Smirking Chimp fires first salvo.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

So go ahead and laugh. I'll just be happy to know that when this is all over, and guys like you are pissing and moaning in 2012 about all the nasty things Dems are saying about your candidate... and how unfair the attacks are... and how there's nothing funny about this or that... I'll still be able to hold my head high and say I didn't lower myself back in 2008.

Well good on you then. Holding the moral high ground is fine when it's just you, but you can't expect to hold it for everyone else who holds your views. No matter what social or political view you embrace, you can bet there's someone on your side who's being a jerk about it.

As someone else on here noted, I don't think it IS funny, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either - ESPECIALLY if it is the same joke being hurled back.

A little while back, Pat Sajak wrote an interesting piece contrasting two then current news items - Harvard President Larry Summer's bit about women in science, and Ward Churchill's comment about "little Eichmanns". The gist of it was that Summers ought to be silenced because it was gender biased hate speech, but that Ward Churchill was free to say whatever he wanted. The article went on to mention that libs felt free to insult rednecks and red-staters, because they're all a bunch of ignorant, incestuous morons - but were just as quickly incensed should the tables be turned on them.

And this arises from an observation I've declared for years and seen in forums for nearly as long. Left wingers do not see the political spectrum; they're the center, and there's this huge group of insane, bigoted nut jobs strangely called the "right-wing" (right of WHAT, I wonder?). They don't see the right as the flip side or the balance of their views. They see their own views as mainstream, centrist and normal, and the right as the cancer on the political scene. Not adversaries - a collection of bigots, racists, rednecks and religious whackos. All extremists are right-wing.

As such - their views do not merit free speech consideration. (Sajak's article amusingly reads that Summers' job ought to be in jeopardy because what he said was "sooooo wrong"). You're free to insult them just as much as you would any other group of insane religious whacko, racist, ignorant redneck people. Ridiculing the right as "the extra chomosome right-wing" is not ridicule. It is acceptable.

Thus, you CAN call Bush shrub, chimp, retarded. You can call him the world's worst terrorist, Hitler, Nazi, Stalin. You can lump him in with history's worst despots. He's been marginalized to this group of crazy people.

You can call Reagan an enfeebled warmonger. You can call Bush I a d!ckless wimp. Doesn't matter. Just don't turn around and make fun of Hillary's thighs or Bill's backside. That's not being fair.

I don't play that game. But I ain't crying over it. They earned it, especially when it is the same joke.

[vraiblonde]

I agree with SamSpade (you're shocked, I know ). Turnabout is fair play.

Actually, Michelle Obama is quite attractive, but then Bush doesn't look like a monkey, either, and that didn't stop the leftwing masses from comparing him to one. And, BRUZILLA, I didn't notice you rushing to defend Bush when all those Chimpy comparisons came out.

Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by chernmax

...................... nice try, again you fail!!!

Hmmm... just like how you pointed out how I was so wrong about McCain, and then you repeatedly weaseled out of answering some simple questions because you knew you were wrong?

Like I said... I hope you're enjoying the smell.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Well good on you then. Holding the moral high ground is fine when it's just you, but you can't expect to hold it for everyone else who holds your views. No matter what social or political view you embrace, you can bet there's someone on your side who's being a jerk about it.

As someone else on here noted, I don't think it IS funny, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either - ESPECIALLY if it is the same joke being hurled back.

A little while back, Pat Sajak wrote an interesting piece contrasting two then current news items - Harvard President Larry Summer's bit about women in science, and Ward Churchill's comment about "little Eichmanns". The gist of it was that Summers ought to be silenced because it was gender biased hate speech, but that Ward Churchill was free to say whatever he wanted. The article went on to mention that libs felt free to insult rednecks and red-staters, because they're all a bunch of ignorant, incestuous morons - but were just as quickly incensed should the tables be turned on them.

And this arises from an observation I've declared for years and seen in forums for nearly as long. Left wingers do not see the political spectrum; they're the center, and there's this huge group of insane, bigoted nut jobs strangely called the "right-wing" (right of WHAT, I wonder?). They don't see the right as the flip side or the balance of their views. They see their own views as mainstream, centrist and normal, and the right as the cancer on the political scene. Not adversaries - a collection of bigots, racists, rednecks and religious whackos. All extremists are right-wing.

As such - their views do not merit free speech consideration. (Sajak's article amusingly reads that Summers' job ought to be in jeopardy because what he said was "sooooo wrong"). You're free to insult them just as much as you would any other group of insane religious whacko, racist, ignorant redneck people. Ridiculing the right as "the extra chomosome right-wing" is not ridicule. It is acceptable.

Thus, you CAN call Bush shrub, chimp, retarded. You can call him the world's worst terrorist, Hitler, Nazi, Stalin. You can lump him in with history's worst despots. He's been marginalized to this group of crazy people.

You can call Reagan an enfeebled warmonger. You can call Bush I a d!ckless wimp. Doesn't matter. Just don't turn around and make fun of Hillary's thighs or Bill's backside. That's not being fair.

I don't play that game. But I ain't crying over it. They earned it, especially when it is the same joke.

I don't expect to be able to hold the moral highground for everyone. Each person is responsible for doing that themselves. My simple point is that I am seeing an increasing number of people, who used to denounce lots of acts made by the fringe groups, suddenly embracing these same acts because they are no longer the target of it. And their excuse? Well, the other guy did it first! I mean... my parents informed that this was not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior back when I was about five or so.

You think of Pat Sajak, I think of the movie "Letters From Iwo Jima", where the dying Marine's mother writes "Do what is right because it is right." I think that's a good way to look at things. The right thing to do is denounce crap like this when it's against my guy, and it's the right thing to do to denounce it when it's against anyone else. I think trying to justify it with the bad behavior of someone else is wrong, but that's just my opinion. But I do wonder... how does one earn the right to bad behavior? If someone robs me, does that earn me the right to rob someone? If someone steals my car, do I earn the right to steal someone else's car? How exactly does this earning of bad behavior thing work?

I admit... I used to be right there in the thick of this stuff. If someone attacked a Republican, I would be denouncing the attacker. And if someone on my side slammed someone on their side unfailry, too effin bad for them. Maybe I'm getting soft, tired, wiser, or sick of sleazy debate as I get older, but I just can't do it anymore. You want to attack someone on the issues, fine. You want to attack someone on the something documeted in their past, like drug use or crashing airplanes, fine. But attacking like this post does? How does that make Republicans any better than Democrats who do this stuff?

All I'm seeing is the same thing I saw when I used to watch a bunch of drunks humiliating themselves. They all thought they were a hoot, the life of the party, cool, etc., but to folks who weren't drunk they were just pathetic.

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I agree with SamSpade (you're shocked, I know ). Turnabout is fair play.

Actually, Michelle Obama is quite attractive, but then Bush doesn't look like a monkey, either, and that didn't stop the leftwing masses from comparing him to one. And, BRUZILLA, I didn't notice you rushing to defend Bush when all those Chimpy comparisons came out.

Hypocrite.

Please... excuse me while I throw up in shock and surprise. :hurl: Now that that's over, how in the blue fluck can you sit there and make a statement like that? You've been reading, and responding to, my posts denouncing attacks on Bush and Republicans since 2001! My word... are there any depths too low for you to sink to these days???

[chernmax]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Hmmm... just like how you pointed out how I was so wrong about McCain, and then you repeatedly weaseled out of answering some simple questions because you knew you were wrong?

Like I said... I hope you're enjoying the smell.

That's because you are trying to attack McCain's military service which NObama wouldn't dare do because it would be political suicide. You love pointless dead end arguments thus your rhetoric doesn't require addressing.
In hindsight you're the only one swallowing your own sh!t and I enjoy much more sitting back watching you get pecked to death by 99% of the people on this forum. Smells like a successful move to me!!!

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Well good on you then. Holding the moral high ground is fine when it's just you, but you can't expect to hold it for everyone else who holds your views. No matter what social or political view you embrace, you can bet there's someone on your side who's being a jerk about it.

As someone else on here noted, I don't think it IS funny, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either - ESPECIALLY if it is the same joke being hurled back.

A little while back, Pat Sajak wrote an interesting piece contrasting two then current news items - Harvard President Larry Summer's bit about women in science, and Ward Churchill's comment about "little Eichmanns". The gist of it was that Summers ought to be silenced because it was gender biased hate speech, but that Ward Churchill was free to say whatever he wanted. The article went on to mention that libs felt free to insult rednecks and red-staters, because they're all a bunch of ignorant, incestuous morons - but were just as quickly incensed should the tables be turned on them.

And this arises from an observation I've declared for years and seen in forums for nearly as long. Left wingers do not see the political spectrum; they're the center, and there's this huge group of insane, bigoted nut jobs strangely called the "right-wing" (right of WHAT, I wonder?). They don't see the right as the flip side or the balance of their views. They see their own views as mainstream, centrist and normal, and the right as the cancer on the political scene. Not adversaries - a collection of bigots, racists, rednecks and religious whackos. All extremists are right-wing.

As such - their views do not merit free speech consideration. (Sajak's article amusingly reads that Summers' job ought to be in jeopardy because what he said was "sooooo wrong"). You're free to insult them just as much as you would any other group of insane religious whacko, racist, ignorant redneck people. Ridiculing the right as "the extra chomosome right-wing" is not ridicule. It is acceptable.

Thus, you CAN call Bush shrub, chimp, retarded. You can call him the world's worst terrorist, Hitler, Nazi, Stalin. You can lump him in with history's worst despots. He's been marginalized to this group of crazy people.

You can call Reagan an enfeebled warmonger. You can call Bush I a d!ckless wimp. Doesn't matter. Just don't turn around and make fun of Hillary's thighs or Bill's backside. That's not being fair.

I don't play that game. But I ain't crying over it. They earned it, especially when it is the same joke.

Exactly - politics ain't beanbag. The Dems dish it out - but good. They should keep their yaps shut about getting it dished back to them.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

What makes me laugh is you have the nerve to comment about me when you lack the courage to even answer my questions. But, I hate to burst your bubble but this particular story doesn't piss me off... it saddens me. I think it's sad that so many Republicans have been so willing to adopt the behaviors of Democrats and Liberals that they had so vigorously decried in the past. Even sadder is their defense of their actions with the childish excuse of "well they hit me first!"

So go ahead and laugh. I'll just be happy to know that when this is all over, and guys like you are pissing and moaning in 2012 about all the nasty things Dems are saying about your candidate... and how unfair the attacks are... and how there's nothing funny about this or that... I'll still be able to hold my head high and say I didn't lower myself back in 2008.

Well, aren't you the santimonious one? You've done nothing BUT demean and insult Cindy McCain for months! You've called her nothing more than a trophy wife with a major in cheerleading who's done nothing with her life except inherit daddy's money. I have pointed out her biography to you on several occasion - but yet you ignore it and repeat your inane, derogatory comments of her.

You know... the guy who gets all drunk and pisses himself thinks he's real funny too... so do all his drunk friends who are pissing all over themselves, but to the sober folks you all look like a bunch of losers who have pissed all over themselves. I know you won't get that analogy, but I do and that's really all that's important to me.

What a vile thing to say. You seem to be incapable of having a civil discourse with anyone without using this kind of vitriolic nastiness against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, or calls you out on something.

[forestal]

christ, don't you have some puppies to throw off a cliff or something else to do?

Originally Posted by Lenny

They've been contriving Bush-Chmp similarities for years. Now, in their first 2008 salvo they seem to have missed their mark (or did they?)

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Well good on you then. Holding the moral high ground is fine when it's just you, but you can't expect to hold it for everyone else who holds your views. No matter what social or political view you embrace, you can bet there's someone on your side who's being a jerk about it.

As someone else on here noted, I don't think it IS funny, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either - ESPECIALLY if it is the same joke being hurled back.

A little while back, Pat Sajak wrote an interesting piece contrasting two then current news items - Harvard President Larry Summer's bit about women in science, and Ward Churchill's comment about "little Eichmanns". The gist of it was that Summers ought to be silenced because it was gender biased hate speech, but that Ward Churchill was free to say whatever he wanted. The article went on to mention that libs felt free to insult rednecks and red-staters, because they're all a bunch of ignorant, incestuous morons - but were just as quickly incensed should the tables be turned on them.

And this arises from an observation I've declared for years and seen in forums for nearly as long. Left wingers do not see the political spectrum; they're the center, and there's this huge group of insane, bigoted nut jobs strangely called the "right-wing" (right of WHAT, I wonder?). They don't see the right as the flip side or the balance of their views. They see their own views as mainstream, centrist and normal, and the right as the cancer on the political scene. Not adversaries - a collection of bigots, racists, rednecks and religious whackos. All extremists are right-wing.

As such - their views do not merit free speech consideration. (Sajak's article amusingly reads that Summers' job ought to be in jeopardy because what he said was "sooooo wrong"). You're free to insult them just as much as you would any other group of insane religious whacko, racist, ignorant redneck people. Ridiculing the right as "the extra chomosome right-wing" is not ridicule. It is acceptable.

Thus, you CAN call Bush shrub, chimp, retarded. You can call him the world's worst terrorist, Hitler, Nazi, Stalin. You can lump him in with history's worst despots. He's been marginalized to this group of crazy people.

You can call Reagan an enfeebled warmonger. You can call Bush I a d!ckless wimp. Doesn't matter. Just don't turn around and make fun of Hillary's thighs or Bill's backside. That's not being fair.

I don't play that game. But I ain't crying over it. They earned it, especially when it is the same joke.

Exactly right! Hurts when it's throw against your candidate, but ok when throw against the candidate you can't stand.

I think McVain's an ass. But bru, you are so in the tank it's gotten to the point you arent't being coherent. Reread your points, you aren't convincing anyone that they are wrong or right. You're just attacking.

In the end of the election, your guy just might win. But you sure aren't convincing anyone here of why just why he should win. Same ole spin. Maybe you should be on Keith Olderman's show representing all SOMD redneck, gun carrying, bitter, racist folks on just why this Chicagoan politician should be our President. To date, he really hasn't shown me anything other than he can read a teleprompter well.