Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSUN EDITORIAL:
Tell the whole story
Ensign should answer all questions related to affair with former campaign staffer
Sunday, July 12, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.
Just when it seemed the controversy might subside over Sen. John Ensign’s admission that he had an affair with a campaign staffer, new details have emerged — all of them devastating.
The latest round of revelations started Wednesday, as Doug Hampton spoke publicly for the first time about the affair between his wife and the Republican senator. Doug Hampton is Ensign’s former best friend and one-time top aide. Making the situation even more unseemly is that Doug Hampton’s wife, Cynthia, and Ensign’s wife, Darlene, had been longtime friends.
Those details alone, disclosed in mid-June when Ensign revealed the affair, were bad enough. But we learned of more ugly allegations last week.
Doug Hampton, in an exclusive interview with Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston on Ralston’s television program, “Face to Face,” said Ensign continued to pursue Hampton’s wife even after Ensign wrote a note to her in February 2008 — ostensibly to break off the relationship. But Ensign, according to Hampton, resumed the affair within 24 hours of writing the note. If true, that is just sick.
He also alleged that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was among a group of people who confronted Ensign about the affair. Hampton said Coburn told Ensign he should end the relationship, pay off the Hamptons’ mortgage on their $1.2 million home in Las Vegas, and help them move to Colorado.
Hampton also told Ralston in his interview that his wife received more than $25,000 in severance from Ensign after she was told to leave her job on Ensign’s campaign committee in April 2008. That revelation, if proved, could turn out to be disastrous for Ensign.
A nonpartisan Washington watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, says Ensign did not report such a payment, which is required under federal law. CREW filed complaints against Ensign last month with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Election Commission. Willfully failing to report a payment of more than $25,000 is a felony.
On the day of Hampton’s revelation, Ensign released a one-sentence statement that said Doug Hampton “was consistently inaccurate in his statements.” It’s unclear exactly what those inaccuracies were, because Ensign would neither answer questions about the affair nor respond to Hampton’s specific allegations.
But by Thursday, obviously bowing to potential damage from any failure to report payments to Cynthia Hampton, Ensign did acknowledge that his parents made $96,000 in payments to the Hampton family. Ensign issued a statement that said his father (a former casino mogul) and mother made the payments, following his disclosure of the affair to them, “out of concern of the well-being of the longtime family friends during a difficult time.”
Ensign might characterize the payments as a charitable act, but the large sum will raise questions as to whether this was actually hush money.
Another red flag, and one that deserves John Ensign’s elaboration, is why the $96,000 in payments were in increments of $12,000 — any gift above $12,000 would have to be reported to the IRS and would be subject to taxation. This shows that these payments were well thought out.
What’s also mysterious is the role that Coburn has played in all of this. After Hampton talked to Ralston about Coburn’s efforts to get Ensign to assist the Hamptons last year, the Oklahoma Republican’s office issued the following statement Wednesday:
“Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Sen. Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Sen. Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hamptons’ marriage. Had Sen. Ensign followed Dr. Coburn’s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago.”
That initial statement didn’t refute Hampton’s claims and could be seen as a rebuke to Ensign. But just one day later, Coburn struck a different tone.
The Las Vegas Sun’s Lisa Mascaro reported that on Thursday, Coburn “categorically” denied Hampton’s claims, calling them “absolute untruths.” Nonetheless, as Mascaro noted, Coburn didn’t deny having counseled Ensign in February 2008 about the affair.
Coburn, who is both a physician and church deacon, also refused to discuss the nature of his counseling with Ensign. “I’m not going into the details of that and never will,” he said. “I never will — not to a court of law, not to the Ethics Committee, not to anybody, because that is privileged communication.”
We thought Coburn was elected as a senator from Oklahoma. It’s probably news to Oklahomans that they sent him to Washington to represent them as a pastor and a physician, too.
Ensign’s fate is unclear. Politically, the hypocrisy of the “family values” politician engaging in an adulterous affair is damaging enough. But things could get worse, especially if there are government investigations into what happened.
What is certain is that if Ensign continues to stonewall the public, his silence will harm him more. It’s time for Ensign to reveal what he knows and what actions he took after Doug Hampton and others learned about the affair.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
John's covering his eyes and ears hoping that just because he can't see or hear anything, nobody else can.
The more time that passes by, people will start forgetting what happened.
The Las Vegas Sun needs to do it job and find out all the facts.
Why did Jon Ralston not ask Doug Hampton about the $100,000 payment he got?
You can not get your answers by asking John directly you must go out and do some investigating yourself.
I thought the LV Sun was a newspaper.
Asking John to tell us everything is like asking Obama or Biden if the Stimulus is working - what answer would you expect.
Do your own job. You are a newspaper right?
"What is certain is that if Ensign continues to stonewall the public"
First, the Sun gets Biggest Editorial award. I believe they almost wrote a book.
Second, Ensign should have called a press conference. Look into the camera, point his finger and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Yep...Ensign has screwed things up.
He should have also taken another page from the Clinton M.O. He should have done everything under the Sun to attack and tarnish the reputation of the woman. Yep, Clinton...the hero of the left....a shiny example on how to treat the opposite sex.
SgtRock: Why the stupid comparisons to Clinton. People are always going to have sex and it seems that Ensign has less self control than most.
This is about blackmail, paying hush money, illegal use of campaign funds, and hypocrisy.
WayneSchlegel:
"Why the stupid comparisons to Clinton."
Please, don't ever try to stop him from proselytizing. He has nothing else to write about.
The ancient history attacks on any and every Democrat are the only joys in his life. No Democrat can be absolved of any sin.
I'm also certain, after reading so many of his comments, that he thinks that republicans cannot make mistakes - but heaven forbid one does - all is forgiven.
"This is about blackmail, paying hush money, illegal use of campaign funds, and hypocrisy."
Clinton was about a felony by committing perjury in a court of law, illegal use of taxpayer funds to promote his cigar girlfriend from intern to white house staffer, use of his political juice to try to land her a job at Revlon, lying to the entire nation and .....hypocrisy.
We should also include a discussion of the all the lib hypocrisy who worhsip Clinton yet now call for Ensign's resignation yet Clinton did 100x's worse.
"Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." ~George Bernard Shaw~
How long did Ensign lie before he came out with the story?
All politicians are liars to some degree. At issue here is how much the citizenry is willing to put up with, and what they are going to do about it.
"All politicians are liars to some degree. At issue here is how much the citizenry is willing to put up with, and what they are going to do about it."
Yes let's compare the old truth test.
Lied to millions of americans on TV about his affair
Clinton? Yes
Ensign? No
Tarnish and smear the reputation of any women that he affair with when those women try to tell the media about.
Clinton? Yes
Ensign? No
Lie and commit felony perjury in a Federal court of law about the affair.
Clinton? Yes
Ensign? No
Only told some of the truth when DNA proved that his man juice was on her dress.
Clinton? Yes
Ensign? No
To this day, refuses to admit that he lied in a court of law because he is not sure what the word "is" is.
Clinton? Yes
Ensign? No
Seems like libs democrats can put up with liars to a big gigantic degree.
How come no attacks on his "mistress" or her pimp husband? he knew about the affair but was quite happy to keep his mouth shut as long as he was able to continuing his extortion of the senator and his family.
when Ensign finally says "enough", he cries to the media claiming how wronged he is. always the victim.
where is the moral outrage from the media and left demanding Doug Hampton be investigated for extortion?
If you're fired for not continuing a sexual relationship, that is sexual harassment and you might be due damages. That is not extortion.
Clinton, Clinton, wah wah wah...
Oh they will, the Hamptons are on the edge of what is about to come from the IRS.
They will have some explaining to do about the money they didn't report as income, regardless if it was a gift or not.
This whole affaire will be a double edge sword for the Hamptons, with them having more on the line than the Senator.
The Senator, can always plead the fifth, and his parents gift was just their misunderstanding that after the Senators involvement with the Hamptons they became family.
We need to know what happened. Ensign said in writting Darlene was to blame for this, not him.
What did Darlene do? Was the relationship with an under age boy?
Why do the Ensigns always lie and cover up?
"If you're fired for not continuing a sexual relationship"
Doug Hampton was not having sex with the Senator.
"Why do the Ensigns always lie and cover up?"
I guess for the same reasons why JFK, Ted Kenney and the Clintons do.
I know I've said this before, but after watching Doug Hampton on tv for an hour or so with Jon Ralston, I am very convinced that he is not a straight man. Not just because he's been acting like Ensign's b**ch for almost his entire adult life, I say that because to listen to him and to watch him, I do not believe he is hetero. No straight man acts like that, behaves like that, or cries for his wife's lover to make him "whole" again. His words, not mine.
I think SgtRock is gay for Clinton. How long can a jealous streak go on. HE'S STRAIGHT SARGE!
JFK is dead and Ted Kenney is almost dead so get up to speed on today's sexual exploits. Sanford wasn't hiking the Appalachian Trail, he was getting some Argentinean Tail. Ensign isn't a Promise Maker, he's a Promise Breaker.
Please, we know all about what Clinton did. Stick with the new stuff.
"I guess for the same reasons why JFK, Ted Kenney and the Clintons do."
Well, I'm not sure who this "Ted Kenney" guy is... he's definitely not any well-known Democrat. Maybe SgtNance err, jfRock32, err James F Nance Jr, can enlighten us?
And in the meantime, you guys keep comparing Ensign's simple affair to stuff you have told us for decades is worse. Ensign's affair is just as bad as Clinton's lies to a grand jury? OK!
Just keep digging that grave. You'd have to be dumb as a Rock to make those comparisons.
ksand still up to his old tricks. boy u must feel SOOOOOOOO powerful that u have "outed" what u believe SgtRock's name is.
such a sad, weak, little man.
Joe, jfNance32 is more than capable of sticking up for himself. You must think he's really weak to be attacking me, rather than addressing the argument.
But then I don't really care what cowards who hide behind a screen name think.
why don't YOU simply address the argument?
rather than trying to publicize what u believe to be his real name. again, the VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of posters on this forum, whether their political views be either right or left, post under pseudonyms.
why do u choose to attack people for this? and obviously u are trying to get under the skin of SGTRock, by continuing with your smug innuendos. apparently as u are unable to defeat his points in open debate.
sad, weak, little man.
Won't address what argument? He uses his real name on the RJ's website. I'm not "attacking" him by calling him by his name. In what world is identifying someone "attacking" them? In fact, I answered this a few days ago, and you refused to post anything after I said the same thing. Now who's failing to address the argument?
Man, you get you feelings hurt so easily!
As for defeating his points, he constantly cites WRONG information. As him about his claim that Ensign is the most popular out of ALL politicians in Nevada.
So tell me joe, why are you so critical when jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr has used his full name on other sites? (the R-J, Bob Beers' blog, his own conservative website...)
THIS is NOT the RJ's website. and I have no idea if SGTRock's real name is James Nance. but whoever he is, the pseudonym he chooses to post under here is SGTRock.
again, you should respect that.
now u would have us believe that your smugness dripping "SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr, err, jfNance32" salutation is intended only as a friendly respectful salutation, and NOT intended to be offensive?
I guess since u believe clinton lying under oath, and lying to millions of americans on TV ("I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman") is no worse than what ensign did, it's not too much of a stretch that u would expect us to believe that.
try to stay on point, you think you're being cute and clever, but your juvenile behavior weakens your already weak arguments.
like a dumb rock
As a side-note: Comparisons
I am all for using comparisons to demonstrate opposing points or views, good-evil, yin-yang, low-high, right-left, yes-no, dark-light, or even fidelity-infidelity, but the use of comparisons to express the same infidelity-infidelity morals leaves me wondering how is it a comparison.
Could it be that I am missing the point of comparing the Republican Party (GOP) to the Democratic Party (DNC) and the ways in which these two parties are diabolically apposed? Is it that one party is pro-marriage values, while the other is contra-marriage values?
Am I missing the point, comparing the GOP affairs to the DMC affairs, how is that non-compliant, or used to describe how seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the political world, giving rise to one or the other in turn.
Never-mind
Only in Joe's world is calling someone by their name offensive.
Joe, it's obvious you take offense to it. That's fine, like I said, I'm not really all that concerned with the opinion of someone who is so cowardly they won't identify themselves.
You've been so caught up being outraged and offended by using someone's real name that you haven't bothered to notice that SgtRock, err, jfNance32, err, James F Nance Jr hasn't once asked me not to use his name, either publicly or via private message. He has no issue with it, and he responds using my name. I don't cower behind a screen name, I don't care. My opinions belong to me and I stand behind them.
Meanwhile you come here and whine about being off-topic? How, exactly, does jfNance32, err, SgtNance, err James F Nance Jr's identity have anything to do with Ensign?
Your bland, impotent, toothless criticism falls on deaf ears, joe.
deaf and dumb.
even your argument contradicts your actions. u still have yet to answer: what exactly is your obsession with calling SgtRock out by what u believe to be his real name?
or are u still trying to have us believe it is nothing more than a friendly greeting or form of respectful salutation?
you use your smug little "SgtRock, err, James F Nance jr, err, jfNance32" line because YOU believe it bothers SgtRock.
it is equally obvious to anybody reading your "SgtRock, err, James F Nance jr, err, jfNance32" line that YOU believe pointing out what u believe to be his real name lends you some credence, or moral superiority. it probably makes u feel very powerful too, petty little man that u are.
and yet you will claim to the contrary that there is nothing offensive intended by your post. whether or nor HE actually finds it offensive, we may not know, as it is equally obvious he has chosen not to lend credence to your petty little name attack.
I guess u are following the cues left by your heroes. deny, deny, deny. as in bill "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" clinton. I guess u failed to see that point 2 posts back, and respond to it.
it is not for u to decide who shall and shall not be allowed to post under a pseudonym.
as stated, maybe the poster has an ultra liberal (or ultra conservative) boss or coworkers they don't want to offend, or they own or work in a business where it would be "bad business" to alienate potential clients over political views which have nothing to do with their business.
again, u should respect the posters choice in screen name. to do otherwise is simply, as I believe u put it, in poor form.
How typical of the fascist right-wingers to tell someone what they can and cannot write.
Don't like free speech, joe? Leave. Concerned about Nance's job? Nance doesn't seem to be, he's still posting with abandon.
He even began attaching Ksand's actual name to all of Ksand's posts. I don't see you condemning Nance. More typical right-wing behavior: galling double standards.
"He even began attaching Ksand's actual name to all of Ksand's posts. I don't see you condemning Nance. More typical right-wing behavior: galling double standards."
Yup! Ok if jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr, err "Joe's Special Friend" does it. Not Ok if ksand99 aka Kevin Sandoval does it.
Your bland, impotent, toothless, double standards-based criticism again falls on deaf ears, Joe.
ksand came out and expressly stated his name, thereby implicitly giving his permission to use it.
HIS CHOICE.
but he chooses not to respect the choices of others.
more typical left-wing behavior. just as the choice of millions of americans NOT to pay ever greater taxes to finance barack obama's social redistribution policies are not respected by the left.
btw, I wasn't aware he was attaching ksands name to ALL of his posts, although I did see him do it ONCE right AFTER ksand announced his name.
thebs,
btw, what is your choice? do u openly post your name as does kevin sandoval?
I'm assuming u do, as u call SgtRock a "coward" for posting under more than one name.
or are u invoking your own "double standard" policy?
"ksand came out and expressly stated his name, thereby implicitly giving his permission to use it.
HIS CHOICE. but he chooses not to respect the choices of others."
I'm respecting the choice jfNance32 made when HE posted to the internet using HIS full name. HE has no problem identifying himself. YOU have a problem with ME identifying HIM.
This is like when one of those crazy stage moms goes berzerk when their little girl doesn't win the trophy at the beauty pageant.
But continue flaunting your double standard, joe. It's hilarious!
"Um, no, it's no double standard because, um, SgtRock gave implicit, I mean, explicit permission because he didnt' use his full name here, he only used it elsewhere, and google doesn't search the whole internet, just the Sun's website so ksand is a bad guy and I'm explicitly smug but implicitly imagining a slight."
That's your response, in a nutshell.
"ksand came out and expressly stated his name, thereby implicitly giving his permission to use it."
Says who? Says you? You're splitting hairs. According to you, unless someone gives you EXPLICIT permission, it's off-base. IMPLICIT permission would be Nance using his entire name, with the same godawful misspellings and rhetoric, on other sites. Again, I'm trying to figure out your double standard. If what ksand99 does is wrong, then the same should be said for Nance. You criticize ksand for something that you give Nance a free pass. It's fairly obvious to anyone that's because you agree with Nance and disagree with ksand, but that doesn't make you anything less than a common hypocrite.
Your entire argument has two legs:
1) Don't use his name, he may have a sensitive employer. This argument falls because Nance uses his full name elsewhere. What does it matter that one more Google search appears? It doesn't. This isn't even an argument. If Nance wants to protect his reputation, he wouldn't be posting using his full name. He made that choice, don't lay the blame where it doesn't belong.
2) Ksand lacks some mythical permission to identify Nance. Again, this isn't even an argument. You don't dictate what someone can or cannot write here. Nance, himself, gave implicit permission when he identified himself on other websites.
Even more ridiculous is:
"more typical left-wing behavior. just as the choice of millions of americans NOT to pay ever greater taxes to finance barack obama's social redistribution policies are not respected by the left."
A fair election was held. You lost. Stop whining over sour grapes. Don't like the way things are going? Convince others to vote for your candidates or leave.
"btw, what is your choice? do u openly post your name as does kevin sandoval? I'm assuming u do, as u call SgtRock a "coward" for posting under more than one name."
Two issues:
1) Using multiple screen names
2) Identifying someone by their actual name
I think it's cowardly to hide behind multiple aliases. It gives the illusion that others agree with you. That's what I criticized Nance for... but since you wanted to play the "implicit/explicit" game, he sunk his own boat.
As for identifying people by their actual name? If someone's clever enough to figure it out, be my guest. But if you were to, say, demand I identify myself without identifying yourself, that would be approaching Ensign-levels of hypocrisy... wouldn't you say, "Joe?"
as long as it's not approaching Clinton-levels of hypocrisy......
and i guess the fact that u agree with ksand more often than not, has nothing to do with you coming to the aid of your "damsel in distress"?
Wow, perhaps the most hypocritical comment, yet, joe!
Keep em coming!
u keep throwin' 'em - and I'll keep knockin' 'em outta the park!
btw - it's not personal, it's all in good fun.
Knocking what out of the park? You're playing t-ball while the rest of us are in the big leagues.
You might want to keep your floaties on when you leap in the pool, joe!
ksand,
i honestly have to thank God for people like u! u make it easy for me to set my moral and personal compass - I just as myself "what would kevin sandoval do?"
and then I do the right thing. (the opposite thing u would do or say).
btw - last time I checked, the special olympics didn't quite qualify as the "big leagues".
Wow thia thread went to hell.
Very few on topic comments.
I see Henderson is still outing Mr. Hampton. Henderson seems to know gay.
You've never volunteered with kids with special needs, have you "joe?" How sad, those kids have a spirit and optimism you could never dream of possessing. Only the most disgusting among us would dare to make fun of those kids. You have no shame.
Your moral compass has no true north, obviously.
You can't counter the arguments made, anyway. Where's your response to what has been argued at 9:22 and 9:23? Silence and making fun of kids with special needs.
You've really got this debate thing down! Such a winner!
ahhhhh, kevin sandoval..... always the same.....
I predicted that u would take the standard liberal line and be "greatly offended" by my special olympics quip.
u fell for it hook, line and sinker.
I guess it's only OK for your anointed leader Obama the great to reference the special olympics in jest. see "obama bowling"
we all know what a great compassionate giver of your time and resources u are. your failure to answer henderson's many questions about your charitable giving exposed to everybody your idea of charity is forcibly taking from those YOU consider "more fortunate" and giving to those YOU consider "more deserving".
your phony indignation wins no points here, slick.
I'm not surprised you wouldn't apologize for insulting special needs children. Obama recognized that his words were vile and apologized. He was a man about it. Guess that explains why you'd rather gloat about insulting children.
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered about 5000+ words critiquing your argument. You've given up. When faced with common sense rebuttals of your impotent arguments, you run away like the typical republican coward.
"we all know what a great compassionate giver of your time and resources u are. your failure to answer henderson's many questions about your charitable giving exposed to everybody your idea of charity is forcibly taking from those YOU consider "more fortunate" and giving to those YOU consider "more deserving"."
Yup, I have no need to defend myself or my actions to you, to henderson, to anyone. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. Good luck with that one! Obviously, from one exchange any outside observer knows that I will stick up for special needs children while you use them for sadistic humor. That's a value judgment that I'm comfortable with.
I'm respecting the choice jfNance32 made when HE posted to the internet using HIS full name. HE has no problem identifying himself. YOU have a problem with ME identifying HIM.
This is like when one of those crazy stage moms goes berzerk when their little girl doesn't win the trophy at the beauty pageant.
But continue flaunting your double standard, joe. It's hilarious!
"Um, no, it's no double standard because, um, SgtRock gave implicit, I mean, explicit permission because he didnt' use his full name here, he only used it elsewhere, and google doesn't search the whole internet, just the Sun's website so ksand is a bad guy and I'm explicitly smug but implicitly imagining a slight."
That's your response, in a nutshell.
What the hell is this even about? You two whining at each other is stupid. If the guy writes his name all over the internet, why should anyone care? It seems to me that average joe just wants attenttion from ksand99. You must be a lonely guy joe.
And leave kids out of it. That's just mean.
for the record, I had no intention of disparaging the special olympics or any of the young athletes who participate.
as stated, it was just in jest, perhaps in poor taste, for which I apologize not to sanctimonious phony's like kevin sandoval, but to any person with any involvement in the special olympics.
but it served to draw out more of kevin sandoval's hypocrisy and double standards.
unless he wishes to include his beloved Obama in his castigation: "Only the most disgusting among us would dare to make fun of those kids."
one thing SgtRock and I certainly have in common: we have both beaten u profoundly in these forums and exposed u to be the pathetic weakling that u are.
sad, weak little man.
You didn't win anything dude. Just exposed yourself as a moron and now you want a cookie for apologizing for being an idiot.
who pulled your chain? or are u just trying to step up and defend your girlfriend kevin?
I respect a "man?" who apologizes. Next time, think before you speak otherwise suffer the beat down.
Now, back to the issues of substance that you keep dodging...
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered about 5000+ words critiquing your argument. You've given up. When faced with common sense rebuttals of your impotent arguments, you run away like the typical republican coward.
"we all know what a great compassionate giver of your time and resources u are. your failure to answer henderson's many questions about your charitable giving exposed to everybody your idea of charity is forcibly taking from those YOU consider "more fortunate" and giving to those YOU consider "more deserving"."
Yup, I have no need to defend myself or my actions to you, to henderson, to anyone. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. Good luck with that one! Obviously, from one exchange any outside observer knows that I will stick up for special needs children while you use them for sadistic humor. That's a value judgment that I'm comfortable with.
I'm respecting the choice jfNance32 made when HE posted to the internet using HIS full name. HE has no problem identifying himself. YOU have a problem with ME identifying HIM.
This is like when one of those crazy stage moms goes berzerk when their little girl doesn't win the trophy at the beauty pageant.
But continue flaunting your double standard, joe. It's hilarious!
"Um, no, it's no double standard because, um, SgtRock gave implicit, I mean, explicit permission because he didnt' use his full name here, he only used it elsewhere, and google doesn't search the whole internet, just the Sun's website so ksand is a bad guy and I'm explicitly smug but implicitly imagining a slight."
That's your response, in a nutshell.
skerlahdee,
Excellent post! As usual your comments contribute greatly to the dialogue and give us so much to think about.
NOT
so now you're even pasting and copying your own rants?
is this liberal laziness, or just your doctrine of pretending to sound like u have something of substance to say by assaulting us all with the sheer copious volume of your imagination?
sad, weak little man.
A sad weak little man is the guy who attacks helpless little kids when he can't gain traction on an argument.
Stop the whining and respond to the points, joe. You can't finish what you started, obviously.
And it's hilarious you criticize someone who comes to my defense when this all began because you didn't like how I address SgtRock, aka Jim Nance, aka jfNance32. Your double standard is obvious and typical of the republican leadership you worship.
If Joe attacked helpless little kids, what does that make Nobama? Let's be honest, he did it first.
Just cause Obama did it doesn't make it right. It's sick and hateful and these kids didn't ask to be this way and NO ONE should make jokes at their expense.
edgewise, maybe u should just let the grownups talk ok sweetie?
we covered that part, your shrill cries of "the children, the children, please please leave the children out of it!" do nothing but highlight your blatant phoney liberal "I'm so deeply offended" act.
It's not "grownup" to attack kids with special needs. It's hateful and sick and you shouldn't make jokes at their expense. You think you can pass judgement on other people but then brush it off when someone calls you out? They're all right. You have a double standard adn you're a hypocrite.
Still not response of substance, joe?
Trying to wait me out?
Typical republican cowardice.
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered about 5000+ words critiquing your argument. You've given up. When faced with common sense rebuttals of your impotent arguments, you run away like the typical republican coward.
"we all know what a great compassionate giver of your time and resources u are. your failure to answer henderson's many questions about your charitable giving exposed to everybody your idea of charity is forcibly taking from those YOU consider "more fortunate" and giving to those YOU consider "more deserving"."
Yup, I have no need to defend myself or my actions to you, to henderson, to anyone. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. Good luck with that one! Obviously, from one exchange any outside observer knows that I will stick up for special needs children while you use them for sadistic humor. That's a value judgment that I'm comfortable with.
I'm respecting the choice jfNance32 made when HE posted to the internet using HIS full name. HE has no problem identifying himself. YOU have a problem with ME identifying HIM.
This is like when one of those crazy stage moms goes berzerk when their little girl doesn't win the trophy at the beauty pageant.
But continue flaunting your double standard, joe. It's hilarious!
"Um, no, it's no double standard because, um, SgtRock gave implicit, I mean, explicit permission because he didnt' use his full name here, he only used it elsewhere, and google doesn't search the whole internet, just the Sun's website so ksand is a bad guy and I'm explicitly smug but implicitly imagining a slight."
That's your response, in a nutshell.
and ksand,
so by your own rhetoric you now define Obama as:
"Only the most disgusting among us would dare to make fun of those kids."
by your own damnation of not only the act, but the individual doing the act, we will now all expect you to end your hero-worship of Obama and attack him as "the most disgusting among us".
unless of course, you will be invoking your liberal-double-standard get out of jail free card.
Edgewise, he was briefly man-enough to apologize for that.
wow! edgewise I'm impressed! that was your first post over 3 lines!
those internet GED classes you've been taking are really paying off big dividends!
and we can file your response under "hyprocrite" along with your snuggle-bunny ksand. unless you plan on starting to castigate and attack Obama on this forum.
you can't have it both ways.
You make John Stewart and his lame jokes sound like a genius. There's no defending your attacks on helpless kids. You disgust me.
Yup, I'm man enough to forgive and forget, joe. That's something I said an hour ago. Try to keep up.
Why are you still dodging the substance? Refute or accept as fact...
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered about 5000+ words critiquing your argument. You've given up. When faced with common sense rebuttals of your impotent arguments, you run away like the typical republican coward.
"we all know what a great compassionate giver of your time and resources u are. your failure to answer henderson's many questions about your charitable giving exposed to everybody your idea of charity is forcibly taking from those YOU consider "more fortunate" and giving to those YOU consider "more deserving"."
Yup, I have no need to defend myself or my actions to you, to henderson, to anyone. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. Good luck with that one! Obviously, from one exchange any outside observer knows that I will stick up for special needs children while you use them for sadistic humor. That's a value judgment that I'm comfortable with.
I'm respecting the choice jfNance32 made when HE posted to the internet using HIS full name. HE has no problem identifying himself. YOU have a problem with ME identifying HIM.
This is like when one of those crazy stage moms goes berzerk when their little girl doesn't win the trophy at the beauty pageant.
But continue flaunting your double standard, joe. It's hilarious!
"Um, no, it's no double standard because, um, SgtRock gave implicit, I mean, explicit permission because he didnt' use his full name here, he only used it elsewhere, and google doesn't search the whole internet, just the Sun's website so ksand is a bad guy and I'm explicitly smug but implicitly imagining a slight."
That's your response, in a nutshell.
I don't care who apologized. That's a line you don't cross. He won't even stand behind his own words. That's a coward. Apologizing? You believe him? What a joke. He hates kids with special needs and makes fun of them.
as does president obama, i'm sure.
otherwise, that would make u, (gasp!) a hypocrite!!
we'll be watching to see u live up to this newfound morality you have found, based on your being so "deeply offended".
so u believe Obama? or is he a coward who hates kids with special needs and makes fun of them.
apparently u really need to google, "obama bowling special olympics"
Actually, edgewise, that's not a bad point.
Obama was sincere in his apology. Joe seems to revel in making a scene. No arguments of substance for that drama queen. I'll leave it to others to figure out if joe was being sincere. I'm not convinced.
Obama isn't here attacking people and passing judgement but joe is. There's no reason to believe joe. He has shown he's a hypocrite with double standards who makes fun of special needs kids when his arguments don't work.
ahhhh, now there we have it.
"the benefit of the doubt" is due only to your heroes and fellow libs.
otherwise, that would pretty much shatter your whole flawed value system.
just as u believe in giving obama "the benefit of the doubt" in regards to his massive stimulus spending package working?
boy u certainly have all the bases covered don't u? If your stated position doesn't fit with your current point of argument, you change your stated position, or cry "exemption!"
I guess this is what u mean by claiming u play "in the big leagues"?
not far from the truth actually, as this is exactly what your heroes like reid, clinton and obama do.
No you say it and then walk it back when someone criticizes you for it. Your "apology" was weak and insincere and I don't believe it. You two get so caught up in calling each other names and trying to make points that joe lets kids with special needs become a victim. It's pathetic.
Joe, why should anyone believe you are sincere? You threw out that barbed comment and then LAUGHED ABOUT IT when I called you out.
"I predicted that u would take the standard liberal line and be "greatly offended" by my special olympics quip. u fell for it hook, line and sinker."
You didn't mean to offend anyone, but you called it a quip and didn't apologize until someone else called you out on it. That's spineless, even for you.
My value system, a part of which is "Don't make jokes at the expense of disadvantaged kids," is something you're unable to comprehend, and your weak non-apology just reinforces the point.
You've done yourself no favors thus far. Keep digging the grave.
but Obama gets a free pass!!!
man ain't it great to be the "anointed one"!!
and I was laughing at YOU. just as in the distinction between not laughing WITH you (about anything or any joke, but laughing AT you.
Yeah, fell for it hook line and sinker? Dude has a history of insincere comments. There's no reason to believe he actually feels regret for that comment. Sounds like the George Macaca Allen's pathetic apology to anyone who was offended by his remarks.
The President of the Special Olympics said he believed Obama's apology was sincere. There's no way he'd say the same thing about your attack joe. You chose the low road, deal with it! Stop making excuses for yourself.
your entire position here is hyopocrisy defined.
you can attack me freely for doing almost exactly what barack obama did. yet where was your criticism of the great one when he did it? where is your criticism of him now?
once and for all, it's called a "double standard."
own it.
I already said it wasn't right that Obama did it. Where's my double standard now? The difference is that I believe Obama's apology, but yours is just a lie.
I don't think making fun of kids with special needs is funny, Joe, so I don't care who you were laughing at.
Now you've just got excuse after excuse.
"It's ok, Obama said it, too!"
"Wait, I didn't mean it!"
"I'm "sorry!""
"You've got a double standard!"
So we're supposed to believe you're sincere about your apology, when you were insincere about the joke? Yeah, that makes even less sense than your failed attacks on me.
The S.S. Average Joe is taking on heavy water and sinking fast.
such colorful prose kevin! as a prior commissioned US Naval Officer i really enjoyed your ship analogy. i must admit u are fun to banter with. as opposed to edgewise, who writes at about a 4th grade level.
"I (sniffle) believe Obama's apology, but yours (sniffle) is just a lie." waaaaaaaaaaaah!
however, as usual, u use your writing skills to duck the obvious.
there is no difference between what obama did, and what I did. I saw the clips of what he did, and I did NOT criticize him to anybody (although I am obviously no fan of his presidential policies), because it was obviously just a joke in poor taste. no big deal. no harm, no foul. there was very little criticism of him after the fact because it is the domain of the liberal to feign righteous indignation. and we all know the liberal left would never attack barack now don't we?
any yet u sit here and launch tirade after tirade, attack after attack on me for the SAME THING.
HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARD defined.
4th grade level? At least I can spell the pronoun "you" correctly, not pretending to be "hip" like a teenager. There's a big difference between what Obama did and what you did. Obama was disparaging himself, but you used these kids to attack someone else. Obama apologized and talking about how it was a teaching moment for Americans to reconsider how they view special needs kids. You laughed and yapped about hook line and sinker.
Now you want us to believe your apology. And you criticize others for attack after attack on you when your entire argument on this page has been an attack on ksand99 for calling a dude by his name. Hypocrisy is defined by your actions on these comments right here. You cant' handle it so you want to try to distract from the real issue. Nope won't work!
"...as a prior commissioned US Naval Officer..."
The tall tales continue. Cue the violins. What excuse is this? #14?
"Um, I was in the military! It's ok that I threw special needs kids under the bus!"
That's sick, Joe. The men and women who fight for our country are honorable, and don't deserve to be used as cannon-fodder for your crass jokes.
the real issue is your double standard.
like a lap-dog, u continue to lick obama's boots, while u incessantly yap, yap, yap at me FOR THE SAME THING.
and now u try to differentiate between using the Special Olympics to disparage oneself, versus using it to disparage a debate opponent? you would have a valid point if it were in any way apparent that kevin sandoval was disabled or mentally or developmentally challenged. and while many might disagree with his points, I strongly doubt anybody would argue he were mentally/developmentally disabled.
I believe u are trying to point out the difference between one who disparages an ACTUAL SPECIAL OLYMPICS COMPETITOR, vs. disparaging oneself or someone else NOT INVOLVED in the Special Olympics.
and yet u try to portray me as having attacked an ACTUAL person with a disability.
no, what your beloved Obama did is EXACTLY what I did. a joke in poor taste, but neither of us attempted to attack an actual disabled child or participant in the Special Olympics.
your "righteous indignation" is noted. u are now free to begin attacking Obama, or continue with your hypocritical double standard.
but u can't have it both ways.
kevin, what would u know of the men and women who fight for our country?
you like to exaggerate and "sensationalize" comments made by other posters, but I would like you to show me exactly when and where I used our service members as "cannon-fodder for your crass jokes"?
if there were a draft, u would've ducked it like "slick" Willie Clinton.
and as u probably came of age after the draft, it is very doubtful you would have volunteered for any service. it's not a coincidence that the vast majority of our service members are conservative.
You're hiding behind your "service," Joe. "Don't attack me, I was in the Navy!"
The Cheney-esque "If you attack me, you attack the military" passing the buck won't work here. Don't hide behind the work of the real men and women in the military. They don't teach immoral humor in the service. It's for honorable men and women... which is why I doubt your assertion.
I've hit a nerve. Now he's chasing his tail, trying to explain why his comment is no different than Obama's, when that was never the point. The point is that Obama gave a sincere apology for attacking the special needs kids, but joe looks down on people offended by his joke.
kevin
oh right, there is NO off color humor or joking in the military...
of course not! there is NEVER any off color humor or joking when u put thousands of 18 year olds from every different walk of life and location in the United States together. that would be UNTHINKABLE wouldn't it?
it's just like u see in the movies isn't it?
yeah right.
despite your ludicrous claims to NO "immoral humor" (as u called it) in the military, I WILL NOT go as far as to call u a liar when u claim military service. and yet u do just that. is this your idea of the "honor" u were "taught" during your enlistment?
you CAN'T be "taught" honor. get it?
and my side note of where I am coming from was just that. i truly did let out a loud laugh at your comment about "S.S. Average Joe". you see, I can dislike the points u make without disliking you. apparently I've been hitting u too hard if u are unable to see that much of my back and forth with u is meant in the spirit of gamesmanship.
so tell me where i disparaged the men and women of our military.
edgewise,
the point is and has always been that YOU are a hypocrite with double standards.
Hey, at least I respect and have sympathy for children who struggle every day with the lot given them in life. That's more than can be said for you. You'd rather use them to insult others and then offer a half-hearted apology. You dare disrespect these brave kids? That's heartless and immature.
"despite your ludicrous claims to NO "immoral humor" "
Nice straw man. I didn't say there was "NO immoral humor" in the service. I said, "They don't teach immoral humor in the service."
You still can't stay on-topic, and your only resort is to build up straw men to knock down. Bravo, genius! Too bad all you've got is an argument based on a logical fallacy.
So you'll throw ill children under the bus and BRAVELY knock down straw men? What a hero!
my but u are a nasty little man.
and I reread your post. I inadvertently paid u a compliment you never earned. u never did serve.
that explains your hollywood view of the US military, as u have NO first hand knowledge.
allow me to clarify. you said, "they don't teach immoral humor in the service."
I got news for you sweetpea, "they" don't teach ANY humor in the service.
but then u wouldn't know anything about that would u.
and yes, believe it or not, as men and women from EVERY walk of life enter the military, many of them might even find what u call "immoral" humor entertaining.
but again, u wouldn't know anything about that.
why don't u go play some video games or watch a GI Joe cartoon, as your imagination is the closest YOU will ever get to service in the military.
still waiting for u to tell me where I disparaged the men and women of our, NO, MY military.
Why did you have to misquote him in the first place? And you wonder why no one believes you.
"my but u are a nasty little man."
You know, Joe, your level of Freudian projection approaches a neurosis. Might want to seek some help for that before it gets out of control.
Oh wait -- too late.
"allow me to clarify. you said, "they don't teach immoral humor in the service."
Yes, that is what I said, unlike the lie of what you claimed I said, in quotes and everything. A sad, pathetic straw man.
And you counter with a presumption, not based in your factual knowledge, that I have a "Hollywood view of the US military," yet you agreed with my premise that they do not teach humor in the service. Wow, GOT ME THERE! LOL!
You are the human incarnation of the Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart.
http://frostingthecake.files.wordpress.c...
"and yes, believe it or not, as men and women from EVERY walk of life enter the military, many of them might even find what u call "immoral" humor entertaining."
They may, that doesn't make your disparaging remarks about special needs children any less reprehensible. What kind of defense is this? "Diverse people enter the military, thus my disparaging remarks about kids are OK!"?
I reject your attempt to lower the bar of moral behavior.
"still waiting for u to tell me where I disparaged the men and women of our, NO, MY military."
How quaint. Now you own the entire military. Freudian projection and an egomaniac? You're quite the catch, Joe. Stop hiding behind your service; it's not an excuse for your actions.
you're like a little kid who covers their ears and shrieks, "I won't listen, I won't listen!!"
I have debunked each and every one of your points, and u continue to ignore every point where you are exposed as a hypocrite.
My actions need no excuse. unless you have finally decided to quit playing your double standard card and attack your dear leader obama as vehemently.
and although I stated earlier it does not seem u have a developmental disability, it is VERY clear that u have a severe personality disorder.
I would tell u to chill out and go have a drink with your friends, but it is obvious you have NO friends. your antisocial behavior is quite evident. maybe u can just go play some video games or watch those GI JOE cartoons so u can IMAGINE that u actually stepped up to the plate to volunteer for service to our great country, made some personal sacrifice, and actually made a difference.
pathetic, weak little man.
Wow, that's sick, joe. Why don't you go make your pathetic jokes in front of the millions of special needs kids who could probably kick your butt.
You criticize others for not responding to your inane and fallacious points? I've read it all, you've lost. It's also hypocritical, since you never offered a response to my last criticism of you. Those points stand.
Instead, your feeble attempts at attacking someone were completely turned around, and you've spent the majority of posts here on the defense, rather than offense. So you might want to look in the mirror when you call anyone else a "pathetic weak little man."
That man has beaten you down, so what does that make you?
(Or is it "u?" Who do you think's reading your posts, joe? Hannah Montana?)
"you're like a little kid who covers their ears and shrieks, "I won't listen, I won't listen!!""
Is that what you read when you see my words? Well, first off, I can't "hear" you because you're typing comments, genius. Secondly, it's not that I'm not reading or comprehending you, you're upset because I don't agree with you. See the difference?
Why do I ask rhetorical questions? He obviously doesn't see the difference.
"and although I stated earlier it does not seem u have a developmental disability, it is VERY clear that u have a severe personality disorder."
Why, because, unlike you, I won't roll over and play dead? Because I know what I believe and can write coherent sentences about it?
"I would tell u to chill out and go have a drink with your friends, but blah blah blah I have no real point but I'm going to draw this paragraph out so that people might think I know what I'm talking about but don't let that stop me from making a value judgment about a stranger and hey let's make fun of the Special Olympics kids again and actually made a difference."
See, I'm totally listening. By the way, they have wi-fi in Starbucks.
If this is your strategy: to just drone on and on ad infinitum without a point, let me know. I have better and far more interesting things to do.
"Because I know what I believe and can write coherent sentences about it?"
Yet again, I believe that you flunked your own grammar checking test.
You should leave the grammar checking role to theBS.
That is his job.
Nance : grammar as Sarah Palin : coherence
LOL! I wonder if jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr, err Subservient Joe is as bad at public speaking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUxlGJwj...
Let's pray that Obama makes it the end of his term.
Yes indeed, Mr. "Top Half of His Law Class" (yep he thinks 76th out of 85 is top 50%) is one heartbeat away.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktcnWNk1o...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZG6lf9IT...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNO6-WoC_...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZtW_q_6...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VAzOIT4E...
Yes you Dunce, he graduated from Harvard Law School with Magna Cum Laude honors. He's not smart at all. You probably could not even get into a clown college.
kevin,
I said "like" a little kid. it's called a metaphor, genius.
typical of your foolish non-arguments.
why don't u go do some of your "better and far more intersting things to do." like play video games or watch GI Joe videos, so you can continue to post about what YOU believe the real men and women who join our military actually do. maybe you can invent a new "pretend friend" to play your video games with too!
pathetic, weak, dishonest little man.
Rock, don't waste you time with these fools, kevin will simply bombard you with volumes of "copy and paste" of his long on verbiage but short on reason pleas.
What you wrote was more of a simile than metaphor.
Jeez, Nance. This IS all your fault.
I TOLD you this would happen.
You did break the rules, man. How many personalities have/are you actually posting under? Too many.
Naughty, naughty.
Your concience,
SgtRoll.
I'm beginning to think edgewise has special needs. Can someone look into that?
"I'm beginning to think edgewise has special needs. Can someone look into that?"
So you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you has special needs? What a guy, henderson! This is the realm of the fringe right-wing... jokes at the expense of kids with special needs.
Disgusting.
"How many personalities have/are you actually posting under? Too many. "
I'm beginning to believe that "Subservient Joe" is just another nom de plume for jfNance, err, James F Nance Jr, err, SgtRock. Who else would actually stick up for the guy? Only himself or some gullible neophyte. Guess that was asked and answered, wasn't it?
ahhhhh kevin sandoval right on cue, with more phony indignant moral outrage.
you're as transparent as polished glass, slick.
ksand99,
Oh my God, it seriously looks like you are falling apart at the seams. You sound like a total nutjob! Go read your own posts and just see how flippin nuts you appear to be. You sound like a freak of the week! Honestly, I think the Sun blog is making you kooky.
You are not making sense at all.
I hope you feel better soon.
I hope you both understand why I completely disregard the opinion of those who laugh at the expense of kids with special needs.
Mediocre Joe and the less fortunate one passing judgment on me is analogous to Larry Craig chastising Clinton as a "naughty boy." There's probably a few more similarities between Craig and these two, but I'm not one to judge.
Henderson, don't you have a judge to pester for an Amber Alert? Oh, wait, they don't issue Amber Alerts. Sorry, I can't understand you. What's that? Why, your foot's somehow become lodged in your mouth. Seek some help, buddy!
ksand99 (Kevin Sandoval...spelling/grammar checker supreme lord)
What is going wrong? Did you stop cutting and pasting from Word?
Here are just a few examples of his writings just on this thread.
"Because I know what I believe and can write coherent sentences about it?"
"Disgusting."
"What a guy, henderson! "
"Only himself or some gullible neophyte."
"Why, because, unlike you, I won't roll over and play dead? "
"If this is your strategy: to just drone on and on ad infinitum without a point, let me know. "
"Nice straw man."
"Ensign's affair is just as bad as Clinton's lies to a grand jury?"
"What a hero!"
Once again, here comes the cuckoo bird -
Now I laughed at kids with special needs? I hate to tell you that you're mistaken.
I am, however, hysterically laughing at you and edgewise who seem to go deeper into delusions of grandeur with each post.
Now THAT is the POT calling the kettle BLACK.
NANCE giving spelling/grammar tips.
Way too funny!
gmag.....another pot....
I do not claim to be a grammar/spelling champion unlike ksand99 (Kevin Sandoval) and I guess now you.
The only person that I know of that posts with near perfect grammar and spelling is theBS.
I suppose some take the time to cut/paste from Word (ksand99 probably) and others triple check their work. I think that is silly for it is just a little "newspaper" site that a few people read.
gmag...another grammar/spelling checker lord supreme...
Examples of his writings:
"You used to come here because of cheap flights and a nice hotel room at a discount rate."
"And none of this is Germaine to the conversation."
"Ensign is caught up big time, and has not the intellectual capacity to wiggle thru it. "
"Them's the facts."
"The butt of jokes aplenty. "
"Just gibberish."
"And Pumpkin Head."
"Simple economics."
"I can't stand sean penn. Good actor though."
Nance, you are the unchallenged and unmitigated king of typos and horrible grammar, and you constantly whine and cry when people point it out.
You reek of hypocrisy!
Oh, and I guess I need to watch out for the identity police. Dumb and dumber are bound to realize I used Nance's real name without his blessing.
I'll wait on pins and needles to be chastised.
But while I wait, I'll wonder just how much time it took for Nance to copy and paste all of ksand's words into a word processor to check the grammar. Little does Nance know... most of those sentences from both ksand and gmag conform with informal grammatical conventions.
Hey jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr.? Why don't you do me a favor. Why don't you look back upon your archives as jfnance32 (about 4772 comments here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/users/jfnance...) and check your grammar. Get back to us when you're done, ok?
Was it a coincidence that your screen name changed the same day I used your full name for the first time? Can I take credit for that?
I'm just wondering...
ohhhhhhh goody! looks like we've got us a full blown round table discussion!!
henderson, I already tried to explain to kevin that the difference between laughing with somebody, and laughing AT somebody. maybe he'll finally understand that everybody who reads his illiterate rants is LAUGHING AT HIM.
I see he's still playing his phony liberal "I'm so deeply and morally offended and indignant" card.
he likes to alternate that one with his liberal
"double standard get-outta-I've-been-busted" card.
then he'll sprinkle in a nice dash of liberal hypocrisy to make it all good!
"I already tried to explain to kevin..."
Someone call the identity police. There has been a blatant violation of ksand's rights. Ksand never gave Joe permission to use his name.
No, this is just another case of Joe's galling and transparent double standard. When a liberal does it, attack! Joe, though, feels no need to abide his own ill-conceived rules.
What were you saying about double standards and hypocrisy, Joe?
kevin came out and directly identified himself by name ON THIS WEBSITE. I'm just addressing him by what HE himself identified himself as. and u find that to be a problem?
stick to the grammar and spelling correction theBS, you're better at it than trying to make any kind of cohesive argument.
more of your kettle calling the pot black doublespeak.
"informal grammatical conventions".......yes....The old grammar informal rule book....
Where exactly is this offical grammar informal rule book?
Would these two comply with the imaginary informal grammar rule book?
"Because I know what I believe and can write coherent sentences about it?""
"If you're going to attempt satire, at least take the time to proofread. Again, tedious personal attacks rather than an argument of substance."
The only time that I point out grammar mistakes is when grammar checkers make grammar errors like ksand99. I usually do it when he makes a grammar mistake in the same comment that he is attacking another's grammar mistake.
theBS rarely makes any grammar mistakes. It is dumb to point out grammar mistakes on little blog sites like this but heck it is theBS's right to so. But I understand that theBS just lives to attack other comments. He has no original thoughts of his own.
Opps...theBS has failed his own grammar check test.
"Joe, though, feels no need to abide his own ill-conceived rules."
I guess that he is switching to informal English.
I'm just not impressed by the response from the guy who chose a screen name which advertises his lack of self-esteem.
From what I've seen, "average" is about right, Joe.
It is funny, but kind of sad. It must suck to be so looney-toons and hostile all the time. When I go to the top of this thread, and read down, I feel like I'm watching ksand unravel right before my eyes.
Also, if you really want to laugh, go back and just read edgewise. It is so funny when you isolate those posts! "Wah, the kids, the kids! The helpless little kids! You're mean, your not sorry! You're hateful, wah wah wah."
Typical phony BS from the lefties. You could replace "the kids" with anything and it still fits their typical agenda, "the poor", "the undocumented workers", "the uninsured", "the minorities," "the unemployed". Phony indignation is priceless.
Why are you such a hater Joe? What did the kids ever do to deserve your vicious attacks? haha
"kevin came out and directly identified himself by name ON THIS WEBSITE."
Yes, because Google overlooks the Sun's website, right Joe? It doesn't matter what site he named himself. That's your "transparent as polished glass" double standard that allows you to attack me for the same thing you're doing now.
Joe's just your run-of-the-mill mediocre hypocrite.
Actually, Joe, thebs dismantled your entire identity argument two days ago and you couldn't rebut a single point he made.
As far as coherent arguments go, you've left his unchallenged. That's poor form, lazy, and indicative of your inability to counter his arguments.
Buck up, Joe! Your apparent "average" inadequacies just give us a friendly chuckle.
"Opps...theBS has failed his own grammar check test."
Really? From the guy who can't spell "oops?"
kevin,
is this more of your latent homosexuality manifested into u trying to turn the topic to my manhood?
not that there's anything wrong with that kevin, lets be clear, I'm NOT looking down on your sexual orientation. lets get that out before u have another attack of "phony liberal self righteous moral indignation".
but I thought theBS was your girl? and sadly (for you) I'm taken. by a woman.
"u trying to turn the topic to my manhood?"
Whoa there, buddy! No one wants to talk about your "manhood." I was talking about your self-esteem... I even specifically called it out.
It's positively Freudian, though, that you took it as a critique of your anatomy. Please, keep this clean.
I think that quote from you will go down in the annals of the Sun's website as the most awkward and unnecessary reference, ever. Congratulations, Joe.
no problem kevin, and really, it's alright.
about your sexual orientation i mean.
henderson,
u nailed the lefts "phony indignation" thing right on the head!! especially the part about substituting different "victims" into their rant.
keep it coming!
Well... I... uh...
I've been around the Sun's website for a few years now. I've seen meltdowns and gotten into my share of heated arguments. I've seen insults about one's parents, family, political party, etc. I've seen comments deleted, and had a few deleted myself.
I thought I'd seen the worst of it... until Joe mentioned his junk. That's a psychosomatic indicator if I have ever seen one. I think I speak for everyone here when I slowly nod my head back-and-forth in wide-eyed amazement, Joe.
There's crazy, and then there's DEFCON-1 crazy, Joe. I hope the Democrats' expansion of veterans health care can help you out.
It seems you are just checking-off a giant bigot list of minority groups to throw under the bus. What's next, throwing out the n-word? Let me know when you're done.
So you have nothing relevant to argue, just want to talk about your anatomy and question my sexuality. That's sad and reveals more of your curious inadequacies.
Did you really expect more from Joe than the common taunts of playground bullies, ksand? Next he's gonna chase you while screaming about cooties.
Really? You're curious about ksand's sexuality? That's your idea of an elevated discourse, Joe? It's late, and you need a cold shower, Joe.
You have absolutely self-destructed. I'm awestruck... and I had so much hope for a new sparring partner after I ran NVMakz off the boards.
boy u are one phony self righteous morally indignant little man aren't u?
I even stated clearly in my post I didn't look down on your obvious homosexual proclivity. perhaps this helps explain your apparent personality disorder.
but yet u wish to falsely accuse me of bigotry.
your arguments were disassembled and debunked as u spat them out, until u started "copying and pasting" so you could try to drown out (my) the voice of reason.
tonight u try to be clever and insult me, and found u were easily outmaneuvered and slammed. maybe you'll think twice before you try to get "cute" again.
If you're really delusional to think that referencing your manhood is, in any way, "debunking" me, then there's really no help for you.
Yes, you are clearly bigoted. You look down upon children with special needs and homosexuals. Your tactics are, in agreement with thebs, just immature bullying. There's no rational thought, just tedious and banal snickering about sexuality and thinly-veiled swipes at disadvantaged groups. That's what I would call a dictionary definition of bigotry, Joe.
You've proven yourself ill-equipped to deal with an adult conversation, and incapable of rebutting simple points of contention. You rely not on solid reasoning, but on ad hominem and straw men logical fallacies.
Your criticism of me was fully rebutted two days ago, Joe. In the interim, you've insulted special needs kids and proclaimed, with no evidence or even a specious relationship, that you think I'm gay simply because I disagree with you. That's infallible logic if I've ever seen it.
Your rhetoric and logical fallacies make jfNance32 look like a veritable genius, and your fixation on your "manhood" is the strangest thing I've read on the internet in years. If you think talking about your anatomy is "outmaneuvering" ANYONE, you've got a long way to go.
I'm not getting into the fight.
Just putting in a marker, so-to-speak.
P.S. It is entertaining.
Gunslinger; I was going to watch some UFC fights tonight but I agree this is much more interesting.
kevin sandoval,
more of your phony liberal righteous indignation.
first u would have us believe u are the staunch defender of disabled children! keeping in mind that NOBODY attacked disabled children. unless you have decided to rescind your liberal pass on barack obama doing THE EXACT SAME THING. a joke in what u may call poor taste (unless delivered by your messiah). obviously your president felt it was fine to joke about on national television in front of an audience of what? 20 million americans? 30 million americans? you seize on this for literally dozens of posts as a springboard for posing as a moral, righteous person.
from reading the totality of all of your posts, your obviously all over the board, and your morality and righteousness are more than a little questionable. but there is certainly no questioning your "self-righteousness."
there's your double standard hypocrisy. rebuke that. and nobody is buying your, "but baracks apology sounded so, sincere, and he's such a swell guy!" argument.
and now, we are to believe that you are also the stalwart bravehearted defender of homosexuals!
my your resume apparently knows no bounds!
do you put on a mask and cape and go fight injustice and crime at night also????
keep up your dishonest front, and I will continue to debunk you. after all, you're in the big leagues now.
I'm still waiting for ksannd cuckoo to show me where I've made fun of kids.
lolololol! Joe attacks ksand for using sgtrock's real name but that blows up in his face.
Joe tries to gain upper ground by comparing ksand to a kid in the special olympics, but that blows up in his face.
Joe tries to scream about ksand being gay. That blows up in his face.
Now Joe's talking about what's in Joe's pants. You have a serious mental health issue Joe.
The funniest thing is that Joe think's he WINNING. lolololol!
JOE! You're the Sun's equivalent of Wile E Coyote! GET OVER IT!
I'm beginning to think ksand=edgewise.
I've never seen a poster with his own cheerleader before. A little weird.
hednerson, I don't think I can do anything to stop your suspicious paranoia. I came here and blasted both of them for being stupid. And dude, you came here cheerleading for average joe.
u "blasted" ksand? we must've missed that one slugger.
"What the hell is this even about? You two whining at each other is stupid." That's what I said. "u" need "2" learn "2" read.
You two keep writing together on the same articles. I think average joe=henderson.
edgewise,
"I came here and blasted both of them"
"what the hell is this even about? you two whining at each other is stupid"
WOW! I bet kevin is feeling the sting from that one! I know I am!!!
THEN, u take it upon yourself to call ME an "idiot", a "moron", falsely accuse me of "attacking helpless little kids", finally topping it off with the brilliant yet subtle, "you disgust me".
how in the world could ANYONE think u are kevin sandoval's cheerleader???!!! or that u might even me one and the same? why, u might even be the elusive "SgtRoll" self described "conscience to SgtRock"!!!
sounds like a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY to me!!!!
Yes, I agree that your paranoid delusions of a conspiracy are dumb. You brought all of this on yourself, don't blame it on other writers.
yep, u certainly "blasted" us BOTH!
more of your liberal double standard.
You think I'm liberal. There is no hope for you.
Oh right!!!
OF COURSE you're NOT a liberal. u just like to spend your time defending the actions of barack hussein obama because he's such a swell guy! or maybe because he looks so dapper in those suits!
you're quite obviously an "independant"!
Like Harry Reid.
"Harry Reid, Independant......like Nevada" (can u hear the soundbite....)
What, you assume you know me because you read a few comments on a website? You really arent that smart, are you? You say I defend Obama's actions? Quote me defending his actions. I called him out for his comments about the Special Olympics, just like I called you out, and you think I have a double standard? You have no idea what you are talking about.
that's your story and you're sticking to it!!!!
That's what I thought. You are just all talk and no action. "You defend Barack Obama's actions!" You flee when I confront you to prove it. You think your some great debater but your just a fraud.
But the kids....WAAAH
Lets examine your own words edgewise:
"the difference is (sniff) I believe obama's apology (sniffle), and yours is just a lie!! (sniff, sniffle, waaaaaaaaaahhhh!)"
your defense of obama is obvious in that u attack me again and again, call me every name u can think of (as u reach to the depths of your 9th grade education), when barry the great did THE EXACT SAME THING.
no wait, what he did was MUCH WORSE. he joked about special needs kids to 20 or 30 million Americans!!! AND, he is the President of the United States of America, is he not? and I would like to hear u tell us how he should NOT be held to a much higher standard than ANYBODY in this regard, especially in comparison to a half dozen citizens bantering on an opinion website.
but he gets a pass. why? well because he's such a swell guy. and because you're a liberal. man up and own it.
I can hear u now: "(sniff) say it ain't so barack, say it ain't so! (sniffle, the children, the children....waaaaaaaah"
This is quite the dance you've got going on, Joe.
Edgewise says it's not ok that either you or Obama said what you said. He's applying the same standard to your behavior. Where it differs is that he says he believes Obama's apology, but not yours. The apology isn't the behavior, it's the statements about the Special Olympics.
You counter with:
" when barry the great did THE EXACT SAME THING."
Oh, ok: you and Obama did the same thing.
"no wait, what he did was MUCH WORSE."
Wait, what? You just said what you did was the same thing. You've made such a scene about how your actions were JUST LIKE OBAMA'S, and now you dump your previous points to suddenly differentiate. I'm amused by how you completely contradicted yourself in two adjoining sentences, though.
In doing so, you grant edgewise, or anyone else for that matter, the right to consider your actions different than Obama's. Thus, if he applies different standards to you, it's not a double standard, because you just admitted your actions were different.
"AND, he is the President of the United States of America, is he not? and I would like to hear u tell us how he should NOT be held to a much higher standard than ANYBODY in this regard, especially in comparison to a half dozen citizens bantering on an opinion website."
You just verbalized your double standard. You've swung from saying that it's ok that Obama said it because he didn't mean anything to apologizing for your words to now criticizing Obama for something that you originally said was the SAME AS YOU, and now you say is DIFFERENT. Don't forget you are now arguing that you and Obama are fundamentally different because he is the President and you are not. Now you demand he be held to a different (read: harsher) standard than you. You just demanded a double standard.
How do you reconcile this with screaming about how edgewise has a double standard when you just blatantly exposed your own?
Nance, do you think your little bit of nastiness bothers me? The guy who can't even figure out which personality to use on any given day, jfnance32, or one of the 6 or 7 others you use to "disguise" your silly rhetoric, is correcting my grammar. You are being an ass.
We always knew you had a wicked double standard joe. Now we have it in writing. You are a hypocrite.
u boys have some more of the Kool-Aid.
it's doing wonders for your judgement.
u like to argue Ensign is "more" guilty than Clinton because he belongs to an organization promoting family values. doesn't matter clinton lies under oath, and to millions of americans on TV.
and now u like to argue the President of the US, speaking from his position atop the most powerful and influential bullypulpit in the world, gets a free pass for his joke in poor taste, but a citizen posting on a forum where a half dozen people are participating is SO SO MUCH WORSE.
not only are you hypocrites employing a double standard. you're fools also. u like to employ "absolute" standards only when it suits you, then bend the rules to justify your own shortcomings.
just as edgwise argues he gave kevin sandoval and myself the same treatment. yeah he sure did "blast" kevin didn't he.
just like he blasted barack obama and accused him of "hating children" and disgusting him.
but that's not a double standard in your liberal world is it?
nice.
I have never said Ensign is "more" guilty than Clinton. You love those straw men arguments. I think and will say that Ensign the family values candidate is a hypocrite when he criticizes others and their affairs. I don't think Clinton ever criticized someone over having an affair.
LOL after you squeal about double standards you now argue in favor of one. You are exposed as a phony fraud and a hypocrite of the worst kind. You cant' even admit it. You want people to judge Obama harder than they judge you. You are begging for a double standard.
Joe your hypocrasy is blinding.
i don't argue for one, i expose one.
u are an illiterate fool.
how bout u start by applying the SAME standard to Obama that u did to me. start accusing HIM or "hating children" and "attacking innocent children" and tell us how he "disgusts you".
or are u going to continue to reserve your oh-so phony liberal indignant moral outrage for me, as I do not agree with your political views?
Yes you liar you argued for one. You said Obama should be held to a different standard than you. I said that what Obama said wasn't right. You duck that because it doesn't fit your weak hypocritical argument. Now you want to escape being judged with Obama. You think he should be held to a different standard.
That is the double standard you argued for joe. The only exposed double standard is the one you want: you want people to treat Obama differently. Those are your words and your argument. Your hypocrisy goes hand in hand with Ensign.
you're argument holds no water.
I said that in the context of pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.
if u can condemn me repeatedly, how can u give a free pass to the most powerful man in the world, speaking directly to tens of millions of people, using the full force and authority that comes with speaking as the president.
I want YOU and all your liberal cronies to treat Obama the same as u treat me.
if u want to argue the point I want him treated to a different standard, then just hold him to the SAME standard. something u have NOT done.
but please keep up the comedic relief:
"yes you liar.....!!!!" hahahaha
"the kids, the kids...... waaaaaaaaaaaa!"
Hypocrisy? You know how weak that sounds coming from someone who is so arrogant they demand to be treated differently for saying the same thing. Then you want to criticize me for something I never did.
You said I said Ensign was more guilty than Clinton. That is a lie.
You said I never criticized Obama for his Special Olympics comment. That is a lie.
You criticize me for having a double standard I do not have, and then you say Obama should be held to a different standard than you. You invalidated your entire arguemtn by demanding Obama be treated different than you, or anyone on this board. You want him treated with a different standard. Those are your words. You said a different "higher" standard. THAT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD. You criticize others for having a double standard when yours is so obvious. You are a hypocrite, just like John Ensign.
"I want YOU and all your liberal cronies to treat Obama the same as u treat me."
"AND, he is the President of the United States of America, is he not? and I would like to hear u tell us how he should NOT be held to a much higher standard than ANYBODY in this regard, especially in comparison to a half dozen citizens bantering on an opinion website."
You can't keep your own arguements straight. Hypocrite.
"they demand to be treated differently?"
I'll say it again so you get it. I know you're reading comprehension is at the 4th grade level. work harder on that "hooked on phonics" and maybe you'll get it.
Treat Obama like you've treated, and continue, to treat me.
To do otherwise would be nothing less than hypocrisy and double standard defined.
It's apparent you believe in "separate but equal" huh? or maybe just like the piggies from Orwell's Animal Farm, "all animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal than others."
but I doubt you read it. it was required 10th grade reading, and you never made it past 9th grade.
Separate but equal is you demanding that Obama be held to a different standard. You think he should be held to a higher standard because you are ashamed of your own actions. I spoke out against Obama, and I spoke out against you. My actions are clear.
Your words contradict each other. One sentence you say "treat us the same" and the next you say "Treat him worse because he's the President!" You are so transparent I can see right through to your hypocrisy.
Your ineffective insults are just an attempt to distract from the truth: you think you should be treated differently. You think we should treat Obama worse because he is President. All your screaming about double standards when yours is so obvious and you don't even try to hide it.
That's why you lied and said I thought Ensign was more guilty than Clinton.
sad, weak pathetic little man.
Joe: "Treat Obama like you've treated, and continue, to treat me."
Joe: "I want YOU and all your liberal cronies to treat Obama the same as u treat me."
Joe: "how bout u start by applying the SAME standard to Obama that u did to me. "
Joe: "no wait, what he did was MUCH WORSE. he joked about special needs kids to 20 or 30 million Americans!!! AND, he is the President of the United States of America, is he not? and I would like to hear u tell us how he should NOT be held to a much higher standard than ANYBODY in this regard, especially in comparison to a half dozen citizens bantering on an opinion website."
Cookie Monster understands this, Joe. Why can't you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WhuikFY1...
The same standard was applied: what BOTH of you said was wrong, but now you want preferential treatment. Joe, you said you think Obama should be held to a double standard. You think Obama's more deserving of criticism than you.
That's you, and your hypocritical double standard, in a nutshell.
Deal with it: you completely contradicted yourself and you're scrambling to save face. You've undermined your argument and you're left rudderless and exposed as a dishonest charlatan.
You are a complete fool.
you like to paint issues in black and white absolutes only when it suits your own deception.
you doubt things can be judged "more" morally wrong?
lets say John Doe runs over a man with his car and kills him. would it make a difference if John's were cold sober, but his brakes failed and he ran over the man, versus if John was drinking and driving and ran over the man.
either way, the man is dead. but is John "more" morally wrong in the second instance? apparently you don't think so.
Is using the bullypulpit of the MOST POWERFUL position in the world to tell a tasteless joke, to be heard by tens of millions of people, the same as using the same joke in a discussion between a handful of individuals?
I have no double standard. I pointed out early on that I did NOT ever make an issue of Obama's actions. where is MY double standard? I only point out that if YOU wish to make such an issue of my actions, in such dramatic fashion, how can u grant Obama a pass? ESPECIALLY since it can easily be argued using standard philosophical tenets, that Obama's action by virtue of his position, makes his action the greater evil, if YOU wish to define said action as "evil".
Again, you like to have it both ways.
you've already been recycling thebs's arguments as you obviously lack the intellectual capability to come up with any on your own, and now you hijack even MY insults.
again, you have defined by your actions what u claim.
you are truly, a sad weak pathetic little man.
to which we can now add that you are an obtuse, simple minded plagiarist.
"Is using the bullypulpit of the MOST POWERFUL position in the world to tell a tasteless joke, to be heard by tens of millions of people, the same as using the same joke in a discussion between a handful of individuals?"
So if it's different, as you IMPLY but won't state here, why do you keep accusing people of having a double standard? If the actions are different, as you are now claiming (and contrary to more than a handful of prior statements) then they should be treated differently.
You now seem to imply that Obama deserves criticism *because more people know about his actions* but you do not.
That's a distinction without a difference. The audience is irrelevant, the action (the joke) is what is being criticized.
You're treading water in a whirlpool.
I need to work this out.
Joe's initial argument, after being called out after making a joke at the expense of kids in the Special Olympics, was that I had a double standard because I didn't also complain about Obama's statement. He drew a direct comparison between his comment and Obama's comment. He found them to be equal.
For several days, he swung around on his merry-go-round, crabby that he thought he was being singled out, when his actions were, according to him, just as reprehensible as those of Obama.
His statements condemning me, and others, was that we had a double standard because we didn't treat him exactly the same as he felt we treated Obama.
Then, suddenly, his entire argument changes. He contradicts himself and says that Obama did, "THE EXACT SAME THING." A few words, later, he completely changes his story.
Now he thinks Obama is WORSE because more people are aware of Obama's statement. In other words, he thinks it's ok to say such a thing, so long as not very many people are aware of it. He's excusing his actions (by saying it's not as bad because it's just some random guy on the internet saying it) while trying to condemn Obama's words... which according to his own statement was, "THE EXACT SAME THING."
This is the mind of the right-wing fringe. They attack and attack while being slowly pushed into a corner and now, enraged like a feral hyena, he reframes his argument in a way that contradicts three days' worth of his prior statements.
Joe, you took people to task for doubting your apology's sincerity, and used that phony indignation to scream "double standard! and "hypocrisy!" This latest boneheaded move just shows how phony your line of argument has become.
You whine about not being treated the same as Obama, and when you are, you whine that Obama should be criticized MORE.
You'd claim the sun rose in the south if you thought it would score you a few points. That type of dishonest rhetoric is exactly why you have zero credibility here.
"lets say John Doe runs over a man with his car and kills him. would it make a difference if John's were cold sober, but his brakes failed and he ran over the man, versus if John was drinking and driving and ran over the man.either way, the man is dead. but is John "more" morally wrong in the second instance? apparently you don't think so."
That is a straw man, joe. You are so sad. You spent hours and hours whining about how you were being treated differently, and now you want to be treated differently. There are no extenuating circumstances in this case, the case of you making fun of kids with developmental issues, that can be compared to homicide versus manslaughter. The intent was the same. You thought you were being funny. So did Obama. You chose your words. So did Obama.
"how can u grant Obama a pass?" I didn't, and you just keep lying and saying that I did.
Oh I forgot to say.
"you've already been recycling thebs's arguments" No, you opened yourself up to that attack when you contradicted yourself. He struck first, and you can't even deny what he said.
It does sound like a stupid theBS argument over splitting hairs over silly stuff.
That is the essence of theBS.
He never sticks his own neck out.
He is always always always always always...if you have not heard....always attacking other comments.
And usually he attacks over silly stuff. Like it is yellowish orange vs. light yellowish orange. Like who cares....
It is barely worthly to read this thread but I will try to sum up the stupidity.
Avg Joe used a remark that was a put-down of challenged people.
Obama made a similar remark.
He pointed that the lib kool-aid drinkers were not upset with Obama but upset with him. That is a frequent event that occurs in Obamaland where hypocrispy grows by the boat load.
One day Joe says the Obama did the exact same thing and the next day he said it was worst.
OMG.......that is earth shaking .......WHAT WAS JOE THINKING!!!!!!!!!! We should hoist him by his pinky toes and give him a whipping.
They "got" you Joe.....one day you said that Obama said the exact same thing and the next day you said it was worst. Yep, you broke theBS rule book on making comments. It is rule number 233,203,202. None of which he applies to himself.
Prime example of babbling silly stupid crap over nonsense is this: "Now he thinks Obama is WORSE because more people are aware of Obama's statement. In other words, he thinks it's ok to say such a thing, so long as not very many people are aware of it. He's excusing his actions (by saying it's not as bad because it's just some random guy on the internet saying it) while trying to condemn Obama's words... which according to his own statement was, "THE EXACT SAME THING.""
I think we read stuff like that to terrorists and they will be begging to be water boarded instead.
See, Joe, even jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr agrees that you're inconsistent, your arguments are contradictory and that you're a hypocrite with a double standard.
Thanks jfNance32!
His main argument still stands.
You guys are doing back flips to jump on him for making a comment about challenged people on some obscured tiny website.
Yet, you guys give Obama a pass for making a similar comment on national TV.
Hypocrite?? Double Standard??
I think it is very clear who are the hypocrites in this thread and it ain't the dude whose moniker is Joe.
No one gave Obama a pass. Just like Joe, all you've got is a straw man to batter around.
Joe's argument doesn't stand at all. He can't even keep his own points straight and has, so far, failed to counter thebs' argument against him.
Joe's demanded a double standard, he demanded that we treat Obama's actions differently, while CRITICIZING us for supposedly treating Obama's actions differently.
Even you should be able to admit that makes him a hypocrite... just like John Ensign. Only someone dumb as a Rock would find this hard to understand.
Nance, even you can grasp this argument.
Joe's argument about a double standard is based on treading him differently than Obama is treated. He protested often that everyone who wasn't Joe had a double standard because they were attacking him, yet not attacking Obama.
1. This isn't true. Edgewise clearly took issue with both references to the Special Olympics and said it wasn't right for either of them. Ksand also characterized Obama's words as "vile." Joe's argument that there's a double standard doesn't hold water.
2. Joe constantly and consistently held the refrain that his actions were identical to Obama's actions. Scroll up and look at ksand's three quotes from Joe. Then suddenly he declares sthat they aren't the same, and demands that Obama should be treated more harshly because a)more people know about it and b)he was elected as the President. Unfortunately, these are incidental details that have no bearing on the action itself: the statements they made. Further, Joe dismissed prior statements that the actions were judged differently because the apologies were not the same.
3. In declaring the actions different, Joe undermines his original "liberal double standard" argument. A "double standard" means treating the same action by different people differently. If the actions are different, as Joe now argues, then treating them differently is justified.
Rock,
you've got it in a nutshell! they live in the bizarro world, after all. I think u need to have the magic "rose colored obamification glasses" or the "super-tight pink leotard uniform with ultraliberal decoder communicator" that kevin prefers, in order to be able to filter out all facts and reason that expose their false lib position.
kevin,
thanks for solidifying and strengthening SgtRocks summation of your liberal Zombie reading comprehension!
or rather, inability to comprehend.
but hey, it's not too late! maybe the obtuse, simple minded, plagiarist edgewise can get u into his "hooked on phonics" class! maybe it will pay u the same huge dividends in literacy it is bestowing upon him! I heard he recently passed the 4th grade equivalency test!
wait! I forgot to greet hedgewise, or "hedge" for short.
hi hedge!
the kids (sniff), the kids!!! wwaaaaaaaaahhhh!
there now I bet u feel much better after getting that phony self righteous indignant liberal cry of being "so deeply offended" off your chest....
I think I've demonstrated I have a better grasp of your argument than you do, Joe. That's why you're still paddling your rowboat in a circle.
Your weak and impotent attacks just expose you as a cornered balloon filled with hot air.
Thebs framed this brilliantly, and neither you, nor Inadequate Joe, are capable of actually attack the substance of the argument.
And, just to point out even more inconsistency...
Yesterday Joe announced edgewise had a 9th grade education, while today it's a 4th grade education.
Your "insults" are as inconsistent as your arguments. Joe.
thebs,
good evening! now let me see if I've got your "argument" straight:
you stipulate:
1. the moon is made of swiss cheese, therefore obama walks on water, but only on nights with greater than a 3/4 moon.
2. when obama jokes about the special olympics to tens of millions of people, conservatives shrug it off as a joke in poor taste, but liberals understand his TRUE meaning was to defend and support all of the downtrodden, less fortunate members of our society.
therefore, he shall be hailed as the "hero of the masses"
3. any other citizen who should also reference the special olympics in any form of joke, even if done while alone in a sealed room, shall be forever excoriated and attacked.
4. no wait, #3 ONLY applies if said citizen is a CONSERVATIVE, all liberals shall get a free pass.
5. in ANY instance of humor in poor taste, rule #4 shall supercede ALL other concerns.
OK, NOW I GET IT!!
kevin,
Please try to keep up.
he DOES have a 9th grade education in that he sat in our public schools for 14 years (it took him that long to finish the ninth grade.....)
however, it terms of his actual academic achievement, he reads and functions at the 4th grade level. sad, yes, but unfortunately a byproduct of our public education system in need of repair. actually it serves as a great example of what Obama is trying to do with our health care system - make it work as great as the post office or public school system.
Joe is still right.
You guys were jumping up and down on him and slamming him left and right on him for making a comment that was very similar to Obama's.
So when Joe does it....it is the worst awful thing in the entire world...Joe is evil...Joe is this and Joe is that.
When Obama does it then it is either a pass or poor poor Obama he did a boo-boo and slap him on the wrist for being a bad boy.
It is hypocrispy and it is a double standard.
But I would not expect anything less.
I would not expect anything less from a crowd that will argue and argue over silly stuff like...You said "exact" and NOW you are saying "worst"....blah...blah....blah.
"Please try to keep up."
I am... I have to admit, trying to keep up with all of your constantly shifting and contradictory positions is time consuming, exhausting and loads of fun.
You can't even defend your insults without some long, tortured explanation. Zzzzzzzzz.
Well, first off Joe, you don't understand what the word 'stipulate' means. I stipulated nothing about the composition of the moon, nothing about a comparison between Obama and Jesus, nor whether the abilities you attribute to Obama are based on celestial events.
Second, not all conservatives shrugged off Obama's joke in poor taste, nor did all liberals. Your gross oversimplification is an apparent attempt to lend credence to your argument, but fails on any examination.
Sarah Palin, for example, said:
"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics. This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world."
For another cross-section of conservative reaction to Obama's words, read the comments on Michelle Malkin's blog entry about it:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/19/oba...
You can also check out:
http://amerpundit.com/2009/03/19/obama-i...
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/0...
http://outoftheblu.wordpress.com/2009/03...
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/f...
Your assertion that conservatives shrugged off Obama's statement is untrue, and this further undermines your argument.
gmag..." is correcting my grammar. You are being an ass."
You might be correct since you are an expert on being an ass. You have lots of experience.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.
I did not realize that attacking you for attacking me would upset you so much.
I was just pointing out that some people are constant grammar checkers but often make grammar mistakes themselves.
Then you joined that club. I did not realized that you were part of the Blog Grammar Checking Club. I must have missed the memo. I was just pointing out if you want to be a member of that club then you should not be making grammar mistakes.
Making statements like these, might disqualify you from the club: "To the tune of millions and millions of dollars? Just a thought. "
But theBS has started a new club called, Informal English Grammar Club, which he said you can join.
Nance, no one expects you to argue with anything resembling precision. We are far too familiar with your particular style to expect you to say what you mean.
Joe's position was stated several times with clear unequivocal language, and then he took a position that stood in direct opposition to his previous unequivocal language. Any fair, reasonable person would see this as inconsistent and indicative of either a weak position or a poorly considered argument. He did not consider how his new frame of mind would affect the groundwork he so carefully laid for quite some time.
I pointed this out, and so far his response has not further clarified his case, nor has it effectively rebutted my criticism.
SgtRockNance32;
You are an overgrown baby.
thebs,
dang it u got me!!!
what I meant to say was:
2. Obama may walk on water, but only when there is a greater than 3/4 moon, WHICH IS TO BE NO MORE THAT 50% OBSCURED BY CUMULUS CLOUDS.
3. he shall be hailed as "hero of the masses" and given free passes because, above all, he is good enough, he is smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!!
4. any conservative disagreeing with these points shall be "goose-stepped" to a reeducation camp, modeled after such camps in the utopian workers paradise of North Korea. All hail Kim Jong-Il!!! All hail Obama!!!
thanks for setting me straight, all the while strengthening and confirming SgtRocks Dead-on characterization of your silly grammatical sniping.
Joe, your adoption of Nance's oft-used "goose-stepped" and "reeducation camp" is bothersome. We've already established that Nance is SgtRock. There's no reason to believe he doesn't have other screen names, and the similarities in language, your complete agreement and public backscratching, as well as your apparent raison d'etre give me a pause.
But since you are determined to roll over and play dead, I won't stand in your way.
dang it the jig it up. u got me again. man u are a freakin' genius!!!!
"raison d'etre"???? is that an hoarse-de-vours???
my, my aren't u an uppity sort. obviously u hail from the upper crust of society. explains how u happen to know it all, i guess.
sorry i don't speak canadian.
;)
ps - those r jokes, before u take it upon yourself to correct me, einstein....
In my experience, if you must identify your jokes as jokes, you're doing it wrong.
Raison d'etre is a fairly common phrase, but I must have overestimated your intelligence again. You're quickly teaching me to lower my expectations. I'll try to keep it simple for you going forward.
The gist of is it: your condescension to those who disagree with Nance and your valiant attempts to woo him though your less-than-eloquent and illogical reasoning leads me to believe you are just another Nance personality, and thus should be as roundly dismissed as Nance.
Further, your pesky tiptoeing around a valid counterargument and pusillanimous evasion of a rebuttal reveals I was right all along.
"raison d'etre is a fairly common phrase"
my but u are a pompous old fool aren't u? I knew what the phrase meant, but I also knew u would not pick up on the gist of my reply, hence my making it clear to you that I was indeed joking.
common? perhaps among gay frenchmen, or pompous fools who try to appear smarter than they are by interjecting what they consider to be flamboyant and impressive vocabulary into their speech.
instead, u just appear gaudy and pretentious.
"You are an overgrown baby."
gmag....you are one that is doing the crying and throwing 3rd grade insults.
Again, I am sorry that if I hurt your feelings.
I did not know that I was dealing with a child.
theBS world: "Joe's position was stated several times with clear unequivocal language, and then he took a position that stood in direct opposition to his previous unequivocal language"
Yep.....Joe did say "exact" one day and then "worst" the next day.
You sure got him there.
That was a serious mistake by Joe. Saying "exact" one day then.........OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!......saying "worst" the next day. Don't do that again Joe.
It is almost like he said that the anthrax attack back in 2001 was a terrorist attack when it is clearly an attack by a crazed person who had mental problems and was not done to make a political or religious point. And then not saying the attack by a Muslim extremist on a US solider in the USA was not a terrorist attack or the death of Tiller the Baby killer by a Christain extremist was not terrorist attack.
Now that would be a much better example of stuff like " took a position that stood in direct opposition to his previous unequivocal language" and "inconsistent and indicative of either a weak position or a poorly considered argument".
More likely it is just pure hypocrisy and use of a double standard in the terrorist example.
The most funny thing of it all is that theBS again never sticks his neck out.
The root argument is that Joe is saying that you guys are jumping on him for a statement that is like what Obama said and yet you are either being easy on Obama or giving him a pass.
theBS just bypasses the root argument and goes for silly stuff like "exact" vs. "worst" which must mean you agree with him on his root argument. In my book, that means he basically wins the discussion and all this childish crap over small stuff is a sideshow.
So......YOU...theBS.....do you think what Obama did was just worst or exactly as bad as what Joe did?
My expectations is that you will be silent or attack some side issue and not directly answer the question.
Here is some articles to help you find the answer:
http://specialolympicspa.blogspot.com/20...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/21/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19... (a web poll from the kool-aid drinking crowd where most---around 75%--- are either being easy on him or giving him a complete pass).
It is obvious that is worst what Obama did. Millions of people around the world listen to what our presidents say. He was on a national TV. The damage that Obama did was tons more extensive than what Joe did. Obama reinforced a put down of people who have special needs and that reinforcement extended to millions of people. Only like 50 or so people have read Joe's comments. We surely should have higher expectations from presidents than people that make comments on a rarely read website.
But I do see your point. Perhaps, nobody really listens to Obama anyway. So perhaps Joe does have a bigger audience reach than Obama. Perhaps, people respect and give more weight to what Joe says than what Obama says.
If you have to tell us they are jokes, they aren't jokes, Joe. Don't quit your day job.
So jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr clearly thinks we should treat the President differently. He wants a different standard for the President than for anyone else. He wants a double standard.
If jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr makes a joke about the Special Olympics, it would be OK because only a few people heard it. Likewise, it would be OK if jfNance32 punched a lady because only they knew about it. This type of person is the one who thinks it's OK to use racist or homophobic language... so long as only their buddies hear it.
The number of people who know about the act DOES NOT make it better or worse.
The number of people who know about an act DOES NOT make it morally right.
These type of nihilists who excuse the same act by their friends are the worst kind of hypocrites. They easily excuse the actions of their friends but condemn the actions of someone they don't like.
These people have no solid morals or ethics. They have two entire different standards when it comes to behavior. For their friends, anything goes. It's not back that Joe made the joke because he's jfNance32's buddy. But when President Obama did it? The world will come to an end.
These people, and I'm talking about jfNance32 and SgtRock and James F Nance Jr and his fourth personality Mediocre Joe, have no morality or ethical standard of behavior.. They have demonstrated that on this page.
kevin,
"the number of people who know about the act does not make it better or worse"
So, by your line of reasoning, Hitler is no worse than a common criminal who kills a single person in a botched robbery.
after all, the "number of people" affected makes NO DIFFERENCE, right?
Rock hit it right on the head, u nor your buddies have ever addressed the root of my argument, you try to sideline any real discussion with pointing out what u consider "technicalities" or "fouls".
As your your tortured anthrax example, I think it's funny you think that a BIOLOGICAL WEAPON mailed in a note that said, "Death to America... Death to Israel... Allah is Great" and sent to DEMOCRATIC SENATORS and members of the Press was NOT a terrorist attack.
The attack caused widespread panic and fear using a biological agent.
And you think that wasn't a terrorist attack.
You think it was just a friendly way of saying hi.
A friendly way of saying hi that KILLED AMERICANS.
You would have to be dumb as a Rock to believe that!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
"So, by your line of reasoning, Hitler is no worse than a common criminal who kills a single person in a botched robbery. after all, the "number of people" affected makes NO DIFFERENCE, right?"
That's a mighty straw man you're punching around.
YOU stated there was no difference between your actions and Obama's actions.
YOU said "liberals" had a double standard because they excused Obama's actions but not yours BECAUSE they were the same.
Now you want a pass because more people know about it.
That does not make the act itself, your stupid and tasteless joke about the kids in the Special Olympics, OK.
Your moral equivocation is disgusting, and your comparison to Hitler is stupid an a violation of Godwin's Law.
"thinks we should treat the President differently. He wants a different standard for the President than for anyone else"
I hope we hold presidents to a higher standard then a person who blogs on a rarely read website.
But I can see why you need to bring Obama down to average Joe's level. He ain't that great. I can see why you need to dumb down his expectation level.
You need to lower the bar for Obama. It takes an idiot who is a national political figure to say stuff like comparing his skills to a handicap person or say that companies should not travel to Las Vegas to conduct business meetings. I guess those 8 years as a state legislator did not prepare him enough to be president.
I can see your point.
I, too, would be trying to diminsh the Obama's Presidency as much as possible to if I was a Democratic. You would want to set the expectations bar really really really low.
"I hope we hold presidents to a higher standard then a person who blogs on a rarely read website. But I can see why you need to bring Obama down to average Joe's level. He ain't that great. I can see why you need to dumb down his expectation level."
Joe ain't that great? Sheesh, and the guy was trying to defend you. With friends like jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance, who needs enemies?
You want a double standard. You want it to be more OK for a citizen to make fun of kids with disabilities. You are making excuses for Joe's behavior.
It is wrong for anyone, President, citizen, parent, etc to make a joke at the expense of the kids in the Special Olympics.
Joe, your line of attack was based on your mythical example of a double standard. You used the example of people treating Obama's words differently than yours to support your argument. You claimed this proved people had a double standard, and you argued that was wrong.
Now, you've abandoned that argument to argue the opposite. Your argument now says that the act is irrelevant, but the act should be judged by the sheer number of people who are aware of the act. That is a double standard.
Furthermore, you create a second double standard when you say you should not be treated as harshly as the President, even though you actions were the same. That is a double standard.
In my opinion, you are arguing from a dishonest position that is a radical change and the absolute opposite of a position you took just a few days ago. Your frequent refrains of "double standard!" and then complete switch to complaining that you are not being treated with a double standard is ideologically dishonest, and it's fairly obvious to anyone reading this that your standard of behavior is a double standard.
As for your Hitler analogy, there is no analogy there. The actions of you and President Obama were a direct parallel and you even argued as such. Furthermore, when you consider the actions as moral or immoral, then the actions of both the robber and Hitler were both immoral.
You argued for a direct parallel between your actions and Obama's action. If you accept they are different, as you seem to do now, then you accept that your original position was in error, and your previous refrains of "double standard!" were wrong.
I hope you can understand, though, that since your arguments are in direct opposition, either standard should be applied to you, and thus you are wrong either way... according to your rhetoric. You trapped yourself within the ideological confines of your own argument.
Yes. When someone doesn't hold Joe to the same standard as Obama, he complains there's a double standard.
Then he whines because we're not holding Obama to the same standard we hold him to because he wants a double standard.
I think jfNance32 the black hole of logic has a competitor to the throne!
"You want it to be more OK for a citizen to make fun of kids with disabilities. You are making excuses for Joe's behavior."
This is another common tatic for those who are losing the argument.
They just make up stuff.
Where did I give a pass to Joe for his comment?
Of course, you can not because you making it up.
I just said that it was worst for Obama to make such a comment who is the president and who is talking on national TV as oppose to a person who wrote a comment on a website that only like 50 people would read.
Also, you are getting all confused about what a double standard is as oppose to a treating high ranking leaders to higher standards than the every joe in the street. You are often confused about stuff.
A double standard would be giving Obama, the President of the USA, a pass on making the comment and then slamming an average Joe for making a similar comment on an obscure rarely read website.
One would hope that we apply a higher standard to presidents, but I guess we will need to exempt Obama since he is of such poor quality. I can understand why. He just an idiot that he picked another idiot to be his VP.
kevin,
u state I "want a pass because more people know about it"
WRONG.
I don't want a "pass". I want you to quit employing a hypocritical double standard and "rescind" Obama's pass, and condemn HIM as fully as you have taken it upon yourself to condemn me.
aaahhhhh, thebs,
we gave u enough rope, and it was only a matter of time before u "hanged" yourself.
I quote u:
"The actions of you and President Obama were a direct parallel and you even argued as such."
So you finally trip up and admit the DIRECT PARALLEL. why then do you and your cronies attempt to justify the vastly different treatment you have lavished upon barry the beneficent, versus the hatred filled rants you have bestowed upon me?
hypocritical double standard defined.
That's what you argued, Joe. You argued it's not as bad that you said it because fewer people know about it. You are dismissing your behavior while condemning Obama's behavior. That's your pass. jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr argued the same thing.
"I just said that it was worst for Obama to make such a comment who is the president and who is talking on national TV as oppose to a person who wrote a comment on a website that only like 50 people would read."
Yes, you desperately want to justify your double standard... the one you just said. You think Obama should be judged differently than someone else. All Americans should be held to a high standard, not just the President. Stop giving license to citizens for their bad behavior.
Joe and Obama both apologized, but the quality of these apologies were dramatically different. Obama's recognition of his mistake was sincere. I don't think Joe's apology was sincere. He has double standards, why would I believe his apology was sincere?
"So you finally trip up and admit the DIRECT PARALLEL. why then do you and your cronies attempt to justify the vastly different treatment you have lavished upon barry the beneficent, versus the hatred filled rants you have bestowed upon me?"
Your actions were the same. You even argued as much. In fact, neither myself, nor ksand, nor edgewise have said differently. You and Obama both made a joke that inferred a negative quality of the Special Olympics.
Edgewise cited a difference in the resulting action: the apology, and questioned the authenticity of your apology. If you want to continue taking Obama's position into regard, then you must admit that Obama's apology went further, and was commended and accepted by the President of the Special Olympics, whereas yours was not. That is a distinction and a difference. Since edgewise doubts the authenticity of your apology and believes you are unrepentant, his attacks on you can be justified.
Ksand recognized your apology, and apparently based on your continued personal attacks, also doubts your authenticity.
I'm not here to defend them, but to confront you with your ideological inconsistency.
I don't care, as I don't know you and don't care to know you, so the authenticity of your apology is irrelevant. Your analogies are lazy and your personal attacks are an obvious attempt to cover your inability to argue your case.
What remains known is that your attacks on the other commenters for having a double standard, and your obvious reversal to demanding a double standard leaves you in an untenable position. Neither argument can be sustained, as you've argued against them both. As you are familiar with the concept of doublespeak, I'd think it would be smart of you to reconsider your argument.
"why then do you and your cronies attempt to justify the vastly different treatment you have lavished upon barry the beneficent, versus the hatred filled rants you have bestowed upon me?"
First, your dramatic exaggeration of anyone's rhetoric against you as "hatred filled rants" is more than a little over the top and you seem incapable of distinguishing an individual who is repentant from an unrepentant individual. If you want to judge someone's behavior, the degree of repentance is a factor you must take into account.
It seems the majority on this thread view you as unrepentant.
again conveniently ignoring the OBVIOUS double standard in your non-condemnations of Obama.
kevin, kevin, kevin.....
when are u going to learn to "man up" and take responsibility for your actions????
Dramatic exaggeration???
obviously you've been employing "selective reading" of the posts of your cronies.
fits with your "selective enforcement" of your so-called moral imperatives.
Now you would have us believe that all along, you liberal KoolAid drinking fools have been applying the same standard to Obama the great???
hmmmmmmm...... I get it now, as obama made his statements during a period of low humidity in the southwest, he gets a free pass, so what tens of millions of americans heard how he thinks it is absolutely hilarious to joke about the special olympics.
Let us not disparage the "hero of the masses"!!!
There is a double standard in the kool-aid lib world.
Joe makes a comment and immediately gets slammed by the kool-aid lib world.
When Obama says it, the lib kool-aid lib world was silent about it even though it is much worse for a national leader on national TV to make such a remark as oppose to a person making the remark on a rarely read website.
I seriously doubt that one could find any letters to the editor or comments on the Sun web site by the kool-aid lib crowd that slams Obama's remark when he made it or in the week after he said.
Even here, the degree of slamming Joe's comment seems to a higher degree then slamming Obama's comment.
Good proof of this double standard is from a web poll at a common lib kool-aid drinking web site.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19...
In this poll targeting lib kool-aid crowd, only 26% slammed Obama for making the idiot remark. 48% give him a complete pass and another 26% give a somewhat of a pass.
At least, Obama did not say that is a poor choice to have your business meetings in Las Vegas. Boy, I glad that he did not say that. That would hurt us and perhaps some companies might cancel their plans to hold business meetings in Las Vegas.
Hey...wait a minute...he said that stupid thing too.
What an idiot!!!!!!
He is almost as dumb as Biden....you know the person who claimed to be in the top half of his law class but graduated 75th out of 86 students...you know the person who said we will have to spend our way out of bankruptcy...you know the person who said the Obama adminstration is clueless about the economy (I guess he gets some things right).
Only someone as dumb as a Rock would interpret a random, non-scientific INTERNET POLL to represent anything or would use such unreliable evidence as proof of anything.
That's the funniest joke I've read all year.
"When Obama says it, the lib kool-aid lib world was silent about it even though it is much worse for a national leader on national TV to make such a remark as oppose to a person making the remark on a rarely read website."
JfNance32: I have a big double standard. I won't hold my buddies up to the same standard I hold the President up to.
"I seriously doubt that one could find any letters to the editor or comments on the Sun web site by the kool-aid lib crowd that slams Obama's remark when he made it or in the week after he said."
JfNance32: I know I just said the Sun's website is rarely read and I frequently criticize it, but now I'm going to say that if someone hasn't said something bad about Obama's remarks on the Special Olympics on the Sun's website, that means no liberals think what he said was bad.
"In this poll targeting lib kool-aid crowd, only 26% slammed Obama for making the idiot remark. 48% give him a complete pass and another 26% give a somewhat of a pass."
Wait, so your argument is that opinion was split on an unscientific internet poll? LOL!
I'm loving your kitchen sink approach to arguing, jfNance32. We know you don't like Biden or Obama. We know you will take any opportunity to attack them. We now know you excuse your buddies actions, even when they are the same as the President's.
jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
An internet poll?!?! LOL!
Yes, your characterization of the criticism of your comments as "hateful" is dramatic hyperbole.
joe, you seem to be the type that eggs people on with personal attacks (insinuating people are gay, women, etc) and then pulling back when they react as you intended and feigning innocence.
I fear, as you sacrificed your argument before, you are now playing the victim to an unsympathetic audience.
ksand99 is probably right about the Huffington Post web poll.
Generally mainly idiots go that site.
On the other hand, lib koolaid drinkers are idiots.
So it probably does reflect their beliefs.
It is a close call.
"Generally mainly idiots go that site."
Considering the last person to use information from the Huffington Post was you, jfNance32, I'd be careful who you call an idiot.
kevin,
again, not seeing the trees for the forest.
what u fail to notice about this liberal slanted survey (which u even tried to slam! hahahaha!)
is that the question and answers themselves are liberally slanted.
so u get a choice of 4 answers, 3 of which totally support barack the beneficent, 1 which gives him a mild slap on the wrist.
I bet if u searched the same liberal rag's archives, u might even find a "poll" like:
QUESTION: Should we refer to Barack Obama as:
ANSWER:
1. the Great Leader
2. the Dear Leader
3. Hero to the Masses
4. plain old President
thebs,
gee thanks for another impartial opinion on the posts of your comrades!
"Punishment for the same offense, depending on if the offender is liberal, or conservative, shall be SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, a committee of wise men, theBS, kevin sandoval, and wedgiewise, shall determine what shall constitute "separate but equal", using examples from the days of Jim Crow as guidance."
"All animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal than others"
- "little piggie" thebs
"again, not seeing the trees for the forest. what u fail to notice about this liberal slanted survey ... blah blah blah"
Yes, the survey is discredited... which is why I was making fun of jfNance32, err SgtRock, err James F Nance Jr for even bothering to think it was relevant in any way.
Apparently, my language was too complex for you to comprehend that we AGREE that the poll is worthless.
Thanks for the support undermining jfNance32's argument, though.
"Yes, the survey is discredited"
More like the Huffington Post website users are descredited.
I accept that.
Yes, I think that people who cite the Huffington Post and its polls are discredited.
I accept that.
You are right.
It was extremely dumb of me to cite that trash heap of website. It is full of idiot lib kool-aid crap.
Thanks for pointing out my error.