Holy shit load of Emptiness Dante who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Me?

I tried to warn you. Copious rhetoric doesn't work on Old Tool. He'll either make you think or prove you can't.

 

Still trying to talk up someone to slay the dragon, dear stumbler?

This is like a repeat of all those threads people made jokes in and you took them seriously. It is not my fault if you fail at comprehension, it is not my fault if that post is too deep for yourself to comprehend, perhaps that is why it was not intended for you? Perhaps that post has many subtle points (ok, they are rather straightforward, only subtle to you) because I do not feel a need to drive them home like I do with someone else? Perhaps I can play to my audience quite easily? I have nothing but confidence in Old Tools ability to understand that post, if he ends up in the same ship as you though, it merely means I overestimated him and must once again resort to driving a train rather than breathing a whisper.

Thank you for the kind words though. :rose:

 

You're toast hot shot. Fucking laughable but I warned you you were in over your head here as in standing on the bottom of the ocean.

You can't think man, Sad but the price of accepting brainwashed bullshit instead of getting out there and earning your own knowledge,.

 

I-R-O-N-Y spells irony, hot shot.

 

Hey phony dumb fuck. What the fuck did you link? A picture of your brain?

I don't see any irony. All I see is you making a fool of yourself again.

 

The fact that you cannot recognize the irony in your two statements simply reminds us all of your...specialness.:rose:

 

haha

haha

 

God forbid he should ever allow Stumbles to be banned, where oh where could we ever find gems like that from other posters?

 

Uhhhm, lemme get this straight - you believe that an opinion, a demand, a suggestion, a postulate, a presumption, a thought, a sentiment, a slant, and a supposition are all the same thing?!?? I would think the context would change wildly based on which one of those the expression actually was, wouldn't you? If not, you'll have to clarify for me - I'm a bit of a stickler as to what words mean and if we're going to re-define some of them, that's cool . . . just let me know what the new definitions are going to be and I'll play.

Are you suggesting that no actual racism exists? It seems the portion of your response I highlighted is saying just that - I think we'd have a difficult task having any kind of constructive discussion if that's what you believe. I wouldn't know where to go from there. :-|

Perhaps I was being too subtle - but the difference between a suggestion and a demand seems quite clear to me. If someone comes to me and says, "join us - our cause is just!" and I ask enough questions to determine that they seem full of shit, I might make a suggestion to help them out of their feces-challenged conundrum If, on the other hand, I'm already a member of a group and have certain rights therein, I would be much more likely to "ask" for (demand, even) change - or more likley act to invoke the change I sought.

The comparison to any and every other group out there is quite irrelevant to my point - but if you'd like to make a thread discussing the relative merits of all these other groups, I'd be happy to participate. Until then, this particular logical fallacy (appeal to common practice) is not going to dissuade me from pointing out my perception of the strategic and tactical errors the Tea Partiers continue to commit - including what seems to be a lack of discretion on who can "join". I did, for the record, concede that my experience is anecdotal.

Not sure about all the Stumbler stuff - except that I guess the old, '"your enemies are my enemies" dynamic comes into play :twisted: Funny thing is, I think he hated my guts about 2 years ago (didn't ya, you wrinkly old hole-plugging, gas-sucking, half-witted country douchebag?) :lol:

To your last point - I suppose all moral and ethical questions could be boiled down to the over-arching "modern man is flawed" conclusion. It may even be as true a platitude as there is out there. But, then what? As with the Tea Partiers - that leaves a thinking person with an empty plate. I like specifics - I ask specific questions - I want those seeking to lead to be specific. No specifics, no credibility.

 

Well, this is no fun. Those are not all the same things, obviously. I was simply making a small joke out of your insistence on changing the words describing your argument. My apologies if you missed it.

The point remains (yes, still) that you "suggest," the tea party do something to prove they are not racist and that point is the only point in our disagreement that matters. Whether you wish to declare your supposition that the tea party must clear themselves of "racism" through a suggestion, or a demand, means nothing to me, and it should mean little to you, because the delivery of the message does not change the message. You think the tea party must make a grand stand against racism, I think they have no reason to as they are being railroaded into a racial discussion. This is the point we disagree on. You have a paranoia of words which tends to force you to miss the actual ideas they represent; and that, is an end to the matter.

Well if you did not damn yourself in your own argument I would damn you instead. But now I am simply forced to explain to you your own mistake. As you say yourself, "The portion of your response I highlighted," well, that simply will not do, will it? I think it best to get the context of a thing rather than to pull it apart. Perhaps you disagree. I could highlight choice lines of your work and make you surprised to see yourself, but it wouldn't really be you.

If you actually read in context, as in, the whole paragraph. You'll see that I am not speaking of individuals but of the tea party itself. And a "perceived" racism within the tea party, not a real racism in a few of its members. I even go on to say in the paragraph that they have bad apples, but those bad apples are no worse than anyone else's. And no, the tea party has not done anything that should make anyone consider them to be a racist movement. If you wish to speak of individuals, that is a matter I have already covered.

Again, you get caught on a word and miss an idea.

That is a terrible analogy. You are once again stuck on a word and missing an idea. Your idea is that the tea party should speak out against racism in its ranks. this is where we disagree. Whether you demand that they should, or suggest that they should, will not change your view that THEY SHOULD. Merely your action in proposing it, a proposal that is entirely fictional and entirely worthless in the larger conversation.

This paragraph says nothing at all, except that you would suggest one thing to one group and not to another. You are free to do so but it is far from a measured approach.

And here I had hoped we could be friends.

Again you misread something and attack me for it. I never said that the tea party should not have specific points, as any leader should; only that in my opinion it simply does not matter what those points are; because history repeats itself and you usually need to hit bottom before you begin to crawl out. I think we're at a point of no return, but that doesn't mean I would elect someone based on rhetoric alone. I would simply elect someone based on their specific ideas and then fully expect them to fail in every idea they promised to succeed in.

Have a good night.

 

Its Ok Dante I'll be embarrassed for you.

 

I'm afraid you slipped that funny right by me - don't expect to get many more past me like that

If this is indeed true, then we'll need to back up and clarify. I do not believe that "the tea party" is racist, silly - I don't even believe such an organization formally exists (although I do acknowledge the existence of Tea Partiers). If you can find that assertion or implication in any of my posts, please show me and I'll retract.

In response, your contention(s) up to this point has seemed to be either: "Hell, there are racists everywhere - why aren't you bitching about them?" and/or "The only reason you see racism within the Tea Partiers is that you're predisposed to see it." The two conclusions are not compatible with one another - a fact I'm sure you aware of. Please let me know which one is closer to your actual argument and we can go from there.

Since we've already addressed the only point in our discussion that really matters, I trust you wont be insulted if I just ignore these last 400 words or so, eh?

 

Never said you did, I said:

Are you saying you did not suggest that the tea party should actively denounce the racisim in their group. I said it was a set up to do so as every group has them and does not apologize every time an idiot carries a a sign. This is the point we disagree on and yet you somehow keep forming new ideas about it.

Our argument was on a rather harmless point, it would seem you want to make it much more interesting, and I can't blame you for that.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the story which you keep changing.

 

You're forgiven. But . . .

It doesn't have to be "grand" - any stand would do. And this week's action on their part seems to indicate that they agree with my point of view, wouldn't you say?

Do you think their ouster of the Express Tea Partiers was a mistake on their part (whoever the hell "they" are)?

 

I do think it was a mistake on their part. This will not be the first time they are attacked by the left with a racist accusation, in fact, that is about all the left does to their opposition, so you better learn to ignore it very quickly. The fact that they overreacted so grossly to this attack, which was the first real shot from the left in a smear campaign which is only beginning, I would say not only signals bad leadership (no leadership?) but also signals weakness. If they caved to this attack, they may have very well have lost their footing and now any future attacks will likely be met with nearly zero resistance.

Booting Williams would have been an acceptable loss, booting the hundreds of thousands of members under him was not only overreacting, but it made them look almost puppets to the left wing media. Not only that, but because they caved, the left will take notice and pin them as a weak target, meaning that future attacks are now more likely than ever when the left needs a little bit of misdirection. Most people will take it as a positive, but those people do not understand the big picture--the long term. Now that they have broken down and basically bowed before the wishes of the left, they have no standing and the next time they are attacked people will assume guilt simply because by reacting so rashly, they have as much as admitted it this time. As the saying goes: "If you feed a stray dog once, you will never be rid of it."

I think the best example of this kind of weakness towards the opposing media and where it can take you is the Obama administration and Fox.

I will say this though, I am finally off the fence about the Tea Party for the time being because of their reaction. So in that way, it was a positive for me. Their caving and overreacting made me lose whatever respect I had for them, and until they can get real leadership with a strong stance, I simply wish them the best of luck. I have no confidence in such paper tigers.

 

But dear DanteAlighieri we are not talking about some idiot carrying a sign. We are talking lots and lots of Tea Party members carrying racist signs as well as signs calling for violent revolution and "second amendment solutions" as a remedy for losing an election at official Tea Party sponsored events.

We're not talking about some lone idiot on the fringe. We're talking about many many Tea Party supporters carrying those signs at official Tea Party sponsored events like national protests and rallies.

Is really quite stupid of you to keep trying to claim the racism associated with the Tea Party is just one idiot when we've provided you with lots of idiots waving those kind of signs at their official Tea Party functions.

I haven't seen such an abundance of racism in action in one place since the 1960's. And the Tea Party movement claims to be a national political movement and yet allows racists like that to parade proudly at Tea Party sponsored events. Or at least they used to. Now the Tea Party is trying to deny they tolerate racists in their midst and doing the best job in political history of proving otherwise.:excited:

 

So glad to hear this Dante. Does this mean you won't be defending the Tea Party in nearly every post? Does this mean you won't keep telling lies on their behalf? I bet you don't make it a day before you're right back there defending the Tea Party, their racists elements, and the stupidity of their national leaders?

And Dante how stupid can you be to claim the Tea Party Federation was stupid to publicly denounce Mark Williams and expel the Tea Party Express, when Mark Williams proved beyond reasonable doubt that the NAACP was correct when they said the Tea Party allowed racist elements in their ranks, and everyone in the country with the possible exception of you, knows that the racist label means it will be next to impossible for them to win any elections.

What I think is great about that is the NAACP forced the Tea Party to address the racist in their ranks, and rightly so. The first nationally recognized Tea Party spokesman to address that actually proved to the whole country the NAACP was right.

So the "Tea Party Federation" what ever the fuck that is, had to take immediate action to distance themselves from Mark Williams because he proved the NAACP was right. And now Mark Williams is urging the Members of his Tea Party Express to oppose the Tea Party Federation.

Oh yeah a party that represents a very small minority in the first place can afford to be at each others throats with a mid term election a little more than three months away.:excited::excited::excited::excited:

And we can see the actual result in the way Tea Party backed candidates are losing more ground every day.:excited:

 

Simple question Stumbles, If they are such losers, why are you worried about them.

For if it is true that they will cause the Republicans to lose votes, would that not strengthen the Democrats position? You will never convince me that you want the Republicans to win any seat, any where, so indulge me, why are you so worried about the Tea Party?

 

On this I think we agree completely.

Now I'm kind of intriqued - why would booting Williams be OK? Do you think his very clumsy attempt at satire showed actual racism on his part? If not, why not actively defend the man at the highest levels? If so, then I guess there is some racism within the so-called leadership of the Tea Partiers.

Oh yeah? Back to the Libertarians with you? The Republicans? The Constitution Party? Wanna start a 3rd part that has some real balls?

 

Because I fear their racism, calls to violent revolution, promoting second amendment solutions for losing an election, and other extremism might catch on or start getting people killed.

What does carrying loaded guns to public meetings indicate to you? A sane and rational approach to political disagreements?

Very much so which is reflected in the latest polls where Harry Reid has pulled ahead of Sharron Angle and Rand Paul's slipping support in Kentucky.

The Tea Party is the best thing that's happened to the Democrats in a long time. And it could not have arrived at a better time when by nothing more than past voting patterns it would indicate the GOP should gain control of one of both houses of Congress in the coming election.

That should have been a given. Instead its beginning to look like the Democrats might actually stay in control of one or both houses.

I already explained that but will again. I don't want the Tea Party to take us back to a pre-civil rights era of racism and discrimination. I don't want the Tea Party promoting violent revolution and assassination because they lost an election.

Those are really good reasons to not only worry about the Tea Party but actively oppose them.

The Tea Party winning elections for the Democrats is just a bonus.