|
SternSkipper -> RE: The Liberal Platform (3/10/2012 9:02:54 AM)
|
quote:
In other words...... I had to go back up top afterward to read the topic title to see if "cry for help" was part of it.
This is EXACTLY the kind of playground weenie communication that will win the Election for Obama and lose both the republicans and Libertarians (if there even IS such a thing anymore. Seems like what's left is a bunch of magazine-depth readers with an "I beg to differ" rap that goes nowhere, or bullshitters pretending to be 'political scientists who dropped out of harvard" anymore).
Whatever, I find this thing to be just plain a cheap attempt at being contrary.. And if it were even worth it the OP ought to have to show a clear example of why each of these are valid statements(they're NOT ...They're borderline moronic in fact).
For instance FAILED ASSERTION #1....
"1) Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host. "
First, I have never seen anyone I consider being liberal suggest that a) Drug addiction wasn't a disease. I think the conservative talk show host obviously being alluded to is by far and away, the Sickest person encouraged by men and women of his own ilk currently encouraged to cavort in public with his various thinly masked cries for help. Shame on them for not recognizing that and getting him help. This "I am wiser than liberals" dogshit is nothing shy of a worse disservice than anything _I_ as a liberal could do to his mental health.
But let's get back to the real refutation of this absurd and faulty claim. That liberals ONLY single this 'conservative alk show host out". How hard is it to figure out there are at a minimum MANY things in play here. 1)Said Host is NO INNOCENT Party Any heat he gets for anything, he has earned time and time again OP seems to forget that for the first 10 years or so of his career, the 'talk show host" was dismissed as a right wing loon. He's been given more rope than any public figure anyone here can even come close to asserting as a 'comparative figure'.
Also... and this is really important. There is a DEPARTURE FROM UNIFORM JUSTICE if this 'cryptic' "talk show host" the OP apparently intends as making more credible by imposing a fako 'generic quality' (like this happens a lot or something[:D] )... The "talk show host" is a SPECIFIC CASE, He DOES HAVE A NAME, AND IT _IS_ Rush Limbaugh. And in the last Decade, he was caught RED HANDED with an amount of Oxycontin (much of which had been monitored by police as having been obtained through black market drug transactions ... JUST THE SAME WAY REAL DRUG DEALERS DO IT, COMPLETE WITH UNDERLING MULES), and when raided, was found to be in possession of tens of thousands of doses of Oxycontin, hidden throughout his home, in various packaging. And yet, due to some kind of "REAL LUCKY BREAK" Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaha, completely avoided being charged with "Possession With Intent To Distribute". And I am sorry, but this is an ENORMOUS miscarriage of justice when virtually EVERY OTHER USER IN THIS COUNTRY would be charged with that level of offense whether or not in the end they were convicted, or plea bargained down. Rush was walked through a suspended sentence deal.
Do I think that's total bullshit? FUCK YEAH.
Do I think the the OP's empty assertion #1 is WEAKLY thought through? FUCK YEAH.
And the rest of the assertions are equally impressive. IMLTHO.
|
|
|
|
