[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, they simply ARE more capable, and don't need the strong Liberal man to speak for them.

What profound ignorance. Go read some history and get back to us. Thanks.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
What profound ignorance. Go read some history and get back to us. Thanks.

Nope, history speaks for me. How many people has the "Reeveerend" Jackson had to fast-talk out of trouble using racial manipulation? He's a chump and a user, and they're weak for letting him do it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nope, history speaks for me. How many people has the "Reeveerend" Jackson had to fast-talk out of trouble using racial manipulation? He's a chump and a user, and they're weak for letting him do it.

As I've said, pointing out that Jesse Jackson is an opportunist who is partial to liberal causes is both true and obvious. But saying that liberal black women are less capable than conservative black women because of Jesse Jackson is simply wallowing in ignorance. Your reference to the "ERA" in this context only reinforces the fact that you have scant knowledge of history and are simply being stubborn. Oh well.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
As I've said, pointing out that Jesse Jackson is an opportunist who is partial to liberal causes is both true and obvious. But saying that liberal black women are less capable than conservative black women because of Jesse Jackson is simply wallowing in ignorance. Your reference to the "ERA" in this context only reinforces the fact that you have scant knowledge of history and are simply being stubborn. Oh well.

No, Liberal black women are simply weaker because of their philosophy (and their reliance on people like Jesse), not because of Jesse (he's just the chump who yells the loudest).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, Liberal black women are simply weaker because of their philosophy (and their reliance on people like Jesse), not because of Jesse (he's just the chump who yells the loudest).

MacNStein, you are not looking good.

This sort of pointless bickering for the sake of bickering (since it really *does* appear that in this case, you're not arguing from knowledge) should be beneath you.

Read up, and take it like the otherwise intelligent man you appear to be.

-s*

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
MacNStein, you are not looking good.

This sort of pointless bickering for the sake of bickering (since it really *does* appear that in this case, you're not arguing from knowledge) should be beneath you.

Read up, and take it like the otherwise intelligent man you appear to be.

-s*

Or, which is possible, you simply use that stance with people you disagree with, consistantly.

I suppose I wouldn't "look good", in your eyes, if I disagree with you (or any libs).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I guess you were snoozing when we were discussing Exectutive Privilege earlier...

"As far as the testimony goes, I suppose Exectutive Privilege protection for an adviser only comes into play when you're Liberal and not the target of the Leftist agenda."

No, Dr. Rice doesn't need the help, she's doing fine without Jesee and the rest of the "Card" players.

I really don't think you understand my question. I understood your bizarre point, though. You think liberals are involved in a vast agenda to undermine the executive privelege protection.

Executive Privelege is an interesting topic and valid elsewhere, but doesn't address my question at all.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Or, which is possible, you simply use that stance with people you disagree with, consistantly.

I suppose I wouldn't "look good", in your eyes, if I disagree with you (or any libs).

Actually, when people say smart things based in a reality they can call upon to support them, I tend to respect that, even if I reach a different conclusion.

It's when they start partisan inanity, get called on historical ignorance, and proceed to flounder around oblivious to the fact that they've been nailed, rather than just shutting up and reading up, that things get a little embarrassing.

-s*

[saab95]

As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Rice can say anything she wants to respond to the Commission.

I think the 9-11 Commission is a total waste of tax dollars and should be disbanded. One just knows that they'll reach the wrong conclusions. They are pure politically-influenced hogwash.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Actually, when people say smart things based in a reality they can call upon to support them, I tend to respect that, even if I reach a different conclusion.

It's when they start partisan inanity, get called on historical ignorance, and proceed to flounder around oblivious to the fact that they've been nailed, rather than just shutting up and reading up, that things get a little embarrassing.

-s*

Sorry, that's bullsh!t Spheric. It's the same lefties, saying the same things, over and over. You and the typical leftest ilk simply get annoyed when others point out the Liberal faults too. You're just another partisan like anyone else here.

As far as embarrassment, show me where I was incorrect. C'mon, show me where I need to "shut up". Show me where I was "called on" in this thread. Give me proof my sources are wrong.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sorry, that's bullsh!t Spheric. It's the same lefties, saying the same things, over and over. You and the typical leftest ilk simply get annoyed when others point out the Liberal faults too. You're just another partisan like anyone else here.

As far as embarrassment, show me where I was incorrect. C'mon, show me where I need to "shut up". Show me where I was "called on" in this thread. Give me proof my sources are wrong.

I still find it amusing when the charge of "partisan" is used against the left.

no...duh!

kinda the idea. Just like you guys are partisan conservatives. Its what makes for the debate. But it DOES get a little worn to make someone's partisanship a criticism independent of their arguments, especially due to the high level of hypocrisy involved -- you're one of the more partisan people on this board. So am I. So is Simey, so is etc, etc.

The only difference is, I almost never see liberals calling conservatives "partisan" in an attempt to dismiss their points. It's your POV, so naturally that's where your arguments spring from.

let's get past this pointless "you're partisan and I'm not you stinking leftist garbage" and get back to the issues....eh?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I still find it amusing when the charge of "partisan" is used against the left.

no...duh!

kinda the idea. Just like you guys are partisan conservatives. Its what makes for the debate. But it DOES get a little worn to make someone's partisanship a criticism independent of their arguments, especially due to the high level of hypocrisy involved -- you're one of the more partisan people on this board. So am I. So is Simey, so is etc, etc.

The only difference is, I almost never see liberals calling conservatives "partisan" in an attempt to dismiss their points. It's your POV, so naturally that's where your arguments spring from.

let's get past this pointless "you're partisan and I'm not you stinking leftist garbage" and get back to the issues....eh?

Are you always this rude in order to get your point across? You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder, and a persecution complex to boot. How would you dispute specific charges of "partisanship" then? Just say you are being called a name and boo-hoo feel sorry for me? I've read a few of your posts, and my goodness you have some issues to overcome for sure. Start with that superiority complex. I look forward to a debate with you where you don't request that I am confused or should re-read your posts.

Back to the topic here. I am looking forward to Dr. Rice's testimony, and for those of the President and Vice President. I only wish that the former President Bill Clinton where going to testify, and offer up more evidence to round out the proceedings. Only this would serve to give a complete picture of what transpired prior to the 9/11 attacks, and where we need to fix things that may have either been broken, or were not working correctly such as the lack of interagency communications. I believe, like Dick Clarke said in his testimony already as have many others that 9/11 could not have been predicted or stopped, short of an early warning system and then we would have had to blast the planes out of the sky. I don't know about you, but that would have to be one difficult decision. Give that some thought too.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sorry, that's bullsh!t Spheric. It's the same lefties, saying the same things, over and over. You and the typical leftest ilk simply get annoyed when others point out the Liberal faults too. You're just another partisan like anyone else here.

As far as embarrassment, show me where I was incorrect. C'mon, show me where I need to "shut up". Show me where I was "called on" in this thread. Give me proof my sources are wrong.

"Sources"? What "sources" did you cite?

Partisanship is fine. Talking out of your a** is a different matter.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"Sources"? What "sources" did you cite?

Partisanship is fine. Talking out of your a** is a different matter.

So many rude posters from the left side of the internet. How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
So many rude posters from the left side of the internet. How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously?

You're right, it was rude. Some of the irrationality that has been demonstrated on the board lately has made me cranky. My fault for taking it too seriously.

[daimoni]

.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"Sources"? What "sources" did you cite?

Partisanship is fine. Talking out of your a** is a different matter.

Soo, let's see...

The Libs say Partisanship is "inane", then they say it's fine....

I look up congressional voting records and Texas house records, and I'm "talking out of my ass".

again... riiiight.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by daimoni:
You say "irrationality" because you're just trying hard to be polite.

The true term is "rabid, jingoistic idiocy".

But you already knew that.

Unlike the brand of liberal stupidity that runs rampant here in the political forum.

It's comical to see the left's tactics in here, "we don't agree with you, so you're wrong... we'll make personal comments about you to try and destroy your credibility". Wow, just like what the Dems usually do in politics, nothing new here.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Unlike the brand of liberal stupidity that runs rampant here in the political forum.

It's comical to see the left's tactics in here, "we don't agree with you, so you're wrong... we'll make personal comments about you to try and destroy your credibility". Wow, just like what the Dems usually do in politics, nothing new here.

would you like some freedom fries with that?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I look up congressional voting records and Texas house records, and I'm "talking out of my ass".

No one disputes that Southern Democrats (who were predominately conservative, not liberal) tried to block civil rights legislation (which was not, as you stated, the "ERA"). And no one disputes (at least I don't) that Jesse Jackson is an opportunist who is partial to liberals. And no one disputes that Condi Rice is a strong and capable woman, even if we don't all think she makes a particularly good NSA. So we can set those issues aside. Let's just deal with a specific assertion that you made: that as a rule, conservative black women are strong and capable and liberal black women are not, and could not handle testifying. What are your sources for this? Is there some factual, historical basis for it, or is it just your intuition? Was Barbara Jordan, for instance, not a strong and capable woman?

I politely await your response, which I'm confident will be clearly reasoned and well-supported.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
So many rude posters from the left side of the internet. How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously?

Wait a minute - "gop man"? You were ghost_flash up until just a few days ago, right?

When you were banned?

Ahaaahahaahahahahah!

That's rich.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wait a minute - "gop man"? You were ghost_flash up until just a few days ago, right?

When you were banned?

Ahaaahahaahahahahah!

That's rich.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
would you like some freedom fries with that?

Yeah, I'll pick some up on my way to cash my War Bonds.

edit: and NO ONE ever uses these types of situations to promote a product, do they?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wait a minute - "gop man"? You were ghost_flash up until just a few days ago, right?

When you were banned?

Ahaaahahaahahahahah!

That's rich.

and WE are the ones who get yelled at for these types of attacks?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and WE are the ones who get yelled at for these types of attacks?

An banned no less. He has been doing it the past two weeks that I know of.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
What the hell are you talking about?

If you weren't ghost_flash (who was justifyably banned for being a total prick, as you can read in this thread above), I apologize.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and WE are the ones who get yelled at for these types of attacks?

I'm sorry for responding to an ad hominem ("so many rude posters from the left").

I had a hunch that nam_pog was a reincarnation of ghost_flash, who was undeniably a total asshole in his last dozen or so posts in this forum (from what I read after I'd seen he was banned).

It seems I may have been wrong about nam_pog's identity, but complaints about "rude posters" on the LEFT side of the spectrum are deeply ironic in this thread.

-s*

[daimoni]

.

[zigzag]

Is MacNStein going to answer my questions? Didn't think so. I suspect that Condi Rice herself would regard his comments as ignorant.

I know some black female judges, both liberal and conservative, whom he should meet. They could tear him a new a**hole, with no help from Jesse Jackson or anyone else. I admire them independently of political affiliation. They have, in many cases, overcome hurdles that MacNStein and I could only imagine.

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
---

Firstly, after grading your responses and giving them each considerable weight, you have been found, wanting.

Secondly, you admit to playing a childish game of push and shove on the internet? Don't make me pull out the "Special Olympics" poster.

Third, forth, fifth, and sixth, you need to get your eyes checked; you are a pig; he's the b*tch; and bitter grapes for sure. Like you now, and after Bush is reelected.

Have a great election year. I know I am having a great time, and will be celebrating for another 4 years.



<pussycat>

Celebrating what?
No Free Speech?
No Jobs?

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't see pigs flying out my window yet...

Check your Bedroom window

[nredman]

C. Rice is ugly

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Is MacNStein going to answer my questions? Didn't think so. I suspect that Condi Rice herself would regard his comments as ignorant.

I know some black female judges, both liberal and conservative, whom he should meet. They could tear him a new a**hole, with no help from Jesse Jackson or anyone else. I admire them independently of political affiliation. They have, in many cases, overcome hurdles that MacNStein and I could only imagine.

Damnit, can't I do my school work in peace WITHOUT your insecurities? My conversation with YOU isn't that high on my priorites list right now.

And you don't know what I've overcome or what I've done, but I'll tell you this, Dr. Rice probably wouldn't feel neccessary to rant like we do on MacNN.

[Shaddim]

Ok, that wasn't nice, and I apologize. Truly.

Not a good excuse, but I'm running on about 10 hrs sleep in the last 4 days or so. Too much crap going on between now and my dissertation publication... If I didn't have a close friend who's an English professor, my Theology thesis would have more profanity than a George Carlin schtick. Well, not really, but it's hard to concentrate while the most important goals in my life are coming to fruition at break-neck speed. Very unnerving.

Anyhow, I do apologize.

[zigzag]

Accepted, and reciprocated. We're all prone to overstatement at times, and it was really the seeming overstatement that I was trying to address, but in doing so I engaged in it myself.

After all that, Jesse Jackson will probably surprise everyone and announce a "Defend Condi Against Racism" fundraiser, but only Michael Jackson will show up.