From his Republican apologist balderdash, to his counterfactual insistence of rewriting recent history, to his constant defamatory persecution of other members of the Sun's community, LarryVegas continues to insult and offend any person who questions his narrative. In the ancient days of the internet, I believe the terminology for this behavior was "trolling." I think it brings down the discourse and stifles the free flow of ideas.

A few questions...

Why do Republicans insist that our economic woes began when Obama took office, when it's clear the recession began in 2007?

Why do Republicans want to silence our President and deny him his right to free speech?

Why are Republicans so proud of this outlandish case of judicial activism when they've denounced such activism when the decision didn't turn in their favor?

Aren't the Republicans aware that the case was decided by a strict one vote margin?

Why are the Republicans celebrating the newfound "right" of corporations to buy their way into elected office?

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.

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.

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.

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.