STParker's Comments (87)

“I'm just saying if you walk around saying things that other people find offensive and people perceive you as ignorant, prejudiced, discriminatory, or racist than maybe, just maybe, that actually has something to do with your actions.

Maybe you could just call it manners, but if people say that they find what I just said to be hurtful or offensive I *mostly* given them the benefit of the doubt; because I'm not an insensitive jerk.

Stupidity however, is not a protected class, and if there were no such thing as an idiot we would not have the word. You should meditate on that”

“I know you "conservatives" love to pretend that you don't actually *earn* the dislike that you receive, but you actually do. You can't spend your time promoting a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy without earning some condemnation, and yes outright hate. It's an unfortunate side-effect of being an ignorant jerk, that you are sometimes treated as one.”

“THe difference would be that you can "frame an issue" in order to obfuscate the truth or in order to illuminate it.

It's like saying that a teacher who teaches differently to educate students with different learning styles is the same as an ad executive who changes his pitch to appeal to different demographics.”

“YEA! It's not like capital would screw over labor.”

“Because once was enough to set their plan in motion and paint any subsequent Democratic president into a corner.”

“THey got their wars didn't they? They got their massive tax-cuts and their no bid contracts. They passed the patriot act.
They passed the perscription drug benefit, and all thanks to the political capital they recieved on 911.

Yeah, real incompetent....”

“YOu are making the mistake of assuming they are incompetent because their bad actions led to negative consequences.

Ummm.... everything you listed was a *success* in their minds.

The Bush administration wasn't inept. It was just bad.

Certainly they were "inept" in the sense that they did not provide good government, but they did what they intended to do and achieved the results that they wanted.”

“He looks like a Republican, talks like a Republican and thinks like a Republican, he's a Republican - he's just not registered as a Republican.

Let me enlighten you as to why these guys call themselves "independents" so that they can distance themselves from the corrupt leadership in the eyes of their base and so the leadership in turn can distance themselves from the wild-eyed crazies in the base.

It also serves the purpose of allowing them to paint right wing mob behavior as a non-partisan populism.

But they all come back together around election time.”

““Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage” - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

“Quotations, like much better things, has its abuses” - Isaac Disraeli quotes”

“Glenn Beck using the same sort of generalities and name calling that you accuse the above poster of using.

People like you presume them to be "facts" because they are so tied into conservative mythology that they become irrefutable.

For example Glenn Beck called Obama a "racist" to conservatives this is a "fact" to be rebutted, because their mythology tells them that ANY time a black person calls out a white person for bigotry or racism it is actually the black person who is racist.

My point is that to debate a conservative is too much effort. I've heard all of their arguments. On the rare occasion that they come with a "fact" that I don't know, I research it, and, nine times out of ten they turn out to be misrepresenting or misinterpreting said "fact."

So why bother, it's like arguing with a three year old who comes back with "why?" There is no final answer, but "Because I said so."

It's not worth it.

Besides what puts the onus on US to debunk Glenn Beck, rather than vice versa?”

“He's ridiculous on his face, why waste time debunking an ideologue like him? No matter what the facts are he's going to cling to ideology, and if you manage to show him to be a fool (as with his "Oligarchy" segement) he will just manufacture a new lie.

There is virtually no way to "prove" someone who is that wrong to be "wrong" because they are operating under their own set of facts and presumptions. It would be like trying to prove the sky is blue to someone who thinks its pink.”

“We're not apologizing for OURSELVES! We're apologizing for people like YOU!

It's like apologizing for a family member who doesn't know how to BEHAVE in public!”

“I'm very grateful for this article.
I've never been a very religious, or even spiritual person, but I appreciate your perspective and I'm very glad that you've given me the opportunity to learn from it.

You seem like you have a very generous spirit.”

“He actually had to earn that wit through practice, it wasn't "given", it was *earned*”

“I feel like we're still in 1950's America, but the propaganda is more sophisticated.”

“If you could snap your fingers and make yourself smarter, more knowledgeable about more subjects would you do it if you it didn't require any effort on your part?”

“"rock and roll ethics" LMAO! I like that one.”

“Not clever”

“I see a lot of comments here that say that Gates was wrong to accuse the cop of being racist and demand his badge number.
While Gates behavior may not have been entirely appropriate he was just expressing his opinion, and given the circumstances he had every right to call that cop out however he felt. He might have been wrong, he might have misconceived the cops intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still freedom of speech in this country.

For the sake of argument lets assume that Gates had no reason to call out the officer the way he did, he still had every right to say whatever it is that he had said. Whatever Gates said does not excuse the behavior of this police officer.

The long and short of it is that this police officer feels it is his right as a police officer to detain individuals who insult him and question his authority as a police officer. We as a society are much more threatened by abuse of power by police than we are by incivility towards the police by otherwise law-abiding civilians.”

“Just because Republicans are obstructionist it doesn't follow that Democrats are not trying their hardest to get them on board with their legislation.”

“The mushy middle is the reason Bush got reelected. The mushy middle had to be led by the nose to even realizing that change was necessary, and now the mushy middle wants to tell us how we could never have done it without them. Increasingly it is becoming clear that we can't do it with them.”

“I think the point was that using that excuse ("god gave it...") as a justification for their own actions ignores the fact that "god" can just as easily take it away, and in this case "god" is manifested in the form of the American empire and the world's continued tolerance for the actions of the Israelis.
As Ted Rall say's no-one has the "right" to nationhood. Every nation is predicated on two factors, the security of it's borders and the consent of it's governed.Israel has one without the other.”

“Israel never stopped settling and always stalled final status negotiation. They have never been willing to give the Palestinians anything in exchange for laying down their arms.

To me Israel's peace "compromise" is unconditional surrender. In every peace plan the Palestinians cede more territory even as the Israelis continued to build settlements, giving lie to any concessions that they might promise. Meanwhile the Israelis followed the American moel of fighting terrorism (I forgot. It is actually the Americans who followed the Israeli model) - which is to make unilateral demands while denying your enemies right to resistance, collectively punish the people for any independent groups actions and radicalize the population creating more terrorists.

To pretend that Israeli's demonstrated "good faith," while the Palestinians did not is disingenuous at best.”

“Maybe we should all bow to one-another.

It seems like an appropriate greeting to me, and I prefer it's origin. The western hand-shake was originally done to prove that one had no weapons. Of course there were a few bastards cunning enough to be born left-handed so this didn't always work.
On the other hand bowing is the act of intentionally lowering onesself out of respect. It implies deference, which *I think* is an improvement over simple non-agression.

Of course, bowing hasn't always been *optional,* but I'm rambling now”

“What a bunch of bullshit. These rightwingers think that because they can cite 5 successful black people that there is no systemic racism in this country.

It's like the theory that because a given number of people rise out of poverty to become very successful that "anyone can make it." Sure anyone can make it, but a lot of people DON'T and it's because they odds are stacked atgainst them. The odds are stacked even further against poor black people, and the fact that Michelle Barack and Oprah made it against those odds doesn't change that fact.”