• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

South Carolina GOP debate was.....weird

Sooooo, are we ever going to talk about the terrible things they said? Or is this just going to continue being a thread all about me?
 
Travis said:
Sooooo, are we ever going to talk about the terrible things they said? Or is this just going to continue being a thread all about me?
Click to expand...

It'll be about you until such time as you gripe about a liberal. At that point you'll be Speaking Truth to Power.

Hope this helps.
 
Neally said:
Nope. Nor do I troll forums and blogs daily looking for stupid thinks the left comes up with. If I did, I'd be prolifically posting here daily. Drudgereport does a pretty good job of doing that.
Click to expand...
Time out for a cute typo ........

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
 
I wonder, Neally (or anyone else who wants to back him up), has anyone within the Democratic Party ever told his or her own party to stop being stupid? Or racist? Or bigoted? Has anyone left the party because it had veered too far to the left? These things must all be happening, since the stupid and crazy is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right.
 
Neally said:
Nope, I'm not going to try to filter the regular "Look what stupid thing this right winger said..." posts to debate which are worthy of mockery and which are not. Nor will I battle it with regular, "Look what stupid thing this left winger said" posts. But you have fun with it if that's what floats your boat.
Click to expand...

So differentiating between the two and adding useful discussion to a topic isn't worth your time but the posts you've made in this thread are? You willingly admit the content of threads are irrelevant and you'll just post what you always post regardless of the topic?

Why is it exactly that you're even here?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because these debates are for members of the party not the general public. They know they have to say different things to their party vsb the public and so can't be expected to support those views when you switch venues like that. It is like the scum who recorded Romney's speach when he talked about the 47% of Americans who are pure parasites.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how any of that makes these comments acceptable. It's certainly a back-handed defense.
 
Last edited:
Back to the OP:

During the Nixon period, a meme that came out of the Watergate proceedings, IIRC from the tapes, which ran amok in the newspapers and late night comedy circuits: "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."

Hunter S. Thompson lampooned it thusly: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

I sometimes wonder if the various behind-closed-doors meetings of the GOP are run on the premise that Thompson was serious, and was giving sage advice on how to run a political party. Running W in 2000 was the first time that hypothesis awoke in my mind.
 
Last edited:
Black Hole Box said:
Neally, if a Liberal said southerners are toothless freaks, I would take a stand against that person regardless of party because what they said is idiotic. Are you willing to stand up and say the people quoted in the OP are also idiots?

Just kidding. I know you won't do that.
Click to expand...

Of course when a good old southern conservative says blacks had it better and were happier under jim crow conservatives line up around the block to defend him.
 
Neally said:
Nope, I'm not going to try to filter the regular "Look what stupid thing this right winger said..." posts to debate which are worthy of mockery and which are not. Nor will I battle it with regular, "Look what stupid thing this left winger said" posts. But you have fun with it if that's what floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Exactly you can't expect the people the party elects to represent the party. As such criticising them is pointless.

I mean if we talked about every republican person in congress who didn't know the national parks service was part of the federal government and what that says about the people republicans vote for we wouldn't have time to talk about anything else.
 
uke2se said:
Facts aren't biased, Emily. These people did say these things. There's nothing biased in that.
Click to expand...

Consider the following scenario representing the opinions of a group of 5th graders:
Person 1: Cats are great
Person 2: Cats are awful
Person 3: Cats are great
Person 4: Cats are great
Person 5: Cats are great
Person 6: Cats are great
Person 7: Cats are great
Person 8: Cats are great
Person 9: Cats are awful
Person 10: Cats are great
Person 11: Cats are great
Person 12: Cats are great
Person 13: Cats are great
Person 14: Cats are great

Now... Imagine that a reporter comes along and after interviewing them, only quotes Person 2 and Person 9, and says "Look how much 5th graders hate cats!"

Is it reasonable to say that facts aren't biased, because people actually say these things? I mean, it's absolutely true that Person 2 and Person 9 said that cats are awful. There's is no untruth there. It is a fact that they said those things.

But is it true to say that the conclusion is unbiased, considering that the selection you were shown consisted only of those that confirmed the opinion that cats are awful?

Especially if there *might* be reason to suspect that the report has an agenda that is furthered by showing that 5th graders hate cats?
 
For the record, I do happen to agree that the republican party at present is being dominated by a bunch of bigoted rhetoric. I don't know, however, if that's the dog or the tail doing the wagging. And I do firmly believe that the media makes it's money by presenting the most "National Enquirer" style spectacle that it can get away with without actually going full retard. Which means that what we're presented with is NOT an unbiased presentation, but is often cherry-picked to present the juiciest, most gossipy bits of meat they can find.

I also firmly believe the the democratic party as it stands right now is dominated by a rhetoric that engages in mockery and ridicule as it's primary mode of attack, that belittles and scorns the opponent, any of the opponent's adherents, anyone it deems to be "uneducated" and basically takes an elitist and arrogant approach to the entirety of politics... which isn't going to win them any converts.

And just as the Republican Party's most vociferous followers tend to echo the worst of their rhetoric, so too do the Democrat's most zealous followers adopt their modus operandi. Which is a large part of why I'm neither.
 
Last edited:
Emily Cat said:
Consider the following scenario representing the opinions of a group of 5th graders:
Person 1: Cats are mammals
Person 2: Cats are reptiles
Person 3: Cats are mammals
Person 4: Cats are mammals
Person 5: Cats are mammals
Person 6: Cats are mammals
Person 7: Cats are mammals
Person 8: Cats are mammals
Person 9: Cats are reptiles
Person 10: Cats are mammals
Person 11: Cats are mammals
Person 12: Cats are mammals
Person 13: Cats are mammals
Person 14: Cats are mammals
Click to expand...

I think the above is a more accurate reflection of what is being discussed in terms of this thread and to make matters worse when anyone tries to correct these 'fifth graders' they claim the other person is involved in some sort of conspiracy.
 
Emily Cat said:
Consider the following scenario representing the opinions of a group of 5th graders:
Person 1: Cats are great
Person 2: Cats are awful
Person 3: Cats are great
Person 4: Cats are great
Person 5: Cats are great
Person 6: Cats are great
Person 7: Cats are great
Person 8: Cats are great
Person 9: Cats are awful
Person 10: Cats are great
Person 11: Cats are great
Person 12: Cats are great
Person 13: Cats are great
Person 14: Cats are great

Now... Imagine that a reporter comes along and after interviewing them, only quotes Person 2 and Person 9, and says "Look how much 5th graders hate cats!"

Is it reasonable to say that facts aren't biased, because people actually say these things? I mean, it's absolutely true that Person 2 and Person 9 said that cats are awful. There's is no untruth there. It is a fact that they said those things.

But is it true to say that the conclusion is unbiased, considering that the selection you were shown consisted only of those that confirmed the opinion that cats are awful?

Especially if there *might* be reason to suspect that the report has an agenda that is furthered by showing that 5th graders hate cats?
Click to expand...

I can match this illustration to the OP better though.

Person 1: Cats are evil and literally possed by Satan
Person 2: Cats are lazy because they don't know God, there shouldn't be a church state separation.
Person 3: Cats are a scam by scientists.
Person 4: Cats might exist, there isn't enough evidence yet.

Oh, and all these persons are running to be representatives. They are literally representative of their party.
 
To make it better one would have to put it like this:

The fifth grade has nominated three candidates for school presidency.

When asked if cats are good or evil we get the following:

5th Grade Nominee 1: Cats are currently possessed by the Devil to act evil
5th Grade Nominee 2: Cats are evil because they aren't American enough
5th Grade Nominee 3: Cats and dogs are the same and both are evil



Given that scenario wouldn't it make sense to think that maybe the 5th grade has issues with cats since all three of the candidates express such opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom