Why Do They Hate America?
Michelle Malkin has a graphic on her blog that says "Proud to be an unpatriot in Obama's America."
I could probably spend about 2 minutes digging up dozens of instances where she accused various people of hating America and being insufficiently patriotic for opposing medieval torture and a dumb war, but I'm not going to. I'm going to go to sleep instead.
I could probably spend about 2 minutes digging up dozens of instances where she accused various people of hating America and being insufficiently patriotic for opposing medieval torture and a dumb war, but I'm not going to. I'm going to go to sleep instead.
posted by Matt Bors at
1:35 AM
35 Comments:
You're missing the point - Malkin is being sarcastic when she reprises all the nonsense we've been hearing from your side of the aisle the past 8 years.
It was Obama himself who used the word "patriotic" describing those who support his idiot "stimulus" bill, 90% of which does not even address the supposed "emergency," and in fact won't even be spent for 2 or 3 years (just in time for Obama's re-election bid!)
The international banking system is on the cusp of insolvency, and Obama has more than doubled the national debt in 3 weeks, and worse, set a new baseline for future idiot spending. The entitlement obligations of the US will now exceed the GDP of the ENTIRE WORLD.
You were more accurate than you realized when you said: "I'm going to go to sleep instead." I would suggest you've already BEEN asleep.
actually LGWalt, sarcastic or not, after the past 8 years it would be morally indefensible for any Republican to carry on like the "Not my president" folks of yesteryear. Just as it should and will be morally indefensible for us Dems to impugn the patriotism of others. The best either side should muster is a similar sentiment, watered down. Like " I don't know if you get exactly what's going on here, but people need help and it seems like this is the best way to deal with it. If you have a new idea that doesn't make the founders roll in their graves or echo the failed policies of the last 8 years we'd like to hear it." I dunno. I guess that's why I'm not a politician.
"ctually LGWalt, sarcastic or not, after the past 8 years it would be morally indefensible for any Republican to carry on like the "Not my president" folks of yesteryear."
That's Malkin's (and my point).
"Like " I don't know if you get exactly what's going on here, but people need help and it seems like this is the best way to deal with it. If you have a new idea that doesn't make the founders roll in their graves or echo the failed policies of the last 8 years we'd like to hear it."
We already know from history that this is NOT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. The Federal government could give everyone, individuals and corporations, a "tax holiday" for a year and a half, and it wouldn't be any more expensive than what was passed this weekend. But it WOULD put hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy, where it would be utilized much more efficiently.
I'm not advocating a year and a half "tax holiday," but it would be far superior to what Obama and the Dems have actually done. The reason, of course, that this policy was not even considered is that the point of this bill was not "stimulus," it was paying off the constituencies of the Democratic Party. That's why the K-Street lobbyists got copies of the bill before the Republicans in the Senate did.
Essentially, Obama, Reid and Pelosi have decided that all taxpaying entities are going to have to subsidize the Democratic Party. THAT'S why the bill wasn't shown to the public, why it was drawn up in secret, why it was given to lobbyists, and why it was justified as a response to an "emergency" that doesn't exist.
The big mystery is why any of this should surprise anyone. You elect a product of the Chicago political machine, this is what you get.
Obama used the word "patriotic" to describe his bill...worthy or criticism but not unique for a president.
I actually don't have a problem with Malkin or Rush wanting Obama to fail--it's their naked hypocrisy I can't stand.
They spent eight years equating dissent and disagreement with Republicans as intrinsically unpatriotic. Remember "Saddam Lovers?"
"They spent eight years equating dissent and disagreement with Republicans as intrinsically unpatriotic. "
That's a gross oversimplification. What they criticized wasn't mere "dissent and disagreement."
These were people who burned the American flag at rallies, and blocked military recruiting stations while spitting of the recruiting non-coms.
These are people who carried posters of a beheaded President Bush.
These are people who joked of assassinating President Bush.
These are people who said the American flag represented slavery, imperialism, oppression, etc. etc.
When Rush and Malkin start doing Obama assassination jokes, burning the American flag, etc., THEN you'll have a right to call them hypocrites. But you'll have to wait a long time to ever see anything remotely resembling that kind of behavior.
As a matter of fact, it was not just directed at a few radical protesters. Democrats in Congress, John Kerry running for president-- these people were labeled some variation of terrorist enabling, unpatriotic ninnies who didn't know or simply didn't care about America's safety. The Vice President said we would be nuked if we elected John Kerry. Rush, Malkin and their ilk, constantly equated liberalism as fundamentally opposed to American Values (as defined by them).
Now, I understand you are an apologist for them, so we could go back in forth forever. But those are the facts.
"But those are the facts."
Not QUITE the facts.
You left out the part where Kerry (and others) voted to try and defund the troops in the field after they had previously voted to authorize the mission in the first place.
You also left out past statements John Kerry made during the Vietnam conflict.
It's one thing to "dissent." It's quite another to falsely accuse American troops of atrocities in the field, and then try to take away their ammunition, supplies, etc. in a mission that they voted to authorize in the first place.
Bors = 1
LGwalt = 0
Bors = 1
LGwalt = 0
Pretty revealing that you can't even come up with an argument to support your claim.
Isn't this Stimulus Bill, Pt. 2 anyway?
I'd like to point out to all the Malkin 'fans' that there are websites that show Asian chicks naked, so you can masturbate to those instead.
I'd like to point out to all the Malkin 'fans' that there are websites that show Asian chicks naked, so you can masturbate to those instead.
Sort of revealing of the intellectual level of your liberalism, isn't it? No argument, reasoning, etc. Just sexual references as a substitute for actually saying something "witty."
Why waste neurons on someone who actually believes in trickle-down?
Larry-
My claim is that Matt makes the better point, which speaks for itself. Where's your argument? Oh, the irony.
Why waste neurons on someone who actually believes in trickle-down?
You mean the way it's actually worked throughout all of the recorded history of humanity?
I would agree with you on one point, though. You don't have any neurons to waste. Better stop while you can.
My claim is that Matt makes the better point, which speaks for itself. Where's your argument?
If you make claims without giving reasons, there's no point in anyone paying attention to you, is there?
Oh, the irony.
'You mean the way it's actually worked throughout all of the recorded history of humanity?'
Uh, try again. Wealth accelerated with the rise of the nation-state. I don't recall Columbus working for a scrappy Spanish start-up. Like it or not, there has always been public involvement. Trickle-down and laissez-faire have repeatedly failed in the long run - you see, sometimes people lie when there are zero consequences to lying. Econ 102 is a helluva class - you should take it.
'I would agree with you on one point, though. You don't have any neurons to waste. Better stop while you can.'
omglol!!!
Econ 102 is a helluva class - you should take it.
I did, now it's your turn.
Trickle-down and laissez-faire have repeatedly failed in the long run -
That's what they said in 1960 (Kennedy's tax cut) the 1980's (Reagan's tax cut) and 2000 (Bush's tax cut). Each time the economy expanded, unemployment dropped, and the government took in more revenue.
you see, sometimes people lie when there are zero consequences to lying.
By "zero consequences," are you saying you AREN'T embarrassed by being shown up in a public forum?
Okay, let's try again: take Econ 102 and PASS.
'That's what they said in 1960 (Kennedy's tax cut) the 1980's (Reagan's tax cut) and 2000 (Bush's tax cut). Each time the economy expanded, unemployment dropped, and the government took in more revenue'
So you are saying on record that Bush's policy led to net job creation.
Kennedy and Reagan are both interesting examples - would these tax cuts work as well were it not for government programs (Star Wars, Vietnam)? Spending increased tremendously under both these leaders without a way to pay for it. Note that there was a significant economic problem after these presidents' wars ended. You can't let the public sector erode when economies go south.
So you are saying on record that Bush's policy led to net job creation.
Sure. It's easy to compare the economic performance under the Bush Administration to foreign economies (which used tax policy that you are endorsing)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122039890722392873.html
- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.
- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.
- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.
While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.
- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.
Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.
When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.
The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.
- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.
The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.
Kennedy and Reagan are both interesting examples - would these tax cuts work as well were it not for government programs (Star Wars, Vietnam)?
What you call "Star Wars" can't remotely begin to explain the economic expansion and low unemployment of the Reagan years. And as a proportion of national income, the defense budget (even during Vietnam) was lower than it was in the 1950's. Also, as a proportion of national income, the defense budget in the 1980's was far smaller than it was in the 1960's. Bottom line, national defense can't be used as an excuse for why Kennedy's and Reagan's (and Bush's, by the way) economies performed so well.
Spending increased tremendously under both these leaders without a way to pay for it.
Under Kennedy/Johnson, spending increased "tremendously" because of the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp programs, etc., all in a "War on Poverty." You liberals like to START programs, and then complain about the resultant deficits.
Under Reagan, spending increased "tremendously" because the House of Representatives (where spending originates) spent $1.50 for each dollar taken in. So the record revenues taken in the Reagan years actually led to greater deficits. The House was controlled by Democrats in those years, and the Senate as well, all but two years. In the 8 budgets submitted by Reagan, 7 of the 8 were enlarged by the Democratic congress.
"If you make claims without giving reasons, there's no point in anyone paying attention to you, is there?
Oh, the irony."
Yet, ironically, you are.
Why should I have to repeat Matt's points? As I said, they speak for themselves.
Why should I have to repeat Matt's points? As I said, they speak for themselves.
Because Matt couldn't give a single example of Malkin's supposed "hypocrisy."
All he had to do was give an example of Malkin: Burning an American flag; declaring the war was "lost" in Afghanistan; accusing American soldiers of war crimes; supporting defunding of soldiers in the field; illegally publishing secret intelligence information in an effort to undermine the Obama administration; carrying a poster of a beheaded Obama; making jokes about assassinating Obama, etc. That is the kind of behavior Malkin called "unpatriotic," NOT merely "dissenting."
The only thing Malkin has done is sarcastically refer to herself as "unpatriotic" because she didn't support the Spendulus bill.
Because Matt couldn't give a single example of Malkin's supposed "hypocrisy."
Matt could but didn't because he's as sick as everyone else of Malkin's knee-jerk, chronic oppositional-disorder bullshit.
World: It's red.
Malkin: It's BROWN and you only say it's red because you're a commie islamofash Obama brainslave.
C'mon, apologise for the world's brownest white supremacist one more time- it's amusing. Now, work harder! Type! Type! Type!
Fuck it, who wants pie?
C'mon, apologise for the world's brownest white supremacist one more time- it's amusing. Now, work harder! Type! Type! Type!
When are you guys on the left going to realize that emotional outbursts and snarky comments are not argumentation?
All you have is attitude, not the truth.
No- not just snark & 'tude, dude... We've got PIE. Warm, delicious pie.
Mmmmmm.
You could have pie too if you could just get your tongue out of Malkin's poop chute long enough to savour the crisp, flaky pastry.
No- not just snark & 'tude, dude... We've got PIE.
And not a single functioning brain cell.
Really, though, what chance would you have? You simply aren't smart enough to debate me. All you can do is make scatological references (look it up) and non sequiturs (look it up).
And scream "Malkin is RACIST!"
I can't imagine why you'd be allowed to operate heavy machinery.
You make sweeping estimations of my intelligence whilst knowing nothing whatsoever about me. It's thus fair to conclude you use the same level of information to make your other judgments.
Despite your struggle with ignorance and misinformation, I'll take your underinformed comment that to mean you don't want any pie.
And it's really good pie, too. You don't have a CLUE how good this pie is.
Remember- not your pie.
You make sweeping estimations of my intelligence whilst knowing nothing whatsoever about me.
I know that you can't muster any arguments to support your position, and have to rely on inane posts about pie because you know you don't have anything to say.
That kind of attitude will NOT get you any pie.
And Malkin is still a racist twunt deserving of no effort whatsoever.
When are you guys on the left going to realize that emotional outbursts and snarky comments are not argumentation?
Ask Ann Coulter.
Ask Ann Coulter.
If you actually READ Ann Coulter you'd see she actually makes arguments. Like you'd expect a former editor from the U of M Law Review to do.
You guys need to stop listening to each other and begin to engage the arguments. You may think you don't need to now, but if you don't, people are going to catch on.
This has been entertaining to read. But please read this entire post and don't just comment to one little snippet.
LGWalt, you are construing argumentation too narrowly. If we use Aristotle, still a staple in rhetoric classes over two millenia later, then we can show that there are multiple ways to argue. Modern audiences tend to show a preference for logos (statistics and logical propositions). But there are other rhetorical devices that are equally as valid, such as ethos - establishing your own credibility or attacking the credibility of someone else. In the case of the original post and his subsequent replies, Matt's using an ethos claim - he's pointing out the hypocrisy of Malkin's position when she's taken the exact opposite side in the past. The fact that she rendered this opinion sarcastically does not change the fact that it's a hypocritical statement to make. I also think that not all of her targets of the past were equally deserving of ire, so the ethos claim is valid.
It's unfortunate that modern audiences have a preference for logos, because that explains why there's such a heavy reliance on talking points amongst the public. People's brains shut off when they hear statistics; it's almost as if they're saying, "The experts have weighed in, I don't have to think anymore." But statistics can be wrong, misleading, or flat-out lies, as well. There is no consensus amongst economists as to which solution is best: some say stimulus as is, some say tax-cuts, some say the stimulus needs to be bigger. So while I'm not qualified to debate the substance of economics with you, I can question the level of confidence you have for a conclusion based off of only a handful of data points. I mean, how many massive tax cuts have we had in modern American history? On the flip side, how many massive public works programs meant to pull us out of recession have we had? The honest economist on any side will say, "I think that my plan will work, but there's a ton of unpredictability out there." Any economist who KNOWS that his plan will work (and I'm including both your talking points above AND any true believers from Team Obama) is a liar, a fool, or a zealot.
Why are you even here, LGWalt? You constantly criticize others for not having arguments, but I suspect that you're not interested in honest debate, or else you wouldn't have started this off with guns-blazing and insults-flinging. Take it from someone who has played the role of "forum troll" on more than one occasion, himself. I can scream "truth to power" all I want on blogs that I hate, but what's it really doing? I didn't change a single mind, I didn't even plant a single seed of doubt. At some point, I realized how swallow and masturbatory that type of thing is.
If you're interested in ACTUAL debate, then drop the smarmy smarter-than-thou crap and the insults and engage people on a civil level. You actually picked a fight amongst a strange crowd. Despite being overtly left, neither Matt nor his readers are uncritical of Obama or the stimulus. You might find out that with a civil tone, you have at least a few things in common. Are you interested in that at all? Or do you just want to shout at people in a way that accomplishes absolutely nothing?
LGWalt, you are construing argumentation too narrowly.
People frequently resort to that strategy (trying to broaden the discussion) when they begin to see that they don't have any evidence to bolster their initial claim. They then try to focus on something else (changing the subject) or bringing up unrelated matters (muddying the waters).
Matt's using an ethos claim - he's pointing out the hypocrisy of Malkin's position when she's taken the exact opposite side in the past.
In fact, that isn't true. I've already listed several examples in which she attacked people in the past, and she simply hasn't done what the others did. If you can show her making accusations of brutality on the part of the troops, supporting defunding the troops while in the field, burning the flag, carrying posters of a beheaded Obama - etc., etc., then you might have something.
The fact that she rendered this opinion sarcastically does not change the fact that it's a hypocritical statement to make.
The very definition of "sarcasm" involves a statement designed to illustrate a point, not reveal a true disposition, so again, you fail to make your point here.
I also think that not all of her targets of the past were equally deserving of ire, so the ethos claim is valid.
All of ANYONE'S "targets" will never be "equally deserving of ire," so that would mean that factual argumentation could never, ever be used.
I can question the level of confidence you have for a conclusion based off of only a handful of data points.
And yet you don't question my opponents' conclusions based on ZERO "data points." Interesting.
I mean, how many massive tax cuts have we had in modern American history?
Three, in the past 50 years. And the mechanisms for why they DO work are well-understood. In the case of the last cut under the most recent administration, the very critics who insisted it couldn't possibly result in greater revenues, job creation, economic growth, etc., were all proven wrong - and unfortunately are running things now.
Any economist who KNOWS that his plan will work (and I'm including both your talking points above AND any true believers from Team Obama) is a liar, a fool, or a zealot.
Well, THAT'S an interesting conclusion, considering you just said a few sentences earlier that you weren't qualified to argue economics with me. If you're "not qualified" (by your own admission) you're hardly in a position to make the conclusion you just did.
You constantly criticize others for not having arguments, but I suspect that you're not interested in honest debate...
I would suggest you read this thread over again. I have been the only one referring to specific details of fact. Interesting that you side against ME, instead of the moron who kept talking about "pie," and unsupported accusations of racism on Malkin's part, along with vile sexual references. No, THOSE don't bother you. Quoting from the International Monetary Fund however, doesn't qualify as "honest debate." Fascinating.
If you're interested in ACTUAL debate, then drop the smarmy smarter-than-thou crap and the insults and engage people on a civil level.
Oh, you mean like accusing people of masturbating, or having their tongues in someone's "poop scoop." Yeah, I'm the REAL problem here, quoting UN and Dept. of Commerce statistics. Can't have any of THAT.
LGWalt, I stick to my original position that there's more than one way to argue and that ethos claims are valid. You draw a false parallel in regards to ethos - Matt doesn't have to find posts of Malkin's BEING unpatriotic, since that's not the claim he's trying to make (note his much better use of sarcasm in the post title). He is comparing her staggeringly ironic choice of words in that post to her vitrol in the opposite direction in the past. But you will no doubt say that those past accusations were justified. In that case, then I'm afraid that we just don't agree on the terms of the debate. Burning the flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech, continuously upheld by Supreme Courts of every ideological persuasion. Criticizing your country can be a very patriotic thing to do when your country has done bad things. If you can't find ANY agreement with these points, then we won't make any leeway with this part of the discussion - at this point, it becomes an irreconcilable argument about values.
And yet you don't question my opponents' conclusions based on ZERO "data points." Interesting.
And the mechanisms for why they DO work are well-understood.
Well, THAT'S an interesting conclusion, considering you just said a few sentences earlier that you weren't qualified to argue economics with me. If you're "not qualified" (by your own admission) you're hardly in a position to make the conclusion you just did.
There's no contradiction. I don't know the ins and outs of economics. But I do know how to do social science research. And I know that any conclusion drawn off of limited data, regardless of the field, is going to be problematic. And if you look back, I actually DO question the opposition - anyone on Team Obama who uses the same sloppy method with mythical allusions back to FDR and the Great Depression as the reason for why they think the stimulus will work. They are similarly fools, liars, or zealots if they base their conclusion off of that.
Interesting that you side against ME, instead of the moron who kept talking about "pie," and unsupported accusations of racism on Malkin's part, along with vile sexual references. No, THOSE don't bother you. Quoting from the International Monetary Fund however, doesn't qualify as "honest debate."
You've cut off the possibility of actual debate by your bellicose tone. Your posts receive ridicule because: a) you've made it clear from your first post that you're just here to yell at people, b) it makes you mad and you react to it.
I will admit that those comments also lower the discourse. But again, those comments would not exist if you had taken a more reasonable approach here. You'd be surprised by how constructive an arugment you can have here if you adopt a more civil tone. I don't care how many statistics you brandish - when you do so with the obvious intent of just fighting for fighting's sake, then no one has a reason to take you seriously.
Your ideas have merit and are worth discussion on both an official and a popular level. But falling into the same petty tribalism of the last few decades won't get us out of the very real problems we currently face. You're not doing anyone a favor by picking fights and flinging insults - not yourself, not your ideas, not us, not Malkin, not the country. If we can't find a way to work through this constructively, then we're screwed.
Matt doesn't have to find posts of Malkin's BEING unpatriotic, since that's not the claim he's trying to make
Actually, he does, because the accusation is one of hypocrisy. The people Malkin criticized weren't being "ironic" or "sarcastic" in burning flags or suggesting that Bush be beheaded.
Burning the flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech, continuously upheld by Supreme Courts of every ideological persuasion.
I see you are now trying to switch the terms of the debate. The issue isn't what is LEGAL. It is one of being "unpatriotic." Your point is irrelevant.
And I know that any conclusion drawn off of limited data, regardless of the field, is going to be problematic.
Take a good look at the format, here. This is not a place for completely comprehensive case-making. Suppose my post on economic stats had been 100 times as long? (it could have been, if I'd wanted to). You could STILL claim it was "limited data."
ANY case, in ANY format, will involve "limited data." The fact remains that I at least presented some, and my opponents did not.
Take another look. The original post by Matt Bors used only ONE "data point," but you didn't complain about the "limited data" in that instance.
You've cut off the possibility of actual debate by your bellicose tone.
Again, why do people who make scatological or sexual comments in response to factual data get a pass from you? I notice that you don't accuse THEM of being "bellicose."
It's because you're prone to agree with their conclusions. That's your right, but your ridiculous bias is self-evident.
You'd be surprised by how constructive an arugment (sic) you can have here if you adopt a more civil tone.
And YOU'D be surprised by how much more I'd take you seriously if you'd quit giving people a pass just because you tend to agree with them.
But again, those comments would not exist if you had taken a more reasonable approach here.
Well, let's see: Here was the response to my quotes from the WSJ article:
Matt could but didn't because he's as sick as everyone else of Malkin's knee-jerk, chronic oppositional-disorder bullshit.
World: It's red.
Malkin: It's BROWN and you only say it's red because you're a commie islamofash Obama brainslave.
C'mon, apologise for the world's brownest white supremacist one more time- it's amusing. Now, work harder! Type! Type! Type!
Fuck it, who wants pie?
Yes, clearly that was my fault. People are perfectly entitled to respond that way to a recitation of stats from the WSJ. Here's my response to the above quote:
When are you guys on the left going to realize that emotional outbursts and snarky comments are not argumentation?
All you have is attitude, not the truth.
Yes, I'm clearly an abusive person.
Of course I needled him later about his lack of intelligence. I was trying to get him to engage the argument. Odd that someone like you who claims he wants to have fruitful discussion seems to be making demands from only one side.
I know I'm probably a couple months late, but I read Ann Coulter years ago, and found her writing to be mostly snarky comments. Meticulously footnoted snarky comments to be sure, but snarky comments nonetheless. (And some of the footnotes were snarky comments)
No emotional outbursts though; she saves those for TV appearances.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home