Restoring Honor Rally 8/28

[Cicero]

Then buy that book at $0.99 and read what the weapons inspectors knew in 2002. You'll find that it is 100% accurate.

Your inability to identify reliable sources is yet another Pyrrhic sort of argument.

Scott Ritter, the same guy who hit on a 14-year-old girl, and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt, are your "realizable sources?" They deals in rampant speculation and the lack of any references or bibliography in their pamphlet are conspicuous by their absence.

 

[TraneWreck]

Find what?

Are you serious? Notice what I quoted from you.

Where is your evidence that Hitchens had his kids baptized.

Everything I google with the relevant terms leads to anti-baptism arguments by Hitchens. If you have evidence, however, I would like to see it.

 

[TraneWreck]

You're right, no one should ever publicly question the partisan cage matches around here.

Carry on.

You're welcome to question it. You're welcome to call me a "partisan hack."

I'm welcome to respond. I don't see the problem.

Sometimes the correct answer happens to align with a particular partisan stance. When people on this board argue against teaching creationism in schools, they are both arguing correctly on the merits and engaging in partisan discussion.

Do I also need to note the irony of complaining about partisanship in a thread about Glenn Beck?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Hey, morans.... Restoring Honor Rally? Remember? Let's get back to Beck lying about how many people attended his rally.

 

[TraneWreck]

Scott Ritter, the same guy who hit on a 14-year-old girl, and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt, are your "realizable sources?" They deals in rampant speculation and the lack of any references or bibliography in their pamphlet are conspicuous by their absence.

Well, I called that one.

You realize how pathetic your argument is? You won't even look at the evidence, preferring to attack people.

Ritter might be a scumbag. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

 

[Ducky]

You're welcome to question it. You're welcome to call me a "partisan hack."

I'm welcome to respond. I don't see the problem.

Did I call you specifically a partisan hack? That you think I did may say more than you expect.

However, my issue with this statement:

The forum has mods. They are capable of doing their job without the aid of your sanctimony.

...is that you seem to be saying by your responses anyone commenting is to be ignored until the mods step in. This gives the appearance that you're not really open for any type of suggestion or discussion and would prefer those around you keep their trap shut and let the mods step in. Do you deny that where this thread has gone should be moved to the politics section, or are you saying there isn't a political grudge match happening in this thread?

But do carry on. It's not like others in this thread before the cage match wanted to discuss something without the usual smarmy political punditry that takes place in the politics section.

Oh wait, we're not in the politics section, are we?

PS. points for being the only person in the history of these forums to ever refer to me as sanctimonious. I needed a good laugh.

 

[Cicero]

Are you serious? Notice what I quoted from you.

Where is your evidence that Hitchens had his kids baptized.

Everything I google with the relevant terms leads to anti-baptism arguments by Hitchens. If you have evidence, however, I would like to see it.

Apparently you know as much about Hitch as you do about Ritter. Hitch's personal history with the sacraments of religion are not exactly classified information.

He was married to his first wife in a Greek Orthodox church, to his second, Carol Blue, by a rabbi. He had his son, Alexander, now 23, baptised. He educates his daughter, Antonia, 13, at a Quaker school, Sidwell Friends, alma mater of Chelsea Clin ton and Al Gore’s son. He has taken her to Washington’s Anglican cathedral to familiarise her with the liturgy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1855247.ece

The less said about your Google skills the better.

 

[TraneWreck]

...is that you seem to be saying by your responses anyone commenting is to be ignored until the mods step in. This gives the appearance that you're not really open for any type of suggestion or discussion and would prefer those around you keep their trap shut and let the mods step in. Do you deny that where this thread has gone should be moved to the politics section, or are you saying there isn't a political grudge match happening in this thread?

Nope. If the discussion is off-topic, they can move it. You made a very condescending, contentless comment about the discussion taking place using scolding of off-topic discussion as a pretext.

But do carry on. It's not like others in this thread before the cage match wanted to discuss something without the usual smarmy political punditry that takes place in the politics section.

Oh wait, we're not in the politics section, are we?

How would you propose discussing Glenn Beck without mentioning politics? "Politics" and "current events" are not mutually exclusive.

PS. points for being the only person in the history of these forums to ever refer to me as sanctimonious. I needed a good laugh.

Perhaps this is the first time you've engaged in sanctimonious argumentation, perhaps I'm the first to notice. Who knows? Relying on your past to sanitize your statement, however, isn't much of a claim.

Sanctimony=hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness.

You're scolding others for having a political discussion in a political thread implying that that sort of back and forth is beneath you.

You can call it what you want. It sure seems like the right word.

 

[Ducky]

Nope. If the discussion is off-topic, they can move it. You made a very condescending, contentless comment about the discussion taking place using scolding of off-topic discussion as a pretext.

Two guys are fist fighting in the street. A third goes out and suggests they be more constructive by donning boxing gloves and heading to the appropriate venue. The response "If you don't like it, call the cops" is not anything but an affirmation that those two people care little about anything said around them and are just headstrong to punch each other.

How would you propose discussing Glenn Beck without mentioning politics? "Politics" and "current events" are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were. But it is possible to discuss Glenn Beck's rally without delving into a cage match about Bush43.

Perhaps this is the first time you've engaged in sanctimonious argumentation, perhaps I'm the first to notice. Who knows? Relying on your past to sanitize your statement, however, isn't much of a claim.

Sanctimony=hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness.

You're scolding others for having a political discussion in a political thread implying that that sort of back and forth is beneath you.

You can call it what you want. It sure seems like the right word.

I call it asking someone to move their discussion to the proper forum section. You can call it what you want.

 

[Cicero]

Ritter might be a scumbag. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

Right. It's just a happy coincident that he is both.

 

[TraneWreck]

Two guys are fist fighting in the street. A third goes out and suggests they be more constructive by donning boxing gloves and heading to the appropriate venue. The response "If you don't like it, call the cops" is not anything but an affirmation that those two people care little about anything said around them and are just headstrong to punch each other.

Notice that your example carries the same condescending undertone that I objected to in the first place.

In this example the people having the discussion are brawlers in the street while you're some high-minded good Samaritan trying to break it up. This is not sanctimony?

I didn't say they were. But it is possible to discuss Glenn Beck's rally without delving into a cage match about Bush43.

Sometimes conversations lead where they lead. Given that combat operations in Iraq ended last week, the President gave a major speech that ignored (rightly or wrongly) why we were there, and it's been a hot topic here, it's a logical direction for a discussion on current events to develop.

I call it asking someone to move their discussion to the proper forum section. You can call it what you want.

That would be fine. You went a bit further, however. You didn't criticize just the off-topic nature of the discussion, you made a characterization of the discussion that I didn't appreciate.

It's not a big deal. You made your slam, I replied.

The last word is yours. I don't think there's much else to say on this.

 

[AlBell]

Hey, morans.... Restoring Honor Rally? Remember? Let's get back to Beck lying about how many people attended his rally.

Might as well, since no one here can find anything else about the Rally worth discussing.

 

[TraneWreck]

Apparently you know as much about Hitch as you do about Ritter. Hitch's personal history with the sacraments of religion are not exactly classified information.

He was married to his first wife in a Greek Orthodox church, to his second, Carol Blue, by a rabbi. He had his son, Alexander, now 23, baptised. He educates his daughter, Antonia, 13, at a Quaker school, Sidwell Friends, alma mater of Chelsea Clin ton and Al Gore’s son. He has taken her to Washington’s Anglican cathedral to familiarise her with the liturgy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1855247.ece

The less said about your Google skills the better.

Please. That's why I asked, rather than making an argument. I find that to be a surprising revelation.

Aim your hostility elsewhere. Sometimes a question is just a question.

 

[TraneWreck]

Right. It's just a happy coincident that he is both.

Ritter says, "Don't go to war. There aren't any WMDs or any programs."

Please explain the part that was wrong.

 

[Ducky]

Notice that your example carries the same condescending undertone that I objected to in the first place.

In this example the people having the discussion are brawlers in the street while you're some high-minded good Samaritan trying to break it up. This is not sanctimony?

Let's move my analogy to inside a bar. Patrons wanting to play darts interrupted by the brawlers aren't good Samaritans, they just want the dicks to stop interrupting.

Sometimes conversations lead where they lead. Given that combat operations in Iraq ended last week, the President gave a major speech that ignored (rightly or wrongly) why we were there, and it's been a hot topic here, it's a logical direction for a discussion on current events to develop.

So this is relevant to Glenn Beck's rally. Got it. (ETA: Perhaps if you want to explain why it's relevant, I'd be less inclined to think this is just a derail by punditry.)

That would be fine. You went a bit further, however. You didn't criticize just the off-topic nature of the discussion, you made a characterization of the discussion that I didn't appreciate.

It's not a big deal. You made your slam, I replied.

The last word is yours. I don't think there's much else to say on this.

I'm sorry you think it's condescending. Perhaps you should work on your people skills.

(That was condescending. Learn the difference.)

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Two guys are fist fighting in the street. A third goes out and suggests they be more constructive by donning boxing gloves and heading to the appropriate venue. The response "If you don't like it, call the cops" is not anything but an affirmation that those two people care little about anything said around them and are just headstrong to punch each other.

I like this analogy. But I would advise the third not to get pulled into a fight by one of the other two.

 

[Ducky]

I like this analogy. But I would advise the third not to get pulled into a fight by one of the other two.

Best post yet. I'll unsubscribe from the thread now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you hadn't noticed, ace, there was a discussion going on before the Bush43 cage match, and I was in it. Since you arrived late I can see why you'd have missed my posts on the first four pages of the thread.

And for the record, I'm not taking any more Cicero bait. It's a rerun and I've seen it.

 

[JihadJane]

Restoring Honor:

'Honor' Killing: The Crimewave that Shames the World

 

[Cicero]

C-SPAN caller Steve has a few words of wisdom for Al's 'Reclaim the Dream' march.

"You guys just use Dr. King's name up and down every year and it's only gotten worse. You have used Civil rights against black people."

http://www.simfany.com/news-agent/education-176/rev-al-sharpton-blasted-on-cspan-69171/