margategop517 on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM

From Doc Zero himself:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50096

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFD79m7HUJk

http://www.inquisitr.com/200985/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers/

Considering the coverage (or rather, the lack thereof) from our lib “friends” and the media, it is obviously clear what their priorities are and it’s certainly not the military.

The next time you hear a libturd say that they support the military, tell them that they should go to hell! Maybe Fluke can give them one of her “specials.”

You guys can do better than rush. Listen to someone you can respect. Listen to someone you don’t have to apologize for every 5 seconds.
triple on March 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Like Obama? Who’s he going to apologize to today?

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Yeah, you’re right. We should take away those laws and morals that force our religion onto others. We’ll start off with murder and rape, then move to child molestation and after that, theft.

There! Since you obviously embrace those crimes, we shouldn’t force our religious values on you.

(/sarc, like I really need to enter this tag)

Are you really implying that liberal female leaders are not also insulted?

A Axe on March 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Of course, I’m not the “you” in question, but anybody who would imply this just needs to scan down a page of comments at Hot Air. But of course you could compare it to scanning down the page at Democratic Underground or Daily Kos, and if you were open to the experience, you might see a difference. I’ve found that HA is not as consistent with the high peaks of incivility; it reaches some of the same highs. But there is also more of the distribution at the low end.

Most searching and civil discussions that I’ve seen between major political factions are conducted on CONSERVATIVE boards. And while the “GET OFF OUR FORUM” posts are not unrepresented on C-forums, they aren’t the salvo and firewall that they are on liberal forums.

Are you really implying that liberal female leaders are not also insulted?

Please – everyone insults everyone. This moral high ground in civility is straight up stupid.

A Axe on March 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Well, apparently, they can be because they’re public figures. My standard doesn’t sink this low, but apparently I’m allowed to call Michelle Obama what Paul Newman and Judge Roy Bean called the Dancehall girls–and worse.

Are a lot of conservatives tasteless these days? Yes, they are. Michelle Malkin wrote about that a couple years back about the increasingly popular “South Park” brand of conservative. But face it, saying offensive things about other people was never as popular until it was theorized by Marcuse of the Frankfort School that you wear your opponent down by shouting filth, and when they sense the conveyed hostility, there is a natural human decency that doesn’t want to re-engage with that person–and you use this force to your own advantage. Political invective, hostility and public obscenity comes from the power games of the LEFT. And then you add to that public ridicule and game-playing from Alinsky’s win-at-all-costs-because-our-cause-is-right methodology.

All this crap–plus the value of “pushing the envelope”–started on the LEFT and was all about ramming through a progressive agenda against the friction of a people who thought different.

There’s a certain Hegelian sense that progressives did not anticipate, continually entertaining themselves (ala Alinsky) with obscenity and invective rhetoric (ala Marcuse), they never anticipated the push back from a Synthetic brand of vulgar conservatives. Now that they have this new brand to contend with–and Rush is a vanguard of this, because Rush relates that he wanted to promote the ridicule qualities of SNL and other “fun” that the Dems (Alinskyan dynamic) were having in a conservative direction–and now we ridicule you and call you bad names and you turn all Blanche Dubois on us.

But you have to, and so your next move commences.

Oh cool, I can play that game too.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

You can play this game too? Liberals are the owners of that game. What you’re saying is “religious freedom” is a “code word” for theocracy. Do a search on “code word” and “dog whistle” the vast majority of people who engage in this straw man method are liberals.

But I’m pretty sure that you can see a difference between the freedom to do something and making everybody else do something based on your belief. Thus it’s an implication that NO conservative can see the same thing in regard to religion (because they’re religion-muddled!!). And that’s little-league ball, pal.

Even though Rush’s apology was not purely for Fluke’s benefit, he did indicate that he had not lived up to his own standards.

What Keith is doing here–and what I think Maher does as well is commit a fallacy that I’m formulating right now. I call it “Intentional Fallacy”. It is a fallacy that works like this, I did not intend to do that, therefore I did not do that. I don’t intend to snap at people–and if you knew me as a co-worker you can see that 98% of the time, I do a pretty good job. But just because I don’t intend to snap at people and be short, it doesn’t mean that I don’t accomplish this.

Liberals imply this disconnect when they see conservatives “trying so hard to be nice to black people” (thus intending not to be racist) to override their bigoted feelings below–which come out in outbursts and “code words”. Because to liberals, conservatives have a “bad heart”. But it could be said that despite the sewage that dwells in the conservatives veins, they intend to avoid being racist to black people.

But they often say that I can’t be misogynistic, because I support Woman’s causes. As if they can’t compensate for some bilious notion inside them. Can a pillar of the Church community say “I can’t be abusing my kids, look how often I’m in Church!” and get away with it? No. The directional skepticism (not true, methodological skepticism) of the modern world would fire right in with the answer: Sure you can! People can try to be respectable yet have a loathsome on the inside. The skepticism of the age understands this.

But comes from the fact that people are instances of an experiential cluster, not projections from a rational theory.

So to sum it up: It would be my policy to accept Kieth’s apology–even if it were only for himself and his standards, if it weren’t for justifying his behavior by Intentional Fallacy that he can’t be misogynistic because he wears the Democrat white hat and not the Republican black one.

Please – everyone insults everyone. This moral high ground in civility is straight up stupid.

Oh cool, I can play that game too.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Yes, the majority has embraced religion in this country since its founding and that’s why American women are bound and shackled now.

What a fool.

When conservatives mention “religious freedom” what they are really talking about is the freedom to impose the laws and morals of their religion onto everyone else. You know, like sharia, but without the offensive word.

To many, many women, it was an affront directed to all and any woman who dares to speak up for women’s rights to reproductive healthcare, or expect their private insurance to cover birth control pills.

bayam

When liberals mention “reproductive healthcare” what they are really talking about is abortion. You support the practice obviously, so why not come out and say it rather than try to disguise it with less offensive words?

Someone’s attacking Trig now? News to me. Of course any attacks on a Downs Syndrome toddler would be unjustified, as are your implications that I would think otherwise.

Drew Lowell on March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Do you live in a cave? Andrew Sullivan has been obsessed about Trig and where he came from since Sarah Palin became Joh McCain’s running mate in 2008.