OET primitive wants others to take the opportunity

[txradioguy]

Huh?  That's a very serious (and stupid) accusation, my esteemed friend.  One must make a statement under oath in order to commit perjury.

More, weak ad hominem attacks from you.  I am sure you can do better.

-Laelth

Ok how about this.  You lied your ass off to your fawning sycophant quislings at that pathetic excuse for a website.

You told them you weren't going to publish that screed at anyplace but the two you listed.

Instead to stroke your oversized ego even more you went and gave red meat to the attack dogs at DU.

Is that in a more clear and accurate form of the English language for you?

[txradioguy]

It's 2am here.  I'm done with this Lib for the night.

If it's still around in the morning I'll address whatever silliness it left on the carpet in the FC thread in the morning.

Duces!

[Laelth]

You know exactly what you're doing...quit trying to pretend otherwise.

You're bound and determined to see me as evil incarnate.  That's simply not rational, and it makes rational discourse with you impossible.  If you could possibly bring yourself to believe, for just a little while, that I am honest and well intentioned and that I actually mean what I am saying, things might be different.

But I'll take what I can get from you.  Even your hatred is preferable to apathy.

-Laelth

[dandi]

And you're a charming, respectful person with impeccable manners.

I know.  What you are seeing is my low threshold for bullshit.  You must excuse my straightforward delivery; I value honesty above all else and don't suffer flip flopping fools well.

Then again, I could give a damn about your passive-aggressive bullshit, either.

I am sure your mother is proud.

As an honorably retired veteran that stood the line, she is.  More than you will ever know.

But it is highly commendable of this site to allow dissenting voices to be freely heard.  Highly commendable.

Can you say the same for the DUmp?  You post here at will, circular logic and all.  Funny how Conservatives have no fear of what you have to say, isn't it?

Still, I have to remind everyone that USA4ME posted my essay here. I just came here (today) to defend myself.  I didn't exactly "invite" this kind, respectful treatment.  

You didn't just come here "today", sweetheart, you have been a registered member for quite a while.  While you do get credit for attempting to justify the brain cramp you typed out, you don't earn much for being so intellectually dishonest that you can't see the evidence when it's put in front of you.

Oh, and when you pretend to be some high and mighty intellectual, you will get honest and unfiltered responses.  You may not have much experience dealing with honest people, counselor, so try not to get your panties in too tight of a twist when we don't bow before your "intellect" and tell you you're full of shit.

[Rebel]

You're bound and determined to see me as evil incarnate.  That's simply not rational, and it makes rational discourse with you impossible.  If you could possibly bring yourself to believe, for just a little while, that I am honest and well intentioned and that I actually mean what I am saying, things might be different.

But I'll take what I can get from you.  Even your hatred is preferable to apathy.

-Laelth

You essentially said Palin and the right is to blame for a liberal shooting a Democrat politician in the head and that the right is the only one that can address this.

Yeah, I'd pretty much say you're f'ed up in the head.

[Carl]

You're bound and determined to see me as evil incarnate.  That's simply not rational, and it makes rational discourse with you impossible.  If you could possibly bring yourself to believe, for just a little while, that I am honest and well intentioned and that I actually mean what I am saying, things might be different.

But I'll take what I can get from you.  Even your hatred is preferable to apathy.

-Laelth

How can you even begin to proclaim you are honest and well intentioned.

Your screed was that conservatives need to make a statement condemning "something" and thus take defacto responsibility for it.
Meanwhile liberals shouldn`t do anything because it would look political despite the FACT that all they have been doing since Saturday is play politics with tragedy.

Your whole premise is idiotic and when you have been asked how you can justify the statements you simply repeat them.

That is intellectually vacant or just plain lazy.

[Laelth]

Because he's a lib, right? How convenient. If he were a conservative you fruitbats would be freaking out like the f'n Tasmanian Devil demanding the Fairness Doctrine and the incarceration of Beck, Palin, Rush, et al.

I suspect, in time, we'll discover that Loughner's beliefs (at the moment, and they seem to have changed recently) are anti-political, i.e. anti-government in general.  But my beliefs are not relevant in this context.  The guy appears to be criminally insane, but I do believe that violent rhetoric leads nuts to act.  It does not matter whether the violent rhetoric comes from the left or from the right.

And have never called for the criminalization of speech, though some have.  I am not here to defend them.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

game...set...match.

This is not a game.  Real people are dead and wounded.

-Laelth

[Rebel]

This is not a game.  Real people are dead and wounded.

-Laelth

Who politicized it? The right? Or the left? Libs came right out of the gate trying to demonize Palin, Beck, the right and win political points and it's been proven that it was calculated by the left.

http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2011/01/09/breaking-democrats-plotted-to-blame-tea-party-for-slaughter/

[Laelth]

Which is why this OET nut has come up with the silly theory that the left stays quiet while the right apologizes for everything in relation to the Giffords shooting.

Sigh.  I never said a word about apologizing.  I invited right-wing pols. and pundits to condemn violent rhetoric (no matter what its source).

You can't change what I wrote, though I know you want to.

-Laelth

[dandi]

The guy appears to be criminally insane, but I do believe that violent rhetoric leads nuts to act.  It does not matter whether the violent rhetoric comes from the left or from the right.

So, why does the left (who you have been clearly shown are the leaders in violent rhetoric) get to stay quiet and the right get to condemn something for which they have no responsibility?

And try not to repeat yourself, please; an intellectually honest answer will suffice.

[AllosaursRus]

I do seek a wider audience for my writing.  I was particularly pleased that USA4ME posted the essay here.

-Laelth

Oh puhleeeeeeeeeeeze!

You're just a stinkin' attention whore! Nothin' you write is even remotely worthy of attention, yet you post the slime all over the place like some pervert on a restroom wall writin' " For a good time call Leechth"!

ETA:

We know very little about Loughner's beliefs, but I don't think his specific beliefs are relevant.

-Laelth

WTF???????????

Your series aren't ya DUm****? Now, you have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned! You do know he is the one who pulled the trigger, right? And his beliefs aren't relevant?????

Only from a lib, only from a ****in' lib! And ya wonder why we think liberalism is a mental disorder!

[Carl]

So, why does the left (who you have been clearly shown are the leaders in violent rhetoric) get to stay quiet and the right get to condemn something for which they have no responsibility?

And try not to repeat yourself, please; an intellectually honest answer will suffice.

As most libs here do,it will ignore that or change the subject.

[Laelth]

Can you say the same for the DUmp?  You post here at will, circular logic and all.  Funny how Conservatives have no fear of what you have to say, isn't it?

No.  I can not say the same for DU, and I will not defend DU.  And I think you (and others) are showing a lot of fear regarding what I have to say, but that's just my interpretation.

You didn't just come here "today", sweetheart, you have been a registered member for quite a while.  While you do get credit for attempting to justify the brain cramp you typed out, you don't earn much for being so intellectually dishonest that you can't see the evidence when it's put in front of you.

I would not have posted here today had not my essay been posted in this thread.  That's what I meant by "I came here today," and I suspect you know that and are not engaging me in good faith.

Oh, and when you pretend to be some high and mighty intellectual, you will get honest and unfiltered responses.  You may not have much experience dealing with honest people, counselor, so try not to get your panties in too tight of a twist when we don't bow before your "intellect" and tell you you're full of shit.

Indeed.  "Full of shit" is in the eye of the beholder.  I've been treated to a lot of it today.  

-Laelth

[Laelth]

I dare you to tell a judge (assuming your claim to be a lawyer is true) that the facts and evidence are not relevant to the case.

His beliefs are not relevant to the argument I make in my essay.  Violent rhetoric leads to tragedy, no matter what its source.  That's my point.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

You essentially said Palin and the right is to blame for a liberal shooting a Democrat politician in the head and that the right is the only one that can address this.

Yeah, I'd pretty much say you're f'ed up in the head.

I didn't say that at all, though that may have been what you heard.

-Laelth

[AllosaursRus]

His beliefs are not relevant to the argument I make in my essay.  Violent rhetoric leads to tragedy, no matter what its source.  That's my point.

-Laelth

Which for any sane person means, ya don't have a ****in' clue what is!

And quit callin' that garbage an essay! As if! It's nothin' more than a MoonBat political opinion!

[Laelth]

Now, you have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned!

   Now that's funny.  I have never had any credibility with you, and that's why I don't respond to you.

-Laelth

[AllosaursRus]

 Now that's funny.  I have never had any credibility with you, and that's why I don't respond to you.

-Laelth

You're right! For once in your life, ya got somethin' right!

I do tend to scrape the dog shit off my tennies before I walk into the house!

You don't respond because to you "Relevant" means the same to you as "is" did to your former "rapist in chief"!

[Carl]

His beliefs are not relevant to the argument I make in my essay.  Violent rhetoric leads to tragedy, no matter what its source.  That's my point.

-Laelth

Okay fine...leftists have not been all that gung ho on the war against Islamofacists and as a result there are American soldiers,innocent people and children being killed daily in their jihad.

I think the left should call upon the terrorists to end their war and their hateful the hateful rhetoric of calling us infidels.
Only the left can do this as they will be seen as having credibility and not trying to make political gain.

Go for it.

[Ballygrl]

Had a Republican been the intended target of a political assasination by a nut-case who's got anti-government (and not just anti-liberal government) YouTube videos, I would.  Yes.

-Laelth

The person targeted wasn't targeted though because they were a Democrat, she was targeted by a kook for a kook reason, so politics shouldn't even come into play here should it? to get political for a moment, this kook from what it looks like sided with the extreme left, so where's your post calling for the left to call their leaders to denounce all the political rhetoric they use?

[AllosaursRus]

The person targeted wasn't targeted though because they were a Democrat, she was targeted by a kook for a kook reason, so politics shouldn't even come into play here should it? to get political for a moment, this kook from what it looks like sided with the extreme left, so where's your post calling for the left to call their leaders to denounce all the political rhetoric they use?

We been askin' the DUmpMonkey that same question all day! Yet to get an answer other than, "right now they can't, cause that would be political posturin', but if the right does it and apologizes it will mean sumpin'" What, I have no idea other than defeat, but she does call the DUmp home, so go figure!

[Laelth]

They've been there and done that.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/25/hoyer_decries_talk_of_reprisals_against_lawmakers/

I'm sure you have a counter link to provide the same type of condemnation from the democrats.

Any second now.....

This was a long, thoughtful response, and it appears I missed it, so I wanted to go back to it.  The link you provide, above, is from March of 2010, but the message contained therein is admirable.  There's no reason that politicians and pundits on the right couldn't echo those sentiments again.  Perhaps some of them already have.

Hmmmmm, sounds like incitement to violence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001362-503544.html

There seems to be a strong correlation here, Laelth.  I'm sure we can count on your best efforts and strongest condemnation of these leftists who have incited violence.

Any second now.....

You provided a long and disturbing list of cases where the people on the left have used incindiary, violent rhetoric.  You didn't need to prove this to me.  I have written enough to know, from people who have responded to my writing, that there are plenty of people on the left who favor 2nd Amendment remedies to our political problems.  I disagree with them on that strategy, and I assume many people on the right agree with me that violent rhetoric creates a climate that invites actual violence.  As such, it behooves all of us to tone it down, don't you think?

-Laelth

[Alpha Mare]

The guy appears to be criminally insane, but I do believe that violent rhetoric leads nuts to act.  It does not matter whether the violent rhetoric comes from the left or from the right.
-Laelth

And who's pitching a bitch because she can no longer "express herself" in her usual fashion?

One can not help criticizing the person when that person's policy is obviously conservative, obviously contrary to the interests of working people, and obviously hypocritical when contrasted with the stated platform of the Democratic Party. One's instinct is to "call out" such people.

It does not resolve the tension I have described.

For years, criticism of conservative posters, conservative policies, conservative politicians, and even conservative Democrats has been allowed if not encouraged.
Until recently, I assumed that anything that I felt needed to be said (as a liberal with a strong social conscience) would be welcomed here. I did not fear that my posts would be deleted. I did not fear that my threads would be locked. I did not fear that I would be threatened with suspension or banning.

I fear those things now, and I resent being made to feel this way. It is DU that has changed, not me.

Quote from: Robb
"Fear"? "Threatened"? "Safe"?
Remember, it's a message board. No one outside your house with an axe or anything.
Not intended to mock, but point out the language you're using may be a little more dire than called for.

Laelth-
First, let me apologize for the anger. But my knee-jerk response is also illustrative. This virtual community means something to me. When posters respond with a dismissive, "Lighten up, Francis," kind of response, I react. I react precisely because I am invested in this community. That kind of investment should not be either dismissed nor demeaned. And you did dismiss and demean my concerns.

As to my use of language, I tend to state things in their starkest, most extreme form for effect. The actual rhetorical trope is "argument ad absurdum," i.e. stretching an idea to its most extreme position to see what it would look like if applied in its most extreme form. It's a useful tool for clarity.

  clarity=shit-stirring

Quote from: Bluerthanblue
with all due respect, if you tend to respond with your "starkest most extreme form for effect" then aren't you anticipating, or maybe inviting conflict? That your 'fear' might be legitimate and appropriate, because if you are walking the line of "extremes" you run the risk of overstepping the rules of civil discussion?

Laelth-
I want my readers to understand where I am coming from.  We know exactly where you're coming from.  I am inviting people to see the larger tension created by the new rules and the way they might get enforced.  Now liberals here are under attack if they do not squelch their criticism of the Democratic Party, and that's creating some tension that is having a negative effect on the community. It's the reaction of a principled person who cares deeply about this country sharing, among friends, his or her frustration and anger.
 
At one time, I had a hard time on this site getting a good argument going. Now, there's virtually nothing I can say that won't get me attacked from all directions, as this thread clearly shows.   That's what's known as a clue.

As I have often argued, one of the essential elements of liberal thinking is a solemn devotion to reality, i.e. a desire to see the world "as it is" and to not be blinded by ideological precepts.  This, I think, is why liberals are right 95% of the time--because we can actually see what's wrong in a way that many people can not.

I think you're confusing reality with your fantasy world of "Heroes Community".  Seek professional help for your anger issues.  And stop diddling that Michael Jackson doll!

Consider this advice. Those who want to bash Michael Jackson should STFU. MJ is more highly regarded than Mozart.  - Laelth

Quote from: Tangerine LaBamba
It's attempted censorship, and it's not aggressive - it's offensive. Not the letters themselves, but the sentiment behind it.

If you don't like what someone posts, you have options. Telling them that you think they shouldn't post anything with which you don't agree is a despotic and unconvincing stab at silencing people, and it's just not right.

There are some absolutes, and expressing opinions in a respectful and impersonal way is something that a writer of any skill should strive to do. Extolling people to keep their thoughts to themselves because they do not conform to yours is a peculiar, self-absorbed, and exclusionary attempt that, fortunately, fails.

Your anger is palpable, but you might want to examine where that anger comes from. I suspect it might not have anything to do with the passing of Michael Jackson.

In any event, this might do well on another forum, but here you do have options, and telling people to shut the **** up really isn't one of them.............................

Using language that stands for "shut the **** up" is a strange way to "advise." And why would you take it upon yourself to "advise" anyone? Exactly what wire was tripped that set you up as the arbiter of discourse here? As an "educator"?

Really? That's quite a role to take on without a contract or a general election.

Yes, your post was offensive, as far as I'm concerned, but I was not offended, so, honestly, no apology is called for. At least not to me. But it is kind of you to offer.

You might, though, want to apologize to the concepts behind democraticunderground.com, and the notion that free and respectful discourse is the hallmark of this place. You tried to punch it out with your OP, but your swing missed.

Fortunately.......................

Quote from:Laelth
I am glad you were not truly offended. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

Quote from: Tangerine LaBamba
Sure -  I do hope, though, that the next time anyone tries to set themselves up as the arbiter of what should be posted, you'll be in a position to give them the benefit of your experience here.....................

http://www.oldelmtree.com/index.php?board=120.20

[Carl]

Here we have a group that after...

40 plus years of the war on poverty still believes taking money from people that earn it and handing it to those who won`t will end poverty

30 plus years of openly declared jihad against the USA and free world there is no terrorist threat

80 plus years of failed socialist governments that end in squalor and tyranny that is still the economic system we should have

...can say with a straight face "As I have often argued, one of the essential elements of liberal thinking is a solemn devotion to reality, i.e. a desire to see the world "as it is" and to not be blinded by ideological precepts.  This, I think, is why liberals are right 95% of the time--because we can actually see what's wrong in a way that many people can not."as posted above by AM (H5 for finding it).

It fits right in with the infantile nonsense Laelth is trying to assert (with no ability to defend) though.
They have declared themselves the enlightened,the entitled to rule so only they are the final arbiters of proper thought.

A perfect Utopia of control...I can say what I want and because I am always right it is okay but you say the same against me it is evil and hateful,how DARE you!

It is the typical workings of a childish maturity that can rationalize everything they want no matter how ludicrous,deny with a passion that they didn`t do something caught red handed at and never thinks any farther past getting their way.

You have done a great job Laelth illustrating how intellectually vacant liberalism is.