|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I already hung you out to dry in many prior topics, particularly this one:
Do Liberals HATE America? ( Animalman meltdown )
HERE
Come now, David. It's quite clear that you're the one having the meltdown in that thread(I still love that bit about me declaring a "holy war" on you, I swear that was "divinely" inspired). Although, that's not really saying much. You've made meltdowns a regular part of your posting schedule recently. You make a post(usually to defend yourself by blasting liberals because you can't take a joke), someone responds, then you meltdown, go crazy, and stomp away to stew for a few weeks so you can come back and do it all again.
As for the "hung me out to dry" bit, I didn't realize you were keeping score. Frankly, I, like many here, have simply stopped trying to debate with you because having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an automated telephone recording. You can say or type whatever you want, you're still going to get the same response back, predictably and consistently.
I have to admit, though, on a boring weeknight with little else on the telly, you do provide some small bit of entertainment.
Thanks, again. See you in 8 weeks.
Does anything in this infantile NYA NYA NYA post of yours warrant a serious response?
You just insult and make ridiculous assumptions, that even, personally insulting to me as they are, still aren't interesting.
I just point out the absurdity of your tactics and pseudo-facts, and laugh it off.
I haven't been posting much to RKMB lately, particularly to DEEP THOUGHTS, because up until election night, there wasn't much interesting on the boards, at least to me. I'd much rather participate in real discussions about interesting issues that I enjoy talking about, fun topics, nostalgic topics, historic topics, factual topics, than field your latest personal venom and assumptions about me.
You truly are a miserable human being, one best avoided. Asking you to engage in polite discussion would be like asking a drunk to walk a straight line.
And regarding your "jokes"...
Quote:
Welcome back board, page 5
HERE
humorless buttheads call me humorless for responding to nonsense I'd rather ignore. The problem is not just playful insults like "DTWB is a homo!" like is directed at Rob Kamphausen, Franta and others. The problem is that liberal assholes have so thoroughly woven their insults with serious accusations, so that any response to counter the personal smears can be characterized as my over-reacting to "jokes", under a veil of plausible deniability that such comments are only meant as "humor".
But the jokes are not playful, and I think we all know that.
__________
Wednesday,
I've already answered you twice, I see no point in further repeating myself.
The question asked, and answered.
Whatever technicality you choose to voice, "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency did not begin in the 1950's under McCarthy. And in fact began as a national imprint on currency many decades before McCarthy (to review: 1866, 1892, 1909, 1913, 1938 ). Your "paper currency" technicality argument slantedly bypasses that "In God We Trust" was on U.S. coins for more than 50 years prior to McCarthy.
Actually, correcting my earlier statement:
Quote:
DIME: "In God We Trust" began with the Roosevelt Dime, launched in 1946.
It was not with the 1946 Roosevelt dime that the "In God We Trust" imprint began, but with the earlier Mercury dime, which began in 1913.
So by 1913, all but one U.S. coin denomination had "In God We Trust" on them, and the motto was finally imprinted on all coins in 1938, when the Nickel was updated.
So... I win again ! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Whatever technicality you choose to voice, "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency did not begin in the 1950's under McCarthy. And in fact began as a national imprint on currency many decades before McCarthy (to review: 1866, 1892, 1909, 1913, 1938 ). Your "paper currency" technicality argument slantedly bypasses that "In God We Trust" was on U.S. coins for more than 50 years prior to McCarthy.
It was not with the 1946 Roosevelt dime that the "In God We Trust" imprint began, but with the earlier Mercury dime, which began in 1913.
So by 1913, all but one U.S. coin denomination had "In God We Trust" on them, and the motto was finally imprinted on all coins in 1938, when the Nickel was updated.
So... I win again !
Um, where did he question any of this? He only referred to the date the phrase became the motto.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Wow, indeed.
Here are two links, regarding the specific origin of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency:
This first one, from the U.S. Mint website, tracing the origin of "In God We Trust", first authorized for U.S. coins in 1866, and then later to paper currency in 1957.
HERE
And this second site, which focuses specifically on the introduction of "In God We Trust" to U.S. paper currency:
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/martin/
You will notice that Senator McCarthy was not mentioned in either of these articles.
McCarthy's hand in these events must have been enormous. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Again: where did he say it wasn't on currency? You are avoiding that question?
On the MCcarthy issue, he didn't say it was McCarthy, he just just said the motto was changed during that period, which it was. Maybe it was coincidental. Doesn't change the fact that most of the argueing you seem to be doing is irrelevant to the what Wednesday has actually posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Asking you to engage in polite discussion would be like asking a drunk to walk a straight line.
You know, I think you're right. That would explain why I turned this thread, which you started in an attempt to end the flames and arrive at a happy, "polite" medium, into a juvenile shouting match over my latest liberal-bashing soapbox rant.
Or...or is it the other way around? I admit, I've been swamped lately. Why, my infantile NYA NYA NYA posts and absurd psuedo-fact mongering tactics practically take up all of my time. I can't be bothered to keep track anymore. I am, afterall, just a human being(and a miserable one at that).
Sticks and stones, Davey boy. And speaking of sticks, good luck getting that large one removed.
Take care.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Don't feed the trolls, Annie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Steve T said:
Again: where did he say it wasn't on currency? You are avoiding that question?
On the MCcarthy issue, he didn't say it was McCarthy, he just just said the motto was changed during that period, which it was. Maybe it was coincidental. Doesn't change the fact that most of the argueing you seem to be doing is irrelevant to the what Wednesday has actually posted.
( From the top of this topic page: )
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Actually, I've gotta correct myself now. The motto really is "In God We Trust." I was taught that the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" (One from many), which appears on the national seal.
I just looked it up, though, and the motto was officially changed by Congress in 1956 to "In God We Trust" during the McCarthy communist witch hunt, partly to separate the democratic US from the "atheistic communists". We also added "under God" to the pledge, "So help me God" to the oaths for certain offices, and put "In God We Trust" on paper money during those years. All of those are being challenged, though.
Now back to your original thread.
There are a lot of presumptuous presumptions here in the quoted post.
Wednesday clearly attributes these changes to be part of a "McCarthy communist witch hunt".
I leave it to you guys to now plot further plausible deniability, to circumnavigate what you plainly said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
I don't quite see what I have to deny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
And you are still ignoring much of my questions.
If a liberal posted baseless claims and then ignored your response, you'd chuck a fit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Deep breaths and try to relax.
Aaaaaaahhhhhh-phuuuuffffffff
Aaaaaaahhhhhh-phuuuuffffffff
Aaaaaaahhhhhh-phuuuuffffffff
Aaaaaaahhhhhh-phuuuuffffffff
Back to normal now.
I'm off soon anyway and will have thoroughly chilled out by the time I return on Monday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
It is the theme of this thread, after all.
U-N-I-T-Y
That's UNITY!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
We should all come to gether and join hands to sing a happy song of happiness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Make... my... banana dance COME ON!  Dancing banana '08 "For a united America!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
"One nation under fruit!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Call it what you want, it is still 1 percent. Compared to other war time Presidents getting reelected that 1 percent is even more anemic.
Seriously though, your math is wrong. Even if Wednesday's right that it's 49-51, that's not 1% and according to CNN it's 48-51. Call it what you want, it is still bad math.
No it's not because we were talking about the President getting over 50 percent of the vote. Now if your talking about the difference between him & Kerry in the vote that changes it to 3 percent. A decisive victory but still a very close election with both of them getting more votes than any other candidates in history.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Call it what you want, it is still 1 percent. Compared to other war time Presidents getting reelected that 1 percent is even more anemic.
Seriously though, your math is wrong. Even if Wednesday's right that it's 49-51, that's not 1% and according to CNN it's 48-51. Call it what you want, it is still bad math.
No it's not because we were talking about the President getting over 50 percent of the vote. Now if your talking about the difference between him & Kerry in the vote that changes it to 3 percent. A decisive victory but still a very close election with both of them getting more votes than any other candidates in history.
Oh, now I get it 
Well since in your estimation the 1% above 50 is a paltry sum then I'll simply say he has MORE of a mandate then any president in teh last 16 years.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 52
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 52 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Now he is in a position where he can either reach out or not.
Unfortunately I dont see that happening......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 52
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 52 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Actually, I've gotta correct myself now. The motto really is "In God We Trust." I was taught that the motto is "E Pluribus Unum" (One from many), which appears on the national seal. I just looked it up, though, and the motto was officially changed by Congress in 1956 to "In God We Trust" during the McCarthy communist witch hunt, partly to separate the democratic US from the "atheistic communists". We also added "under God" to the pledge, "So help me God" to the oaths for certain offices, and put "In God We Trust" on paper money during those years. All of those are being challenged, though.
Now back to your original thread.
I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !
PENNY: "In God We Trust" began with the Lincoln Cent in 1909 (launched in 1909 to commemmorate the 100th birthday of lincoln in 1809. Lincoln, like G.W.Bush, was a very unpopular President in his day. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Lincoln is now revered or hated.)
NICKEL: "In God We Trust" began with Jefferson Nickel, launched in 1938.
DIME: "In God We Trust" began with Roosevelt Dime, launched in 1946.
QUARTER: "In God We Trust" began with Barber Quarter, launched in 1892.
HALF DOLLAR: "In God We Trust" began with Barber Half Dollar, launched in 1892.
SILVER DOLLAR: "In God We Trust" added to Liberty Seated dollar in 1866.
You will note these inscription dates pre-date McCarthyism by many years, the last by almost a century.
Joseph R. McCarthy himself was born in 1909, and was the U.S. Senator of Wisconson from 1946-1957.
I also posted a complete history of the Pledge of Allegience, and when "under God" was added, in this prior topic:
Supreme Court preserves "God" in Pledge
HERE
Hmmmm
The Son of God that I recall from scriptures.....KICKED the money makers and their coins from the temple....thus nullifying the need for all our current televangelists......not to mention that I think God wouldn't want his name on our coins.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You have to be the stupidest alt I've ever seen.
And I mean that in both senses of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Well since in your estimation the 1% above 50 is a paltry sum then I'll simply say he has MORE of a mandate then any president in teh last 16 years.
It's a decisive sum but not a large one. The one 16 years ago had W's father getting over 53 percent to Dukakis's 45 percent. Things were looking really grim for Democrats then too but things got better for them & the whole country 12 years ago.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Well since in your estimation the 1% above 50 is a paltry sum then I'll simply say he has MORE of a mandate then any president in teh last 16 years.
It's a decisive sum but not a large one. The one 16 years ago had W's father getting over 53 percent to Dukakis's 45 percent. Things were looking really grim for Democrats then too but things got better for them & the whole country 12 years ago.
Yea, because Bush 41 had a mandate, but instead decided to screw the people who gave him that mandate, forever making "read my lips" a punchline.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, because Bush 41 had a mandate, but instead decided to screw the people who gave him that mandate, forever making "read my lips" a punchline.
That is true but it's also true that the nation's longest period of economic expansion started after he did that. Hope you enjoy all the goodies President Bush will be charging on the nation's credit.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, because Bush 41 had a mandate, but instead decided to screw the people who gave him that mandate, forever making "read my lips" a punchline.
That is true but it's also true that the nation's longest period of economic expansion started after he did that. Hope you enjoy all the goodies President Bush will be charging on the nation's credit.
Oi, I'm not in the mood to debate all this again right now, but to say, as a small buisiness owner I WILL enjoy the economic expansion under W. Bush.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Steve T said:
Again: where did he say it wasn't on currency? You are avoiding that question?
On the MCcarthy issue, he didn't say it was McCarthy, he just just said the motto was changed during that period, which it was. Maybe it was coincidental. Doesn't change the fact that most of the argueing you seem to be doing is irrelevant to the what Wednesday has actually posted.
Quote:
Steve T said:
And you are still ignoring much of my questions.
If a liberal posted baseless claims and then ignored your response, you'd chuck a fit.
These were already answered in my responses to Wednesday on page 2 of the topic.
Wednesday implied (with nothing to back it up) that these changes occurred specifically because of McCarthy, and that some unpecedented radical change occurred to our paper currency because of some paranoid/radical legislation McCarthy pushed for.
Again:
- "In God We Trust" has been on virtually all U.S. coins since 1866.
- Adding that motto to paper currency was hardly a radical change in 1957, when the phrase had already been on U.S. coins for the previous 89 years.
- McCarthy is not credited with having any role in adding "In God We Trust" to paper currency in 1957.
- Wednesdays characterization of adding "In God We Trust" is insulting (implying skewed and paranoid thought in the 1957 currency change) and misrepresentative of true history. The public demand to add "In God We Trust" had been going on for decades, since 1866 gradually adding "in God We Trust" to increasingly more coins over many decades, long before McCarthy ever entered the Senate. It was not a change that began in the McCarthy era.
You apparently didn't bother to read the articles I posted, from the U.S. Mint and elsewhere, on the origin of "In God We Trust" on our U.S. currency:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wow, indeed.
.
Here are two links, regarding the specific origin of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency:
.
This first one, from the U.S. Mint website, tracing the origin of "in God We Trust", first authorized for coins in 1866, and then later to paper currency in 1957.
HERE
.
And this second site, which focuses specifically on the introduction of "In God We Trust" to U.S. paper currency:
.
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/martin/
.
You will notice that Senator McCarthy was not mentioned in either of these articles.
.
McCarthy's hand in these events must have been enormous.
Wednesday says that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency under the "Communist witch hunt" atmosphere of McCarthyism.
I made quite clear that this is a distortion, and that "In God We Trust" has been inscribed on American coins since 1866, and that this was not part of some radical change brought on by McCarthyism.
And in point of fact (as both my linked articles make clear) McCarthy is credited with absolutely no role in these changes, either "In God We Trust" added to coins in 1866 (decades before McCarthy was born !), or to paper currency in 1957.
So much for the liberal allegation of these changes occurring due to a "McCarthyist communist witch hunt".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Wednesday says that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency under the "Communist witch hunt" atmosphere of McCarthyism. I made quite clear that this is a distortion, and that "In God We Trust" was part of American coins since 1866, and that this was not part of some radical change brought on by McCarthyism.
Okay, one more time (mostly because I have another half and hour to wait):
Quote:
Wednesday said:
We also added "under God" to the pledge, "So help me God" to the oaths for certain offices, and put "In God We Trust" on paper money during those years. All of those are being challenged, though.
Do you see where your statement really doesn't contradict mine? Yes, "In God We Trust" was on American coins before 1957, but I never said it wasn't. I said "...and put 'In God We Trust' on paper money during those years." The term paper money doesn't include American coins. The list you gave of currency bearing "In God We Trust" before 1957 does not include paper money.
If you still think I said "In God We Trust" never appeared on any of our currency before McCarthyism, then there's nothing more I can do. The proof is in the puddin'.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And in point of fact (as both linked articles make clear)McCarthy is credited with absolutely no role in these changes, either in 1866 or to paper currency in 1957. )
So much for the liberal allegation of these changes occurring due to a "McCarthyist communist witch hunt".
I never said McCarthy was credited with any sort of role in these changes. What I said was that, under that atmosphere, changes were made during that time partly to separate the democratic US from the "atheistic communists." Two totally different things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I never said McCarthy was credited with any sort of role in these changes. What I said was that, under that atmosphere, changes were made during that time partly to separate the democratic US from the "atheistic communists." Two totally different things.
Even this statement of yours implies McCarthy had a role in the change, for which he clearly is not historically credited.
And again, if the statement was on coins nationwide for 89 years, adding the phrase to paper currency is not a radical change.
So even after I've proven these factually to be false notions, you keep the myth alive through veiled innuendo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
No, "buttfucking wrong" (btw, what is with your and this "buttfucking" thing lately?) is putting words in my mouth and saying that "I keep the myth alive through veiled innuendo" when I clearly don't. I stated facts. I repeated those facts. I finally quoted those facts so there could be no questioning my words or my intentions. You, meanwhile, added meaning that wasn't there (and are still doing so).
Why? What is this never-ending quest to prove liberals are evil? Why is everything liberals say a rationalization and/or vile and/or malicious and/or whatever? Seriously.
You say that since the beginning I've been condescending and whatnot, but you came into this thread with "I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !"
Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
As I've said many times and across many topics, I do respect alternative liberal views, when those liberal views are presented respectfully, and without deliberate and emotionally charged distortion of the facts.
I believe I've been very clear in my many prior posts in stating exactly what annoys me, in distorted emotionally charged liberal statements.
From the moment Bush was elected in 2000, after 3 re-counts of the votes, and additional re-counts of those votes by some of the most liberal newspapers in the country, the Washington Post, Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Chicago Tribune and L.A.Times.
Even after these major papers confirmed the election results with their own privately funded re-counts of the ballots, the allegations were still relentlessly and divisively made of how Bush "stole the election".
And other divisive liberal portrayals:
- portayals of Bush as an idiot,
- allegations Bush caused a recession (which actually began to slow a year prior under Clinton, due to rapidly raising the prime lending rate five quarters in a row),
- relentless portrayals of Bush allegedly being out-of-touch,
- allegations of Bush being part of some cartel of corporate greed, etc., etc.,
From November 2000 forward, liberals/Democrats have done their level best to vindictively shut down Bush's presidency from before it even had a chance to begin.
It is not all liberalism that I despise. It is specifically the type of liberalism that vindictively smears and demonizes all who oppose their beliefs, and would destroy the country itself, just to spite the Republicans who dare to get elected (this was only slightly less true during Reagan, Bush Sr., Ford and Nixon's presidencies as well).
That strain of liberal thought and action is unfortunately the overwhelming majority of liberals.
Liberals support abortion, they demonize Republicans who oppose their views, and smear anyone who opposes their beliefs as neanderthal and ignorant.
Liberals oppose "In God We Trust" on coins, and "Under God" in the pledge, and any reference to God in our public institutions, and ignore the rights and beliefs of the overwhelming majority who do want that reference to be preserved in our national institutions. Supreme Court Preserves "Under God" in Pledge
HERE
Liberals also ignore, try to cover up, and outright smear those who give mention to the fact that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our entire form of government was UNQUESTIONABLY founded on Christian principles.
I would have far more respect in my replies to liberals here, if they didn't try so hard to slantedly and vindictively distort what the true facts are regarding Iraq, Al Qaida, tax reform, social security, abortion, religious freedom, gay rights, gay marriage, and a myriad of other issues.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
No, "buttfucking wrong" (btw, what is with your and this "buttfucking" thing lately?) is putting words in my mouth and saying that "I keep the myth alive through veiled innuendo" when I clearly don't. I stated facts. I repeated those facts. I finally quoted those facts so there could be no questioning my words or my intentions. You, meanwhile, added meaning that wasn't there (and are still doing so).
I just thought it sounded funny. And... well... buttfucking is wrong.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You clearly imply that McCarthy is to blame for "In God We Trust" and similar affirmations of our Christian heritage, rather than, as my linked articles indicate, "in God We Trust" and similar changes were in fact part of a larger and more gradual movement, over nine decades since 1866, to preserve our Judao-Christian identity in our government institutions.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Why? What is this never-ending quest to prove liberals are evil? Why is everything liberals say a rationalization and/or vile and/or malicious and/or whatever? Seriously.
As I stated above, not that liberalism itself is evil, but that the smear tactics, harrassment, and quite frequently violence by liberals toward those who oppose liberal reforms is evil.
And un-democratic.
And un-American.
And intolerant of other views.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
You say that since the beginning I've been condescending and whatnot, but you came into this thread with "I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !"
Whatever.
I respectfully presented facts to the contrary of what you said about "In God We Trust" on paper currency.
And expressed respectful frustration that liberals so often distort history to present a distorted argument that favors their view, and that they consistently mock those who disagree with liberal views as being radical-extremist fanatics (which your posted statement "as part of a McCarthyist witch hunt" certainly does).
"Buttfucking wrong" is a word I made up, and is hardly personally insulting. It's about as insulting as saying: "that's WHACK !"
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
My Conclusion
by Disco Steve
The facts:
1. Dave the Wonderboy is not a Communist, and seems to only use coins to pay for things.
2. Wannabuyamonkey is very much concerned with George W. Bush and mandates. He is also probably not a communist.
3. Dave the Wonder Boy is very concerned with buttfucking.
4. Wannabuyamonkey and Dave the Wonder Boy should go on a mandate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
My Conclusion
by Disco Steve
The facts:
1. Dave the Wonderboy is not a Communist, and seems to only use coins to pay for things.
2. Wannabuyamonkey is very much concerned with George W. Bush and mandates. He is also probably not a communist.
3. Dave the Wonder Boy is very concerned with buttfucking.
4. Wannabuyamonkey and Dave the Wonder Boy should go on a mandate.
My follow-up conclusion:
Disco Steve is more concerned with distortion and personal insults of those with political views different than his own, than respectfully discussing issues raised in the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I've said many times and across many topics, I do respect alternative liberal views, when those liberal views are presented respectfully, and without deliberate and emotionally charged distortion of the facts.
I asked you to show me quotes where I've been condescending without provocation. Let me give you another challenge. Accept this as an additional challenge or a replacement, whichever you prefer:
You've been registered on these boards since Sep 12 2001, over three years. Show me a handful of instances, say... ten, where you've been respectful to alternative liberal views. Ten Deep Thoughts threads where someone has said something you don't agree with, you went back and forth, and you remained calm until the end. Ten in three years, that's all I ask.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I believe I've been very clear in my many prior posts in stating exactly what annoys me, in distorted emotionally charged liberal statements.
Wait, you're annoyed by emotionally charged statements? I don't think there were any emotionally charged statements on this thread before your first post. I could be wrong about that, but I remember a sense of calm before this whole motto fiasco.
Distorted? You do realize, of course, that distortion is a personal point of view. Even if the things we say are based on facts, which sometimes they are and sometimes they're not, our posts--everyone's posts, including yours-- are generally still opinions. That includes every post you've made in this thread. It's not distortion, it's opinion that differs from yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
From the moment Bush was elected in 2000, after 3 re-counts of the votes, and additional re-counts of those votes by the Washington Post, Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Chicago Tribune and L.A.Times, the allegations of how Bush "stole the election", and other portayals of Bush as an idiot, Bush caused a recession (which actually began to slow a year prior under Clinton, due to rapidly raising the prime lending rate five quarters in a row), Bush allegedly out-of-touch, Bush part of some cartel of corporate greed, etc., etc., have done their level best to vidictively shut down Bush's presidency from before it even had a chance to begin.
Okay. I disagree. I'll add that each of those points are threads in themselves.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
It is not all liberalism that I despise. It is specifically the type of liberalism that vindictively smears and demonizes all who oppose their beliefs, and would destroy the country itself, just to spite the Republicans who dare to get elected.
WHOA! "...vindictively smears and demonizes all who oppose their beliefs"?
Who coined the terms "liberal venom" and "liberals maliciously..." again?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
That strain of liberals is unfortunately the overwhelmingly dominant majority of liberals.
If you say so.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Liberals support abortion, they demonize Republicans who oppose their views, and smear anyone who opposes their beliefs as neanderthal and ignorant.
Some do. It's a human trait, not a liberal trait. There are many Republicans who do the same to liberals. Haven't you noticed? If not then perhaps you were too busy agreeing.
The "support abortion" thing is another thread, but I sure don't demonize Republican who oppose my views. Quite the opposite, actually. I respect the G-man, Pariah, wbam, and others on this board. I've shown it, I've said it.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Liberals oppose "In God We Trust" on coins, and "Under God" in the pledge, and any reference to God in our public institutions, and ignore the rights and beleifs of the overhelming majority who do want that reference to be preserved in our national institutions.
Well, I never said I oppose those things. I also never said I don't oppose those things. Apparently, you took my earlier posts to mean I did, but again I never said that. I was just stating facts (one of which I later admitted was wrong) relating to the lyrics of a song Pariah posted.
To everyone else: did anyone else see malice or opposition toward the phrase in my posts?
Also, please source where it shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans want that reference to be preserved in our national institutions. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you get this fact from.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Liberals also ignore, try to cover up, and outright smear those who give mention to the fact that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our entire form of government was UNQUESTIONABLY founded on Christian principles.
Ummm... what? Ignore, cover up, ourtright smear? Really? Again, I've never ignored, covered up, or smeared anyone who said that stuff.
Also, I'd like to see you prove that fact. Honestly. I had stuff to say about that here (on page 2) and again here (on page 4). One is a copy and paste of the other, so no need to view them both. In the second thread, though, wbam debated one of my quotes and I responded. I didn't ignore, try to cover up, or smear and neither did he. We were both very civil in our responses. We didn't make any accusations or get annoyed with each other. If you do respond, please remember that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I would have far more respect in my replies to liberals here, if they didn't try so hard to slantedly and vindictively distort what the true facts are regarding Iraq, Al Qaida, tax reform, social security, abortion, religious freedom, gay rights, gay marriage, and a myriad of other issues.
If you view what some liberals have to say about these issues as slanted and vindictive, and you truly can't respect the liberals here because of this view, then maybe you shouldn't post here. Please don't take that as liberal vile. I'm not telling you to leave. I'm not telling you that I want you to leave. You're a smart guy, one of the smartest here, I think, and I'd hate to see you go, but if you can't take the tones people here have, maybe this isn't the best place for you. No one's any more apt to soften up for you than you are to soften up for them, and there are a lot of boards on the net where EVERYONE has beliefs similar to your own.
I mean, really, do you expect everyone to just swing your way? It's a debate forum, man. It's what we do here. You won't believe everything I say, and I won't believe everything you say. Oh well. Next topic.
Now I'm going to say something you're not going to like (big news, huh?). You do with it as you wish. You're angry. Extremely angry. You're angry at EVERYONE here who doesn't share your beliefs. You're angry at me, JQ, whomod, Animalman, Steve T, etc. Animalman isn't even liberal and you're angry at him. Steve T has under 1000 posts and you already can't stand the guy. You have a distaste for people here that only whomod can possibly match.
Now, think about this: Are there any other conservatives here who truly dislike ALL of us as much as you do? wbam can argue with me in this forum, then turn around and joke around with me in the off-topic forum. I love going back and forth with Pariah late at night when it's just me, him, and a bunch of open threads. Even when the G-man and I butt heads, we can both respect each other enough to say the other guy would be a good, open-minded mod for this forum. Me and Batwoman... we're not too keen, but there's no animosity from my side, and I don't sense animosity from hers. But you downright despise me, man. You've shown that even when I wasn't addressing you (see your first post of this thread). You can't stand the look of my liberal avatar in these threads. Mine or any of the others.
You probably think I'm being condescending right now, but I'm not. Or, at least, I'm not trying to be. You've got high moral standards and I respect that, but the stuff you say about us is just as condescending as you accuse me of being.
There's bickering here, for sure, but come bed time that all goes away. Most of us are like siblings. We fight and squabble, but even the lengthy spats die down. You're taking this to another level and I have a feeling it's not doing you any good at all.
Chill. Relax. It's all good.
I love you, DtWB  ... but not in that way, perv.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
My Conclusion
by Disco Steve
The facts:
1. Dave the Wonderboy is not a Communist, and seems to only use coins to pay for things.
2. Wannabuyamonkey is very much concerned with George W. Bush and mandates. He is also probably not a communist.
3. Dave the Wonder Boy is very concerned with buttfucking.
4. Wannabuyamonkey and Dave the Wonder Boy should go on a mandate.
My follow-up conclusion:
Disco Steve is more concerned with distortion and personal insults of those with political views different than his own, than respectfully discussing issues raised in the topic.
Follow-Up to the Follow-Up Conclusion
Dave the Wonderboy cannot take a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,348 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
My Conclusion
by Disco Steve
The facts:
1. Dave the Wonderboy is not a Communist, and seems to only use coins to pay for things.
2. Wannabuyamonkey is very much concerned with George W. Bush and mandates. He is also probably not a communist.
3. Dave the Wonder Boy is very concerned with buttfucking.
4. Wannabuyamonkey and Dave the Wonder Boy should go on a mandate.
My follow-up conclusion:
Disco Steve is more concerned with distortion and personal insults of those with political views different than his own, than respectfully discussing issues raised in the topic.
Follow-Up to the Follow-Up Conclusion
Dave the Wonderboy cannot take a joke.
Follow-up to the follow-up-conclusion:
Quote:
Welcome back board, page 5
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=302971
humorless buttheads call me humorless for responding to nonsense I'd rather ignore. The problem is not just playful insults like "DTWB is a homo!" like is directed at Rob Kamphausen, Franta and others. The problem is that liberal assholes have so thoroughly woven their insults with serious accusations, so that any response to counter the personal smears can be characterized as my over-reacting to "jokes", under a veil of plausible deniability that such comments are only meant as "humor".
But the jokes are not playful, and I think we all know that.
When you start making jokes like that about liberals, then I'll believe it's really intended as "humor".
|
|
|
|
|
