lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 … cal-storm/


Just goes to show that liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds, they actually want to repeal a law that they themselves put in place because now that law does not benefit them.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

Not liberals Lowing, Democrats. And there's hypocrisy in every party, I do wish you'd realise it's a political thing rather than right or left thing.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Not liberals Lowing, Democrats. And there's hypocrisy in every party, I do wish you'd realise it's a political thing rather than right or left thing.
in the US, liberals = democrats.

I know it is political. However in this case the liberals declared it is the citiznes who should choose, not the republican governor, until it is time for the citizens to choose then they want the power taken away form the people.

This is typical liberalism. They do not want the people to have control over the govt. They want the people dependant on them. Now they are going as far as to take thepower of the vote away from the people.

This is a different scenerio than the typical "do as I say not as do" hypocrisy you normally find.
ColCarnage
taw
+283|5565
Typical Lowing thread
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

ColCarnage wrote:

Typical Lowing thread
I have always appreciated my fan mail.
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6438

ColCarnage wrote:

Typical Lowing thread
I've never seen an atypical lowing thread in my life.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

ColCarnage wrote:

Typical Lowing thread
I've never seen an atypical lowing thread in my life.
Kinda hard to be consistent and "atypical" all at the same time.
As such I much prefer consistency and honesty over flip flops and lies.
13rin
Member
+977|6449
Kinda like when Newt put in all those fairness rules and decorum to help the left have a voice even though they were the minoirty party and were bitching about being steamrolled.... What does Pelosi do?  Tossed those rules out the window. Fine by me though.... In 2010 that will come back to bite them in the ass.  Is it me - does her teeth look like the robot skeleton's teeth from Terminator?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
T1g3r217
Perpetual
+124|6392|My room
It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?

Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6512|Texas - Bigger than France
Yeah, fuck democracy, move along
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

T1g3r217 wrote:

It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?

Nothing to see here folks, move along.
I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generaliziations is all they really have.
=JoD=Corithus
Member
+30|6528

lowing wrote:

T1g3r217 wrote:

It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?

Nothing to see here folks, move along.
I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generaliziations is all they really have.
This is true, but what you've got to remember, this is D&ST, once your opponent has to resort to personal attacks, against you or the source, as opposed to the validity of the information, it means they no longer have the ability to debate in a logical fashion, in other worlds, you've won.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

lowing wrote:

T1g3r217 wrote:

It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?

Nothing to see here folks, move along.
I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generalizations is all they really have.
This is true, but what you've got to remember, this is D&ST, once your opponent has to resort to personal attacks, against you or the source, as opposed to the validity of the information, it means they no longer have the ability to debate in a logical fashion, in other worlds, you've won.
I like this guy

There is evidence of this tactic all through the forum.

As one states opinion based on facts, the arguments that come back are of racism, generalizing, you were not there, you are not an expert, you are a Nazi, you are selfish, etc or some personal attack .....rarely and I mean rarely does a liberal actually defend their position by refuting evidence with evidence.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-28 17:59:21)

T1g3r217
Perpetual
+124|6392|My room

lowing wrote:

I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generaliziations is all they really have.
Stereotyping and slander? I expected more from you.

OT: I never respected Ted Kennedy much; he symbolized the worst of politics: corruption, lies, and political ties as opposed to morals, honestly, and one's work speaking for oneself. However, to generalize the article as "Typical liberal hypocrisy" is overblown; the article is an example of a known corrupt man. What happened to the Watergate scandal or Cheney/Bush's secret facilities? Are those examples of "typical conservative dishonesty"?

My answer is a resounding "no". Politicians get a bad rap because of the nature of their jobs. They as a whole are not bad. The problem is that many in this country place their or their party's power over their own. If humans in general (not liberals or conservatives in particular) were less self-fulfilling, many of these "typical" behaviors would go away.

Unfortunately, they won't, because humans won't change. That doesn't mean that we should start name-calling. It's one person screwing himself over--no need to blame the whole group.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5567|Vacationland
You say what is happening is "hypocritical" and I for once agree, the facts are right.  What you fail to realize is that the point of the government is to serve the will of the people, and the will of the people is not to put a Republican in that Senate seat.  I acknowledge that Romney was elected by the people of Massachusetts, but he mainly won because of his fame for being part of the Salt Lake Olympics and because he ran on an extremely moderate platform.  Once he got into office Romney was less then popular and had he had to appoint a Senator, he would have appointed a Republican because of party affiliation.  A Republican would have gone against the will of the People of Massachusetts.  Now that party politics does not need to be worried about interfereing with the appointment of a reputable person the seat, the law can be repealed.  It might not end up being repealed, it still might end up as an interim election.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
I see a whole bunch of chatter that has nothing to do with the story in the OP.

I assume the links are regarding ted kennedys death bed plea to change the rules back to favor the democrats.

It is a lame move by a lame party. The fact that 90 percent of the replies don't comment on that gives weight to the notion that either liberals can't be reasoned with, or that DST is devolved to the point where more time is spent on the source than the story.

That also is lame.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA

lowing wrote:

in the US, liberals = democrats.
Not necessarily.

Not all liberals are Democrats.  Some liberals are Socialist.  Fewer are Communists.

Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans.  Some are Libertarian.
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6738
Fox News is not a legitimate news service.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

It's the WSJ and it's not pretending to be a news source. Oped.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5567|Vacationland

Harmor wrote:

lowing wrote:

in the US, liberals = democrats.
Not necessarily.

Not all liberals are Democrats.  Some liberals are Socialist.  Fewer are Communists.

Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans.  Some are Libertarian.
You forget that some Republicans are Faschists
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
Um... this article isn't FOX?

In any case, it's not exactly clear whether this is actual news or Op-Ed. Kerry says it is so I'll take his word for it but this blurring is not something I paticularly like.

As for the supposed 'liberal hypocrisy'...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/


Just goes to show that liberal human hypocrisy knows no bounds, they actually want to repeal a law that they themselves put in place because now that law does not benefit them.
Fixed

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-28 19:46:57)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

It's at the bottom Spark. Fox is syndicating the WSJ. This article was in the print version of the WSJ.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Narupug wrote:

You say what is happening is "hypocritical" and I for once agree, the facts are right.  What you fail to realize is that the point of the government is to serve the will of the people, and the will of the people is not to put a Republican in that Senate seat.  I acknowledge that Romney was elected by the people of Massachusetts, but he mainly won because of his fame for being part of the Salt Lake Olympics and because he ran on an extremely moderate platform.  Once he got into office Romney was less then popular and had he had to appoint a Senator, he would have appointed a Republican because of party affiliation.  A Republican would have gone against the will of the People of Massachusetts.  Now that party politics does not need to be worried about interfereing with the appointment of a reputable person the seat, the law can be repealed.  It might not end up being repealed, it still might end up as an interim election.
This is not the reason given by the democrats at the time. there reason was it should be up to the voters to decide not the governor.


Well is it up to the voters to decide or not? Per the democrats, it all depends on who favors them at the time.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

Harmor wrote:

lowing wrote:

in the US, liberals = democrats.
Not necessarily.

Not all liberals are Democrats.  Some liberals are Socialist.  Fewer are Communists.

Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans.  Some are Libertarian.
ALL liberals are democrats and all democrats are socialists/communists. You simply can not endorse govt. takeover without it being so.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard