Bill Moyers on PBS Friday night noted the regrettable coarsening of speech and action in our daily lives, hastened by "entertainers" like Bill O'Reilly." Unfortunately, O'Reilly represents just a small part of the problem. As noted in the segment, the lineup of Michael Savage, Fred Thompson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Neal Boortz, Bernard Goldberg, Mark Levin, Andy Parks & Fred Grandy, Michael Graham, Anne Coulter, "The Great American Panel," Chris Plante,Randall Terry, and many others, spew their hatred and bile over the public airwaves, unhindered (Many heard, or have been heard, locally on WMAL) . Wenever anyone voices a call for rational, moderate dialogue, these radio crazy misinformers play to the paranoia of their audience by pulling the "fairness doctrine" card. All along, they feign ignorance or innocence, saying "it's just words". They try to dismiss their program content as "merely entertainment" that has no real effect on the masses. Can anyone honestly believe that the intent of these programs is for listeners to be susceptible to "calls for action" ONLY during the commercials? Here's a link to the segment in question; http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch2.html

That was an incredible and rather depressing segment of his show. I would challenge anyone on the right to find left/liberal commentators saying similar dehumanizing commentary. Anyone who listens to such material should be ashamed of themselves.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

From Media Matters, a media research firm.

O'Reilly and Fox News will have more right-wing vigilantism to explain
June 09, 2009 8:42 am ET

If Fox News is going to continue to traffic in hateful rhetoric, then folks at Fox News, as well as their apologists in the GOP Noise Machine, are going to have to come up with better talking points to spin away the atmosphere of vigilantism fomented by their words and actions.

They need a better line of defense because the one they trotted out in the wake of the right-wing assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was wholly unconvincing.

It was just as feeble as the defense Fox News' Glenn Beck tried to employ in May to distance himself from the accused right-wing cop killer in Pittsburgh who seemed to mimic Beck's language about how President Obama was coming to take away everyone's guns.

The Fox News crew is going to need better talking points because I fear the violence -- the bouts of right-wing domestic terrorism -- are likely to continue. As long as Fox News and the Noise Machine refuse to back off the incendiary language that they're actively mainstreaming, the political violence, visible just months into Obama's historic first term, may have only begun.

Note that during a jailhouse interview, Tiller's suspected killer claimed that similar assassination plots against abortion providers are already being planned.

And please note what you did not hear from virtually anyone on the far right who addressed the Tiller story last week. Yes, they tried furiously to distance Bill O'Reilly from the controversy or suggest there was nothing problematic with the "baby killer" rhetoric he used. But what you did not hear was anyone condemn, or even take issue with, O'Reilly's on-air crusade.

Why the silence? Because militia-style vigilante rhetoric has become a cornerstone of the conservative media movement in America, and it's now proudly championed by Fox News on a nearly hourly basis.

The fact is, I couldn't find a single prominent voice within the GOP Noise Machine who even hinted that O'Reilly's relentless attacks on Tiller were in any way off the mark or, in light of the vigilante Kansas church killing, needed to be reconsidered, that they should have been dialed down. And that's why the ugliness has only begun.

The unconvincing right-wing defense in the wake of the Tiller assassination last week was twofold, with the second layer even thinner than the first. The first was that when conservatives were hounding and demonizing Tiller for years, they were merely debating the issue of abortion. And surely nobody in America opposes a healthy debate, right? Nobody opposes "sharp political disagreement," as Michelle Malkin sugarcoated the Tiller attack, right?

Second, Noise Machine leaders claimed that liberal commentators do exactly what O'Reilly and Beck have been accused of: using violent political hate language that puts people's lives in danger. That claim has been made over and over, yet conservatives can't actually produce any proof -- can't find any hateful liberal quotes -- to buttress the claim.

That's because both talking points are complete fabrications.

First, the idea that O'Reilly and company simply debated Tiller's work is laughable. O'Reilly's never been interested in any kind of back-and-forth about the abortion issue. He just rants and demonizes the other side. And in the case of Tiller, O'Reilly portrayed him as a lawless executioner. As Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, wrote in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, "O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames."

And besides, if O'Reilly had merely been debating abortion -- if he had said nothing about Tiller that was regrettable or out of line -- why did O'Reilly at least twice last week falsely claim that he'd never called the doctor a "baby killer"?

Still, according to Brent Bozell's NewsBusters, O'Reilly had simply "spoke[n] critically of Tiller's abortionist practices" and merely "used harsh words to describe Tiller."

Decide for yourself. Since FNC defenders often refuse to reprint O'Reilly's quotes, here's an unvarnished look at what he said about Tiller; here's what he said before an anti-abortion zealot assassinated Tiller and then claimed his actions were justified:

•"In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000."
•"For $5,000, 'Tiller the Baby Killer' -- as some call him -- will perform a late-term abortion for just about any reason."
•"Tiller has killed thousands, thousands of late-term fetuses without explanation."
•"No question, Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands."
•" 'Tiller the Baby Killer' out in Kansas, acquitted, acquitted today of murdering babies."
•"This guy will kill your baby for $5,000, any reason. Any reason."
•"If we allow Dr. George Tiller and his acolytes to continue, we can no longer pass judgment on any behavior by anybody."
•"If we allow this, America will no longer be a noble nation."
As for the Noise Machine's fallback position, it's that liberal commentators do exactly what O'Reilly and Beck have been accused of: trafficking in hateful rhetoric that endangers innocent people.

Making the charge at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard claimed:

[A]s [Keith] Olbermann and his ilk on MSNBC and throughout the liberal blogosphere routinely referred to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as murderers, would they have been responsible if someone had assassinated either of these former White House members?

Sheppard was sure that Olbermann had called Bush and Cheney murderers. He was sure Olbermann's references to the POTUS and VP were "equally provocative" as O'Reilly's references to Tiller.

Except, of course, Sheppard failed to produce a single Olbermann quote that even comes close to the seething, unhinged hate rants that O'Reilly unfurled for years against Tiller. Meaning, there is no comparison between what O'Reilly said about Tiller and what Olbermann has said about Bush and Cheney. Yet this entire right-wing defense hinges on the idea that the language was identical. That there's a moral equivalence.

Desperate to move the spotlight away from O'Reilly's irresponsible actions, conservatives last week tried to claim that liberal pundits might be responsible for the killing of a military recruiter in Arkansas who was gunned down by a Muslim convert trying to send a political message. Why the liberal pundits? Because they had created a dangerous anti-military atmosphere.

Beck made that very claim on his radio show [emphasis added]:

BECK: Well, let me ask you this. I had to really search the news long and hard to find out about the two recruiters -- the two soldiers that had been killed by the Muslim convert, that were gunned down in Arkansas. I had to really look hard for that. Is anybody asking is Keith Olbermann responsible for the death of those two soldiers? Keith Olbermann has railed against recruiters. Keith Olbermann has railed against the baby killers that our U.S. soldiers are. He's railed against this war. MSNBC was right all over the story about how our troops are torturing and killing innocents. Has anybody asked if he's responsible?

Slight problem. Neither Beck nor anyone else on the right last week could find any hateful, violent anti-recruiter attacks launched by liberal media personalities. (Let alone baby-killing quotes.) Why can't they find the rhetoric? Because nobody on the left with any sort of national platform has targeted military recruiters in recent years. If they had, Malkin would have included the damning quotes in her column. (Either that, or she needs to hire a new researcher.)

Have there been, over the years, occasional efforts on the left to ban military recruiters from campuses and other environments? There certainly have. Can conservatives point to any kind of wholesale hate rhetoric or vigilante-style calls to action by mainstream liberal pundits and commentators designed to dehumanize and demonize military recruiters? Of course they cannot. (And sorry, Code Pink demonstrations don't qualify as mainstream media commentators.) Because if conservatives could have found those kinds of irresponsible attacks, they would have thrown them back in everyone's faces last week.

But apparently, they don't exist.

As far as I know, there are no gotcha, hateful, get-the-recruiter quotes to hang around the necks of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or anyone else on the left for the simple reason that high-profile media liberals haven't led dangerous crusades to target military recruiters the way O'Reilly led a dangerous crusade against Tiller. And the way Beck has against Obama.

As a rule, media liberals don't traffic in irresponsible, militia-style rhetoric. But agitators like O'Reilly and Beck do, and now conservatives can't make that fact go away.

That's why the Fox News crew and its eager apologists are going to have to come up with a better line of defense. Because as long as Fox News peddles its incendiary vigilante rhetoric, the right-wing violence in America will continue, and Fox News is going to have to answer for it.

It's not hard to listen to them and draw the conclusion that they are idiots. It's obvious they don't care about the prosperity of our country and that they only care about their own prosperity. I don't think they are fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled... Except for maybe people like you, who react to their shocking comments by voicing your strong (and entertaining) opinions about them. You are giving them free publicity and also giving them more power than they deserve.

Realize that these people are basically actors and please realize that the majority of our country realizes the same thing. Have you no more faith in humanity?

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Media Matters, a media research firm.
>
> O'Reilly and Fox News will have more right-wing
> vigilantism to explain
> June 09, 2009 8:42 am ET
>
> If Fox News is going to continue to traffic in
> hateful rhetoric, then folks at Fox News, as well
> as their apologists in the GOP Noise Machine, are
> going to have to come up with better talking
> points to spin away the atmosphere of vigilantism
> fomented by their words and actions.
>
> They need a better line of defense because the one
> they trotted out in the wake of the right-wing
> assassination of abortion provider Dr. George
> Tiller was wholly unconvincing.
>
> It was just as feeble as the defense Fox News'
> Glenn Beck tried to employ in May to distance
> himself from the accused right-wing cop killer in
> Pittsburgh who seemed to mimic Beck's language
> about how President Obama was coming to take away
> everyone's guns.
>
> The Fox News crew is going to need better talking
> points because I fear the violence -- the bouts of
> right-wing domestic terrorism -- are likely to
> continue. As long as Fox News and the Noise
> Machine refuse to back off the incendiary language
> that they're actively mainstreaming, the political
> violence, visible just months into Obama's
> historic first term, may have only begun.
>
> Note that during a jailhouse interview, Tiller's
> suspected killer claimed that similar
> assassination plots against abortion providers are
> already being planned.
>
> And please note what you did not hear from
> virtually anyone on the far right who addressed
> the Tiller story last week. Yes, they tried
> furiously to distance Bill O'Reilly from the
> controversy or suggest there was nothing
> problematic with the "baby killer" rhetoric he
> used. But what you did not hear was anyone
> condemn, or even take issue with, O'Reilly's
> on-air crusade.
>
> Why the silence? Because militia-style vigilante
> rhetoric has become a cornerstone of the
> conservative media movement in America, and it's
> now proudly championed by Fox News on a nearly
> hourly basis.
>
> The fact is, I couldn't find a single prominent
> voice within the GOP Noise Machine who even hinted
> that O'Reilly's relentless attacks on Tiller were
> in any way off the mark or, in light of the
> vigilante Kansas church killing, needed to be
> reconsidered, that they should have been dialed
> down. And that's why the ugliness has only begun.
>
> The unconvincing right-wing defense in the wake of
> the Tiller assassination last week was twofold,
> with the second layer even thinner than the first.
> The first was that when conservatives were
> hounding and demonizing Tiller for years, they
> were merely debating the issue of abortion. And
> surely nobody in America opposes a healthy debate,
> right? Nobody opposes "sharp political
> disagreement," as Michelle Malkin sugarcoated the
> Tiller attack, right?
>
> Second, Noise Machine leaders claimed that liberal
> commentators do exactly what O'Reilly and Beck
> have been accused of: using violent political hate
> language that puts people's lives in danger. That
> claim has been made over and over, yet
> conservatives can't actually produce any proof --
> can't find any hateful liberal quotes -- to
> buttress the claim.
>
> That's because both talking points are complete
> fabrications.
>
> First, the idea that O'Reilly and company simply
> debated Tiller's work is laughable. O'Reilly's
> never been interested in any kind of
> back-and-forth about the abortion issue. He just
> rants and demonizes the other side. And in the
> case of Tiller, O'Reilly portrayed him as a
> lawless executioner. As Mary Alice Carr, vice
> president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice
> New York, wrote in a recent op-ed for The
> Washington Post, "O'Reilly knew that people wanted
> Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of
> those people were avid viewers of his show. Still,
> he fanned the flames."
>
> And besides, if O'Reilly had merely been debating
> abortion -- if he had said nothing about Tiller
> that was regrettable or out of line -- why did
> O'Reilly at least twice last week falsely claim
> that he'd never called the doctor a "baby
> killer"?
>
> Still, according to Brent Bozell's NewsBusters,
> O'Reilly had simply "spoke critically of Tiller's
> abortionist practices" and merely "used harsh
> words to describe Tiller."
>
> Decide for yourself. Since FNC defenders often
> refuse to reprint O'Reilly's quotes, here's an
> unvarnished look at what he said about Tiller;
> here's what he said before an anti-abortion zealot
> assassinated Tiller and then claimed his actions
> were justified:
>
> •"In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor,
> George Tiller, who will execute babies for
> $5,000."
> •"For $5,000, 'Tiller the Baby Killer' -- as some
> call him -- will perform a late-term abortion for
> just about any reason."
> •"Tiller has killed thousands, thousands of
> late-term fetuses without explanation."
> •"No question, Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands."
>
> •" 'Tiller the Baby Killer' out in Kansas,
> acquitted, acquitted today of murdering babies."
> •"This guy will kill your baby for $5,000, any
> reason. Any reason."
> •"If we allow Dr. George Tiller and his acolytes
> to continue, we can no longer pass judgment on any
> behavior by anybody."
> •"If we allow this, America will no longer be a
> noble nation."
> As for the Noise Machine's fallback position, it's
> that liberal commentators do exactly what O'Reilly
> and Beck have been accused of: trafficking in
> hateful rhetoric that endangers innocent people.
>
> Making the charge at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard
> claimed:
>
> s Olbermann and his ilk on MSNBC and throughout
> the liberal blogosphere routinely referred to
> George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as murderers, would
> they have been responsible if someone had
> assassinated either of these former White House
> members?
>
> Sheppard was sure that Olbermann had called Bush
> and Cheney murderers. He was sure Olbermann's
> references to the POTUS and VP were "equally
> provocative" as O'Reilly's references to Tiller.
>
> Except, of course, Sheppard failed to produce a
> single Olbermann quote that even comes close to
> the seething, unhinged hate rants that O'Reilly
> unfurled for years against Tiller. Meaning, there
> is no comparison between what O'Reilly said about
> Tiller and what Olbermann has said about Bush and
> Cheney. Yet this entire right-wing defense hinges
> on the idea that the language was identical. That
> there's a moral equivalence.
>
> Desperate to move the spotlight away from
> O'Reilly's irresponsible actions, conservatives
> last week tried to claim that liberal pundits
> might be responsible for the killing of a military
> recruiter in Arkansas who was gunned down by a
> Muslim convert trying to send a political message.
> Why the liberal pundits? Because they had created
> a dangerous anti-military atmosphere.
>
> Beck made that very claim on his radio show :
>
> BECK: Well, let me ask you this. I had to really
> search the news long and hard to find out about
> the two recruiters -- the two soldiers that had
> been killed by the Muslim convert, that were
> gunned down in Arkansas. I had to really look hard
> for that. Is anybody asking is Keith Olbermann
> responsible for the death of those two soldiers?
> Keith Olbermann has railed against recruiters.
> Keith Olbermann has railed against the baby
> killers that our U.S. soldiers are. He's railed
> against this war. MSNBC was right all over the
> story about how our troops are torturing and
> killing innocents. Has anybody asked if he's
> responsible?
>
> Slight problem. Neither Beck nor anyone else on
> the right last week could find any hateful,
> violent anti-recruiter attacks launched by liberal
> media personalities. (Let alone baby-killing
> quotes.) Why can't they find the rhetoric? Because
> nobody on the left with any sort of national
> platform has targeted military recruiters in
> recent years. If they had, Malkin would have
> included the damning quotes in her column. (Either
> that, or she needs to hire a new researcher.)
>
> Have there been, over the years, occasional
> efforts on the left to ban military recruiters
> from campuses and other environments? There
> certainly have. Can conservatives point to any
> kind of wholesale hate rhetoric or vigilante-style
> calls to action by mainstream liberal pundits and
> commentators designed to dehumanize and demonize
> military recruiters? Of course they cannot. (And
> sorry, Code Pink demonstrations don't qualify as
> mainstream media commentators.) Because if
> conservatives could have found those kinds of
> irresponsible attacks, they would have thrown them
> back in everyone's faces last week.
>
> But apparently, they don't exist.
>
> As far as I know, there are no gotcha, hateful,
> get-the-recruiter quotes to hang around the necks
> of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or anyone else
> on the left for the simple reason that
> high-profile media liberals haven't led dangerous
> crusades to target military recruiters the way
> O'Reilly led a dangerous crusade against Tiller.
> And the way Beck has against Obama.
>
> As a rule, media liberals don't traffic in
> irresponsible, militia-style rhetoric. But
> agitators like O'Reilly and Beck do, and now
> conservatives can't make that fact go away.
>
> That's why the Fox News crew and its eager
> apologists are going to have to come up with a
> better line of defense. Because as long as Fox
> News peddles its incendiary vigilante rhetoric,
> the right-wing violence in America will continue,
> and Fox News is going to have to answer for it.

"Media Matters" is a Soros funded propaganda machine in itself. Who they
Hell are they to call anyone else a "hater"? This is a bunch of BS!

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150


"Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration and the head of the "progressive" Washington, DC think tank, the Center for American Progress. In 2004 Podesta provided Brock with office space for his fledgling enterprise. Soon after, Media Matters received over $2 million in seed donations from a roster of affluent donors including Leo Hindery Jr., a former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a close ally of Senator Hillary Clinton; James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration; Bren Simon, a Democratic activist and the wife of shopping-mall developer Mel Simon; and New York psychologist and philanthropist Gail Furman. Media Matters, which can accept tax-deductible contributions under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has also benefited from the patronage of Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corporation and a longtime consort of leftist financier George Soros.

Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, a spokesman for the organization explained that "Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros" (emphasis added), a transparent evasion."

So, what you are saying is George Soros donated to a research group to combat right wing political Bull Sh&t? Wow! Controversy. Do you believe ACORN will have access to your census data?

As for most Americans, At my kids' swim meet, their coach made a comment that Obama was building a high speed rail from Orange County California to Las Vegas to thank Harry Reid. I said, only if it hubs in Chicago-where all the plans for the past 15 years have centralized high speed rail. He said he heard it on Sean Hannity, and then went off on Republicans In Name Only, (Rino) a term for moderate Republicans. Not only do they send out hate, they send out misinformation as well.

And what is the first thing these idiots will tell you? Buy their book. Second thing, don't read or watch main street media and only listen to them.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, what you are saying is George Soros donated to
> a research group to combat right wing political
> Bull Sh&t? Wow! Controversy. Do you believe
> ACORN will have access to your census data?


Yes, and if they conduct a Census the same way they handled BO's campaign,
Mickey Mouse will be counted too.



> As for most Americans, At my kids' swim meet,
> their coach made a comment that Obama was building
> a high speed rail from Orange County California to
> Las Vegas to thank Harry Reid. I said, only if it
> hubs in Chicago-where all the plans for the past
> 15 years have centralized high speed rail. He
> said he heard it on Sean Hannity, and then went
> off on Republicans In Name Only, (Rino) a term for
> moderate Republicans. Not only do they send out
> hate, they send out misinformation as well.
>
> And what is the first thing these idiots will tell
> you? Buy their book. Second thing, don't read or
> watch main street media and only listen to them.

I have never had anyone suggest that I not watch main stream media. I do.
Every night at 6:30 pm I watch ABC national news and then at 7:00 p.m.
switch to NBC on 4. At 8:p.m., its time for O'Reilly so I have a "Fair
and Balanced" approach. BTW, I dont buy any books from any of them.

Check this out for more on "Media Matters":

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23079

HaHa! Human Events are the ones that isolated and released the Obama staring at the chick's butt photo. Yes, Brock knows all their tricks- he onced was part of their inner circle. As for balencing out, O'Reilly is not news, according to Fox, O'Reilly is commentary and entertainment. Don't confuse that with "news."

People fill out bogus info on that kinda stuff all the time. It is almost 100% caught by the group turning in the information (by law, all forms must be turned in), or the voter registration boards, and just thrown away. It is not voter fraud unless someone other than Mickey showed up to vote claiming to be The Mouse in question.

BTW, Bad example on your part; the US Government actually issued Mr. Mouse a Social Security # before any other citizen. Did you know Mickey was declared a US citizen by and act of Congress? Mickey has also received more write in votes for President than any other non balloted campaigner. So, if the Social Security Administration, the United States Congress, and a large number of voters in the past 75 years declare Mickey to be a U.S. Citizen, than why can't he vote (even though he never has)?
See, you don't get the whole story.

The Article in question did not use the word "Arab." Limbaugh inserted it to go along with his theme that Obama is an Arab.

This misinformation led to this encounter with McCain.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This misinformation led to this encounter with McCain.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDx07JQud8



LOL, the old lady at the end of that clip sounds like Blue Iris from the Stern show.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, what you are saying is George Soros donated to
> a research group to combat right wing political
> Bull Sh&t? Wow! Controversy. Do you believe
> ACORN will have access to your census data?
>
> As for most Americans, At my kids' swim meet,
> their coach made a comment that Obama was building
> a high speed rail from Orange County California to
> Las Vegas to thank Harry Reid. I said, only if it
> hubs in Chicago-where all the plans for the past
> 15 years have centralized high speed rail. He
> said he heard it on Sean Hannity, and then went
> off on Republicans In Name Only, (Rino) a term for
> moderate Republicans. Not only do they send out
> hate, they send out misinformation as well.
>
> And what is the first thing these idiots will tell
> you? Buy their book. Second thing, don't read or
> watch main street media and only listen to them.


Young suburban people do seem particularly vulnerable to this politics of hate.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:

> Young suburban people do seem particularly
> vulnerable to this politics of hate.


Sorry, Vince, but this rates as your dumbest post ever. The young suburban people I know actually are pretty well educated, involved in their community and/or jobs and families, and are pretty critical thinkers on their own. They don't buy it. Of course, I don't know many of the dropout, disaffected, skin-head/gang-banger types--I'd guess they're pretty well spread out around the country, including the inner city and rural areas. Prove me wrong.

Listen to the callers sometime on the Rush/Hannity shows. VERY few "young suburban" types. I could categorize 'em, but I'll refrain. Listen for yourself.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Bill Maher, nuff said. Go ahead and defend him. If you do, you are as brainless as Rush listeners. Waiting.........

While you are at it defend Randi Rhodes or Keith Olbermann.

Don't you just hate "hate politics"!? And everyone who subscribes to it!?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Young suburban people do seem particularly
> vulnerable to this politics of hate.

'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 04:29PM by Alias.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you just hate "hate politics"!? And everyone
> who subscribes to it!?


Vince is the quintessential example of hate politics. FUNdamental comes in a close second. He knows why, but will he admit it?

LMAO!

Bill Maher is a COMEDIAN! If you don't find him funny, change the channel! (I'm sure there's a Larry the Cable Guy movie on somewhere for you).

This was hilarious on his Friday night show...pithy, satirical, and better on video.

http://therealbillmaher.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-rule-not-everything-in-america-has.html

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2009 11:46PM by fairfaxdude.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you just hate long incredibly boring
> threads?

God, yes! But I love to hate (wrap your mind around that one, brother bears)! That's why I watch closet homosexual, no creativity-having, self loathing, fat jew, Andrew Zimmern. This video is just for you, Pete.





lambasted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Vince is the quintessential example of hate
> politics. FUNdamental comes in a close second.
> He knows why, but will he admit it?


You think they really know why? I truly doubt it...

This is obviously nothing more than a Leftist loon ranting against all of those who oppose their viewpoint. Who is hateful now?

Wait....Bill Moyers is a "leftist loon"??

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

The 60's were filled with hate too. What's your solution? A lot of people are fed-up with the status-quo, especially since the collapse of our economy and the pay-outs to BIG business.

Big CEOs were paid big bucks to mind the store and they just left the doors wide-open.

Nostradamus predicted a terrible world-wide event that he described as a web, which will be the start of our undoing. I can't help but wonder if he was talking about our ecomony. It all started with Bear-Sterns, like dominios from there, or a web? Greed, has destroyed more then one civilization.

With the undercurrent of anger that is present in our world today, I feel more then ever that we need a house for, "The people" to speak their heart, mind or conscious. We have no lobbyist and it's time we do.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
>
>
> Listen to the callers sometime on the Rush/Hannity
> shows. VERY few "young suburban" types. I could
> categorize 'em, but I'll refrain. Listen for
> yourself.


Didn't you know most of those callers are scripted plants? Hannity and Levin write the narratives and send it off to paid actors who have a special phone # to call in on at a specific time. In Hannty's case, these scripted caller can be heard at 52 minutes past the first and second hour into his show.


I mean don't you question the validity of a caller that says she is buying a gun to protect herself from terrorists being transferred up here from Gitmo?

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> >
> > Listen to the callers sometime on the
> Rush/Hannity
> > shows. VERY few "young suburban" types. I could
> > categorize 'em, but I'll refrain. Listen for
> > yourself.
>
>
> Didn't you know most of those callers are scripted
> plants? Hannity and Levin write the narratives and
> send it off to paid actors who have a special
> phone # to call in on at a specific time. In
> Hannty's case, these scripted caller can be heard
> at 52 minutes past the first and second hour into
> his show.
>
>
> I mean don't you question the validity of a caller
> that says she is buying a gun to protect herself
> from terrorists being transferred up here from
> Gitmo?

Some are actors, most are RNC approved callers with a script. And in Hammitties case, many are his interns - how many 20 something woman sit at work or at home listening to Hammity and worrying about socialized medicine anyway?

One 20 something medical school student called Hammity the other day to complain about socialized medicine. She will be a doctor soon and did not want to waste her time dealing with stubbed toes and illegal aliens who would come to her if we had "socialized medicine". A compassionate woman to be sure!

You too can sign up to be a RNC scripted caller. Just go to http://www.gop.com/ActionCenter/CallTalkRadio/ and if they need you, they will call for an interview and if you pass, the radio show will call you! Then you just read the script.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nostradamus predicted a terrible world-wide event
> that he described as a web, which will be the
> start of our undoing. I can't help but wonder if
> he was talking about our ecomony. It all started
> with Bear-Sterns, like dominios from there, or a
> web? Greed, has destroyed more then one
> civilization.

Oh dear Jesus, Spunky, you believe Nostradamus as well?

Alfred E. Newman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former
> chief of staff in the Clinton administration and
> the head of the "progressive" Washington, DC think
> tank, the Center for American Progress. In 2004
> Podesta provided Brock with office space for his
> fledgling enterprise. Soon after, Media Matters
> received over $2 million in seed donations from a
> roster of affluent donors including Leo Hindery
> Jr., a former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell,
> a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a
> close ally of Senator Hillary Clinton; James
> Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly
> served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the
> Clinton administration; Bren Simon, a Democratic
> activist and the wife of shopping-mall developer
> Mel Simon; and New York psychologist and
> philanthropist Gail Furman. Media Matters, which
> can accept tax-deductible contributions under
> section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has also
> benefited from the patronage of Peter Lewis,
> chairman of Progressive Corporation and a longtime
> consort of leftist financier George Soros.
>
> Media Matters has not always been forthcoming
> about its high-profile backers. In particular, the
> group has long labored to obscure any financial
> ties to George Soros. But in March 2003, the
> Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious
> links between Media Matters and several Soros
> "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for
> American Progress, and Peter Lewis. Confronted
> with this story, a spokesman for the organization
> explained that "Media Matters for America has
> never received funding directly from George Soros"
> (emphasis added), a transparent evasion."


This is, at best, an ad-hom attack - it is not a rational refutation of the material MM presents.

While I think that the right wing media machine does it's share of inciting hate and stoking the flames, I'm not entirely sure why the left wing gets a pass. I could be wrong here, but Olberman seems to be of the same ilk as Rush or O'Reilly.

>
> While I think that the right wing media machine
> does it's share of inciting hate and stoking the
> flames, I'm not entirely sure why the left wing
> gets a pass. I could be wrong here, but Olberman
> seems to be of the same ilk as Rush or O'Reilly.


They have never encited people to violence.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

FUNdamental Wrote:

>
>
> Didn't you know most of those callers are scripted
> plants? Hannity and Levin write the narratives and
> send it off to paid actors who have a special
> phone # to call in on at a specific time. In
> Hannty's case, these scripted caller can be heard
> at 52 minutes past the first and second hour into
> his show.
>
>
> I mean don't you question the validity of a caller
> that says she is buying a gun to protect herself
> from terrorists being transferred up here from
> Gitmo?

I would like to see the proof of that. Yours and radiophiles's statements both smack of the sounds of the left's version of the Hannity and Rush shows trying to explain their callers. Even Obama acknowledged the validity of these callers - they are all the folks clinging to guns and religion - remember? Fox News (all their shows) has the highest viewership of any news shows on cable - that isn't just because they pay people to watch their shows.

As to Mr Maher, if you go to his website, and look at his content, he is as much a comedian as Limbaugh now. I watch Maher's show on occasion and he seems very bitter and full of himself. He turned the corner as full-time political hack a long time ago.

All I am saying, is don't try and diminish the validity of these shows by painting them as "fake". They are far from that - and even though you would wish they went away, the reality is these people do exist - just like the people on the left that Vince is representative of here.

I wish they were fake. I still hold to my belief that as the white majority turns into a white minority by the year 2050...like any animal faced with loosing dominanace they will fight..thats all this is...fearful white people. Unfortuantely the most dangerous animal on earth is a fearful white person.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the most dangerous animal on earth is a fearful white person.


No, it's actually some kind of rare cobra found in Africa, it's venom is so powerful it can kill a human within minutes. I saw it on Discovery channel.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You too can sign up to be a RNC scripted caller.
> Just go to
> http://www.gop.com/ActionCenter/CallTalkRadio/ and
> if they need you, they will call for an interview
> and if you pass, the radio show will call you!
> Then you just read the script.

Or, you could write letters to the editor built straight from DNC talking points. http://www.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilderLTE/

The Dems seem to be really up to date with current events and policy debates:

Write About Current Issues
CIA Leak Scandal
High Gas Prices
Immigration Reform
The War in Iraq
Osama bin Laden and the War on Terror

The CIA leak scandal had run its course by 2007.

High Gas Prices - compared to last year?

Immigration Reform - that was 2006

The War in Iraq - last I heard Obama was on schedule to comply with the previous Administration's timeline

Osama bin Laden and the War on Terror - OK, I concede that this MAY be a current event.

What about health care or energy/environment? Looks like the DNC is still living in the past thinking it can get by focusing on George Bush.

Well, status quo does happen to work for the Democrats. You can't say the same for the GOP.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish they were fake. I still hold to my belief
> that as the white majority turns into a white
> minority by the year 2050...like any animal faced
> with loosing dominanace they will fight..thats all
> this is...fearful white people. Unfortuantely the
> most dangerous animal on earth is a fearful white
> person.

Well then Vince, you should go back to Africa right? And rejoin the brothers over there who care so much about their brethren. I mean why put yourself or your family in a position where they have to fear retribution by all these angry white folks? Sheesh what a load. Yes Vince, all the whiteys are gonna go out and get their guns, join the white supremacists movement and gun down the black man. Keep living in that delusional world.

I thought popular black myths today include the fact that ancient man was actually black - so if that was the case what happened? Did God decide to punish the black man by creating whitey? Just curious on your thoughts there. Especially since most of the slavery practiced in Africa was originally tribal and black on black.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nostradamus predicted a terrible world-wide
> event
> > that he described as a web, which will be the
> > start of our undoing. I can't help but wonder
> if
> > he was talking about our ecomony. It all
> started
> > with Bear-Sterns, like dominios from there, or
> a
> > web? Greed, has destroyed more then one
> > civilization.
>
> Oh dear Jesus, Spunky, you believe Nostradamus as
> well?


Well Pan, I believe him before I would believe you, besides so do a lot of others.

Plus his predictions have come to fruition, what about you? Nada!

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, status quo does happen to work for the
> Democrats. You can't say the same for the GOP.


Excuse me dumbass, but wasn't the status quo working for the

Repukes under 8 years of Bush too? Now take those stinking blinders

off and be objective instead of looking the fool.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Pan, I believe him before I would believe
> you,

I'm not asking you to believe me. I support my stances based on reason and evidence. You can take that, or as is apparent, leave it.

> besides so do a lot of others.

Ad populum. The number of believers a particular claim has, has utterly no impact on it's validity. If it did, then Santa Claus would exist and deliver presents to children every Christmas.

> Plus his predictions have come to fruition,

No they haven't. At best you can twist what he writes so that it fits something that has already happened; ie, a POST-diction.

> what
> about you? Nada!

I don't make predictions and I am not reliant on gullible rubes to believe me based on mere authority.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wish they were fake. I still hold to my
> belief
> > that as the white majority turns into a white
> > minority by the year 2050...like any animal
> faced
> > with loosing dominanace they will fight..thats
> all
> > this is...fearful white people. Unfortuantely
> the
> > most dangerous animal on earth is a fearful
> white
> > person.
>
> Well then Vince, you should go back to Africa
> right? And rejoin the brothers over there who care
> so much about their brethren. I mean why put
> yourself or your family in a position where they
> have to fear retribution by all these angry white
> folks? Sheesh what a load. Yes Vince, all the
> whiteys are gonna go out and get their guns, join
> the white supremacists movement and gun down the
> black man. Keep living in that delusional world.
>
> I thought popular black myths today include the
> fact that ancient man was actually black - so if
> that was the case what happened? Did God decide to
> punish the black man by creating whitey? Just
> curious on your thoughts there. Especially since
> most of the slavery practiced in Africa was
> originally tribal and black on black.


Then why are all the "whiteys" buying all those and ammunition? To go hunting? To defend themselves from the criminals amongst us? There are more guns and bullets being sold to justify any of these instances.

And the beginnings of slavery whether black on black or not is no justification for any actions taken by citizens of this country. They stand seperate...no association.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Yes yes - but if the black man was the original Adam, where the heck did all the white folks come from? Or the Asians, Hispanics, etc? Was God looking to punish the black man for some reason? I am just curious - I am sure the Reverend Wrights of this world explain all that don't they? I am just playing Devil's Advocate here - going to the natural conclusion of much of the logic you have explained here to see what the answer is.

As far as the guns and such - remember, that is the guns and religion folks out there buying up their defenses since they are just too dumbed down by news soundbites, right?

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, status quo does happen to work for the
> > Democrats. You can't say the same for the GOP.
>
>
> Excuse me dumbass, but wasn't the status quo
> working for the
>
> Repukes under 8 years of Bush too? Now take those
> stinking blinders
>
> off and be objective instead of looking the fool.

To answer your question: No.

As a friendly reminder, please remember to refill your meds.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Then why are all the "whiteys" buying all those
> and ammunition?

Sure, like the only person buying guns is whitey. Why does it always have to boil down to race with you? Don't you see that you're being racist?

> To go hunting? To defend
> themselves from the criminals amongst us? There
> are more guns and bullets being sold to justify
> any of these instances.

A responsible gun owner doesn't just buy guns and ammo, then just sit on them (And they definitely wouldn't buy ammo and wait 40 years for some sort of helter skelter style race war... not even irresponsible gun owners would do that). They practice, by shooting their guns, in order to be safe and efficient with their weapon. More ammo sales doesn't necessarily mean people are stock-piling ammunition. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it's only whitey buying weapons.

Besides, the type of people who WOULD try to initiate some race war wouldn't be going to the gun stores to buy their weapons. They would be buying weapons off the black market and making their own ammo. You say it's whitey that is scared but you seem scared as well.

And in response to what you said about the scared white man being the most dangerous animal:

You're half right. Fear is the enemy and it doesn't play favorites with race.

You were implying that a scared white man is more dangerous than a scared black man or a scared hispanic? Once again, I cry "RACISM" you hypocrite!

Have you ever thought of trying to bring the different races together? Have you ever tried promoting equality? How are you achieving that by constantly dividing HUMANS into different categories and by making blanket assumptions about entire ethnic groups?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:49PM by Alias.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > § Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well, status quo does happen to work for the
> > > Democrats. You can't say the same for the
> GOP.
> >
> >
> > Excuse me dumbass, but wasn't the status quo
> > working for the
> >
> > Repukes under 8 years of Bush too? Now take
> those
> > stinking blinders
> >
> > off and be objective instead of looking the
> fool.
>
> To answer your question: No.
>
> As a friendly reminder, please remember to refill
> your meds.

Apparently you talk out of both sides of your mouth which holds no creditablity, do you have meds for that?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well Pan, I believe him before I would believe
> > you,
>
> I'm not asking you to believe me. I support my
> stances based on reason and evidence. You can
> take that, or as is apparent, leave it.
>

Same here.

> > besides so do a lot of others.
>
> Ad populum. The number of believers a particular
> claim has, has utterly no impact on it's validity.
> If it did, then Santa Claus would exist and
> deliver presents to children every Christmas.
>

You are referring to children, I on the other hand am referring to adults. You logic is flawed.

Would you say Christians, Muslims, etc are misled? Of course you would, but the masses would again say your wrong. The Bible, etc., are considered valid, as much as they can be.

> > Plus his predictions have come to fruition,
>
> No they haven't. At best you can twist what he
> writes so that it fits something that has already
> happened; ie, a POST-diction.

Twisting information is something you apparently know a lot about, since you've done it constantly with my post.

It calls interpretation. You should research this further. Scholars, which you are not, have studied his writings and predictions and give them a lot of merit, unlike your abrupt dismissal of valued information.
>
> > what
> > about you? Nada!
>
> I don't make predictions and I am not reliant on
> gullible rubes to believe me based on mere
> authority.


This is not mere authority, you have a choice to examine anything you wish and come to your own conclusions, regardless how feeble they may be.

I have come to my own conclusions and you can't change that but you can respect that, as I have you. I believe there's so much me are unclear about or just don't know yet in regards to the mind. Our potential is greater then our use. There have been prophets since the beginning of time and they will continue, to ignore those proven, is foolish. They have been given a gift for a reason. There are prophets walking the earth even now. But authorities try to discredit them all for fear it will conflict with their agenda.

We are not a free country or a free people any longer. We are not allowed to pursue our happiness unless it meets with the acceptance of authority. We are taxed to death with hardly nothing to show for it. Corporations run the country, not the people and our elected officials are uneffective in doing what's best for our country. We have almost killed our planet and changes are coming, they're here already, and our gov't. just talks.

We kicked thousands of Cherokees off their land in just 2 years from notice. Yet we drag our feet to make important changes to save our planet and people. Years more of carbon-burning, pollution, gas, and the status quo.

No wonder people are fed-up, I know I am.

Pan you'll believe what you want no matter what anyone says. It's that hard-headed lack of common sense attitude that screwed up so much in the first place, like our economy by mainly men, just like you. Men are dragging our society down in so many respects. You had your chance and blew it, big time for all the world to see

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same here.

Since when? Seriously - you haven't supported anything that I recall in our discussions.

> You are referring to children, I on the other hand
> am referring to adults. You logic is flawed.

*Sigh*, no Spunky, your logic is flawed. You are relying on an ad-populum logical fallacy. Look it up.

If you want an example with adults, how about the idea that demons get you sick, instead of germs? How about the idea that the moon is actually heaven (quite a few muslims believe this)? How about the idea that Astrology works? Or the idea that aliens abduct people? Or the idea that atlantis exists?

Do you believe in any of those because a bunch of people do?

No, don't be silly. Your reasoning that the amount of people that believe a claim somehow lends credibility to it, leads to absurdity.

> Would you say Christians, Muslims, etc are misled?
> Of course you would, but the masses would again
> say your wrong. The Bible, etc., are considered
> valid, as much as they can be.

Yes, actually I would say they are misled - or to use better terminology - I would say they are incorrect. Just as the ancient Romans were or the Ancient Egyptians were. Your reasoning would indicate the absurdity that all of these religions are correct.

The masses could say the earth is flat or that there is a firmament or that a world wide flood occurred. All of those beliefs have been demonstrated to be false.

Also, you tip your hand in your last sentence, you say 'as much as they can be'. That seems to indicate that EVEN you admit that simple belief does not equate to credible belief.

Would Boo, from the heaven's gate cult, have been correct if he just had more believers?

No. So stop being silly in your reasoning, Spunky.

> > > Plus his predictions have come to fruition,
> >
> > No they haven't. At best you can twist what he
> > writes so that it fits something that has
> already
> > happened; ie, a POST-diction.
>
> Twisting information is something you apparently
> know a lot about, since you've done it constantly
> with my post.

IRONY.

Instead of responding directly to what I said, you accuse me of 'twisting'. "Twisting", in the context that you are using it Spunky, apparently means 'showing how Spunky is incorrect'.

> It calls interpretation. You should research
> this further. Scholars, which you are not, have
> studied his writings and predictions and give them
> a lot of merit, unlike your abrupt dismissal of
> valued information.

This is simply false. Scholars have not given them 'a lot of merit'. Some quacks have. Scholars who have researched this issue find that Nostradamus was a fraud. Look it up.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/45/was-nostradamus-really-able-to-predict-the-future
Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879758309/roberttoddcarrolA/

> This is not mere authority, you have a choice to
> examine anything you wish and come to your own
> conclusions, regardless how feeble they may be.

I have examined it - it is bunk. Simply asserting that it is true is hogwash and you know it.

> I have come to my own conclusions and you can't
> change that but you can respect that, as I have
> you.

There is nothing that compels me to respect silly beliefs. Being respectful to people is one thing, being respectful to beliefs is entirely different. It is misleading as it seems to confer a sense of authority that the beliefs do not have.

Nostradamus is no more credible then moon landing hoaxers, Atlantis, and a whole litany of other fallacious beliefs.

> I believe there's so much me are unclear
> about or just don't know yet in regards to the
> mind. Our potential is greater then our use.

I agree with this, but I don't then make the leap that magic exists.

> There have been prophets since the beginning of
> time and they will continue, to ignore those
> proven, is foolish.

No, actually it is not. Recognizing that they are fraudulent hucksters will save you money and time. There are 'psychics' today that depend on gullible people. Take John Edwards, for instance. Do you believe he can actually speak to the dead? If so, how do you account for his accuracy being on par with people who admit to doing 'cold reading'?

> They have been given a gift
> for a reason. There are prophets walking the earth
> even now. But authorities try to discredit them
> all for fear it will conflict with their agenda.

This is nonsense.

Please tell me how to distinguish between a 'true' psychic and one that is faking.

> We are not a free country or a free people any
> longer. We are not allowed to pursue our
> happiness unless it meets with the acceptance of
> authority. We are taxed to death with hardly
> nothing to show for it.

None of this, even if true, is relevant to the conversation, Spunky.

> Corporations run the
> country, not the people and our elected officials
> are uneffective in doing what's best for our
> country. We have almost killed our planet and
> changes are coming, they're here already, and our
> gov't. just talks.

None of this, even if true, is relevant to the conversation, Spunky.

> We kicked thousands of Cherokees off their land in
> just 2 years from notice. Yet we drag our feet to
> make important changes to save our planet and
> people. Years more of carbon-burning, pollution,
> gas, and the status quo.

None of this, even if true, is relevant to the conversation, Spunky.

> No wonder people are fed-up, I know I am.

So why don't you give your home and property to a Cherokee?

> Pan you'll believe what you want no matter what
> anyone says.

Ad-hom.

This is more poor reasoning by you Spunky. It is also hypocritical to say that someone is close minded when it is you who will not open your mind to the actual evidence.

You believe what you believe because you believe it.

I am open minded enough to follow the evidence (not just your assertions) where it leads. You are not.

> It's that hard-headed lack of common
> sense attitude that screwed up so much in the
> first place, like our economy by mainly men, just
> like you.

This is sexist ignorant garbage.

> Men are dragging our society down in so
> many respects. You had your chance and blew it,
> big time for all the world to see

More sexist ignorant garbage and irrelevant to the actual conversation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2009 08:32AM by Professor Pangloss.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Twisting information is something you
> apparently
> > know a lot about, since you've done it
> constantly
> > with my post.
>
> IRONY.
>
> Instead of responding directly to what I said, you
> accuse me of 'twisting'. "Twisting", in the
> context that you are using it Spunky, apparently
> means 'showing how Spunky is incorrect'.

Yes, the way it appears to work with spunk. Basically she never changes her mind on any issue - she just comes here to state her views or beliefs, and we are all just supposed to fall to the ground in ecstasy and BELIEVE. If you don't agree with her, well then you are obviously a heretic to the cult of spunk.

So I get it now, this is supposed to be some sort of religious experience when spunk posts here. Just like when you go to church and try to argue theology with one of the priests - they KNOW what they KNOW. The mysteries are just that, MYSTERIES. You obviously are an ignorant heretic if you don't believe as she does, which then gives her the right to "cast you out" - or in this case, call you names and lamely attempt to ridicule you. The lack of FACTS never disturbs these kind of folks.
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, the way it appears to work with spunk.


I think my favorite Spunky moment was the time she started a thread about mysterious jet engine noises. A few days later I saw her post, and replied that I too had heard loud jet engines. To which she immediately, and angrily, accused me of being part of some cover-up and witholding information.

It's like trying to communicate with Charles Manson.

EDIT: lol, speaking of Manson, didn't Spunky once tell us that Charles Manson's son was secretly living in her neighborhood?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2009 09:28AM by TheMeeper.

I suppose any conversation at all with the Prophet Spunk must of course be "mysterious"

:)

lol, here's the gem from last December. There's just too much drama going on to figure out what she was tryin to say here....


spunky Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
It's funny you should mention Charles Manson, because that is how I became aware of this site, my neighbor had a copy of a post that said someone was the grandson of Charles Manson, etc. My neighbor let's call him Pete was upset with this grandson (which really wasn't) and shot his dog then lucky for me fled to my neighborhood.

*blink*

lol

So Charles Manson's grandson is really Meeper, who is also Elliot (oh wait, that's Mephisto)....

Shit, I need a flowchart.

Umm, does anyone know what the dog's name was? And can Pete tell us more?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Why are we quoting Vince in our signature blocks when we could be quoting spunky instead?

She's dropping some knowledge.

Shooting dogs is actually a national pastime in Kazakhstan.


fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Charles Manson's grandson is really Meeper, who
> is also Elliot (oh wait, that's Mephisto)....
>
> Shit, I need a flowchart.
>
> Umm, does anyone know what the dog's name was? And
> can Pete tell us more?

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:42PM by Alias.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, here's the gem from last December. There's
> just too much drama going on to figure out what
> she was trying to say here....
>
>
> spunky Wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------
> It's funny you should mention Charles Manson,
> because that is how I became aware of this site,
> my neighbor had a copy of a post that said someone
> was the grandson of Charles Manson, etc. My
> neighbor let's call him Pete was upset with this
> grandson (which really wasn't) and shot his dog
> then lucky for me fled to my neighborhood.


This says nothing about my neighbor being a relative of Manson which you
quoted me as saying in your previous post. So I guess twisting information
is an epidemic here amongst the regs?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss to Alfred E. Newman:
>
> “This is, at best, an ad-hom attack - it is not a
> rational refutation of the material MM presents.”
> _______________
>
> Alfred E. Newman’s post was hardly an ad hominem
> attack.
>
> Now, had he written something like this: It's not
> surprising that FUNdamental would subscribe to
> such drivel, since, afterall, he/she is a well
> known left wing nut case and, therefore,
> anything he/she posts should be ignored.....
> then, you might have a point.


Ad-hom attacks are not merely insults. They are fallacies of distraction. Notice how the material MM presented didn't actually deal with the OP?

I did.