Turns out that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly white xtian

Post Reply New Topic

@ JakobVirgil

Yeah you usually don't post sources and expect people to take what you say as the gospel truth...

Why is it you don't actually reply to what people rebut against you but always bring random things up like this for instance? Where should JV or myself have included sources? Should I be sourcing this reply right now with dozens of examples of you ignoring legitimate rebuttals?

I have a roundabout way of debating, and tbh sometimes you think you have a a valid rebutal and you honestly don't.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which post I was replying to.

wrong!! !

well partly wrong what I say is gospel truth.

but Wrong!! about posting sources when I make a statement of fact.
mostly I ask questions and state opinion a opinion (athough I do have a bad habit of using declaimations).
I would say my tone is mostly one of skeptism of the absolutness of peoples statements.

you answered no questions and recieve no points.

'Roundabout', good, you are aware of the circular nature you often add to debate

You ignore replies or write something completely unrelated when you have been backed into a corner by not very well thought out statements and can't swallow your pride.
For instance, you accuse me of basing my dislike for Fox on my 'leftist idols', make the major assumption I dislike the policies you agree with because I watch MSNBC. Then don't bother replying when I query you on this (il)logic.

It is disrespectful, dishonest and disingenuous to debate in this fashion

And this whole sourcing b.s. is just that. I provide sources when necessary. If I was starting a thread on something controversial, I would source it. Frankly, this whole line of discussion is typically diversionary and pointless. I am more then happy to do research and find citations if I am making a controversial statement, and I will not use Fox News or a major media outlet as a legitimate source, either. If I'm talking about things I know, because I have dedicated time to learning them, and you disagree with something I say, I will go and get the original source of my work, but thus far you don't tend to ask me about these things. Additionally I tend to argue from a historical/geographic/anthropoligical standpoint, while you are using emotional right-wing media rhetoric.



Exactly, this is a typically pointless line of conflict to go down...




Giving real answers is not his style

http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/i ... ea_parties

Chuck Grassley, Sam Brownback, and Michele Bachmann are welfare queens
they need their tubes tied

Gotta love hypocrisy

You could just as well group the "unequal opportunities" and "differences in work ethic" explanations together on the basis that they dispute the significance of genetic differences, and are both "permitted" in the mainstream, whereas explanations referring to genetic differences are not. For example, I don't see why the mainstream conservative "Blacks need to improve their work ethic" explanation is qualitatively different from the explanation liberals often offer concerning the relative academic success of East Asians, i.e., "it's their culture".

I really have not seen many so-called right-wingers use phrases like "genetically inferior" either, probably because the phrase is sort of meaningless on its own without specifying criteria or context. In fact, I have seen a fair few on the media-designated "far right" (aka race-conscious Whites) wonder out loud if White people themselves have some fatal genetic flaw in the context of living in the modern world - a flaw that makes them so extremely susceptible to liberalism.

Last edited by codarac on 04 Apr 2011, 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Possibly not, although a basic engineering degree would certainly help.

Actually, there had been some cretin interviewed on Fox who believed we, and not Arabs, are fit for democracy, because we're genetically predisposed to it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

My guess is that the presenters did not agree with him. Having such people on mainstream "right wing" shows just allows the neocons to step in and portray themselves as righteously "anti-racist" by supporting Western meddling in the Middle East.

On the other hand, I know neocon pundits can sometimes say some very derogatory things about Middle Eastern Muslims - always, of course, being careful that such talk does not prompt their audience to start questioning the merits of racial diversity within their own country.