I agree completely with John. In another case of the "shoot first, ask questions later" blog media (and this goes for both left and right), it appears the Daily Kos had some bad information. They were the ones who instigated this with a picture showing the family where the daughter looks "more pregnant" than Sarah. The cited this picture and stated it was taken in March, 2008:

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinF...utside_v01.jpg

And this one as well:

All abuzz about Palin: Alaska News | adn.com

The problem? The first picture was taken in the summer of 2007 (when she would have been 2 months pregnant) and the second was part of a news story done back in October, 2006.

So, unless the daughter had an amazing 20 month pregnancy, all these accusations from the lefty blogs have done is to tell Palin's daughter she's a fat ass. How considerate of them...

Actually, there is no test for CP. It isn't a disease nor a genetic issue - it is an non-specific brain injury that happens prior to or during childbirth.

However, had there been a test, or if we had tested and found out our child would have Down Syndrome, we would have had our child anyway. Our decision - not yours or anyone else's.

That does not, however, begrudge your or anyone's decision to do otherwise. I understand both sides of the argument and wouldn't presume to think I know what is best for other people in other situations.

All that being said, I agree 100% with the basic premise of your argument - that the government should not be able to dictate whether or not a woman can or cannot terminate her pregnancy - and that Sarah Palin is a potential disaster.

I put the pregnancy whackos in the same category as the Obama birth certificate nuts. If this is the level of paranoia and hatred you've gotten to it's time to pick up a new hobby.

:confused: Is that one of those clever "I am rubber, you are glue" comebacks?

After not reading this thread for a few days, I'd just like to comment that anyone who responded to any of Astrofan's trolling is deserving of an epic fail...even worse if you quoted it. Please, don't feed the trolls.

I understand your point completely, John, and don't necessaarily disagree. But I think where we differ is with respect to the level of response we can responsibly offer to what he did. IMO, we simply don't know enough about SFL Cat to make a comment like that. I'm not going to crucify a guy as a racist if he makes a stupid joke, because we have all heard and laughed at and told these sorts of jokes at one time or another in our lives. Does that make us all racists? No, it makes us sheep who sacrificed our standards for a cheap laugh or for acceptance or to not rock the boat. We have all sacrificed and compormised at one time or another, due to various pressures. It's not something to be proud of, but it's a fact of life. The point is to grow beyond that and make the correct decision more often and learn to stand by it and live with its consequences.

Maybe SFL Cat hasn't gotten to that point yet. I don't know. Maybe he is a flat out racist. I don't know that either. Fact is, I'm not a fly on the wall in SFL Cat's life; I am some relatively anonymous poster hundreds or thousands of miles away, dealing with him through a filter of electronic veils and cyber-distance. As stupid as his jokes were, that's all I can logically conclude with respect to my own experience and my knowledge of how little I know of SFL Cat--they were phenomenally stupid. They MAY indicate he is a racist. Or maybe he's just stupid. But to assume he's racist, instead of just stupid--that's just balls to the wall irresponsible and careless. Racism is an ugly, vicious charge (because the crime it is associated is ugly and vicious). I think we need to take extreme care before we toss out accusations like that, especially in political threads like these, where tempers tend to ride hot. In that respect, I feel you and others labelling SFL Cat have erred and gone too far off on the far side. There are things he can say that deserve the unquestioning charge of "racist". IMO, he didn't say them here. He does deserve to be called stupid (and I have said that several times).

I learned what I feel to be an important lesson recently from someone very much on the left side of the aisle, in a private discussion with him arising from a political disagreement much like the ones in this thread. He pointed out how little we are actually aware of what constitutes the person on the other side of the wire or forum username. He pointed out that we just don't know enough about the actual people behind the posting names to make the sort of inferences we often make, and we are far too willing to start namecalling and making assumptions about someone's entire life, mindset and thinking because of a few words on an Internet screen. He told me he thinks that is a mistake we all make, and we should all be careful to not do that unless we are absolutely sure it is warranted.

And I found that I agreed with him 100%, and I had NOT been living that credo. So I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and not toss out such strong accusations on Internet message boards without proof.

And, IMO, SFL Cat has proven himself stupid, but not a racist. He has displayed indications he "might" be racist, but I think that leap has to, by its damning nature, be a long one, and that to make that leap carelessly is irresponsible. So I won't call him a racist as of now. I will call him stupid, because he earned that. The standard for stupid is much lower than racist.

Sorry for the classic long Chief Rum post.

Ding! Ding! Ding! You are CORRECT, sir!

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the "pot and kettle" comeback...but the catchy phrase you used works too.

Well, come on CR, am I stupid, racist, just stupid or balls to the walls (fill-in-the-blank)?

Yes.

Does it really matter which one it is specifically?

I like how he's basically ripping on someone who's trying to defend him.

garden variety troll

I don't know, but I'm pretty certain he won't take the trouble to come to your defense again.

After two or three posts of how going on about how stupid I am...that's a defender I think I can live without. But thanks for the thought.

I wonder what all this crap about the President being some sort of logical robot comes from? We, as humans, are also emotional creatures and having a leader who does not have those emotions and rather is completely logical is NOT human and doesn't represent the best of us. Quite frankly, a lot of what we think is heroism is NOT logical. It is done because of an emotional impulse to save others.

Well, defending him would be misrepresenting my position abit, wouldn't DT?

I would put it more akin to attacking SFL Cat with the .22 pea shooter instead of the Magnum.

You're probably right. Although once again, I will state I am not trying to defend him, but to point out that, IMO, those charging him with racism have been irresponsible in leaping to that conclusion, and that they should hold to a higher standard before leveling that charge, given what we can know about a person on the Internet.

Stupid for sure. Maybe racist. I'm not willing to go that far, though, so for now, you're just stupid. That work okay for you?

well if it sticks...

There are plenty of grounds to attack me, but unlike you, I do not:

Post mere iterations of political talking points while criticizing those I disagree with for doing the same.

Attack someone's argument and then answer any rebuttal by labeling the other person a liberal without engaging in substantive debate.

Project my own failings onto posters who are able to show critical thinking skills and independent judgment (with a long record for doing so).

And I certainly don't propagate racist drivel.

I am a flawed person in many ways. I may an idiot, an ass, or a billion other bad things. However, amongst us two, only you are a tool.

OH SHIT. JOHN GALT FTW!!!:bowdown::jawdrop:

Ass.

(J/K well said :) )

LOLOL

I think there are two major differences in how we approach these things:

1) I think most people (including myself) have a bit of racism in them. We make assumptions based upon race even when we don't want to. We all can't be Steven Colbert and not see race. So, I call racism when I see it and don't see a good reason to give people the benefit of the doubt (since I wouldn't give myself or my friends that benefit).

2) I don't believe the label "racist" is as bad as people treat it these days. If someone calls me a racist for something I have done and explains me how I can do better, I thank them. They have made me a better person and that is something I aspire to be. The common reaction of denial and attack is a much bigger problem, IMO, than the use of the label "racist." People are merely the sum of their words and actions. I do not care to know and will never actually know who SFL Cat in his heart. I do not judge his heart - I instead label his deeds. And for the above reasons, being a "racist" is not an intractable condition to me - it something you can be one moment and cease to be the next.

I think those two big differences account for our differing reactions. You just see stupidity (giving the benefit of doubt to racism). I see stupidity and racism and that's not a good combination.

I get that and admire your nobility as I don't think I'd take that trouble with him. I just would have though he would be willing to accept what little support he could get quietly instead of telling you to F off.

Thanks, John, I think you're right there about the differences. Different strokes, as they say. We can both agree he's stupid at the very least, and we can table the racist label for further discussion down the road. ;)

Well, his reaction certainly supports my accusation of stupidity. :)

Where is Render when you need him? Mr. Kitten I think this thread needs your point of view.

Epic ownage :lol:

Yeah! Thanks! But I did pick that up in your very first backhanded defense of me. I suppose since you're using a peashooter instead of a Magnum, you needed to repeat yourself several times just to make sure it sank in. :)

I must agree that John Galt hath layeth the smacketh down.

Ouchie.

the best thing about these threads is they really let you build up your ignore list. These last couple days of discussion have been pretty astounding.

True, this thread now looks much different that the first time through.

You are the epitomy of the term "tool."

Every political position you've taken, at least that I've seen, has been on the liberal side of things. I'll know immediately what your position will be before reading your actual post.

In your manner, you come across as a superior know-it-all. Your position on every issue is the correct one. Those who disagree are: a) tools; b) uninformed; or c) just plain ignorant.

The data you use to support your arguments is always: a) unbiased; b) 100% accurate and data used by those who counter your arguments is always: a) flawed; b) blatantly false; c) paid for by the opposition - with the implication that it is worthless since it is obviously the result of a payoff to hide the truth.

You seem to be well educated, and your arguments are generally well presented. However, if your persona as an Eastern liberal intellectual snob is how you are in real life rather than just an online thing...I'd work on that.

^ Great example of irony and pot/kettle.

JG has fan boys!!! :)

I'll be damned, Galt actually managed to post two things I agree with in a single thread.

heh, probably true :)

I fucking love election years.

It's actually more like a moron has made people defend JG.

While that may be true, you've committed a virtually unpardonable offense:
you brought the tool out of hiding.

Best thing you could do at this point is recant your entire life, throw yourself on the mercy of the bedwetters and hope at least he crawls back under his rock.

+1

I don't understand when people say things like "I need to leave this thread now", and "now I have more people to add to my ignore list".

The whole thing's just entertainment.

Anyway, since politics are apparently banned from the other thread, I wanted to make this observation. Isn't it funny how as soon as someone notes disgusting things said by Moore and Fowley, the liberals want to take politics off the table (when earlier in the thread, apparently nobody had a problem with negative comments about Bush and the Federal response to natural disasters). And my memory is just a tad hazy, but didn't "politics" come up with Kartina, when Bush didn't do enough to stop the hurricane or whatever? It was all fair game at the time.

It's clear that it's certain viewpoints that are banned, not "politics".

Katrina was a hugely political issue, and all the sudden "this isn't the place for politics" when some very important and influential democrats say what, no doubt, many more of them are feeling.

I think there's a really good and fair point in there - too bad you already blew your credibility.

Just to be clear, the viewpoints that you just posted are not permitted to be posted?

In this thread I believe they are permitted, until someone tells me otherwise.

Your post illustrates a big difference between us. Whereas I linked to the relevant posts by you to support your tool-i-ness, you simply made unsupported assertions about me. I would be surprised if you could find any support in my long history at FOFC to validate any of these assertions (I only reviewed a week of your posts and found plenty of support): "The data you use to support your arguments is always: a) unbiased; b) 100% accurate and data used by those who counter your arguments is always: a) flawed; b) blatantly false; c) paid for by the opposition - with the implication that it is worthless since it is obviously the result of a payoff to hide the truth." The paid for by opposition seems especially strange as I can't ever recall making that argument in any context (outside of FOFC).

You didn't even bother to notice that in this very thread on the previous page that I attacked liberal groups for investigating whether Palin was actually mother of her youngest child (in contrast to your contention that every post I make is "on the liberal side of things"). As for the rest of your assertions, my posting record speaks for itself. I'm mostly liberal in my conclusions, but I don't know if I have ever simply posted hollow talking points. Some have found me to be arrogant and, while that is not something I want to be, I can understand the criticism as it is something I have tried to improve upon. As I said, I'm far from perfect. Yet, none of what you have said about me has anything approaching substance. You just made claims without warrants - exactly like your political arguments in this thread.


Nice to see you again, Jon. I try to be respectful toward you. Is it asking too much that you do the same?

Yeah, it's hilarious. It's also false since everyone, including liberals, responded that Moore was a jackass for saying what he did.


Your memory must be very hazy since the thread on Katrina (at least one of them) led to a few people being thrown in the box, at least 1 banning, and the thread was locked because it became a political flame war. That is why people are asking others to keep politics out of the Gustav thread.

As we've previously established, it wouldn't be possible for me to hold you in any lower regard. Your presence here literally turns my stomach and the relatively gentle poke I posted in direct reply to your earlier post is about as good as it's going to get.

What I said to SFL with regard to drawing you back to posting I meant exactly as written, I'm going to have a tough time forgiving him for it.

I figured it was more about not wanting to deal with the reality that it IS a political event. Expecting people here to ignore that fact entirely seems pretty unrealistic, to the point of being pollyannic.

John Galt, please post here at least 400 times day.

Et tu sabotai? Fine by me I guess {shrug}

/shrug, it doesn't matter what the topic is, on occasion people choose to express themselves in ways that I find annoying enough that I'd rather just not read what they have to say at all, on any topic.

I only have 4 people on ignore, two of them were added today(1 republican, 1 democrat!) after catching up here. Stating it publicly is totally unnecessary but hopefully adds to the fun and excitement for those who are reading everything ;)



SI and I were the two that posted there asking people to keep politics out of the thread. Neither of us have any sort of authority and people are more than welcome to totally ignore us if they think either of us are full of shit.

The Katrina thread turned into highly partisan bickering and got very nasty and there were people in that thread at a time when people were giving updates on the safety of themselves and their families, IIRC someone hadn't heard from all of his relatives since the storm, and the partisan bickering was extremely out of place and extremely offensive to a lot of people given the situation.

Based on history it seems logical to me to remind people of that now. But that's just me and my opinion, people are free to ignore me!



FWIW, I'll be more than happy to join you in bashing the hell out of fucktard far lefties like Michael Moore right here ;)