On the contrary, I don’t think you deserve to be disrespected. All of the subjects posted here are capable of inflaming one’s passions. I’m afraid it brings out the worst in all of us at times. I too am in a state of flux on many subjects. I tend to wait and see a lot, and I resist being too hasty in my judgements. That in itself makes me a lightning rod for abuse when it comes to posting comments, as many seem to have already made their minds up about things. I also tend to be fiercely loyal, yet I’m open-minded. Consequently I need lots of proof and plenty of time to think about things before I change my mind about them. I don’t expect to ever be highly esteemed, but I do think I’m worth at least some respect and common courtesy. It’s been nice chatting with you Bruce, I’m sure we’ll run into eachother on another thread sometime—hopefully we can continue this level of respect.

I have a long way to go before earning anyone’s respect.

My trouble is my view of the world is still fluid and not much past my disgust at torture is set is stone, yet my basic inner core is overly dogmatic, its why I actually enjoy reading the law so much. One day, maybe I will earn respect, until then, well lets just say I’m human.

I’m really disappointed in you—I really am. Some of your responses are so typical of the abhorrent attitudes I’ve encountered here, and for some reason I expected better from you. I took the time to be sincere and honest with you. I told you exactly what my positions were, and why I even bothered to post comments here.

Your responce?

false, and to prove it:

2. I never called DeLay the right wings second coming, in fact I know very little about the man. I’ve only questioned the bogus indictment and the dirty politics employed to remove him from his position.

This is not a false statement. During the time Delay was indicted, the left was cheering and the right was saying that Ronnie Earle had been threatening to take DeLay down, that it was a bogus charge, and that he had to shop for a grand jury. My position was one of suspicion—there was reason to have some considerable doubt. Nobody really knew the truth, but all of you had him behind bars. That is why I defended DeLay—innocent until proven guilty, but as usual my appeals to be rational fell on deaf ears.

You also responded with;

False again. I have read your posts, you always, always defend Bush.

4. I do have my share of doubts and concerns about President Bush. I just choose not to join in the feeding frenzy that occurs in every single thread on ThinkProgress.

I either defend Bush for the sake of being fair-minded—I did the same as DeLay, or I say nothing. Did you not understand my comment?

I’m deliberately being open and honest with you Bruce, and look at how you’re treating me. You can’t even take my words at face value. I’m speaking as plainly as I know how, and still you assign your own meaning to what I said. We can have different opinions regarding policies and events, but I truly don’t understand why you’re responding as if I’m lying to you. I said that Delay and Coulter were not my heroes. I said that I have my share of doubts and concerns about Bush, yet that’s not good enough for you. I don’t hate the aforementioned people, nor do I agree with them per se’, but unless I join in the daily bludgeoning of them, I will be forever deemed as “extreme right wing,” or a “Bushite,” or whatever term you choose to assign to my position.

I used to post under another name. My comments were probably similar to how I’m addressing you now. After receiving numerous hate-filled attacks, complete with constant and vicious name-calling, I decided to change my handle and give a little of that back—as sort of an experiment. Do you know what I found? I get the same respect as I did before, but I receive far less personal attacks than I used to.

I’m trying to maintain a level of respect for you Bruce in spite of our political differences. Where I’m from, men know how to disagree and still respect eachother. If that’s not how you want it, then fine—I can go back to playing the usual Antagonist.

To be fair, it is personal, I accused of having no honour, and he is trying valiantly to justify himself. The fact is, the only justification he can have is to face these issues honestly, and ask himself “What if George was a democrat, running on a liberal platform, and he did all of this, would I still defend him? Would I accept my own defense of him?”

It’s up to you to make your case. The long whining diatribe you just spent hours labouring over has done little to improve your standing.

I am not an american, but I am informed enough to know that the GOP, and the hard core of conservatives that run it, are detesable nationalists trumpeting a kind of USA uberalles philosophy. I have nothing but contempt for them, because they have nothing but contempt for me.

In your “post” you have defended torture, Tom Delay and God help us, Ann Coulter. You are still banging on about lies about consensual sex that killed no one. That really puts you in a seriously bad box as far as I’m concerened. It’s not personal though, so try not to take it so personally:-)

1. DeLay and Coulter are not my heroes.

false, and to prove it:

2. I never called DeLay the right wings second coming, in fact I know very little about the man. I’ve only questioned the bogus indictment and the dirty politics employed to remove him from his position.

He was found guilty, your liberal courts hypothesis, is purely your own fantasy, and slur on the honour of every single person working in the justice system. That is why you have no honour.

3. Anne Coulter is a little over the top for my liking, however, I did see her point about the four specific widows known as the “Jersey Girls.” Because of their husbands deaths, and because they oppose Bush, they’re given a political voice. It is the left and the media that have exploited them, and the likes of Cindy Sheehan—using their loss to promote their anti-Bush rhetoric. That was Coulter’s point, but everyone focused on her widow comments—which I aslo disapprove of.

Actually, that in an of itself is a false point right there. They chose to stand up and campaign for reforms to the very systems that allowed 9/11 to happen, to strive to prevent the same thing happening again. That they got coverage is a tribute to their success at this, that they got demonised, is a tribute to just how the Rightwing actually prefers to act towards those who disagree with them.

4. I do have my share of doubts and concerns about President Bush. I just choose not to join in the feeding frenzy that occurs in every single thread on ThinkProgress. I am somewhat supportive of him, but for the most part I try to remain objective. When I read comments that liken Bush to Hitler, that accuse him of being the biggest terrorist in the world, and other such nonsense, I sometimes say something in his defense.

False again. I have read your posts, you always, always defend Bush.

5. My biggest complaint about the Democrats is that they stand in automatic opposition to every single thing. They accuse Bush of dividing the country, yet they are the ones most responsible for that division. They have their oppositional talking points, they get ampified by the media, and the left in this country echo them in adoration.

What, you mean the way that the Democrats did not roll over on Iraq? Yeah, right.

6. The GOP has been a huge disappointment to conservatives. Need I say more?

Actually, the only reason why you say that much is because the GOP showed precisely why your policies do not work. You were cheering Bush on in everything right up until his policies proved to be utter disasters.

7. Bush did not lie about going to war. The left has repeated that so many times now, that they actually believe it. Go back to 1998 before Bush was president. Clinton, Gore, and nearly every Democrat in power is on record saying the very same things about Sadaam and Iraq that Bush said.

Yes, but do you know what? They didn’t go to war over false intellegence, which has thus far been shown to have been manipulated by the current Administration. You would have had a point if in fact, Bill Clinton had declared war on Iraq.

8. Clinton sat there and lied under oath about his blowjob, and redifined “sexual relations” in the process. Consequently we have a generation of teenage girls who engage in this activity, and don’t think they’re sexually active. I know two men who are family counselors, who attest to this.

Bill Clinton’s redefinition did not suddenly start a spate of blow-jobs. I have not noticed a particular increase in the number of teenage girls giving blowjobs since that statement, in fact the most I have noticed is that most people figured “Yeah right” to Bill Clinton’s statement. While I am sure in your fantasy life school girl’s have taken to sucking schlong by the multitudes since then, I somehow doubt that that is the truth.

9. That whole Valerie Plame thing was a joke. The real security leaks involved the revealing of the supposed “warrentless wire tapping” and the viewing of bank records. Of course the facts are distorted to make it appear that the leaker is really a whistle blower, concerned about our civil liberties.

The Valerie Plame issue was no joke. It was outing a NOC CIA agent purely for the purpose of discrediting her husband. It was all about political gain, and I feel qualifies as treason.
Further, the warrantless wire-tapping is illegal. I am not too sure about the case law on this but can criminal acts be deemed government secrets? Ditto the bank records.

10. When members of the United States special forces undergo waterboarding during their training, it’s hard to feel sorry for suspected terrorists who undergo the same.

Yes, so that they can endure a very common torture technique. That they are trained to endure torture tells you something doesn’t it? In South Africa, our special forces go through a period of starvation while in training, does this mean we can now starve our prisoners?

I detest intellectual dishonesty, I have litte tolerance for unfairness, and I’m appalled by the continual lack of decency and consideration displayed here.

It isn’t unfair if you deserve it boet. You have no decency and see no reason to treat with respect. I have never seen you treat anybody on the left here with anything resembling respect, yet you demand it from us? False.

No one here has all the answers. No one here can possibly stay abreast on all the issues facing America, yet the second ThinkProgress posts a story and sets up their little manure pile underneath, scores of you leap into it, flinging shit at Bush, the GOP, and conservatives for all you’re worth. Some have thoughtful and insightful comments—most do not. Even so—interaction with those who appear thoughtful and insightful usually result in them show casing their arrogance, and them telling me what an idiot I am for holding to conservative values. In fact, someone just told me that I had no respect and no honor following a long list of misrepresentations.
Comment by Antagonist — July 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am

I agree we don’t have all the answers, but do you know what? We also don’t support torture, and we wouldn’t still try to call ourselves honourable if we did. You call us arrogant, look at yourself. I treat you with no respect because you are not worth the consideration respect entails.

You have bought into propaganda I’m afraid.

Try these sites they’ll straighten you out.

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

You are saddly mistaken about a great many things.

1. DeLay and Coulter are not my heroes.

2. I never called DeLay the right wings second coming, in fact I know very little about the man. I’ve only questioned the bogus indictment and the dirty politics employed to remove him from his position.

3. Anne Coulter is a little over the top for my liking, however, I did see her point about the four specific widows known as the “Jersey Girls.” Because of their husbands deaths, and because they oppose Bush, they’re given a political voice. It is the left and the media that have exploited them, and the likes of Cindy Sheehan—using their loss to promote their anti-Bush rhetoric. That was Coulter’s point, but everyone focused on her widow comments—which I aslo disapprove of.

4. I do have my share of doubts and concerns about President Bush. I just choose not to join in the feeding frenzy that occurs in every single thread on ThinkProgress. I am somewhat supportive of him, but for the most part I try to remain objective. When I read comments that liken Bush to Hitler, that accuse him of being the biggest terrorist in the world, and other such nonsense, I sometimes say something in his defense.

5. My biggest complaint about the Democrats is that they stand in automatic opposition to every single thing. They accuse Bush of dividing the country, yet they are the ones most responsible for that division. They have their oppositional talking points, they get ampified by the media, and the left in this country echo them in adoration.

6. The GOP has been a huge disappointment to conservatives. Need I say more?

7. Bush did not lie about going to war. The left has repeated that so many times now, that they actually believe it. Go back to 1998 before Bush was president. Clinton, Gore, and nearly every Democrat in power is on record saying the very same things about Sadaam and Iraq that Bush said.

8. Clinton sat there and lied under oath about his blowjob, and redifined “sexual relations” in the process. Consequently we have a generation of teenage girls who engage in this activity, and don’t think they’re sexually active. I know two men who are family counselors, who attest to this.

9. That whole Valerie Plame thing was a joke. The real security leaks involved the revealing of the supposed “warrentless wire tapping” and the viewing of bank records.
Of course the facts are distorted to make it appear that the leaker is really a whistle blower, concerned about our civil liberties.

10. When members of the United States special forces undergo waterboarding during their training, it’s hard to feel sorry for suspected terrorists who undergo the same.

I simply do not have the time, nor the interest to follow politics as closely as many here seem to. I have no blind allegience to any political party or president. When I vote, I do my homework and make careful choices. If my candidate wins, I stand in support of them, unless they completely betray my trust. That’s called loyalty in case you were wondering, not blind, not hopeless, just simple loyalty—it goes along with respect and honor.

I detest intellectual dishonesty, I have litte tolerance for unfairness, and I’m appalled by the continual lack of decency and consideration displayed here. I would never post comments on this site if it were not for the detestable behavior flaunted here. I am not threatened by opposing views, and I do respect opinons opposite of my own. I have little respect for those who are hate-filled, and unreasonable—who viciously attack, and who won’t even consider that there just might be another side to the issue. No one here has all the answers. No one here can possibly stay abreast on all the issues facing America, yet the second ThinkProgress posts a story and sets up their little manure pile underneath, scores of you leap into it, flinging shit at Bush, the GOP, and conservatives for all you’re worth. Some have thoughtful and insightful comments—most do not. Even so—interaction with those who appear thoughtful and insightful usually result in them show casing their arrogance, and them telling me what an idiot I am for holding to conservative values. In fact, someone just told me that I had no respect and no honor following a long list of misrepresentations.

Yes there are some papers coming out to the contrary. Most of them fail in the peer-review process. More importantly most of these scientists’ labs are funded by organizations who have decided not to fund anyone still “worrying about the trivial issue of whether or not human’s cause global warming and not working to solve the problem” (read: the U.N). That is not a healthy approach to the scientific process.

Comment by Christopher Clarke — July 6, 2006 @ 9:51 am

You are unlikely to find climatologists here, only informed amateurs. Here is some suggested reading. This blog was recently voted 3rd best science blog of the top 50 by the magazine nature. If you really want enlightenment, these folks can provide it.

I’m guessing a self confessed amateur is unlikely to convince you, and your postings so far put at least in the same category, so you are unlikely to convince any of your position. My suggestion find a serious like the one I mention and browse through the arguments, join if you dare.

You’ll be richer for the experience:-)

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

You will of course find that these sites are shockingly liberal, because the truth has a well known liberal bias.

Every few years, there are people just like you, who claim the stockmarket will never go down. They claim that if you diversify enough, you will make money no matter what happens.

Every few years, those claims are proven wrong. The stockmarket does crash, bubbles pop, things go wrong.

Obviously the page was set up as a prank. I can’t believe anyone actually thinks that SS would go “bust” if the stock market goes down hill. SS should be invested, but correctly. To say it could go bust is just hilarious. It would be so diversified it wouldn’t even be funny. Do people think it would all be invested in a few select stocks? What makes people believe it would even be invested in stocks in the first place? I would guess that the government would start out by investing it in investment tools that are backed by the US government anyways. If they went further, they would certainly diversify it throughout every single sector of the Bond, Commodity, and Stock market. Frankly, the “risk” that SS would just die due to the stock market going down hill is completely unfounded. Obviously anyone who believes that hasn’t ever studied investment strategies.

Again, I loved the link but it couldn’t be anything but a joke. It was simply playing on fake fears.

It has to do in part with who you hold as being your heroes. Delay, Coulter, etc…

I mean, you look at the leftwing on Jefferson and we are happy the bastard is out. He was a corrupt politician, and boom, he got booted it was a very good thing.

But Delay? Frankly to call him the rightwing’s second coming is a bit of understatement.

Look at Coulter, does she demonstrate any respect for anything? She accused grieving widows of profiteering off of their spouses deaths, celebrating those deaths in fact. That it not respect, nor respectable. What is your answer to that? Point to a leftwing cartoonist and claim she was making an argument. There was no argument, it was just vile.

Look at your treat of GW Bush. You don’t question his motives, you don’t even really look at what he has done, and whenever even a mild question of what is going on gets asked? Call the questioner the liberal press. That isn’t respect, or even honest, the press in America is anything but liberal right now.

Look at how much responsibility you assign to Democrats, who aren’t even in a position of power, compared with the Republicans, who have all three houses. You buy the meme of the liberal supreme court, when if you look at that court, how many of them are Republicans? It isn’t the minority.

You don’t hold Bush accountable for anything, yet you call the Democrats incapable of taking responsibility. That is hypocrisy at its worst. You cite Bill lying about a blowjob, to defend Bush lying to pull America into a war.

Hell even the outing of Valerie Plame, you try to make excuses. It was politically motivated, not in the interests of America even if you buy the lie that Bush had declassified it before the outing.

We argue about holding leaders accountable for current problems, and you argue against it unless that leader is a former president, who has about as much political power as a ordinary citizen.

Look at how you are willing to defend torture, and how little it took to bring you to that. You lie to yourself and claim, well waterboarding isn’t torture, it is. There is nothing else you can call it.

None of these issues are rightwing/leftwing issues. This isn’t about improving social security or how much taxes Americans should be paying, it isn’t even about party lines, its about what you are willing to have done in your name. You don’t have any honour, not because you are a conservative, but because you accept what the Republicans have turned the concept of conservative into.

Attacking my education really is not necessary.

I never tried denying the existence of global warming. Go back to my very first post (48).

Funny that you should bring up statistics since that is the one area of science all intelligent global warming alarmists (there are some… just none here) avoid. Go ask a statistician what the difference between 3 years and 150 is with this subject at hand. Better yet just ask the statistician what 150 years means when discussing temperature shifts of the Earth.

I’m still waiting for your true scientific evidence in support of humans impacting global climate shifts.

honor, which you don’t have.