The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

[Dr.Who]

Could you please post a link for the thread or post where I told ANYONE to "go straight to hell," and called any individual "RACIST" or "Bigot?"

Let's see:

Alias says that some dems say those things and that people here are insulting.

Then you counter that you have not told anyone to go to hell.

Does that mean that you are admitting to being insulting since you did not mention it?

 

[Dr.Who]

to bad I already said I was half being Sarcastic and Steve proved it for me thanks to egging on by Pandora...but nice try

I may have skipped that post.

I was about to say I was sorry for not getting the sarcasm.

But after reviewing the thread I think that the intent to smear the tea party was still there and the sarcasm was just the tool to do it while maintaining some illusory claim to not have really meant it. Just my conjecture.

Smearing a group with sarcastic comments that are not in fact true does qualify imo as a tricky lie.

 

[Openmind]

I may have skipped that post.

I was about to say I was sorry for not getting the sarcasm.

But after reviewing the thread I think that the intent to smear the tea party was still there and the sarcasm was just the tool to do it while maintaining some illusory claim to not have really meant it. Just my conjecture.

Smearing a group with sarcastic comments that are not in fact true does qualify imo as a tricky lie.[/QUOTE]


I hope you will remember this when you are tempted to generalize about the "liberals" and when you read the vitriolic statements made by your friends!

 

[Openmind]

Let's see:

Alias says that some dems say those things and that people here are insulting.

Then you counter that you have not told anyone to go to hell.

Does that mean that you are admitting to being insulting since you did not mention it?

No at all! Actually, I didn't even see the "insulting" part. I saw the "go to hell" and the "racist." comments.

But, about being insulting. . .how can one beat bododie?
Obviously, since she happens to agree with your ideology, those insults and belittleling comments are perfectly fine, just as they are perfectly fine with Pandora who loves to cheer the meanness and stupidity of those comments.

I am certainly not devoid of guilt, and have probably been insulting to some. . . BUT, only because I tend to answer tic for tac. . .which is not the smartest way to answer. . .and I am trying hard to resist the urge to follow some people in the gutter.

However, where "insults" are concerned, some of your friends are far ahead of the game!

 

[Openmind]

I do not hate anyone I know personally except my sons father

But I do certainly hate certain politicians and all child molesters and most all abortion doctors

I'm so sorry that you should live with such bitterness in your heart.

I hope you learn to discerne the difference between dislike or contempt and hate.

Indifference also works pretty well.

But there is even a better reason not to hate, and not to react to insults:

The Buddha explained how to handle insult and maintain compassion.

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man "Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?"

The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "It would belong to me, because I bought the gift."

The Buddha smiled and said, "That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger.

If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you.

You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself."

"If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."

 

[dogtowner]

of course McCain also I recall went to a church or something with a Priest who attacked all Catholics and hate them all...of course that meant McCain did right?

Quite a lot of Protestant sects have issues with the RCC and have for quite some time. Obama claimed he never noted Wrights racist rants at all which is not believable at all. Don't know what religeon McCain is but he almost certainly has a pastor, not a priest.

 

[Dr.Who]

I may have skipped that post.

I was about to say I was sorry for not getting the sarcasm.

But after reviewing the thread I think that the intent to smear the tea party was still there and the sarcasm was just the tool to do it while maintaining some illusory claim to not have really meant it. Just my conjecture.

Smearing a group with sarcastic comments that are not in fact true does qualify imo as a tricky lie.[/QUOTE]


I hope you will remember this when you are tempted to generalize about the "liberals" and when you read the vitriolic statements made by your friends!

I do at times generalize. I do at times use sarcasm. Rarely is that sarcasm an untruth. But if we could wager over th net I would take that bet that I would state an untruth, evenly sarcastically, to generalize and smear a group.

 

[Dr.Who]

No at all! Actually, I didn't even see the "insulting" part. I saw the "go to hell" and the "racist." comments.

But, about being insulting. . .how can one beat bododie?
Obviously, since she happens to agree with your ideology, those insults and belittleling comments are perfectly fine, just as they are perfectly fine with Pandora who loves to cheer the meanness and stupidity of those comments.

I am certainly not devoid of guilt, and have probably been insulting to some. . . BUT, only because I tend to answer tic for tac. . .which is not the smartest way to answer. . .and I am trying hard to resist the urge to follow some people in the gutter.

However, where "insults" are concerned, some of your friends are far ahead of the game!

Without commenting on individuals that is all true.

If you have it in you to post without insults then we will all be better off. I know how hard it is.

 

[Openmind]

Without commenting on individuals that is all true.

If you have it in you to post without insults then we will all be better off. I know how hard it is.

Well, I'm sure going to try.

And one of Buddha's legends helped me put everything back in perspective. I posted it earlier for Pandora to see.

Basically, Buddha is travelling when he meets an angry young man who begins to insult him, calling him a fake, etc. . .

Buddha doesn't react, but keeps a smile on his face.

The angry young man becomes even more frustrated, and asks Buddha why he doesn't react to his insults, why is he so passive.

Buddha answers by asking the young man: "If you buy a gift for someone, but that person doesn't accept the gift, who does the gift belong to, yourself, or the person who refuses the gift?"

The young man answers: "The gift belong to me, obviously, since I'm the one who bought the gift!"

Buddha smile more broadly and answers: "it is the same with anger and insults. If I refuse to accept your anger and insults, these still belong to you. So they do not affect me."

Okay, this is my simplified version. . .but I think you get the point. I think it's a good incentive to NOT accept "gifts" that are either damaging, viral, or destructive.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, I'm sure going to try.

And one of Buddha's legends helped me put everything back in perspective. I posted it earlier for Pandora to see.

Basically, Buddha is travelling when he meets an angry young man who begins to insult him, calling him a fake, etc. . .

Buddha doesn't react, but keeps a smile on his face.

The angry young man becomes even more frustrated, and asks Buddha why he doesn't react to his insults, why is he so passive.

Buddha answers by asking the young man: "If you buy a gift for someone, but that person doesn't accept the gift, who does the gift belong to, yourself, or the person who refuses the gift?"

The young man answers: "The gift belong to me, obviously, since I'm the one who bought the gift!"

Buddha smile more broadly and answers: "it is the same with anger and insults. If I refuse to accept your anger and insults, these still belong to you. So they do not affect me."

Okay, this is my simplified version. . .but I think you get the point. I think it's a good incentive to NOT accept "gifts" that are either damaging, viral, or destructive.

I like the story and will have to remember that.

 

[clarkatticus]

Well, you are wrong.

You just think that other people have the same less than human desires for other peoples lives that you apparently exhibit yourself.

To assume that ANOTHER GROUP of people would truly want such things in this day and age, is nothing short of cowardice. Those people are probably more busy earning a living than having the time to sit around and worry about what color someone is. THose who have that time don't seem to understand that, and say things like you just did.

It has been many a year since anything you speak of relative to minorities has even been an issue. I suspect that you are not old enough to have lived through any of it. What you know, I suspect was regurgitated by someone who "relates" to someone who may have actually experienced such things. Those people tell their young children horror stories. Those people are called..... racists, and sheeple.

It's a new day all around. Don't get to pretend that past "excuses" work anymore either.

BTW: The same people you despise, are probably armed. They aren't stupid, and no minority EVER shows up ALONE, and unarmed.

They have been brainwashed to think....exactly what you wrote.

Yes those pesky monorities always show up in intimidating groups and bearing weaponry to scare the non minorities, thats why we should all carry guns.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes those pesky monorities always show up in intimidating groups and bearing weaponry to scare the non minorities, thats why we should all carry guns.

The recent riots are examples of minorities showing up in intimidating groups to scare (and harm) non-minorities.

And the black panthers at the voting booths were example of them doing it with weapons.

And these are not representative of the whole minority population and I would be a fool if I tried to say that significant numbers of them were doing this. If I said that significant numbers cheered it I would be right.

Meanwhile, you (was that you?) said that significant numbers of tea partiers wanted to ship blacks back to africa. I highly doubt that and want you to support that statement or retract it. In terms of what is significant I am willing to abandon a normal definition of that which would likely be something like 10 or 5% of tea partiers and am willing to call it significant if you can show that 1/2 of a percent think that. You probably won't even come up with an example of groups of tea partiers cheering the odd few who really do say things like that.

 

[Alias]

Yes those pesky monorities always show up in intimidating groups and bearing weaponry to scare the non minorities, thats why we should all carry guns.

Carrying a weapon is a constitutional right for self defense. The founders knew there would be those who push tyranny and attempt to unarm the citizens so they could rule. It has nothing to do with minorities or anything other than that.

 

[Dr.Who]

Carrying a weapon is a constitutional right for self defense. The founders knew there would be those who push tyranny and attempt to unarm the citizens so they could rule. It has nothing to do with minorities or anything other than that.

We do have a right to defend ourselves. I do not know that we have a constitutional right to do it with particular weapons. The scotus said we have a right to arms for self defense but I fail to see where that is written in the const.

However the const. does say that we have a right to have arms (in general and does not state a restriction) to alter or abolish government.

 

[Openmind]

We do have a right to defend ourselves. I do not know that we have a constitutional right to do it with particular weapons. The scotus said we have a right to arms for self defense but I fail to see where that is written in the const.

However the const. does say that we have a right to have arms (in general and does not state a restriction) to alter or abolish government.

If that is the case, I think it is a very unfortunate omission in the constitution since, for some people's interpretation, it may mean that a very small minority group (let's say, 1% of the population) could, potentially, use "any weapons" to overturn ANY government, including weapons of mass destruction, or biological warfare (Amtrak?) with impunity.

I hope that there are some limitations!

And, although I respect the "right to bare arms," because it is in the constitution, I am personally not convinced that it is a wise stipulation, as I would argue that there have been MANY more innocent people killed because of the wide spread availability of guns, than people saved by their own guns!

But. . .I realize that I will NEVER convince anyone of my point of view, and I am certainly not trying. I am just reserving my right to express my point of view.