- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
None of those is what I asked you for, which was examples of where you took someone on the left to task for doing what the OP did -- the first one is an example of you answering a question with personal consistency, the middle one is attacking a Republican for consistency, which works against you here, and the third one doesn't have a thing to do with consistency.
Just sayin', if you appoint yourself Konsistency Kop, you should expect a background check.
The second one had me asking for consistency in someone's position, I wasn't even telling them what I thought of their position. The third one had me objecting to the fact that an article claimed to speak about Libertarians in general while only referencing radicals, very inconsistent.
I welcome background checks, because if I'm slipping I don't mind being called on it. I'm just not going to spend more than 2 minutes doing someone else's leg-work for them.
Sure I am. Your OP didn't simply make fun of the politician: "(or any of the anti-gun)" without any mention of similarly extreme silliness from the "pro-gun" crowd.
It seems like every time I run into you, you're taking pot-shots at the left and only the left. If I've misjudged you, I apologize.
OK:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/search.php?searchid=2874678
Nowhere in your last several hundred posts do you do what I asked you for, despite there being tons of opportunity for it. I checked before I posted.
If I am incorrect, I'm all for it being pointed out.
If there was silliness on the 'pro-gun' side, I'd make a thread about it. But at the time this no longer elected official made her statements, I didn't see any pro-gun people approaching the amount of ignorance she showed.
Pay more attention. I view the 'religious right' as just as bad as 'the left', if not at times much worse as they also push against liberty and personal freedoms.
I'm just a little curious -- you read several hundred posts in 5 minutes?
It wasn't "five minutes"; it was in the 68 minutes between your post #11 and my post #16. One does not have to read the entirety of all of them to get the gist of what they are.
and my experience with you is that you lean very heavily one way.
Reminds me of the Republican state legislators who have repeatedly embarrassed their party and constituents.
I have no interest in excusing anything whatsoever. Idiocy is idiocy no matter whose mouth it leaks out of. I just get sick and tired threads where one side points to the other and laughs when by all rights everybody should be disgusted with everybody at this point.
In other words, I'm not trying to explain, justify, or obfuscate -- I'm just pointing out an inconsistency. I really hate inconsistency.
So if you're going to tu quoque because you hate inconsistency, you should be prepared to tu quoque everyone, otherwise, well, that's inconsistent.
Let's see, I have spoken out for legalizing drugs, for gay marriage and gay rights, for allowing adults to do whatever they want that doesn't violate the rights of others, for the federal government being cut back and limited to the limited amount of things that are mentioned in the Constitution. Which way is it that I am leaning?
Okay, so I went back as far as could (easily) go into my own posting history -- 1000 posts, or about 1/8th of my total. While I will admit I didn't read each post in detail, I'm pretty sure I did what you did, which was to read the first few lines of each one as provided in the search results. It was rather educational, I've never done anything quite like that before.
The interesting thing is that I actually tu quoque fairly rarely. My normal pattern is to pick a couple of threads at a time, maybe as many as 4 or 5 in a sitting, and get into some long drawn-out argument that has nothing to do with either right- or left-leaning politics -- whether a portion the Constitution can ever be unConstitutional, Texas authorities confiscating tampons but allowing guns into the capital building, that sort of thing. The drawn-out nature of the argument is usually my fault, as I often fasten onto a point and worry it like a dog with a bone.
At any rate, I'd estimate that I engaged in tu quoque towards the OP of troll threads like this one well under a dozen times in my last 1,000 posts. Normally when I talk about bad behavior or government reform, I talk about it without referring to a party at all, like when I talk about overcriminalization or hysteria in politics. I do from time to time run into people who interject a criticism of one party or the other in an off-topic manner, at which point my message is generally that both parties suck, and if I elucidate upon a solution it is to abolish the 2-party system and make room for more political competition.
Does that other flavor count? Seriously, I'm not sure and I'm asking your opinion -- because in that case it's something I stumble over randomly in a thread and I generally respond with both sides suck and need to go away, versus going to a thread specifically to remind the OP that their specific side sucks too.
In the end, I think you're probably right -- when I step into a troll thread specifically to counter someone's pointing and laughing at "the other side," I do it more often to right-leaning posters, but I do it so rarely to begin with. I guess I locked one particular counter-example in my mind (when I stepped into yet another Tea Party racism thread to insist that a few nutjobs don't represent the Movement in any way) and that sort of eclipsed anything else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the answer of a man with integrity. :2bow: <---------- (me bowing to you)
To the right -- what is in my mind the real right, not the right that has been hijacked by those who mingle religion and politics. Libertarian, most likely.
I am practical as a Libertarian, I think isolationism from a force standpoint is a fantastic future idea, however right now geopolitical issues make that impossible to a certain extent. If we do get involved in a conflict though it should be on behalf of either our self interests, our allies via treaty, or avoiding a third world war.I don't think any version of 'right' supports gay marriage and other liberties and freedoms. Perhaps libertarian, but not with the silly isolationist ideas. I'd say more of a 'does the Constitution say it's ok'... as that *SHOULD* be our guide, though we have gone far far from that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?