User profile: thebs

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.