[MD] Tea Bagging

[118]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:28 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Mark said to Steve:
>  Yes, I heard the debate, I thought Coons looked like a complete idiot.
>  When
> > asked what rights are presented in the first amendment he did not have a
> > clue.  Doesn't that tell you something?  They are rights to protect the
> > individual from the government.  And the laughter from law students was
> > indeed telling of the kind of education they are getting there.
>  Ambulance
> > Chaser 101.  Use the law to make lots of money, get lots of power, and
> > become president of the United Sates.  Sad I think, and dangerous.  But
> then
> > again, using science to define morality is no different.  However, it all
> > depends on what the meaning of the word is is.  :-)
>
>
> dmb says:
> I've grown increasingly alarmed at your remarks, Mark, but that's the straw
> that breaks my camel's proverbial back.
>
> Why is it that right-wingers always reason like a 10 year-olds? (Actually,
> that's unfair to my ten year old.) Watching the parade of idiots they call
> the tea party and witnessing the "reasoning" that is used here to support
> them is a very strange spectacle. The law students laughed at her ignorance
> of the highest law and so THEY are badly educated? The would-be Senator
> doesn't know that the first part of the first amendment is known as the
> separation clause or that it is the legal basis of the separation of church
> and state, but we should be concerned about the laughing law students?
> O'Donnell's ignorant comments were funny to them (and to me) because they DO
> understand that the principle of separation is derived from the First
> Amendment. But all that means nothing because the whole lot of them are
> dangerous, power-hungry, money-grubbing ambulance chasers. Is that why they
> laughed or is that why their laughter can be dismissed? I suppose the
> ignorant candidate ought to wear t
>  heir informed derision as a badge of honor? It'll show the Tea Baggers how
> she can stand up to those elitists with their fancy book-learnin', right?
>
> Mark, your argument is an evasion, an absurd non-sequitor, an ad hominem
> attack and an act of wild, baseless speculation - all at the same time. It's
> a meaningless jumble of inarticulate disapproval. It's a tossed salad of
> stupid and mean. And you're the same guy who doesn't like the look on
> Hawking's face, right? Now I'm convinced. You're a prankster or an idiot.
> Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time talking to unreasonable
> people.
>

Yes, don't waste your time.  But, if this country is full of idiots, then
you are going to have to get used to living with them.  I can see that I
have struck a nerve here and I apologize  for that.  The intent was for
discussion.  If you put your hands over your ears and sing really loudly,
that can help.

No harm intended,
Mark



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>