Open letter to conservatives

Hi, Taq. It's not the fact that he is presenting the information that I object to.It's the fact that he is presenting it as if it's conservative Americans, and not, e.g., George Rekers, who are guilty of it.That most assuredly is libel.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Modulous. Sure, this is the message King said he wanted to convey. But, he chose to convey it by insinuating that they were all guilty together.People with honest, sincere motives do not present things this way. If his intention was really to implore the conservatives to kick out the riffraff, he should have written, Kick out all among you who do X.But, instead, he chose to write, You can’t do X.This is a strong, direct insinuation that either (1) you, the intended audience, are doing X, and shouldn’t be; or (2) that you, the intended audience, are liable to go and do X, unless you are warned not to.I don’t see how he could have expected his audience to not interpret it this way. This is not the way honest, sincere people present information of great importance for the betterment of their intended audience: it’s the way sensationalists present information to belittle, smear or get a rise out of their intended audience.----- I don’t see much in the article cited that is not comparable to this statement.The only differences I see between King’s presentation of his statements and my presentation of my parodies is that I used the word shouldn’t when he used can’t (an accident on my part; if this is your qualm, I will gladly concede the point), and he didn’t put the word conservative in every line (though he did establish, in the salutation and opening paragraphs, that you refers to conservatives; I was constrained by the one-line structure of my parodies to explicitly define the audience each time).Other than those two points, I don't think my parodies were inaccurate at all.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I know that is your position, I said I disagreed. Do you have any quotes where he insinuates they are all guilty? I disagree - do you have evidence of this? He did.

quote:

---

{d}rain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.

---

Doesn't seem that way to me at all. Unless you think King is really trying say that all Conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex? I'm assuming he was talking to the rational majority that disagree with all those amongst them that are doing these kinds of things (or were not aware of it).

quote:

---

You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

​

assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";

---

Now find one that is. Is it your opinion that they CAN do the things he listed, that some Conservatives (he claims) have done, and still:

quote:

---

regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people,

---

which is the beginning conditional clause (If you want to...then you can't...)?He was pointing out that many influential characters and elected representatives were doing those, which was resulting in the party's stature being diminished. His English was constrained by the number of points he needed to raise and the desire to link to each on. It's a time consuming process. It's certainly not libellous.

I think you're being needlessly unpleasant, and heck, this is me talking.Your post #15 did leave me confused as to your personal opinions, as opposed to what you think that states are constitutionally obliged to do, and your post #44 leaves me equally unsure as to what you would vote for in VA.To clear up further confusion, let's just ask this. If your state had a referendum on making gay marriage legal, how would you vote?

Here are my issues with Social Security:When it was first implemented, it was promised to be an optional fund. In other words, you could choose not to pay in to it if you had private or self-sufficient means to save money. Because of the nature of how it works, funding was lacking. It then became a mandatory tax. (Sound familiar with the new health bill? Just wait, that will be mandatory too)It operates on a faulty premise of IOU's. The money is supposed to go in to a separate fund drawn from the Treasury, exclusively for that use only. But as you can imagine, with the gross mismanagement of government, waste, fraud, and abuse has now indebted us past 13 trillion dollars, it takes money wherever they can get it.The assumption is that every successive generation will be larger than the one before it, so that there will always be people in the workforce in which to tax. That's not at all the case. Since the Baby-Boomers, American's are having less and less children each year on average. The workforce is getting smaller, and the amount of Baby-Boomers retiring is increasing. It is going bankrupt and it is not improving the lives of retirees or the average American.Its catastrophic failure is why you or I will most likely never see a dime of what we're supposedly entitled to. It's going bankrupt, which is the inevitable result of all socialist systems of this magnitude.If you want to trust the government to efficiently care for you from cradle to grave, be my guest. Wise people invest their money in IRA's, Thrift Saving Plans, 401k's, etc. When it comes to fiscal policies, I lean to the right. Rest assured, however, that I don't trust corporations. I trust a competitive market that drives down costs, raises innovation, which ensures I get the best product for less.Corporatism, which typify neo-conservative thought, is a protection of private business at the expense of the citizen. For instance, the corporate bail-outs, which both neo-conservatives and progressives wanted, is a prime example of corporatism.The market is just like nature in that survival of the fittest applies to economics too. If a corporation cannot survive on its own ingenuity, then they will (and should be allowed to) die.Government bail-outs should have been included on my original list. I don't want to get rid of taxation, I want to get rid of the current tax system, and substitute it with an efficient tax. Government is necessary, which means taxation is necessary. However, the amount of wasteful and unnecessary programs that exist, along with the ineptitude of the IRS simply highlights why we have a 13 trillion dollar debt.Feel free to peruse this list at your leisure, and ask yourself how many on the list is necessary. It's just more and more encroachment in to your personal life. Benjamin Franklin was right; those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Sure: What I got from this is that you don't care what takes place in other states but that you do care what happens in your state, right?My question was, why do you care if these things happen in your state also? You were specific, you picked gay marriage, threw in an atheist, and refered to abortion as "murdering a fetus." You referenced these words in a pussy-ass, passive aggressive manner showing off your right-wing stupidity... that's why I challenged you on it.Your reply was Message 19:

quote:

---

I do care what happens in my state because it affect me and my business.

---

Hyro wrote:

quote:

---

I think he's saying that what would effect him are policies in his own state (Virginia). Because he's subject to a policy enacted by his state, it therefore is his business because it effects him. But if he's not a California resident, the affairs of Californians don't effect, nor does he care.

---

And you said: "sweet somebody got it. "So your response is that, only things that happen in your state concern you because it can affect you - and I get that. But the examples you give of gay marriage and abortion (or as you called it, "mudering a fetus") wouldn't affect you even in your own state, so why the fuck bring those up as examples? And the way you use the examples, saying that you don't care what happens in Cali because you won't ever live there, indicates that you DO care if these things take place in VA because you do live there.Now you want to back pedal and pretend that I've misunderstood something, fine, I don't care. You want to resort to name calling, cool, I don't give a fuck either. It would be better if you would man up and defend what you meant, or explain it better, but that would mean you'd have to break out of your typical passive aggressive way of debating, so I won't get my hopes up. I'm the guy who bangs your mom when your dad is out blowing men. Oh look, another internet tough guy. This looks like the punchline to the joke, "What did one nerd say to the other nerd?"- Oni

You should be comedian Speaking which, why am I not seeing you on the Last Comic Standing?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Actually, I think Oni's message #51 started off as "Caffeine-Free-Oni", then into the second paragraph flipped-flopped between "Vanilla-Oni" and "Coca-Cola-Oni-Zero".But, without doubt, the reply most definitely finished as "Classic-Oni".

It was all political this year. Well, I shouldn't say it like that cos it makes it sound bad. This year only people with solid careers in comedy who have good management made it. Most of the comics selected already have a half-hour Comedy Central Presents, it wasn't for new faces this time. And they only held auditions in NYC and LA, and it was rumored that open-call comics wouldn't get selected. Only comics that had representation would get selected. The lines and casting calls are just to fill TV time.Festivals is what my goals are, NYC Underground Comedy festival, Montreal Comedy festival, Boston, Melborne, AUS, The Vegas festival - that's what I'm submitting tapes for. LCS is to take comics that are already headliners and bring them to the mainstream, I'm about 5 years away from that.But look for Mike DeStefano to win the whole thing. That's the rumor.- Oni

But you're just basing that on incredulity, aren't you?Essentially: 'show me that it does affect you or I'll assume that it doesn't', right?I think by the nature of being conservative, we assume that everything is going to have some effect so we're weary of any change in the first place. Probably even more weary of things we just plain don't like.Appealing to a lack of specific examples of effects as an argument that there will be no effects, is not something that a conservative is going to find persuasive.And it sounds like:" Shhh, trust me, everything's gonna be fine, don't worry about it." That sends conservatives the other way, imho.Although, that might work on a drunk chick after a show

If you really didn't care, then you wouldn't vote, right?

No, it would also be possible to abstain out of a strongly-held principle.

No, you've misunderstood what the argument is about.If you like, I'll explain this in more detail later, but right now I want to find a comfy bed and lie down in it. In the meantime I would suggest that you read over more carefully the posts that you are discussing.

If you get to Boston, I'll take a 45 minute trip down there to watch you perform. Then we can get trashed and hit on a bunch of drunk bitches.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Sure, but what does that have to do with not-voting following from not-caring?