Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Today's "Ric Caric Celebration" at Protein Wisdom
Today was "Ric Caric Day" at the right-wing blog Protein Wisdom. As much attention as they lavished on me, Jeff Goldstein and Dan Collins might as well have held a parade. I guess they didn't like one of my comments on their posts. They had three top posts (here, here, and here) challenging me to debate feminism, race relations, gay marriage, Islamophobia and enough other topics to fill out a five book research project. One of the posts by Collins was funny in the fluff kind of way that Protein Wisdom does well. But as usually is the case with Jeff Goldstein, he did a lot of bragging about his super-powered intellect without saying anything substantive. My reply boiling down my initial argument that the "intellectual conservatism" of Protein Wisdom is more evil than unsophisticated bigotry is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
Ric, you were far too kind to those idiots. That is to your credit. You are able to argue over their narrow little heads in which are stored their narrow little brains. Because of this, they can do nothing but vomit primary-school insults not unlike their icons, "Man" Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. They are not worth the trouble.
My problem with protein wisdom is that they simply follow the conservative archetype. They do little more than redirect any criticisms aimed at them back at those who originated said criticisms. Such as when they accused you of being a bigot because you pointed out their own bigotry. It's really a very weak ploy and does nothing to enhance debate. I wish people would stop using it altogether. However it seems to be the greatest weapon that conservatives have. The poor bastards.
An aspect both authors above miss, and which is notably absent from their responses, is that the folks on PW are having true fun and bouncing around a lot of varied points of view... Where I see an stuffy archetype being followed is, sadly, right here.
You see! Fil you proved my point, all you did was say "I know you are but what am I?" You offered no reasoning for your assertion, no evidence to support it, and nothing of substance what so ever. What "varied points of view" are you referring to? Three of the top four posts on the site right now are merely insubstantial attacks upon the masculinity and intellect of Dr. Caric. Instead of attacking his ideology and arguments PW resorts to attacking him personally. That's having true fun isn't it? Golly gee whiz Fil going over to protein wisdom is the most fun I've had since I played Lazer Tag in the 3rd grade!!! Thanks you guys! Who else can we label as "pussy" and "fag?" Man on man. This is fun!
bigot
noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
PW is addressing Ric Caric, the individual, directly. JG has asked Dr. Caric for his individual opinions and arguments, in a concise, specific manner. In turn, Dr. Caric has chosen to dismiss us as ALL narrow-minded conservatives who think exactly alike and unworthy of considering our opinion. Who does the definition of bigot best fit?
You offered no reasoning for your assertion, no evidence to support it, and nothing of substance what so ever. What "varied points of view" are you referring to? Three of the top four posts on the site right now are merely insubstantial attacks upon the masculinity and intellect of Dr. Caric.
Read a little further, try actual research for a change. You will find good discussions among PW regulars on immigration, gay marraige, abortion, evolution and many other domestic and foreigh policy issues. They tend toward real dialogue rather than cliched vitriol so you may have trouble recognizing them.
B Moe
Okay, then, let's see the debate.
Professor Caric said last night "With all due respect, you guys really aren’t that important to me."
That's well and good, but what about the ideas? Aren't those important to you, Professor?
The problem here is not "ideas." Ric would probably respond to something that didn't sound so sophomoric and pitifully untutored. Your not giving him ideas to which he can respond. You are posting "opinions" contrary to established facts. You are conflicted, erratic, unreasonable. You are like the guy who would argue that a black sheep is white. How seriously could anyone who understands the difference between facts and opinions take you? Especially when the "someone" in question is a PHD in this very field of study.
todd mayo - the esteemed Prof. did nothing of the sort. He advanced no arguments. He asserted that we were all sexists, racists, homophobes, and bigots, on a bed of pretty faulty reasoning, if any reasoning at all. Accusing us of being Coulter and Limbaugh minions is laughable, if you bothered to step outside of your bubble and learn anything about the people you are speaking of.
Caric has advanced no arguments, engaged in no debate, at least so far. He has done a lot of name calling, made unfounded assumptions, and displayed a breathtaking lack of self awareness. His ideology is apparent, and the arguements, non existent.
Sparks - On what basis did the good Professor declare us bigots? Opposition to affirmative action makes one a bigot? Pointing out that the Professors preconceived notions more closely fit the definition of bigotry seems to be fairly legit to me.
Wait, let me get this straight. The guy with the PHD who said this:
You’re part of the same political party as the bigots, you all think of yourselves as part of the conservative movement, and you advance the same political agenda as the bigots.
Yet, it's the Right that can't tell the difference between facts and opinions; who sound sophomoric and pitifully untutored?
Now go away, before Todd Mayo taunts you a second time.
The problem here is not "ideas."
Oh? The original gauntlet tossed at Ric's feet is:
"...let’s debate the merits of race-based affirmative action and racial categorization, particularly as they pertain to what we wish to see as a social end game with respect to how agency is considered within the U.S. political system; we can do the whole 'race as a social construct dance' along the way, too, if you’d like"
Considering the esteemed professor lists as one of his interests "African American Political Thought", why would he shy away from taking the affirmative position on any one of the topics listed?
Doesn't the conservative movement support doing away with affirmative action? Doesn't one of the darlings of the conservative movement, Bill Bennett, try to portray the plight of inner city African American's as their own fault as opposed to societies fault? It's an indisputable fact that schools in urban black communities are under funded, any research literature on the issue will verify this fact. But the right purports that it's the individuals duty to rise above their socio-economic situation. Which is a flawed ideology. Here's why, studies have shown that people are in essence an amalgamation of their surroundings. Place a child in a poor neighborhood where the mentality is that they will never be anything more than they already are and only the exceptional will rise above that, and then incredibly hindered.
Affirmative action serves only to balance the scales of social justice a bit, and doesn't really do a very good job at it. We need to stop spending all of our money on the war chest and reinvest it within the community so everyone has equal opportunity. Your entire individual responsibility argument falls apart when one takes into consideration that the playing field is markedly uneven.
This is merely a brief examination of one of your key arguments and under limited scrutiny it is beginning to fall apart. Do you see why engaging you in a more thorough manner would be a waste of time? The conservative movement has no substance, nothing but shallow and veiled references to times gone by, tradition, and intolerance.
For the most part everything I have read on PW is little more than conservative jargon aimed to satiate right wingers hunger for a place to espouse the virtues of times gone by and the evil of liberals. Come back when you have something new to add.
Sure, and they only call you names if you disagree with them....oh, hold it, B Moe, errr Michael, calls me names whether I agree with him or not. It is hysterical for you or Pablo to come anywhere and make arguments regarding polite, serious discussion.
Scott Sparks -- not true that "It's an indisputable fact that schools in urban black communities are under funded, any research literature on the issue will verify this fact."
More funding does not improve education!
See --> Eric A. Hanushek, "Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, University of Rochester, Summer 1997, pp. 141-164.
"There is no evidence that simply increasing spending improves education. If there is one lesson that should have been learned about education, it is that money does not cure the problems ailing America's schools. The most comprehensive survey of spending and performance was conducted by Professor Eric Hanushek, chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Rochester. After reviewing close to 400 studies of student achievement, Hanushek found no strong or consistent relationship between student performance and school resources, at least after variations in family inputs are taken into account.
The latest American Legislative Exchange Council Report Card on American Education underscores this conclusion. Typical was New Jersey, which had the highest per-pupil expenditure ($10,241) in the 1996-1997 school year and the second smallest pupil-to-teacher ratio. New Jersey received nearly 50 percent of its public education funding from federal sources, yet its students ranked 39th on the 1998 Scholastic Aptitude Test. Conversely, Minnesota, which ranked 27th in per-pupil spending ($5,826), received the highest ranking in student achievement on the same test."
To Michael,
I've been following PW for a couple of weeks and haven't seen all the reasonable, substantive discussion you allude to.
Where is it?
Wow, Scott just changed my world.
Imagine, all my life experience (growing up in Detroit, going to public schools there, etc) changed by a short comment on a blog. All my key arguments under limited scrutiny just fell apart.
It's an indisputable fact that schools in urban black communities are under funded, any research literature on the issue will verify this fact.
And a link for that? I don't know about all schools, but I know about Detroit schools. Detroit gets plenty of money on a per pupil bases, but that money simply doesn't make it into the classroom.
Matter of fact, it would appear that the link between spending and achievement is a tad more murky.
"S&P reports that, "Relative to other K-12 school districts in Michigan, Detroit Public Schools generates well below-average student results with well above-average spending per student."
See, but I live here. Matter of fact, there was a gang fight on the next block just about 15 minutes ago. But, you go ahead and lecture me about race issues. I find it amusing.
Ric Caric said...
To Michael,
I've been following PW for a couple of weeks and haven't seen all the reasonable, substantive discussion you allude to.
Where is it?
From Protein Wisdom:
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/25 @ 10:37 am #
There were too many comments for me to read them all.
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/25 @ 10:39 am #
I forgot. I don’t read PW on a daily basis.
Your slip is showing.
Good God you cons are predictable. I'd like just once to hear an idea from you people that didn't come from some GOP talking points paper or from Ann Coulter's ass. You people have, in a series of posts, proven my point for me and vindicated Ric and Mr. Sparks. Just go back to your work on proving that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Leave government and discussions of such to people who are able to do more than just take an argument and spew it back in other people's faces. You're making fools of yourselves.
Regarding underfunded inner city schools, I believe the Washington DC schools have about the highest per pupil spending rate in the country and I doubt anyone would call them good. Look at the mid-West schools, they all spend much less than many inner city schools but have far higher test scores and college bound students. Money does not equal quality. Be nice if it did though. The reality is for these kids to do well they have to have stable home lives, and parents that value and stress educational achievement. Sadly, drug use, single family homes, uneducated parents, no emphasis on education, etc are the reasons inner city schools are so bad. Until these kids environment changes no amount of money will change the outcomes.
Tell you what, Todd, how about you predict my feelings on immigration, marriage, abortion, evolution, and religion for me? Just as a little test, you give me a quick sentence or two on my opinion of each of this things, then we will talk about how predictable someone is, okay?
Wow, this Todd Mayo guy is so good on point ...
But, you know what is my favorite part? The elitism:
Leave government and discussions of such to people who are able to do more than just take an argument and spew it back in other people's faces.
I don't believe I spewed anything. I haven't even started drinking. Yet.
With a quick google search including the terms "urban african american education funding" you will find many links to studies that show funding plays a very important role in the education achievements of impoverished African Americans. The issue at hand here is not the national average but the fact that for the most part urban schools don't have the resources to offer the programs needed to close the racial gap.
"The truth is inequality in the United States educational system still exists (Kozol, 1991). Children from poor families still are more likely to attend schools that have fewer resources and less experienced teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Children who attend these less affluent urban schools are more likely to be from minority families. In many poor inner-city areas, African Americans constitute a significant percentage of the resident population, if not an overwhelming majority." (Improving outcomes for urban African American students, Gardner, Ralph III. The Journal of Negro Education)
Once you stop looking at national per-student spending and look more closely at the issue in regards to minorities you can see the discrepancies that result from under funding. Which was my point all along. I'll give you that on a national level more funding doesn't work, but that isn't even relevant to the point I was making.
All you fine conservatives did was try to mask the issues under another thin veil. It was a slick move, but again, under limited scrutiny and twenty minutes of google searching, it too falls apart.
In regards to carin, the argument that just because you live in an urban area you are more qualified to comment on race issues is really a weak one. I'm not trying to argue about individual issues, but more about group dynamics and what society can do to improve the plight of that group. You see if we improve the educational opportunities for impoverished African Americans as a whole it will have a trickle down effect (one that will in fact work whereas the economic policy of George Bush and Ronald Reagan failed) on gang violence, crime rates, and the overall socio-economic situation in places like Detroit.
"...studies have shown that people are in essence an amalgamation of their surroundings. Place a child in a poor neighborhood where the mentality is that they will never be anything more than they already are and only the exceptional will rise above that, and then incredibly hindered."
What do studies show about placing kids in an environment where none of their role models are productive citizens, everything they get is given by the government, and they are taught they can't achieve anything without help from others?
scott sparks - I'm not sure what national per pupil spending rates have to do with the issue. As I pointed out in my post DC schools have higher per pupil spending than any other school system. If they're spending so much more per pupil then why do they not have superior resources compared to schools that spend less but achieve more? Money has been pouring into inner city schools, with little to show for it, for years. Money alone is not the answer. The parents of these kids also need to be educated on the importance of education, making the right choices in life, etc. In short, behavior's and attitudes must change also. That's not an easy thing to do, and I don't pretend to have the answer, but until that changes inner city public schools, no matter how much is spent there, will always be low performing.
Per pupil spending is a silly way to measure the efficacy of government spending on schools, because the poorer the neighborhood, the more special services: speech, audiology, special ed, psychologists to test and help determine the appropriate placement....these people cost a lot of money and the general education received per student and paucity of school building programs pales in comparison to the suburban palaces I went to school in.
Really? I read three studies I found on google and all of them purported that inner city schools were for the most part seriously underfunded and that it played a role in the academic achievement of African American students. Two of those studies also sought to address the point steve makes in regards to families. They basically said that after school programs could help to offset the lack of familial focus on education. It may not be the optimal solution to the problem, but it is a viable one and funding is key to it's implementation.
Living where I do, and the experiences I have does make me "qualified" to discuss the issue. I see it from a perspective that those in ivory towers (or those who live in the suburbs) do not. I actually PAY the taxes. I actually see (and went to) the schools. Perhaps I'm a bit more qualified to see the day-to-day factors that have more to do with low student achievement than school funding.
And, if anyone has a reason to be concerned about achievement in black urban areas, it would be me, since I've lived here most of my life. Crime, underachievement, and everything else has a large impact on my life. If throwing money at the problem was the answer (to education, specifically) , this issue would have been solved long ago.
To take one small part of the educational underachievement in urban schools, let's take textbooks as one example. Kids in Detroit schools don't have their own textbooks. You know why? Because the children destroy their books. Or lose them. So, either the school must buy new books EVERY year (very expensive, and a drain on resources) or the children must share books. Now, multiply that by, I dunno, whatever factor you'd like when you figure in the other property destruction that occurs. This financial isn't a problem caused by the schools (although the schools in Detroit have a history of misappropriating funds), but of upbringing. Bad kids do bad things at school. Kids w/o fathers often turn into undisciplined hooligans.
You know what a local (black) leader blamed that on? Poor public transportation. Yes, black men can't be father's to their children in Detroit, because the buses in Detroit suck.
If you can unravel that for me, I'm a-waiting.
"because the poorer the neighborhood, the more special services: speech, audiology, special ed, psychologists to test and help determine the appropriate placement..."
Why do you suppose that is?
They basically said that after school programs could help to offset the lack of familial focus on education. It may not be the optimal solution to the problem, but it is a viable one and funding is key to it's implementation.
Nothing can offset the lack of familial focus on education. Detroit has a 21.7% graduation rate. The kids aren't even AT school.
Basically, they are oppressing themselves.
This is the payoff?
"This should be considered my response to his challenges."
So that's it: a dashed off caricature of what the right supposedly believes about the topic and not much of anything in the affirmative to champion the idea.
I'll freely admit that I lost the proposition bet that Professor Caric would never respond when called out, but I'm still disappointed that he didn't take up Jeff on his offer of an actual debate.
Goldstein doesn't debate. He just issues streams of verbiage, with various academic-sounding words tossed in. Rather than making a logical argument, he generally just strings together a series of dubious assertions as if they are incontrovertible axioms. He's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.
Carin,
Anecdotes aren't data.
I think another area that affects schools in general is the absurd layers of bureaucracy that soak up a lot of the money that could be going to the kids. In my kids schools its crazy how many administrators they have per pupil. I have no idea what these people do all day. It sure isn't teaching. Get rid of 'em, hire more teachers and pay them better.
11:48 : Don't speak ill of Professor Caric like that.
Sparks - Funding is not the core issue, as most inner city schools are funded at levels far greater than the national or even state averages, per pupil. How the schools choose to spend that money is another matter, and the local Boards should be addressed. To simply say that they are underfunded is a gross mischaracterization, if not a bald faced lie. They may not be funded to some utopian level, but they are funded to levels that many rural schools would only dream of.
Certainly anecdotes are not data, but neither does raw data tell the story of why schools are failing.
Schools do not have the money to offer top-shelf materials in urban schools because they have tremendously high levels of destruction and theft. They re-purchase, and re-fix the same things every year.
11:48 : Don't speak ill of Professor Caric like that.
ah, the "I know you are but what am I" style of rigorous argumentation for which the Protein Wisdom fluffer brige is rightly famous.
Michael said...
"because the poorer the neighborhood, the more special services: speech, audiology, special ed, psychologists to test and help determine the appropriate placement..."
Why do you suppose that is?
Gee, Mike, since it's true of poor rural white kids and inner city black and Latinos, your cherished genetic inferiority of the races argument probably won't hold much water.
"
Gee, Mike, since it's true of poor rural white kids and inner city black and Latinos, your cherished genetic inferiority of the races argument probably won't hold much water.
And that is exactly why I call you names, timmy. Right there in a nutshell. You are vile, dishonest, and unworthy of debate. I have tried repeatedly to give you second chances, and everytime you eventually make some unfounded, unwarranted accusation against my motives. I know you little revolutionaries like to throw the racism word around with abandon, but I will not be accused of it directly my a worthless little idiot like you.
Go fuck yourself, timmy, and this time I really mean it.
And just for the record, YOU are the one using this as a justification for race-based affirmitive action, dipshit. I am trying to argue that it is not racially based at all, yet that makes me a racist? You belong here timmy, enjoy your stay.
Right there in a nutshell. You are vile, dishonest, and unworthy of debate.
Amen. You're not worth the effort, Timmy. You bring less than nothing to the table.
There's a lot of that going on here, and yet, you stand out as being particularly useless.
I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people. The other sad thing about you people is the fact that you have nothing better to do with your time than conduct this stupid pseudo-filibuster where you just throw random words around to fill the void in your obviously empty life. If I want to know what you think I'll go to the RNC website. meanwhile, I suggest you go out and get yourself laid. I'd pay for the hooker but that's illegal. Maybe your friend Senator Vitter could help you out with that. he knows where to find 'em. Farewell folks, this has degenerated into the most idiotic waste of time since "Cop-Rock."
todd mayo - sycophant and mind reader, extraordinaire.
"I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people."
Then fucking spell it out, dude. Tell me what I think and then take it like a man when I explain how wrong you are. Or go through life a dishonest, pin-headed piece of shit like timmy, arguing with conjures in you own tiny little world in your head.
I spelled out my views on marriage above, what that what you expected?
Ouch!! Have I hit a nerve Michael?? Michael said,"Then fucking spell it out, dude. Tell me what I think and then take it like a man when I explain how wrong you are. Or go through life a dishonest, pin-headed piece of shit like timmy, arguing with conjures in you own tiny little world in your head." Like a man? You mean like the kind of "man" who will talk so bravely as long as he is at a keyboard in front of a screen? New low Michael. You people have turned this entire discussion into an insult-fest. I'm out till the grown-ups who can disagree without personal attacks return.
Pablo, B Moe
All I can say to the two of you is how much it hurts me that I've offended either of you. Let's face it, without your superior debating skills, voluminous knowledge, and fabulous writing, my life would be a darker place. The wonderful comments! Insightful (inciteful?) questions! Oooh, how I celebrate your art.
I do hope both of you erudite and generous scholars can accept my apology. I'd hate to think I wasn't welcome in Athens, Georgia or Boston any longer.
Now, I believe you two Ph.d's were expertly discussing education and the cultural deprivation that results in poor achievement. You were going to sum up your argument of why the poor and minorities should be ignored by quoting Jesus "The poor you will always have with you." After that masterpiece you were going to explain how America killing a 100,000 Iraqis was justified by some Saudis knocking down the World Trade Center...
The mind reels at your colossal intellects.
I do hope you can welcome me back into your hearts.
Todd, you're going to be gone for awhile then. It's his style. First, he parse or nitpicks at your post and, then after you explain it, he say gotcha, calls you a few names and runs off. If on the other hand, you beat him to the bunch, he goes on a profane insult tirade.
He's one of the stars of PW.
"You mean like the kind of "man" who will talk so bravely as long as he is at a keyboard in front of a screen?"
I mean like the kind of man who will debate honestly the points in front of him, rather that idiotically assert he knows everything about someone he has never met before and argue with a caricature he has just invented. I say you know nothing about me, you say you do, all I am asking is that you back this up. Hell, if I had clairvoyant abilities like that, I would be showing them off all the time.
"All I can say to the two of you is how much it hurts me that I've offended either of you. Let's face it, without your superior debating skills, voluminous knowledge, and fabulous writing, my life would be a darker place. The wonderful comments! Insightful (inciteful?) questions! Oooh, how I celebrate your art."
...
"First, he parse or nitpicks at your post and, then after you explain it, he say gotcha, calls you a few names and runs off. If on the other hand, you beat him to the bunch, he goes on a profane insult tirade."
All I can say, is apparently being called a white supremacist, a true racist, isn't a big deal to you. I think that speaks far more about you than you realize.
todd mayo, and I quote
"I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people."
How incredibly presumptuous of you. Were you to speak to an African-American, woman, or homosexual in such a manner, it would be illustrative of your inability to separate an individual capable of sentient thought from the group identity so valuable to those on the Left.
In short, it would be racist or sexist to speak to an African American or a woman like that. Since you think Republicans are EVIL, you have no qualms about displaying your bigotry for all to see.
JD
JD, have you ever met a good Republican? If so, introduce them to me. I should like to meet the person who brings about the end times.
Yes. More than I could begin to count. Your bigotry will not allow you to see that, because you cannot imagine a person that you disagree with actually being a good person. What a sad existence.
JD
JD, I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
See, I can play this game too!!!
George W. Bush. Good Person. Former Governor of Illinois Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar - Good people. Sen. Fred Thomson - good person. Sen. John McCain - good person. Former Rep. John Kacic - good person. Sen. Lamar Alexander - good person.
Refute it.
I'll refute it if you want to give me a grant for the twelve books it would take to do so.
An inability to separate a person from their politics, and an unwillingness to look past a person's politics when evaluating the person seems to be a common characteristic on the Left. Nuance and all. It follows closely with the idea that Republicans think that the Dems are wrong, while Dems think the Republicans are evil. That's on you.
I said, "I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people." And from that someone made the heroic assumption that I think all republicans are evil. Not so. I have republican friends, I have republican relatives. All good folks. My problem is not with people who register and vote republican and who hold conservative views. My problem is with the people who lead your party. Rove, Bush, Cheney, Jim Thompson,Jim Edgar, Fred Thomson, John McCain, John Kacic,Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, et.al. These are not good people. These people are the poision in 21st century U.S. public policy. They, not you, have repeatedly, when they were in total control, repeatedly sold you, me, and every American out to special interests. The people who actually operate and set policy for the republican party, not you, have a view of society that says,"let the privileged few run the country." College tuition is up 57 percent at public universities since President Bush took office. What did the republican-controlled Congress do for the middle class? They passed legislation cutting $12 billion in student aid, and they raised the interest rates on student loans. You all didn't do that they did. Republicans passed sweetheart rules to indenture the American people to banks after personal bankruptcy. It is worth noting that the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in America today is staggering, unpaid medical expenses. What have republicans leaders done? They have allowed the number of uninsured in this country to swell to almost 47 million people. They gave the rich a tax cut. The republican party caters to the top 1 percent. Not you, the people in charge. The President unilaterally chooses which laws he will enforce and which laws he just suspends. You do not force him to commit such acts. He does it because he has the power and he wants to do it. This is despicable leadership but you folks are not the cause. The leaders of your party, they are the cause. Big difference.
I do not confuse the aforementioned people with ordinary citizens who are republicans and no doubt very good, nice people. It may sound that way but not so. When I said "you people" I referred specifically to the Protein Wisdom people because it was to you guys that I was addressing my comments. My apologies for the percieved insult.
"I said, "I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people." And from that someone made the heroic assumption that I think all republicans are evil."
First of all, I am not a Republican, or particularly conservative for that matter, which is why I said you know nothing about me. Second of all, how do you feel about Caric saying that conservatives are a cancer? Does that not strike you as a just a bit hateful and mean-spirited?
Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar? Give me a fucking break. You are still mad about a Republican governor in Illinois in the late 80's and early 90's? I was not aware that they are still running the Republican party. Wow.
I said, "I DO know what you would say to each of those things Michael. That's what's so truly sad about you people."
How was this taken out of context? You clearly meant that you know where we stand on the issues, and as such, have no need to discuss them with us.
Post a Comment