MSNBC-Melissa Harris-Perry says "kids belong to whole communities"

[monovillage]

Sorry, dear, but I'm not required to respond to everything that you spew on the Internet. If my input is really that important to you, send me a PM and perhaps we can work out a fee arrangement.

I rest my case, fuck you Chuckles.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I rest my case, fuck you Chuckles.

Temper, temper, mon capitaine.

Like I said.. incapable of rational behavior.

 

[jhbball]

Which is why no rational conservative/Republican will ever be a regular poster in the DNC.

Why, because Charles just made DSF look like a huge idiot?

 

[Pens1566]

What is your problem with me? I am a smart and educated person who is very passionate about liberty. I have a big problem with big government and its supporters so thats why I always will attack them at will.

If you have ever suffered from big government then you would understand why I call out big government and its supporters.

It's funny that you dont call out the left but you call out me. Why the double standards?

If you ever met me in real life you would see that I am a good person. I debate my views based on the Constitution. I have debated liberals and neo-Conservatives and was able to convince them to the Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative point of view.

Based on your posts in this forum, I have to respectfully disagree vehemently to the bolded.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Wow, I love how all these people that "work hard" have time to write short stories in threads....lol

Not directing this at anyone in particular, just an observation.

Productivity!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Why, because Charles just made DSF look like a huge idiot?

Thank you, but it would really be unfair for me to take credit for his hard work, so I must decline.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry, dear, but I'm not required to respond to everything that you spew on the Internet. If my input is really that important to you, send me a PM and perhaps we can work out a fee arrangement.

I accused you of being blatantly dishonest in Post #262. Since you apparently had no reasonable defense for your dishonesty...I can understand why you chose to ignore and runaway.

It's actually extremely entertaining to be lectured by you, of all people, on fairness and accuracy. You definitely should start charging money! However, from what I gather, clown acts really don't make that much money.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I accused you of being blatantly dishonest in Post #262. Since you apparently had no reasonable defense for your dishonesty...I can understand why you chose to ignore and runaway.

I didn't. I made the decision that explaining my position would require more of my time than I felt it was worth, especially given the person I was dealing with, so I stopped responding to that particular thread.

Everyone here does that. Nobody responds to every post, nor continues to respond to every thread indefinitely.

Like, say, you. Right here. Right now. You just ignored ALL of the points that were directed to you in THIS thread, instead trying to divert the discussion to a different one that is wholly irrelevant.

So, if you consider my lack of interest in responding to your precious post #262 as evidence of "dishonesty", then try actually responding to the points made here, instead of engaging in endless, juvenile diversions.

 

[waggy]

LOL

some of you need to check your ego. you aren't exactly what you think.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

LOL

some of you need to check your ego. you aren't exactly what you think.

You mean I'm not a pompous, overbearing, self-righteous jerk who takes himself too seriously?

 

[jackstar7]

LOL

some of you need to check your ego. you aren't exactly what you think.

Bummer.

It just said what I was going to simply type: "Who's scruffy looking?"

 

[Matt1970]

NOOOO, the dreaded red X

 

[Matt1970]

So when we finally figure out Andrew Sullivan's political affiliation, then what?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I didn't. I made the decision that explaining my position would require more of my time than I felt it was worth, especially given the person I was dealing with, so I stopped responding to that particular thread.

Everyone here does that. Nobody responds to every post, nor continues to respond to every thread indefinitely.

Like, say, you. Right here. Right now. You just ignored ALL of the points that were directed to you in THIS thread, instead trying to divert the discussion to a different one that is wholly irrelevant.

So, if you consider my lack of interest in responding to your precious post #262 as evidence of "dishonesty", then try actually responding to the points made here, instead of engaging in endless, juvenile diversions.

I made the exact same decision as you, that explaining my position any further than I already had would require more of my time than I felt it was worth. I thought him being rated #19 on the Top 25 list of most influencial liberals was enough reason to question his self-professed conservative label. I read his response to Forbes and many other articles as well the last 2 days which further shaped my opinion that he was more liberal/libertarian than conservative.

Then I find out he's a huge Trig birther conspiracy advocate and wrote the guy off as being a loon of very questionable credibility (much in the same way that liberals discredit Obama birthers as loons). Now I see that he's saying the Pope is gay which only confirms in my mind that the guy has more than just a few screws loose.

Anyway, if you want to call him a conservative...go for it. I really don't care what you think.

Just one thing though, it's dishonest to grossly misrepresent opposing arguments...it's not slight exaggeration. Your apparent inability to grasp such a simple concept speaks volumes. I expect more from someone who preaches fairness and accuracy to others...yet practice neither.

 

[waggy]

So when we finally figure out Andrew Sullivan's political affiliation, then what?

they will find another reason to argue.

though i wonder what any of it matters? its so far off teh thread topic its funny.

 

[werepossum]

Let us examine Andrew Sullivan. He has endorse ONE Republican Presidential candidate in the last four election cycles - Bush in 2000. He endorsed Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, and Obama in 2012. He also supported the Democrat Party in 2010. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he's ever issued endorsements of the Republican Party. Which makes more sense, a conservative who 75% percent of the time finds the right's candidates too bad to support, or a liberal who 25% percent of the time finds the left's candidates too bad to support?

He was editor of the left wing New Republic. One could perhaps argue that Forbes could be wrong about Sullivan without being fitted for a padded helmet, but it escapes me how anyone could argue that the New Republic could be fooled into hiring a conservative to edit their magazine. (Stop me if we're now pretending that the New Republic is a conservative magazine.) Incidentally, I read Sullivan during this phase of his career in the New Republic; he and Paglia were my favorites there.

He gives out six insult awards. Four of these, the Hugh Hewitt, John Derbyshire, Michelle Malkin, and Dick Morris awards, are given either exclusively or overwhelmingly to conservatives. Only two, the Paul Begala and Michael Moore awards, are similarly aimed at the left.

He supported the Iraq war when it was a disaster and opposed it when it had been turned around. Granted, perhaps this is an honest position, but at the very least it's odd.

He supposedly opposes laws like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act providing gays with extra legal protection, but his criticisms were largely directed at those who refused to vote for it because it didn't go far enough.

I used to read Sullivan regularly, both in print (New Yorker - although honestly I bought mostly issues with Paglia articles) on digitally via the Drudge Report front page. I agree with him on many issues, but those are almost all issues where I agree with the left. I came to the conclusion that his posturing as a conservative is a basic dishonesty designed to give his liberal arguments more weight; due to that I stopped reading his work.

Were he to identify himself as a libertarian, I'd have no problem with him, even though I disagree on many issues. (As Neil Boortz says, if two people agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary.) But pretending to be a conservative while attacking virtually every conservative politician and position is just fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I made the exact same decision as you, that explaining my position any further than I already had would require more of my time than I felt it was worth.

Then there wasn't any reason to bring up the side-tangent about the other thread, was there?

You're really not very good at this. May I suggest crochet? I've heard it is soothing.

 

[Greenman]

Most of the right-wingers here are afraid to post in the DC because they know their poor reasoning skills simply won't hold up. They justify this decision by claiming that things are stacked against them -- even though not a single disciplinary action has ever been taken against a right-leaning poster there -- because it's a lot easier than facing up to their own shortcomings.

That's the kind of attitude everyone is looking for in a political forum mod. I'm surprised the DC hasn't set all new attendance records with that sort of leadership. I just don't get why all of the weak minded frightened conservatives won't go in there and bask in the brilliance of liberal arrogance. Maybe if you smart guys typed slower and used small words we wouldn't be so intimated by your tremendous hulking intellect? Or maybe you might try pretending that your not a bunch of self important entitled assholes that have all the right answers, and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

 

[michal1980]

That's the kind of attitude everyone is looking for in a political forum mod. I'm surprised the DC hasn't set all new attendance records with that sort of leadership. I just don't get why all of the weak minded frightened conservatives won't go in there and bask in the brilliance of liberal arrogance. Maybe if you smart guys typed slower and used small words we wouldn't be so intimated by your tremendous hulking intellect? Or maybe you might try pretending that your not a bunch of self important entitled assholes that have all the right answers, and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

you missed the 'extremist' part. anyone that disagrees with the left today is a far right wacko.

 

[werepossum]

That's the kind of attitude everyone is looking for in a political forum mod. I'm surprised the DC hasn't set all new attendance records with that sort of leadership. I just don't get why all of the weak minded frightened conservatives won't go in there and bask in the brilliance of liberal arrogance. Maybe if you smart guys typed slower and used small words we wouldn't be so intimated by your tremendous hulking intellect? Or maybe you might try pretending that your not a bunch of self important entitled assholes that have all the right answers, and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

I'm a fairly conservative guy and I've never felt intimidated by Charles (or anyone else) in the Debate Club. And really, doesn't the fact that we're here pretty much indicate that we all think we have at least most of the answers?

 

[waggy]

I'm a fairly conservative guy and I've never felt intimidated by Charles (or anyone else) in the Debate Club. And really, doesn't the fact that we're here pretty much indicate that we all think we have at least most of the answers?

I haven't either. but i agree with greenman. why go in there now knowing that's how the mod thinks? i can see how those that lean to the right wouldn't see the point in it. how can you get a fair shake with that kind of post in the moderation of the forum?

me? i don't give a shit. if its a good thread i will post. so far its been lackluster and not living up to what i was hopeing for.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm a fairly conservative guy and I've never felt intimidated by Charles (or anyone else) in the Debate Club. And really, doesn't the fact that we're here pretty much indicate that we all think we have at least most of the answers?

For someone who thinks the Discussion Club is so awful, Greenman sure can't stop talking about it.

When did righties get so damned whiny about everything anyway? "Boo hoo, media bias!" "Boo hoo, war on Christmas!" "Boo hoo, liberal professors say mean things!" "Boo hoo, moderators say mean things!" Geez, and I thought the left was bad.

Anyway, to repeat the same thing I said when Greenman whined about this in the sticky thread, here's a comprehensive list of every ban, every suspension, every infraction, and every warning given to right-leaning posters in the Discussion Club:

{Null set}

The DC has two moderators. The other one is a conservative and an admin to boot -- I am not an admin.

By the way, admins and mods are allowed to express their own opinions when posting as just members. And there is a forum rule against calling them out on it. I'm not going to report these whiners, but I'm sure someone will if they don't remove those comments.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

why go in there now knowing that's how the mod thinks?

Why not going in there knowing what the mod thinks? What difference does it make? Would you rather people lied about what they believe?

If it were me, knowing the moderator had different views than me would make me want to post there all the more. I spent three full years on a forum that was 95% Christian conservatives, getting flamed nearly every time I posted, and with the staff openly biased and hostile.

What a bunch of whiners people are here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then there wasn't any reason to bring up the side-tangent about the other thread, was there?

You're really not very good at this. May I suggest crochet? I've heard it is soothing.

I wouldn't have brought it up if you weren't being such an arrogant, condescending jackass preaching to me about fairness and accuracy when you dishonestly misrepresented another's position in one post, ignoring response when called on it, and then characterized eskimospy's dishonest misrepresentation of my position as a slight exaggeration. Fairness and accuracy are not your strong suits little man.

 

[werepossum]

Why not going in there knowing what the mod thinks? What difference does it make? Would you rather people lied about what they believe?

If it were me, knowing the moderator had different views than me would make me want to post there all the more. I spent three full years on a forum that was 95% Christian conservatives, getting flamed nearly every time I posted, and with the staff openly biased and hostile.

What a bunch of whiners people are here.

There I agree. You are somewhat to the left, but not totally. Eagle is somewhat to the right, but not totally. It's a good mix. I can't imagine someone taking the time and effort to moderate a political forum without having strong views on a lot of topics, and I'd rather know up front what those views are.

And dissenting views are what make political forums fun and useful. I already know what I think, I don't need to hear it reinforced. I was the raging liberal on Hannity.Com and Lucyann.Com - at least until they "lost" my accounts.