The Daily Shows' fans more educated than Bill O'Reilly

[kage69]

Your statement reveals your intellect.

As does yours. Sorry, but I can't take credit for that. It's a quote from John Stuart Mill, and again, in my experience is bang on the money. Don't agree with it, fine, but I'm not to blame for you not being well-read.

It also seems to qualify him for conservative status, at least according to his own definition.

For one who has claimed to be "the biggest flaming liberal in here," you sir, are in no position to comment on political leanings. Is JSM really that obscure to you cons? How depressing. You should stick to your normal apologist activities.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69
For one who has claimed to be "the biggest flaming liberal in here," you sir, are in no position to comment on political leanings.

I fail to see how that statement (which was actually qualified with a "probably") would diqualify me from making observations on political leanings.

Is JSM really that obscure to you cons? How depressing. You should stick to your normal apologist activities.

It's funny you should quote Mills, one of the school of Ultilitarianism who believed the principle of utility involves an assessment of only an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent performing the action. Yet folks of your political bent question the motives and character traits of Bush constantly. Mills obviously is not meant for you.

 

[kage69]

I fail to see how that statement (which was actually qualified with a "probably") would diqualify me from making observations on political leanings.

In the time you've been here, apart from a few quips proclaiming uber-liberalism, the majority of your posts seem to bear a distinct right-wing flavor. Not that there's anything wrong with that persay, you just come across as somewhat insincere (hence my observation on your old sig, which I see you quickly changed after I brought it up). Qualified with a "probably" ?

It also seems to qualify him for conservative status, at least according to his own definition.

Funny, I don't see a "probably" in there. Am I missing something? I fail to see how you consider my quote a definition. You know, if you have a problem with a phrase, you could actually address it on it's merits (or lack thereof) instead of bending my words and resorting to a personal attack.

It's funny you should quote Mills, one of the school of Ultilitarianism who believed the principle of utility involves an assessment of only an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent performing the action. Yet folks of your political bent question the motives and character traits of Bush constantly. Mills obviously is not meant for you.

While I don't deny disliking Bush for his personal traits (I find them to be in stark contrast with the requirements and expectations of his post) I can assure you my primary beef with ol Dubya is his performance in office. His record speaks for itself, the rest of his bumbling persona is just 'icing on the cake' so to speak. I provide one quote and now I'm expected to be a totally adherent to his school of thought? Please. I think Ben Franklin was a great man and certainly a genius, but was "a little out there" in his belief that the turkey should be our national symbol instead of the eagle. Does that now somehow nulify my belief in the worthiness of the rest of his ideas? Of course not. Spare me the lectures.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69

I fail to see how that statement (which was actually qualified with a "probably") would diqualify me from making observations on political leanings.

In the time you've been here, apart from a few quips proclaiming uber-liberalism, the majority of your posts seem to bear a distinct right-wing flavor. Not that there's anything wrong with that persay, you just come across as somewhat insincere (hence my observation on your old sig, which I see you quickly changed after I brought it up). Qualified with a "probably" ?

Then you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm of the left and criticising the same. The behaviour of the left prior to the war, during the war, and during the entire presidential race has been nothing short of embarrassing. A large majority of lefties have been acting like complete idiots, spewing rhetoric and hate the likes of which I have never seen. This is not the kinder, gentler, primarily intellectual left I grew up with and am familiar with. So I have taken it upon myself, when they deserve it (and they deserve it quite often) to issue a smackdown from one of their own and demonstrate that a few on the left are still capable of critical thinking and the proper application thereof.

Funny, I don't see a "probably" in there. Am I missing something? I fail to see how you consider my quote a definition. You know, if you have a problem with a phrase, you could actually address it on it's merits (or lack thereof) instead of bending my words and resorting to a personal attack.

The "probably" comment referred to my statement of being "probably" the biggest flaming liberal in here, not the remark about qualifying for conservative status..

While I don't deny disliking Bush for his personal traits (I find them to be in stark contrast with the requirements and expectations of his post) I can assure you my primary beef with ol Dubya is his performance in office. His record speaks for itself, the rest of his bumbling persona is just 'icing on the cake' so to speak. I provide one quote and now I'm expected to be a totally adherent to his school of thought? Please. I think Ben Franklin was a great man and certainly a genius, but was "a little out there" in his belief that the turkey should be our national symbol instead of the eagle. Does that now somehow nulify my belief in the worthiness of the rest of his ideas? Of course not. Spare me the lectures.

It wasn't about providing the single quote. It was the assumption (and the left is full of speculative and accusatory assumptions without the facts to back them up) that JSM is "obscure to you cons." Of course, I'm not a "con," but you apparently were not aware of that either.

 

[kage69]

Then you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I guess I did, my apologies, however I'd argue there is a distinction between idiocy and hateful speech. I am likewise embarrased not only by the words but by the actions of this admin. It's not a shock to me that there are those even more upset over it. I have a similar stance and outlook on the right. I remember feeling absolute disgust with the slandering the neocons employeed to smear McCain at the GOP nominations. I think that really heralded a change in the times - McCain is so much better than Bush it boggles the mind.

The "probably" comment referred to my statement of being "probably" the biggest flaming liberal in here, not the remark about qualifying for conservative status..

My mistake then.

It wasn't about providing the single quote. It was the assumption (and the left is full of speculative and accusatory assumptions without the facts to back them up) that JSM is "obscure to you cons." Of course, I'm not a "con," but you apparently were not aware of that either.

I see, however it is one of his more popular (and dare I say poignant) quotes which not only has been brought up before in this forum, it actualy resides in someone's sig as well. While I didn't cite JSM in the original post like I probably should have, I'd like to think it was presented in a fashion that made it clear I was addressing a saying not of my own design. Despite this, whathisface decided to throw it in my face as if I were personally attacking him. This was done in obvious ignorance of the quotes author, and like I already said, it's not exactly obscure. He wasn't familiar with it, attributed it to my creation and got personal. You didn't pipe up about it, despite being seemingly fluent with Mills, and in fact added to his unwarranted attack. I don't regret my initial thoughts.
I'm aware that you say you're not a con, that you have framed yourself as a libertarian, but I tend not to listen to what people say of themselves and draw upon their behavior instead for insight into their true positions. You say you issue 'the smackdown' on the libs that deserve it (and yes, many do) however in the short time you've been here I've also seen you come to Dubya's defense on several occasions (sometimes by addressing the issue, other times by interjecting a snide anti-Kerry remark) in a manner which paints a different picture. In fact, the only critical thing I can recall you mentioning about Bush is the way he speaks. There are far, far more worrying things about him than his lack of tact with his native tongue, and I would think a true Libertarian would notice that (a true conservative for that matter as well, but they've become a rarity these days).

Of course, I'm going by what I've seen of you in this forum, I won't pretend that fully encapsulates your views on Bush and them thar mean ol libs. I guess my mileage varies from yours. Truth be told I'm more concerned with someone not recognizing that quote than I am with your politics.




Oh, and I gotta ask - what's with the new sig? Is it related to arsbanned somehow?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Isla
I find it interesting that this can start with O'Reilly insulting Daily News watchers (called them 'stoned slackers'... that SO does not describe my husband and me) and then Comedy Central, just for clarification, did a bit of research to find out who their audience REALLY is.

And ironically, the results of those findings causes more name calling. I think that means O'Reilly is winning. :shocked:

Isla, please elaborate a bit further. Your very last sentence perplexes me. It seems to be the stupidest logic I've heard in a long time. For now I'm just going with the assumption that I'm having a brainfart and don't get it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kage69
I see, however it is one of his more popular (and dare I say poignant) quotes which not only has been brought up before in this forum, it actualy resides in someone's sig as well. While I didn't cite JSM in the original post like I probably should have, I'd like to think it was presented in a fashion that made it clear I was addressing a saying not of my own design. Despite this, whathisface decided to throw it in my face as if I were personally attacking him. This was done in obvious ignorance of the quotes author, and like I already said, it's not exactly obscure. He wasn't familiar with it, attributed it to my creation and got personal. You didn't pipe up about it, despite being seemingly fluent with Mills, and in fact added to his unwarranted attack. I don't regret my initial thoughts.
I'm aware that you say you're not a con, that you have framed yourself as a libertarian, but I tend not to listen to what people say of themselves and draw upon their behavior instead for insight into their true positions. You say you issue 'the smackdown' on the libs that deserve it (and yes, many do) however in the short time you've been here I've also seen you come to Dubya's defense on several occasions (sometimes by addressing the issue, other times by interjecting a snide anti-Kerry remark) in a manner which paints a different picture. In fact, the only critical thing I can recall you mentioning about Bush is the way he speaks. There are far, far more worrying things about him than his lack of tact with his native tongue, and I would think a true Libertarian would notice that (a true conservative for that matter as well, but they've become a rarity these days).

I dislike both Bush and Kerry. However, I dislike Kerry much more and will occasionally toss a barb in his direction. I feel no need to jump on the Bush-basing train just to be one more voice in the already high-decibel din. My vote will speak for me in regards to Bush.

Of course, I'm going by what I've seen of you in this forum, I won't pretend that fully encapsulates your views on Bush and them thar mean ol libs. I guess my mileage varies from yours. Truth be told I'm more concerned with someone not recognizing that quote than I am with your politics.

I don't understand the concern about the quote myself. What does concern me is that many of the left seem more interested in yanking quotes out of the depths of history than in speaking for themselves in a meaningful manner. Maybe it's the appearance of them always seeming to go for that quick, MTV-ish, 5 second sound-byte that irritates me? More eloquence and less knee-jerk radicalism from the left would do a lot to raise their profile and would turn a lot less people off to their agenda.

Oh, and I gotta ask - what's with the new sig? Is it related to arsbanned somehow?

No. It had to do with a discussion with another in here concerning Muslims. He seemed under some kind of impression that calling someone a bigot and an idiot incessantly was the height of intelligent discussion, so I changed my sig as a sort of self-depricating snigger and a subtle dig at him.