A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Fervid lunacy?

Kudos - that's a good one.

Stop giving succor.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sidd, other than the free trade stuff, do you have any reason to think these guys disagree with Buchanan on anything important?

He has not been a fan of foreign wars.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sidd, other than the free trade stuff, do you have any reason to think these guys disagree with Buchanan on anything important?

Well, he's long been against the war.

And Spanky is pro-immigrant. I think Slave likes immigrants too, as long as they aren't muslims (aka "douchebags")

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh no. you're here still right?

Hank, it seems to me that you think Ty is not a good moderator. Am I right? But I think your are confusing Ty's ideological rigidity with moderator competence. I realize that he will support any argument, no matter how absurd, or any claim, no matter how fantastic, as long as it is critical of the current administration.

But why do you think his ideological rigidity makes him a bad moderator? Yes, if Bush came up with an idea to save orphans from being tortured, Ty would come up with a reason to oppose it. He may be the most ideologically ridid poster (at least when it comes to being against the Bush administration) but is there any connection between that and being a good moderator?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
He has not been a fan of foreign wars.

You're right. These guys are clearly to the right of Buchanan.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, he's long been against the war.

And Spanky is pro-immigrant. I think Slave likes immigrants too, as long as they aren't muslims (aka "douchebags")

I know Spanky is pro-Serbian, but is there any sign he likes other immigrants?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're right. These guys are clearly to the right of Buchanan.

I don't know. What's more right? Isolationism or emperialism?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hank, it seems to me that you think Ty is not a good moderator. Am I right? But I think your are confusing Ty's ideological rigidity with moderator competence. I realize that he will support any argument, no matter how absurd, or any claim, no matter how fantastic, as long as it is critical of the current administration.

But why do you think his ideological rigidity makes him a bad moderator? Yes, if Bush came up with an idea to save orphans from being tortured, Ty would come up with a reason to oppose it. He may be the most ideologically ridid poster (at least when it comes to being against the Bush administration) but is there any connection between that and being a good moderator?

Spank, I don't even know what a good moderator is. A few months ago I apologized for things I said about Ty generally.

Today I pointed out that to spit at a person's feet is not nice- especially if one of those feet had been blown off. Ty had moved on to attacked the legless guy.

Later, Ty replied to, I think, Slave that Slave made attacks on people simply because those people disagreed with him. It struck me as just a tiny teeny bit hypocritical for ty to say that- so I equated Ty with Penske's most extreme sock. That's all I did.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
2.


The problem is that you pretend that anyone who opposes the war, or opposes Bush's strategy, or even criticizes the management of the war, is the moral equivalent of Hanoi Jane.

If she speaks at a rally, that reflects badly on the organizers of the rally. It doesn't mean that everyone attending likes her, agrees with her, or is her.

I would expect Republicans to understand this -- I mean, you guys had Pat Buchanan at your convention. Does that mean you agree with everything he says, or how he conducts himself?

there is a difference between hosting a speaker with whom the audience has policy differences with and hosting someone who committed treason....can you see that?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, he's long been against the war.

And Spanky is pro-immigrant. I think Slave likes immigrants too, as long as they aren't muslims (aka "douchebags")

I am pro-immigrant, except I would screen out enemy combatants.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so I equated Ty with Penske's most extreme sock. That's all I did.

You know I love you, but be fair, You said he was worse than my worst sock. BFF?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I would screen out enemy combatants.

Which means anyone who ever maybe read or recited even one word of the Koran, or set foot in a mosque, right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, if Bush came up with an idea to save orphans from being tortured, Ty would come up with a reason to oppose it.

Would he use the ticking timebomb scenario?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
Which means anyone who ever maybe read or recited even one word of the Koran, or set foot in a mosque, right?

No, those would just be characteristics that would subject them to heightened scrutiny. At least until we win the clash of civilisations.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
there is a difference between hosting a speaker with whom the audience has policy differences with and hosting someone who committed treason....can you see that?

Ah, I understand -- if the hosts of a rally invite someone who committed treason, that means every person at the rally supports treason?