslims. > > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to > racism and other forms of bigotry..." - Snit > > Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican > party" where that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these > representatives 'catering' to racism and other forms of bigotry? You can't talk politics with a guy who is unable to comprehend why someone might have different ideas on how to solve a problem, and instead labels everyone who thinks different as liars, dangerous, and clearly racist. Maybe he doesn't really understand what both parties stand for. I vote democrat more often than not, but I don't hate republicans or think they're racist or dangerous or whatever hate he spews. He is crying about generalizations, then generalizes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <595f9edf-2363-4ae4-a745-32d87f0ac54d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330443 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:45:35 PM UTC-7, cc wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > > On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > > > >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > > > >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > > > >>> > > > >>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > > > >> > > > >> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > > > > being too leftist even by their insane standards. > > > > > > > Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and > > > Muslims. > > > > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to > > racism and other forms of bigotry..." - Snit > > > > Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican > > party" where that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these > > representatives 'catering' to racism and other forms of bigotry? > > You can't talk politics with a guy who is unable to comprehend why > someone might have different ideas on how to solve a problem, and > instead labels everyone who thinks different as liars, dangerous, > and clearly racist. Maybe he doesn't really understand what > both parties stand for. I vote democrat more often than not, but I > don't hate republicans or think they're racist or dangerous or > whatever hate he spews. He is crying about generalizations, then > generalizes. Exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18on4$582$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330443 |
On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, cc wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>> >>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>> Muslims. >> >> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to >> racism and other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >> >> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican >> party" where that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these >> representatives 'catering' to racism and other forms of bigotry? > > You can't talk politics with a guy who is unable to comprehend why > someone might have different ideas on how to solve a problem, and > instead labels everyone who thinks different as liars, dangerous, > and clearly racist. Maybe he doesn't really understand what > both parties stand for. I vote democrat more often than not, but I > don't hate republicans or think they're racist or dangerous or > whatever hate he spews. He is crying about generalizations, then > generalizes. +1 -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330424 |
On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>> >>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>> >>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>> >>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>> >> >> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >> > Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and > Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and bigoted views? If so, > where? So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. For my part, I like black people. They're generally friendlier and more accepting of me than everyone else and get along with Muslims quite well. The fact that I can't stand the refugees and believe that they don't deserve any kind of shelter in Europe doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me logical considering we've all seen what those same refugees are doing TO the countries which are accepting them. As for blacks, it's not racist to point out that there seems to be a glorification of stupidity, laziness, aggression and a welfare culture for a large proportion of them in the United States. It's simply reality. One day, you might grow out of your leftist mental illness. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25D1A5B.626B7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330432 |
On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>> >>> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >> Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and bigoted views? If so, >> where? > > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. But it is common in the conservative movement to seek special entitlements for whites and Christians and males and the rich and to put down others, seeking to limit the rights of women and the poor and non-Christians and the like. > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. > For my part, I like black people. They're generally friendlier and more > accepting of me than everyone else and get along with Muslims quite well. The > fact that I can't stand the refugees and believe that they don't deserve any > kind of shelter in Europe doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me logical > considering we've all seen what those same refugees are doing TO the countries > which are accepting them. What are these people supposed to do? They are living in a war torn area of the world where they have little chance to have decent lives. > As for blacks, it's not racist to point out that there seems to be a > glorification of stupidity, laziness, aggression and a welfare culture for a > large proportion of them in the United States. It's simply reality. The left tends to focus on the external factors, the right on the internal. Both have to be understood. > One day, you might grow out of your leftist mental illness. And here you are saying my support of what is a "mental illness" - equal rights? Personal responsibility? Those are the things I promote - and the things which make me "liberal". Conservatives tend to fight against such things and seek special entitlements for rich, white, male Christians (or whatever religion they happen to be, conservative Muslims generally want special entitlements for Muslims for example). -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb5971be-0a04-4f53-a942-54ca4ecf8e15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330447 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > > > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > > Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. Okay... > But it is common in the conservative movement Generalization > > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. > > Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. Well... > Conservatives tend to Generalization again. > fight against such things and seek special entitlements for rich, > white, male Christians Not having or agreeing with a conservative approach is one thing, but you don't even seem to know what conservatism is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51d13c71-6abd-4163-a142-93758b3b6342@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330453 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:56:31 PM UTC-7, cc wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote: > > On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > > > > > > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > > > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > > > > Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. > > Okay... > > > But it is common in the conservative movement > > Generalization > > > > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. > > > > Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. > > Well... > > > Conservatives tend to > > Generalization again. > > > fight against such things and seek special entitlements for rich, > > white, male Christians > > Not having or agreeing with a conservative approach is one thing, > but you don't even seem to know what conservatism is. Nor what "A *truly* presidential response" is, as opposed to a politician's response... or some fool (Snit) who is pushing for his candidate to be elected by alleging that an expected political ploy is "A *truly* presidential response".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8693c56a-33cc-462f-a7a3-5af15453bd8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330447 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: > >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > >>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > >>>> > >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > >>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. > >>> > >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and > >> Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and bigoted views? If so, > >> where? > > > > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > > Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a generalization. When he wrote: "Conservatism is not racism." You replied with: "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass the laugh test. > But it is > common in the conservative movement to seek special entitlements for whites > and Christians and males and the rich and to put down others, seeking to > limit the rights of women and the poor and non-Christians and the like. > > > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. > > Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. Who cares about a generalized statement regarding "all conservatives" that you may have made, or not? Focusing on that is just you trying to back-peddle away from your more specific and damaging claim to the Republican party. The adult thing to do would be to either support your statement or retract it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56386561$0$4222$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #330458 |
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:06:25 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed >> Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, >> >>>> "Charmed Tuna" >> >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to >> >>>>>> racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than >> >>>>>> the Democrats. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >> >>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >> >>> >> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about >> >> blacks and Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and >> >> bigoted views? If so, >> >> where? >> > >> > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and >> > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? >> >> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. > > So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a > generalization. When he wrote: > > "Conservatism is not racism." > > You replied with: > > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." > > You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass > the laugh test. Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. > >> But it is common in the conservative movement to seek special >> entitlements for whites and Christians and males and the rich and to >> put down others, seeking to limit the rights of women and the poor and >> non-Christians and the like. >> >> > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. >> >> Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. > > Who cares about a generalized statement regarding "all conservatives" > that you may have made, or not? Focusing on that is just you trying to > back-peddle away from your more specific and damaging claim to the > Republican party. The adult thing to do would be to either support your > statement or retract it. So is it your contention that the teabaggers _aren't_ running the Republican party? Or to put it another way: how can you differentiate between how the Republican party has been acting from one controlled by the teabaggers? -- -v Kernel:4.1.5-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.2 Rafaela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55f62452-d781-493c-b20e-a1489ef3e955@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330603 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:44:59 AM UTC-7, vallor wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:06:25 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > >> On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed > >> Tuna" > >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >> > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: > >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, > >> >>>> "Charmed Tuna" > >> >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to > >> >>>>>> racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than > >> >>>>>> the Democrats. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > >> >>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. > >> >>> > >> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about > >> >> blacks and Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and > >> >> bigoted views? If so, > >> >> where? > >> > > >> > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > >> > Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > >> > >> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. > > > > So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a > > generalization. When he wrote: > > > > "Conservatism is not racism." > > > > You replied with: > > > > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > > other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." > > > > You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass > > the laugh test. > > Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the > teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. And he might not be... and neither of our statements address the fact that he didn't support his statement. > >> But it is common in the conservative movement to seek special > >> entitlements for whites and Christians and males and the rich and to > >> put down others, seeking to limit the rights of women and the poor and > >> non-Christians and the like. > >> > >> > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. > >> > >> Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. > > > > Who cares about a generalized statement regarding "all conservatives" > > that you may have made, or not? Focusing on that is just you trying to > > back-peddle away from your more specific and damaging claim to the > > Republican party. The adult thing to do would be to either support your > > statement or retract it. > > So is it your contention that the teabaggers _aren't_ running the > Republican party? WTF? It's obviously my contention that Snit has not produced evidence for his claim. I contend that he either should do so or he should retract that claim. Specifically, what's your issue with my position (as opposed to the one you're trying to create on my behalf)? > Or to put it another way: how can you differentiate between how the > Republican party has been acting from one controlled by the teabaggers? Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' bit ;) Not biting'. The asking of questions doesn't relieve Snit of the burden of proving his claim. You seem to believe what he believes, you're free to support that claim. It's not like you couldn't have done so here if what you're arguing is so "clearly" true, right? I await the supporting evidence that the entire Republican party "clearly caters to racism and other forms of bigotry". p.s. I highly suggest you don't hand me any crap about my use of the word "entire" here... Snit just tried to hypocritically pull this stunt on Slimer so he's going to die by this sword (and take you with him).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <563a9494$0$5952$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #330658 |
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:55:40 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:44:59 AM UTC-7, vallor wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:06:25 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, >> >> "Charmed Tuna" >> >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, >> >> >> "owl" >> >> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, >> >> >>>> "Charmed Tuna" >> >> >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to >> >> >>>>>> racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than >> >> >>>>>> the Democrats. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass >> >> >>> for being too leftist even by their insane standards. >> >> >>> >> >> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about >> >> >> blacks and Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and >> >> >> bigoted views? If so, >> >> >> where? >> >> > >> >> > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks >> >> > and Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? >> >> >> >> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. >> > >> > So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a >> > generalization. When he wrote: >> > >> > "Conservatism is not racism." >> > >> > You replied with: >> > >> > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism >> > and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the >> > Democrats." >> > >> > You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't >> > pass the laugh test. >> >> Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the >> teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. > > And he might not be... and neither of our statements address the fact > that he didn't support his statement. Unstated was the fact that s*it's claim is common knowledge. Asking someone to support something that is common knowledge is generally regarded as a dick move. >> >> But it is common in the conservative movement to seek special >> >> entitlements for whites and Christians and males and the rich and to >> >> put down others, seeking to limit the rights of women and the poor >> >> and non-Christians and the like. >> >> >> >> > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. >> >> >> >> Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. >> > >> > Who cares about a generalized statement regarding "all conservatives" >> > that you may have made, or not? Focusing on that is just you trying >> > to back-peddle away from your more specific and damaging claim to the >> > Republican party. The adult thing to do would be to either support >> > your statement or retract it. >> >> So is it your contention that the teabaggers _aren't_ running the >> Republican party? > > WTF? It's obviously my contention that Snit has not produced evidence > for his claim. If it's common knowledge, he doesn't have to. All I can see here is an attempt to get people to jump through your hoops. I don't do hoops. > I contend that he either should do so or he should > retract that claim. Specifically, what's your issue with my position (as > opposed to the one you're trying to create on my behalf)? > >> Or to put it another way: how can you differentiate between how the >> Republican party has been acting from one controlled by the teabaggers? > > Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' bit ;) For anyone who has read and understood what I wrote, this is a clear non sequitur. I suggest looking again at what I wrote. It's common knowledge that the tea party has taken over the republican party. My question to you was this: if you think this hasn't happened, what actions by the republican party can you point to that back your supposition? > Not biting'. There's nothing to bite. > The asking of questions doesn't relieve Snit of the burden > of proving his claim. There is no "burden" for stating common knowledge. > You seem to believe what he believes, you're free > to support that claim. It's not like you couldn't have done so here if > what you're arguing is so "clearly" true, right? I await the supporting > evidence that the entire Republican party "clearly caters to racism and > other forms of bigotry". > > p.s. I highly suggest you don't hand me any crap about my use of the > word "entire" here... Snit just tried to hypocritically pull this stunt > on Slimer so he's going to die by this sword (and take you with him). There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. You are claiming that someone is "burdened" to provide "proof" for something that is common knowledge. I pointed out how the claim turns out to be the case -- and ask you to show otherwise, if you disagree. You came back with some kind of misunderstanding about burdens of proof for common knowledge. In my zeal to get to the point of my "differential analysis", I left out the part about this being common knowledge, and that was my error. I look forward to your examples of actions by the republican party that buck the common knowledge idea that it has been taken over by the poorly- named "tea party". -- -v Kernel:4.1.5-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.2 Rafaela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web