And they say they're tolerant people?

[saywhatkid]

Like I said, again, doesn't matter who, wishing ill or worse for a civilian person they don't like is a disgusting.

I believe I made a comment that I was offended by the threats on Palin. I think making death threats is cowardly. My concern is the "civilian" stipulation here. Why not for elected officials? Are you saying a radical group that goes public with death threats against Obama or McCain are to be tolerated?

 

[darkdog]

Why would he need to condemn either remarks?

He expects conservatives to condemn inappropriate remarks against Byrd. Why shouldn't he live up to the same standard?

Why would he want you to condemn them?

He was awfully concerned about the lack of condemnation from the other side of the aisle here, so I thought I'd do him a favor and offer my condemnation. I hope he appreciates it.

it's about the hypocrisy of the few conservatives that frequent this site crying foul when some whackjob wants Rush dead, but then turning a blind eye when the same thing occurs with a "liberal" (what's so funny is that Byrd was hardly a liberal) as the target.

He lectures those who condemn one without condemning the other. However, he himself condemned one without condemning the other. Is it not too much to ask that if he is to lecture about consistency, he may want to display it himself?

His "hypothetical" was an offhand comment not intended to be the crux of his argument, though you tried to build a strawman out of it. He pointed out a valid logical inconsistency. You are trying to manufacture one. It's not working.

He seemed to be saying the comments aren't a big deal worth condemning because somewhere out there, there might be some group planning to kill liberal journalists or something, as if the existence of such a group would somehow make the statements against Rush less disgusting. At least I think that was the point of his hypothetical. I'm still not entirely clear on that.

Pack it up already.

Tell you what- I'll keep posting as long as I feel like it and I'll let you do the same.

 

[saywhatkid]

@saywhatkid- I see you condemned the comments about Senator Byrd, too. That's good, but if you want to make a point about consistency, you might want to actually be consistent and condemn what this lady said about Rush instead of making up hypotheticals about groups (who may but probably don't exist) planning to kill journalists.

I condemn all death threats as cowardly acts. However, there was no thread dedicated to someone gloating over Byrd; the comment just popped into a thread. There was a thread devoted to threats against Palin, which I commented in, noting that I found it offensive.

If you wish, I could go dig up the links, but suffice it to say I stand by my comments that all death threats are cowardly acts, and I have backed that up by my actions here time and again. Rush is entitled to say what he wishes, and I do not condone threats against him. BTW, have you considered that maybe Rush has created this for publicity?

 

[kokonut]

I believe I made a comment that I was offended by the threats on Palin. I think making death threats is cowardly. My concern is the "civilian" stipulation here. Why not for elected officials? Are you saying a radical group that goes public with death threats against Obama or McCain are to be tolerated?

Tolerated? Of course not.

 

[saywhatkid]

He expects conservatives to condemn inappropriate remarks against Byrd. Why shouldn't he live up to the same standard? I think I have


He was awfully concerned about the lack of condemnation from the other side of the aisle here, so I thought I'd do him a favor and offer my condemnation. I hope he appreciates it. Thank you


He lectures those who condemn one without condemning the other. However, he himself condemned one without condemning the other. Is it not too much to ask that if he is to lecture about consistency, he may want to display it himself? I have condemned the threats against Palin previously


He seemed to be saying the comments aren't a big deal worth condemning because somewhere out there, there might be some group planning to kill liberal journalists or something, as if the existence of such a group would somehow make the statements against Rush less disgusting. At least I think that was the point of his hypothetical. I'm still not entirely clear on that. I was saying that there is likely a group plotting bad things for Liberal citizens. I have no links


Tell you what- I'll keep posting as long as I feel like it and I'll let you do the same.

Please do. I always respect your voice here. You are one of the better Conservatives, because you really do look at both sides without blinders.

 

[saywhatkid]

Tolerated? Of course not.

Then why the repeated "civilian" stipulation? Not once, but twice.

 

[kokonut]

And you're picky about it? How about "people" instead?

 

[saywhatkid]

And you're picky about it? How about "people" instead?

I am picky because I can sense the implied message here. Make threats against Palin or Rush = bad. You did not voice your objections over at the "Byrd died party" as I noted previously. I realize it is hard to defend such a wayward member of your posse. He has made it clear that anyone not Conservative is bad news. I like variety. So it goes.

 

[kokonut]

I am picky because I can sense the implied message here. Make threats against Palin or Rush = bad. You did not voice your objections over at the "Byrd died party" as I noted previously. I realize it is hard to defend such a wayward member of your posse. He has made it clear that anyone not Conservative is bad news. I like variety. So it goes.

The subject thread was about civilian people like Rush. If you want to create a different thread, be my guest.

 

[TWA]

Condescending line-by-line response

More spin. And clearly you do not understand the point of rhetorical questions.

Tell you what- I'll keep posting as long as I feel like it and I'll let you do the same.

How about this: you keep posting your arrogant, antagonistic bullshit, and I'll just ignore it from now on, just like I do with several others here. Feel free to do the same with mine.

 

[kokonut]

I think DD made his points clear. Let's not get into this PMS-rage deal.

 

[saywhatkid]

The subject thread was about civilian people like Rush. If you want to create a different thread, be my guest.

Aye aye, Captain. I do recall that you gave me permission to hijack a previous thread. You also made it clear you would continue to hijack any political thread you chose to bash Obama; to the point I created a thread just for that.

When your replies cannot cover your viewpoint, reach for the rulebook. Got it. Long live Rush!!!

 

[kokonut]

And yet people tend to be overly sensitive whenever I disagree with what Obama's doing?

 

[Jiro]

And yet people tend to be overly sensitive whenever I disagree with what Obama's doing?

and ironically enough - you tend to get overly sensitive whenever we disagree with what your politicians' doing too, yes?

 

[saywhatkid]

And yet people tend to be overly sensitive whenever I disagree with what Obama's doing?

When we are discussing the BP CEO out on a yachting vacation, and you turn the topic into an Obama mugging, it gets redundant. When are you going to realize that there are members that have given up seeing your point? I certainly am one. I still listen to Conservatives, but not you. Some, like Reba and TxGolfer, have a certain respect they have earned by not making an obsession out of one topic, and do not come across as arrogant. If you want to be a better debater, lose the big head. I debate you because I like to be a pest. I am just a guy with a few free minutes. You got the paid-for education. I got a lifetime of observations. Not really a fair fight.

 

[Foxrac]

and ironically enough - you tend to get overly sensitive whenever we disagree with what your politicians' doing too, yes?

Yup, I did notice as well.

 

[kokonut]

When we are discussing the BP CEO out on a yachting vacation, and you turn the topic into an Obama mugging, it gets redundant. When are you going to realize that there are members that have given up seeing your point? I certainly am one. I still listen to Conservatives, but not you. Some, like Reba and TxGolfer, have a certain respect they have earned by not making an obsession out of one topic, and do not come across as arrogant. If you want to be a better debater, lose the big head. I debate you because I like to be a pest. I am just a guy with a few free minutes. You got the paid-for education. I got a lifetime of observations. Not really a fair fight.

Oooh...don't like "redundancy" and yet you cannot simply put me on ignore?? Or even avoid the temptation not to read my own threads, too? How about this? Just don't click on my threads. How hard is that anyway? And yet you talk about "not really a fair fight"? Nice chuckle there. You see, I don't complain about posters constantly by lobbing these innuendos and snarks that usually end with something about "paid-for-education" almost everytime should I feel wrongly poked. Yet it might be a good idea for you to refrain from making these complaints just for the sake of your own sanity. I move on because posters are what they are, I cannot change them. The funny thing here is that I don't complain about what you write in here yet you do about me?

Move on, dude.

Like I said before both BP and Obama are the losers in this oil spill mess. I'll repeat that again and again if need be. Don't like that? TFB.

 

[Banjo]

and ironically enough - you tend to get overly sensitive whenever we disagree with what your politicians' doing too, yes?

Hmm-mm... seems like Jiro wasn't kidding.

 

[kokonut]

Yup, I did notice as well.

The question is, do you now understand the meaning of the acronymn "MSM" when used in a political context?

 

[Foxrac]

The question is, do you now understand the meaning of the acronymn "MSM" when used in a political context?

What are your answer will be?