Jack the Ripper

Now you're trying to justify labelling me as irrationally biased by claiming I said things that I never did. What does that say of your bias? Sigged. From here: Four later confessed. Here's an example of a typical one on one. There's another example somewhere of a swarm of liberals trying to storm a conservative speaker and trying to chant over her microphone that I was thinking of when I wrote that, but that would take some googling to find. If you insist on seeing it to prove my claim, I'll happily look for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact that you quoted this explicitly proves that you're an emotional reactionary. I linked to the video showing this already. There were no fancy edits, the police reports were consistent with what was shown. But you aren't interested in that. You're interested in labels.

I get a multitude of kneejerk reactions from liberals when I post things like this, and since I am not sure exactly which one yours is, I'll run through them all real quick. If you're trying to argue that any of the examples I've pointed out are justified if viewed objectively, I disagree. If you're trying to argue that this sort of thing isn't typical among liberals, I disagree. If you're trying to pretend these events never happened for whatever reason, I disagree. And if you're trying to dodge these facts to put yourself on a pedestal where you don't have to confront them, you can't accept reality. That is ridiculous. I can defend my opinions because they are based on facts. Events that have taken place in the real world, quotes from real people recorded by reliable sources, known scientific and economic facts. That is not "wriggling out of a situation." Wriggling out of a situation is when one can not defend themselves with empyrical evidence so they go off on a quasi-thought out rant. You can scream "bias" all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the things I've pointed out have really happened and really are common for liberals. I've proven myself already. I've presented my points and backed them up with facts. Where are yours? All you have are ad hominem attacks and bizarre colloquialisms. I can't make heads or tails of anything after "the 'i'll shoot you from the fort'... My methodology is to come across pieces of evidence, weigh them, discern whether or not they are reliable, and then form and express my thoughts based on that evidence. Your methodology is to freak out and scream "bias" when you can't think of any other way to play my antagonist. "Anchent Greece," eh? I've got a slightly more current comparison for your opinion. Stephen Colbert had a monologue on his first self titled show that went something like this: "I don't care much for books. Too many words, too much reading. Too many facts. And facts are cold, emotionless, uncaring. But you know what's warm and fuzzy? Feelings. See, here at the Colbert Report, we don't tell you "the facts" about "reality" and "real life." Instead, we *feel* the truth to you. We don't report on what the AP says, we tell you what we feel is right. And that's how you're going to get to the truth, America: through my gut feelings." Indeed, it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please provide examples, facts and quotes.

If that's the case, feel free to rebut me. I offer only my own observations based on real events.

Tabari IX:113

They paint themselves with their own palette. If liberals consistently acted peace loving and light, I'd say that they were peace loving and light. Instead, they slash tires so that conservatives can't vote, yell in crowds so that conservatives can't be heard, and bash conservative values as out dated and ignorant per their leisure. I'm sorry, what is "the enemy of my enemy syndrome"? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're referring to either the rhetorists or the pacifists/anti-war crowd as being the majority of rational liberals that I haven't represented with my examples so far.) I agree with the idea that pacifism exists, and I even agree that there are many liberals who are pacifists. Quakers, Ghandi quoters, idealists - all good folks. If everyone in the world was like that, the idea would work. But I really wouldn't say that most liberals are pacifists. More, I'd say that they deliberately seek confrontation. Probably out of a desperate need forpublicity. I live between two major liberal cities in California, a liberal state. So I've been on the ground between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's actually kind of humorous to see people with peace placards and doves marching side by side with people wearing Che Guevera t-shirts or raising Palestinian flags up high. Having seen who shows up for these rallies, and having floated around the internet for a number of years, and having seen who liberal democrats elect and why, I would say that most liberals are not rational, peace loving people. Especially not in recent years. Which brings me to the other group you may have been referring to: the rhetorists. Or by some other name, the people who copy major liberal talking points as their justification for being liberal... but don't really have any facts to back them up. If I asked you to defend your claims that the United States did the following: I doubt you could be even remotely successful. Especially if I asked you to use only scholarly sources of information. Indeed, yes. And they should. Why people would want their voices heard next to a group calling for genocide is beyond me. I thought I linked to the video already? You probably have to scroll down a little to see the link. If that was the wrong one, I apologize. I know that the event I referred to is also shown in this video, but the whole movie takes up an hour of your life and I'm not sure exactly where it is chronologically. If you don't feel like watching the whole thing, here is a pro-war protester's first hand account. If you do feel like watching the whole thing, you'll see that whenever a conservative was attacked, shoved or had their sign ripped from their hands and destroyed, they did not react in kind, but instead remained civil, and complained to the police.

In this case, when someone is on the ground at a political protest or event, that often requires squinting. A prominent conservative shows up on a college campus to speak, a liberal throws a pie in their face. Pro-war demonstrators organize at an anti-war rally, they are violently assaulted and left bleeding and bruised in the middle of a busy street. Liberal protests are ridden with militant anti-Semites, communists, anarchists, satanists, and thirty-two flavors of demonstrators showcasing their bizarre sexual fetishes in the most public place they can find. They plead for the release of murderers of fathers, husbands, wives and daughters. This certainly isn't the "worst" of them, and in fact, judging by their elected officials, it is typical of them. When a democrat displays himself as being moderate and willing to cooperate with Republicans, he is criticized, cast out, and cannibalized. But when a democrat says, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for," they become the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Mature republicans definitely take things that are important to them very seriously, since their choices about their government directly effect government's role in their lives. But those "lighter" elements that have been pounded into people's heads as being synonymous with American liberals (I honestly have only a loose grip of politics abroad, and none at all of their behaviors), also have their dark sides. As with one my earlier examples, pacifists may seem noble, until they call for the deaths of American soldiers. No, I definitely wouldn't try to personify conservatives as cute and cuddly, but I never would do so to liberals. What? Huh? Ha! Oh, I think they know exactly what they are saying, and I think they mean it. That's why they lose so often.

"Lighter" and "more pacifistic" are hardly terms I'd use to characterize liberals. I really can't remember the last time a fire bomb was thrown, a beheading was reinacted, or the extermination/"relocation" of a race was called for during a Republican rally. Democratic rallies, however? Eh, that stuff happened a couple weeks ago in SanFran.

I believe that what is far more telling about how a party thinks and argues, is how they express themselves without fear of opposition. There are two directly opposing popular web forums expressly for each party, and regularly populated by party extremists. For the democrats, they have democraticunderground.com, and for the republicans, they have freerepublic.com. DU is down right now for maintenance, so I can't link to examples directly. But I will say that typical posts from that forum express some of the worst sentiments mankind can have, and they are not only often not censored by moderators, but also encouraged by other forum members. For example, many liberals hope that American soldiers are killed in Iraq en masse: "I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot. The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts." (From here..) And that quote is from three years ago. A multitude of other examples that are equally virulent are produced weekly, if not daily on that forum. If it was just three or four forum trolls, it really wouldn't be an issue and certainly wouldn't characterize how a lot of democrats think, but such disgusting sentiments are often routinely expressed by a very sizeable population of that forum. Meanwhile, one would be hard pressed to find that sort of trash on freerepublic.com. And when it does pop up, it is deleted, and suddenly a liberal blogger proudly announces that he or she has been banned from Free Republic. Coincidence, I think not. Another trend that I've noticed are the vicious personal attacks that liberals make. Off the top of my head, Michelle Malkin, a conservative pundit, has a piece on her blog that is absolutely disgusting. And it is also mundane in comparison to the morbid cheering many of the liberals on DU engaged in during Ariel Sharon's stroke, or when Laura Ingraham announced she had breast cancer. Elizabeth Edwards, former democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards' wife, who regularly posts at DU, actually had to condemn the people who were cheering Ingraham's illness, as Edwards had her own bout with breast cancer and knew that such an illness was no joke. Meanwhile, if one googles the time period when former President Clinton had his stroke, conservative commentators and even forum members were doing nothing but wishing him good health and a quick recovery. So, I take issue with the idea that conservatives are the real mudslingers. I've generally seen ad hominem attacks used by conservatives when they are too young to be able to intelligently argue their point, or when they feel ganged up on. Meanwhile, liberals seem to have a fair plethora of things to label me if I start winning an argument, such as "dittohead" or "chicken hawk" or "imperialistic zionist" or "fascist." My favorite personal attack was when a moderator censored one of my posts on a Star Trek forum regarding social security forum, and replaced my seven paragraphs with "FASCISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK!" Ironic. If I had to wager a supposition, I'd say that you spend a majority of your time on forums that lean left, and that's probably skewered up your observations.

I must submit the old addage: If the French are doing it, it must be wrong.

Mmkay, put your hand down now.

The f***ing helicopter. How the f*** is a godd*** sword and some s****y little throwing knives going to take down a f***ing attack chopper when you're f***ing stranded on some dumb*** motherf***ing roof in the middle of eastern motherf***ing Europe despite being the f***ing ninja king?!? F***! Gosh.

There shall be a Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 2. These words directly come from the mouth of Itagaki via IGN: And on that day shall six months commence when men have no need of real women besides for food and cleaning. Dead or Alive is the only fighting franchise I like. It's really easy to pick up and play, and while the stories of the games are incredibly incoherent and dumb, the graphics are Xtremely beautiful and the gameplay is super smooth. The same can be said for its first spinoff Volleyball game. Also, the article says something about Ninja Gaiden 2, but the first one kicked my ass, and I don't want to cry in front of my children ever again.