- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lets play a liberal game called "Guilt by association" .
Posted on 1/1/15 at 7:37 am to bhtigerfan
Posted on 1/1/15 at 7:37 am to bhtigerfan
I'm sorry if I offended you or hurt your feelings. I probably shouldn't have talked about your family tree. But you do understand that a white supremacist doesn't want to hide. Due to the PC, climate the past 60 years, it's probably not cool to be called a white supremacist. But deep down, for the comparatively few left, they are high-fiving each other when one of 'the boys' has the balls to speak on it.
Look, let's just say a Black Panther came in here and said 'BHO is a Black Panther' And then he said, 'Scalise is an American hating communist and thug terrorist'. Does any of that make sense? Which perjorative is worse? Wouldn't the few BP's lurking be secretly smiling in their hearts, like the cowardly white supremacist did when you made your comment?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you didn't even realize what you did. But it sure as heck didn't rustle the jimmies of any white supremacists. And again, the 'libtards' could care less about the label.
Check all the different posts on this. The ones that are hiding, forced to be obligatory cowards of their feelings, usually make comments like 'dumb move on his part', and follow it up with 'I don't see anyone denouncing Sharpton, Farrakhan etc' lol. Are these folks Black Supremacists? What a ridiculous notion, if they think so
Look, let's just say a Black Panther came in here and said 'BHO is a Black Panther' And then he said, 'Scalise is an American hating communist and thug terrorist'. Does any of that make sense? Which perjorative is worse? Wouldn't the few BP's lurking be secretly smiling in their hearts, like the cowardly white supremacist did when you made your comment?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you didn't even realize what you did. But it sure as heck didn't rustle the jimmies of any white supremacists. And again, the 'libtards' could care less about the label.
Check all the different posts on this. The ones that are hiding, forced to be obligatory cowards of their feelings, usually make comments like 'dumb move on his part', and follow it up with 'I don't see anyone denouncing Sharpton, Farrakhan etc' lol. Are these folks Black Supremacists? What a ridiculous notion, if they think so
0
Posted on 1/1/15 at 7:48 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
And if you can't see the difference between someone attending a church for 20 years and being married by said Reverend, being mentored and having fundraisers given by a domestic terrorist, and someone who gave one speech (that was not about race) at a "white supremacist" conference, then you're a moron also.
LOL, so now there are levels of association....now you all will go out of your way to try to play the "We're not being hypocrites... Its completely different situations... They are wrong, we are right..."
Sad sad sad
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 7:51 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 7:57 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:This kind sir, was the point of this whole exercise.
Seems to me the point here is, ultimately NONE of that shite mattered for Obama.
To point out the blatant hypocrisy of the left. They scream slander and outrage from the mountain tops and demand people be fired, resign, or be arrested when the offender is a conservative or Republican.
But when someone on "their side" is exposed, not only are they silent about the offense, but they usually will defend the offender at all costs.
Can you imagine the outrage we'd be hearing if a Republican president were in power and the IRS was targeting liberal organizations for harassment and violating their civil rights and breaking the law and if Lois Lerner were a conservative who pleaded the 5th and then destroyed all her computers?
But what do we get from them since it's "thier side"? "Nothing to see here. Not a smidgen of corruption".
That is why I've come to hate the left with a passion. And I mean hate, not just disdain, but hate, because of their continual blatant hypocrisy.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 8:11 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 8:02 am to Lsut81
quote:
LOL, so now there are levels of association....now you all will go out of your way to try to play the "We're not being hypocrites... Its completely different situations... They are wrong, we are right..."
He's not arguing levels of association. More like Scalise wasn't associating at all--he just didn't properly vet a group before taking a speaking gig (and that's assuming he even spoke to EURO which is in question).
Posted on 1/1/15 at 8:05 am to Lsut81
quote:Yes, there are. And if you don't realize that, you're not too bright.
so now there are levels of association..
You see no difference between being a member of a congregation for 20 years, and giving a 15 minute speech? Really?
quote:You're goddamn right I'm right about this and they're wrong. You'll never hear me defend a conservative or Republican that abuses power or breaks the law. Just the other day, asurob1 tried a "gotcha" in a similar thread with a link about that asshat Republican congressman from NY (Grimm) that was indicted and resigned. Do you know what I said? "Good. frick that guy. He should have been thrown out of Congress for threatening that reporter." If it was a Democrat in this scenario, Vegas Bengal, SpidermanTUba and the usual cast of leftist would be making excuses for them and defending them till death.
"We're not being hypocrites... Its completely different situations... They are wrong, we are right..."
You will find few, if any on the right and on this board who will defend an obviously guilty conservative.
It's S.O.P. for most if not all leftist to defend the indefensible. Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 8:30 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 8:16 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
You see no difference between being a member of a congregation for 20 years, and giving a 15 minute speech? Really?
Did I say anything about not seeing a difference? No I did not. I think tying Scalise to the Klan is idiotic.
I'm just laughing at the blatant hypocrisy of this thread. Trying to act like the OP is only "associating" Obama to Wright and others because the left did it first with Scalise, when it was the opposite way around.
And I'd bet I am a hell of a lot brighter than 90% of this board, as evidenced by the amount of asinine posts.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 8:38 am to Lsut81
quote:Yes, you asserted that with this idiotic statement.
Did I say anything about not seeing a difference?
quote:
so now there are levels of association..
quote:Yes, I'm sure your mother always told you how bright you were as she helped you board the short school bus.
And I'd bet I am a hell of a lot brighter than 90% of this board, as evidenced by the amount of asinine posts.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 8:43 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Yes, I'm sure your mother always told you how bright you were as she helped you board the short school bus.
Oh you so funny.... Making fun of mentally handicapped children now.
Wouldn't expect anything more from someone like you
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:03 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:00 am to bhtigerfan
You attempted, and failed in your OP, to call the 'Guilt by Association' a Liberal game. Maybe it's a game liberals play, but it's absurd to say they are the originators of it, with the comparison you used.
Furthermore, then Senator Obama was dogged with these accusations for well over a year, gave an entire speech on it on March of 2008, which many agreed was historic and helped his presidential bid, and answered those questions in one-on-one interviews, and via social networking countless times. For almost two years this stuff was vetted and re-vetted, without a single speech, video clip, or excerpt of Obama saying the hateful rhetoric he was accused of being a part of, via 'guilt by association.'
Up to now, for most conservatives, he is guilty, and he is a hate monger, vetting process be damned.
Scalise? I don't think he is a white Supremacist, just like I don't think Obama is full of the hateful rhetoric, based on his association.
But you seem to think the vetting process to confirm that he isn't is unfair and too long. To be honest, I no longer know what you think. Just trying to make a really silly point.
Furthermore, then Senator Obama was dogged with these accusations for well over a year, gave an entire speech on it on March of 2008, which many agreed was historic and helped his presidential bid, and answered those questions in one-on-one interviews, and via social networking countless times. For almost two years this stuff was vetted and re-vetted, without a single speech, video clip, or excerpt of Obama saying the hateful rhetoric he was accused of being a part of, via 'guilt by association.'
Up to now, for most conservatives, he is guilty, and he is a hate monger, vetting process be damned.
Scalise? I don't think he is a white Supremacist, just like I don't think Obama is full of the hateful rhetoric, based on his association.
But you seem to think the vetting process to confirm that he isn't is unfair and too long. To be honest, I no longer know what you think. Just trying to make a really silly point.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:02 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:09 am to EthanL
quote:
Scalise? I don't think he is a white Supremacist, just like I don't think Obama is full of the hateful rhetoric, based on his association.
But you seem to think the vetting process to confirm that he isn't is unfair and too long. To be honest, I no longer know what you think. Just trying to make a really silly point.
So what was your basis for this statement three days ago?
quote:
I agree. He will be out as the MW at the least
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:10 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:11 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
So what was your basis for this statement three days ago?
quote:
I agree. He will be out as the MW at the least
quote:
Y.A. Tittle
You go back and search threads? On a holiday?
:notstalking:
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:14 am to VOR
He's not even the one accusing me.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:16 am to Y.A. Tittle
Because he is about to take his seat as the Majority Whip. There is no time for him. Both parties seem to play this game, but an argument could be made that the Libs just use better timing.
If all the stuff about BHO comes out, let's say, a week or so before the presidential debates, video clips of the Rev. Wright and all, I say he doesn't get elected, or it's probably really close. But he had almost two full years to get out in front of it.
Scalise has little to no time to make a speech, do anything substantial. And hey, it looks like I'm wrong about him not being MW. I was playing a hunch on how quick people are to judge these days
Oh, and by the way Y.A., you should post the entire statement that I am agreeing with. People might assume that I am agreeing with him being labeled s White Supremacist.
If all the stuff about BHO comes out, let's say, a week or so before the presidential debates, video clips of the Rev. Wright and all, I say he doesn't get elected, or it's probably really close. But he had almost two full years to get out in front of it.
Scalise has little to no time to make a speech, do anything substantial. And hey, it looks like I'm wrong about him not being MW. I was playing a hunch on how quick people are to judge these days
Oh, and by the way Y.A., you should post the entire statement that I am agreeing with. People might assume that I am agreeing with him being labeled s White Supremacist.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:18 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:25 am to EthanL
quote:
Oh, and by the way Y.A., you should post the entire statement that I am agreeing with. People might assume that I am agreeing with him being labeled s White Supremacist.
I'm not sure what you're referencing here, but I was certainly not trying to imply that. I just seemed to recall you were one of the ones saying out the gate that the hammer should fall on him (from stalking, of course), which seemed to go against the point you were making here.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:34 am to Lsut81
quote:
And I'd bet I am a hell of a lot brighter than 90% of this board, as evidenced by the amount of asinine posts.
If your New Year’s resolution was to get that self promotion train on the track then you're off to a grand start. Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:35 am to Y.A. Tittle
Do you understand why I said it now?
I said, as you quoted, 'at the least', he will probably not be MW.
The hammer, would be me saying his political career is over, he won't matter anywhere anymore, etc. That's not what I said, because we don't have all the facts. And now, as the facts come out, as I've stated numerous times since then, I do no think he is a white supremacist, plenty of folks are vouching for him, but there is still a question, as many have concluded, as to how he did not know what type of function this was. When a sufficient explanation for that comes out, maybe he gets a pass, at least from his side, like Obama did.
It took well over a year of vetting and a major speech by Obama to get that pass. What do you think it will take fo Scalise? That's the point I'm making
I said, as you quoted, 'at the least', he will probably not be MW.
The hammer, would be me saying his political career is over, he won't matter anywhere anymore, etc. That's not what I said, because we don't have all the facts. And now, as the facts come out, as I've stated numerous times since then, I do no think he is a white supremacist, plenty of folks are vouching for him, but there is still a question, as many have concluded, as to how he did not know what type of function this was. When a sufficient explanation for that comes out, maybe he gets a pass, at least from his side, like Obama did.
It took well over a year of vetting and a major speech by Obama to get that pass. What do you think it will take fo Scalise? That's the point I'm making
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:38 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:35 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
quote:
So you consider it absurd and unfair to label Scalise a white supremacist and Obama an anti-American communist?
No, I'm just using liberal logic.
So, are you admitting that Obama is an American hating Communist and domestic terrorists?
If not, tell your ilk to STFU about Scalise being a white supremacist and quit being your usual hypocritical selves. Cool?
Ah, you're using the bhtigerfan logic of it's ok for you to demonize one side through association but not ok for others to do it to my team. And just because someone thinks you're a total dumbass doesn't mean they are liberal...if that were the case 99% of the country would be of liberals.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:37 am to EthanL
quote:No it was not. The MSM did nothing to "vet" Obama. They were compliant cheerleaders. The only reason his radical associations came out were because of conservative media.
For almost two years this stuff was vetted and re-vetted, without a single speech, video clip, or excerpt of Obama saying the hateful rhetoric he was accused of being a part of, via 'guilt by association.'
quote:He spent 20 years as a church member of Jeremiah Wright, a well known hate monger and anti-American. If I were a member of EURO for 20 years, would I not be considered a white supremacist?
Up to now, for most conservatives, he is guilty
quote:There was no vetting process of Obama by the MSM before the election. Most people had no idea of his radical associations with Wright, Bill Ayers, or Frank Marshall Davis because the liberal media refused to cover it.
But you seem to think the vetting process to confirm that he isn't is unfair and too long.
The level of intellectual dishonesty by the left that it takes to condemn Steve Scalise for giving a 15 minute speech to a conference of a questionable organization, yet give a free pass to Obama for his long term associations with Wright, Ayers and Davis is staggering.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 11:12 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:44 am to bhtigerfan
But there was. And no hateful speech and/or rhetoric was turned up. Hillary's campaign started it. McCains campaign refused to believe the results, and tried to finish it; brought it back up...still nothing from Obama.
So, whoever wants to pursue Scalise, they probably won't get anything; I think he is clean. If they don't find anything on him, he's good.
So, whoever wants to pursue Scalise, they probably won't get anything; I think he is clean. If they don't find anything on him, he's good.
This post was edited on 1/1/15 at 9:45 am
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:50 am to EthanL
What other "hammer" is there for him, though? No matter how badly this could get twisted it's not possibly something impeachable nor would it ever likely arise to something that would get him voted out in his district.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News