…And if you don’t give money to PETA, you favor cruelty to animals

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow gets lots of press. He’s not just a phenomenal quarterback, he’s an outspoken Christian who isn’t afraid to speak about his faith (and a whole lot more). The fact that Tebow refuses to behave like a jerk or join the long list of athletes behaving badly drives every leftwing whacko crazy (ok, crazier).

So, what’s a poor nutjob to do when Tebow won’t shut up about how important God is to him? That’s easy: try to make him look like a homophobic bully.

Nearly 8,000 individuals have signed onto a Change.org petition for the Broncos and their high-profile quarterback Tim Tebow to become the first NFL team to create a video for It Gets Better, which was started by sex columnist Dan Savage and his husband in September 2010 in response to the disturbing number of suicides by teenagers who said they were being bullied for being gay or perceived to be gay.

Get it? Tebow is an evangelical, so gay activists want to embarrass him by trying to make him do a pro-gay Public Service Announcement.

n 2010, Tebow controversially starred in an ad for the right-wing group Focus on the Family, which opposes LGBT rights. In fact, the organization has argued that there “is no evidence that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against in the present society.”

Petition organizer and Broncos fan Andy Szekeres said an It Gets Better video would help Tebow and the Broncos say, “We may have differences on abortion and gay marriage, but stopping kids from killing themselves is an issue we can all get behind.”

If the people at Change.org were just against bullying, why make it about LGBT rights? Why not just a straight (no pun intended) up ad saying, “Don’t bully kids. It’s mean”?

The responses to the HuffPo article say it all: the point isn’t that bullying gay people is a problem. The point is that Tebow made an ad for Focus on the Family…about life. According to the author and commenters, if you’re pro-choice and create an ad to that effect but don’t create an ad supporting homosexuals, you hate gay people and want them murdered.

That is unbelievably sick.

But I can see where this can lead:

–If you don’t donate to PETA, you support animal cruelty.
–If you think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is enough, you want people to starve.
–If you buy electricity from your local power company and they use fossil fuels, you support dirty air (oops, President Obama already said this).

It would be nice if Tebow were treated with the respect liberals want given to every anti-war protester, vegan, environmentalist, and atheist.

59 Comments

  1. I’m tired of super liberal/progressive/socialist groups taking guilt by association if you are not a supporter. It’s the either you’re with us, so contribute, if no contribution, you hate us. I collected one month of mail asking for money. It was an inch thick.

  2. It’s not only liberal groups who use that tactic, unfortunately, Yorkshire. I have come to expect that a single donation to virtually any political candidate or any cause or charity seems to be taken as an invitation to flood my e-mail, my snail mail and my telephone with calls for more and more money. In my state, at least, the Do Not Call lists exempt charities and political candidates and political organizations from being allowed to solicit.

    I am glad to donate both money and time for certain charities and causes and for some political candidates, but the strong-arm tactics used by too many fundraisers dim my enthusiasm quickly. I realize that many organizations depend on donations and that political campaigns are often more about collecting money than they are about expressing the views of the candidates, but when fundraisers start spamming me for more and more money, I sometimes check that charity or that political candidate or cause off my list for donations.

    I am especially unresponsive to fundraisers who use guilt or the threat of my being labeled intolerant or biased as a reason to donate to their charity, their cause or their candidate. I am confident that virtually everyone else feels that way. I wonder why money seekers haven’t figured that out?

  3. “It would be nice if Tebow were treated with the respect liberals want given to every anti-war protester, vegan, environmentalist, and atheist.”

    This entire piece is an effort by the author to make a mountain out of a molehill, and, to taint “liberals” with a stain which simply does not exist, except in minds who love to play the guilt by association game!

    And this is simply unwarranted partisan hyperbolic speculation:

    “–If you don’t donate to PETA, you support animal cruelty.
    –If you think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is enough, you want people to starve.
    –If you buy electricity from your local power company and they use fossil fuels, you support dirty air (oops, President Obama already said this).”

    Speaking for myself, I admire Tim Tebow for his drive and his spirit. If he wishes to wear his religion on his sleeve, I say good for him, because that is who he is, and who he always has been since his college days. If someone objects, that’s on him/her, not on Tim Tebow.

    PS: Focus on the Family is off base with their continued attacks on gay folks. It is a mistake to associate Tim Tebow with this offensive, because he has not ever expressed this view as far as I have seen. This guilt by association is the same thing done to Obama wrt his association with Reverend Wright and Professor Ayers. It is wrong!

  4. WW criticized Sharon’s line, “If you think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is enough, you want people to starve,” as “unwarranted partisan hyperbolic speculation,” but how many times would our Democrat from Delaware have written that if you don’t support President Obama’s programs and support the basic tenets of the Republicans’ programs, you are favoring the very wealthy against the common man?

  5. WW writes

    This guilt by association is the same thing done to Obama wrt his association with Reverend Wright and Professor Ayers. It is wrong!

    Except, of course, Obama HAD an association with Bill Ayers, and SAT in Wright’s church for TWENTY YEARS.

    So, you’re correct about Tebow and FOF; dead wrong about Obama and his nutjob pals.

  6. Koolo, apparently you do not understand what is meant by the term: “GUILT by association”, unless it is only about partisan politics, which it should not be, except with the weak of mind who rely on partisan propaganda for their talking points! Is this you, koolo?

  7. WW writes

    unless it is only about partisan politics, which it should not be, except with the weak of mind who rely on partisan propaganda for their talking points! Is this you, koolo?

    Which is a QUITE humorous question considering the repetitious nature of your DNC/radical leftist blog talking point comments around here day after day after day!

  8. “WW criticized Sharon’s line, “If you think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is enough, you want people to starve,” as “unwarranted partisan hyperbolic speculation,” but how many times would our Democrat from Delaware have written that if you don’t support President Obama’s programs and support the basic tenets of the Republicans’ programs, you are favoring the very wealthy against the common man?”

    At least a thousand times, Mr. Editor.

    Moreover, I would forthrightly blame the dysfunctional Repubs for prolonging our economic crisis by demanding immediate austerity (the Ryan Plan) without allowing for more relief and stimulus. The Tea Party’s dysfunctional activism in the House, being unwilling to support the Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ 89 votes in the Senate on the payroll tax and unemployment benefits extension, is just the latest example. It appears that they are more than willing to allow a tax increase on the middle class, contrary to their Grover Norquist pledge no less!!! What a bunch of outright idiots!

  9. “Which is a QUITE humorous question considering the repetitious nature of your DNC/radical leftist blog talking point comments around here day after day after day!”

    Only a radical rightie would make such a false statement, which shows how far to the right our rightie politicos have permitted themselves to drift. Who was it who made the “guilt by association” statement, without one particle of evidence except to throw a couple of names around, all motivated, I would assume, by a hatred of our current President. Am I wrong, koolo? If so, set me straight with some facts to chew on!

  10. WW writes

    Only a radical rightie would make such a false statement, which shows how far to the right our rightie politicos have permitted themselves to drift.

    Only a radical lefty would lie about a “false” statement. For, what is it but DNC/radical leftist blog talking points that requiring ID to vote is “voter suppression?” Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans FAVOR showing ID, but that certainly did not deter you (among other things) from constantly droning on about it in here day after day.

    Who was it who made the “guilt by association” statement, without one particle of evidence

    I am being asked this — by someone who repeats “Bush lied us into Iraq” day after day? You understand what I meant when you perpetually do not apply standards to yourself that you demand of everyone else? You’d be the perfect congressman, WW!

  11. Perhaps Tebow could get into the left’s good graces by doing a public service spot for genetic screening and planning, and publicly funded abortion on demand services, which might very well eventually make the whole “gay” thing quite irrelevant.

  12. DNW writes

    Perhaps Tebow could get into the left’s good graces by doing a public service spot for genetic screening and planning, and publicly funded abortion on demand services, which might very well eventually make the whole “gay” thing quite irrelevant.

    That’s a very interesting philosophical question. When genetic screening becomes good enough, will parents choose to abort and/or genetically modify a “gay” baby? Or, will it be a situation like that one X-Men movie where they had a cure for the mutant gene but there was a backlash about “changing who you fundamentally are”?

  13. “Which is a QUITE humorous question considering the repetitious nature of your DNC/radical leftist blog talking point comments around here day after day after day!”

    Look who is talking about talking points. Why it’s koolo! My talking points are my own, whose are yours?

    “You understand what I meant when you perpetually do not apply standards to yourself that you demand of everyone else?”

    And what about you, koolo?

    Are you interested in debating issues, or just in continuing this personal trivia day after day?

  14. “Perhaps Tebow could get into the left’s good graces by doing a public service spot for genetic screening and planning, and publicly funded abortion on demand services, which might very well eventually make the whole “gay” thing quite irrelevant.”

    My guess is that it will be more like the Christian Right who would be interested in such an approach.

    The progress here is that DNW seems to acknowledge the claim that the “gay thing” has a genetic origin.

  15. WW writes

    Are you interested in debating issues, or just in continuing this personal trivia day after day?

    Absolutely I am. But I’d prefer to do it with someone who doesn’t constantly repeat tired, partisan talking points!

  16. Koolo says:
    December 21, 2011 at 09:49

    DNW writes

    Perhaps Tebow could get into the left’s good graces by doing a public service spot for genetic screening and planning, and publicly funded abortion on demand services, which might very well eventually make the whole “gay” thing quite irrelevant.

    That’s a very interesting philosophical question. When genetic screening becomes good enough, will parents choose to abort and/or genetically modify a “gay” baby? Or, will it be a situation like that one X-Men movie where they had a cure for the mutant gene but there was a backlash about “changing who you fundamentally are”?”

    I have never seen an X-Men movie, but I do recall the hilarious hysteria generated a number of years ago after an erroneous news report was aired which stated that scientists had figured out a way to prevent “gay” rams from developing those tendencies.

    Of course it might very well be that correction and control could also be pre-exercised at the individual sire level, involving pre-reproduction therapies engaged in by concerned potential parents; if it were found, say, that the individual possessed gametes which had certain traits or defects that might, during fusion into a zygote, likely result in offspring with an undesired trait. One might, just hypothetically here, be given a pill in order to ensure that the only viable gametes presented for potential combination were those likely to produce desired results, and that the defective ones never fused.

    This would not be changing what “they”, the potential offspring, fundamentally are, since what they are is necessarily post hoc. The fact that they would only be generated out of pre-approved building blocks, would not change the fact that that they would be what they are.

    This notion of “defect” however, if your predicate is the principle of values subjectivism, could of course be almost anything: Brown eyes, short legs, glabrousness, an unathletic physique, a low or middling IQ, emotional dependency, moral timidity, sexually inverted tending traits … whatever.

    But on the anthropological and ethical premises accepted by the left, I cannot see how any objections they might come up with would have any more force than a statement of sheer preferences anyway.

  17. “Absolutely I am. But I’d prefer to do it with someone who doesn’t constantly repeat tired, partisan talking points!”

    Your politically jaded comments are showing, koolo, especially considering that your rhetoric is exactly as you perceive mine to be. This gets us nowhere regarding any meaningful debate is concerned.

  18. “This notion of “defect” however, if your predicate is the principle of values subjectivism, could of course be almost anything: Brown eyes, short legs, glabrousness, an unathletic physique, a low or middling IQ, emotional dependency, moral timidity, sexually inverted tending traits … whatever.”

    Ha! Glabrousness aside, sounds like a typical Rush-ian acolyte!

  19. I think we can all get behind stopping kids from thinking about and committing suicide. It shows your lack of values and heart to claim this is anything besides petitioning a football team to create a video to save kids lives. My god judge you harshly for your intolerance’s.

    - Andy szekeres – Yes the Leftie Commie bully who dares to try to ask people to do the right thing.

    You may all attack in 3… 2… 1… GO

  20. WW writes

    Your politically jaded comments are showing, koolo, especially considering that your rhetoric is exactly as you perceive mine to be. This gets us nowhere regarding any meaningful debate is concerned.

    If you really think so, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your daily nonsense here and actually do what you claim you wish to do — debate. Constantly writing the same things day after day after day is not “debate.” Again, quit acting like a congressperson and apply the standards you imbue on everyone else to yourself.

  21. AS writes

    It shows your lack of values and heart to claim this is anything besides petitioning a football team to create a video to save kids lives.

    Indeed — this ia precisely the tone of this post, perfectly illustrated! Thank you, A.S.!

  22. “The progress here is that DNW seems to acknowledge the claim that the “gay thing” has a genetic origin.”

    I acknowledge that some people will make that claim when they believe that it serves their purposes to do so.

    Just how viewing some trait like, say, annoying behavior, as genetic, implies that it is incumbent on others not sharing the trait to tolerate it or underwrite the redounding costs which that trait imposes on the bearer, much less to associatively encourage its propagation, escapes me.

    Now I know that leftists would like to claim that it does; but again, I cannot see on how their own anthropological premisses built on a foundation of materialism, nominalism, and values relativism, such a claim could be demonstrated with any logical consistency.

  23. Andy Szekeres says:
    December 21, 2011 at 11:35

    I think we can all get behind stopping kids from thinking about and committing suicide. It shows your lack of values and heart to claim this is anything besides petitioning a football team to create a video to save kids lives. “

    Andy, you must have missed the part of Sharon’s post where she recounts,

    “a Change.org petition for the Broncos and their high-profile quarterback Tim Tebow to become the first …” and ” Tebow controversially starred in an ad for the right-wing group Focus on the Fami

    ly>’ (emphasis added)

    It seems that Sharon’s point is that Tebow was specifically targeted for a participation in a program of self-criticism and social re-education based on his religious faith and prior alignments.

  24. Here is what koolo defines as debate:

    “If you really think so, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your daily nonsense here and actually do what you claim you wish to do — debate. Constantly writing the same things day after day after day is not “debate.” Again, quit acting like a congressperson and apply the standards you imbue on everyone else to yourself.”

    And then this:

    “Indeed — this ia precisely the tone of this post, perfectly illustrated! Thank you, A.S.!”

    And then this:

    “Hey Andy — why not go ask a group like C.A.I.R. to make such a commercial?”

    Point made! Introspection should now be your next step, koolo!

  25. WW: How are the snippets you took from me not pertaining to the debate? Here, I’ll assist you:

    1) A.S.’s comment falls precisely into what Sharon asked in the very post. Thus, my comment. IOW, Sharon was quite clairvoyant.

    2) Why does A.S.’s group pick on Tebow and his faith? Why not ask a group like CAIR? Or, does that get too muddy there with all the nonsense politcal correctness?

  26. Meanwhile, WW, you just keep applying your double standards and copying and pasting DNC and radical blog talking points. Over and over and over again.

  27. “WW: How are the snippets you took from me not pertaining to the debate?”

    They were not “snippets”, koolo, they were full posts of yours.

    And then, here is your next “debate” point:

    “Meanwhile, WW, you just keep applying your double standards and copying and pasting DNC and radical blog talking points. Over and over and over again.”

    How would you characterize your false claims and your behavior on here, koolo?

    This is debate, koolo, and the talking points are mine:

    “Moreover, I would forthrightly blame the dysfunctional Repubs for prolonging our economic crisis by demanding immediate austerity (the Ryan Plan) without allowing for more relief and stimulus. The Tea Party’s dysfunctional activism in the House, being unwilling to support the Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ 89 votes in the Senate on the payroll tax and unemployment benefits extension, is just the latest example. It appears that they are more than willing to allow a tax increase on the middle class, contrary to their Grover Norquist pledge no less!!! What a bunch of outright idiots!”

    I happen to follow the news and express my opinion. Isn’t that what this blog is supposed to be all about, koolo?

  28. WW writes

    How would you characterize your false claims and your behavior on here, koolo?

    I can’t characterize them. Because I made NO false claims.

    I happen to follow the news and express my opinion. Isn’t that what this blog is supposed to be all about, koolo?

    Well sure. But don’t expect not to be called out when you post the same thing over and over and over when it’s already been refuted/shown to be false/shown to be pur partisan talking points. What’s more, you should expect to be called out if you constantly don’t apply standards to yourself that you apply to others.

  29. This right here is one of your false claims, koolo:

    “Well sure. But don’t expect not to be called out when you post the same thing over and over and over when it’s already been refuted/shown to be false/shown to be pur partisan talking points. What’s more, you should expect to be called out if you constantly don’t apply standards to yourself that you apply to others.”

    Otherwise, prove it with examples.

    Don’t you see how silly all this repeating by you is? Why not move past it. Your move.

  30. WW writes

    Otherwise, prove it with examples.

    In another thread on here you write that unemployment was 10% when Barack Obama took office. It wasn’t. It was seven-point something.

    Then there’s the whole “voter suppression” nonsense you babbled on about, despite facts showing there’s no such thing. You kept insisting a direct relationship and motive behind the laws, ignoring things like “invidious intent.” Then you questioned, then ignored, the FACT that the vast majority of Americans FAVOR showing ID at polling places.

    Satisfied? (Dumb question, I know.)

  31. You are correct on the unemployment rate in Jan ’09, it was 7.7. However, it was on a sharp upwards slope from July ’08 during Bush, and continued when it peaked in October ’09, at 10.1%. I suppose now you want to blame President Obama for all that rise during his first 10 months, is that it?

    I showed the evidence for voter suppression. But it should be obvious to any impartial observer. While there is no evidence of voter fraud, all of a sudden we have mostly red states now requiring a photo ID and many shortening the time for early voting. For those who must pay for their photo ID, then we also have the old poll tax. It has been demonstrated that the affected demographics are generally Dem voters. Why are we solving a problem that does not exist, koolo? Simple answer: Voter suppression. Another technique is the old one of voting district boundary lines, which given the results of 2012 elections, will be drawn in favor of Repubs. That is also voter suppression. I did not expect you to agree! The vast majority favoring showing ID probably are either Repubs or they have not looked into the ramifications or they watch Fox News!

    So yes, that was a very dumb question, and you knew it!

    Voting should be as simple as possible. Red states are making sure it will be less so, and that’s a fact!

  32. WW wrote:

    “WW criticized Sharon’s line, “If you think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is enough, you want people to starve,” as “unwarranted partisan hyperbolic speculation,” but how many times would our Democrat from Delaware have written that if you don’t support President Obama’s programs and support the basic tenets of the Republicans’ programs, you are favoring the very wealthy against the common man?”

    At least a thousand times, Mr. Editor.

    At least that admission saves me the trouble of having to go through and link citations!

    Moreover, I would forthrightly blame the dysfunctional Repubs for prolonging our economic crisis by demanding immediate austerity (the Ryan Plan) without allowing for more relief and stimulus.

    It sounds to me like they are anything but dysfunctional: they have a philosophy, which they presented to the voters last year, won on that philosophy, and are enacting that philosophy into law, to the extent that they can. “More stimulus” was exactly what they ran against, campaigning strongly against the 2009 stimulus plan, and by not passing “more stimulus,” they are keeping their campaign promises.

    I know, I know: politicians trying to actually keep their promises is almost unheard of, but I applaud it!

    The Tea Party’s dysfunctional activism in the House, being unwilling to support the Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ 89 votes in the Senate on the payroll tax and unemployment benefits extension, is just the latest example. It appears that they are more than willing to allow a tax increase on the middle class, contrary to their Grover Norquist pledge no less!!! What a bunch of outright idiots!

    The House passed the extension of the tax cuts; it was the Senate which balked, and watered it down, changing it to just two months. However, if taxes have to be increased, they should be increased on everybody; in that, the Republicans are absolutely right.

  33. WW writes

    You are correct on the unemployment rate in Jan ’09, it was 7.7. However, it was on a sharp upwards slope from July ’08 during Bush, and continued when it peaked in October ’09, at 10.1%. I suppose now you want to blame President Obama for all that rise during his first 10 months, is that it?

    But that’s NOT what you wrote. You plainly wrote that, when Obama took office, the rate was 10%. This was either a lie or a blatant error; whatever the case, your “answer” above is anything but an acknowledgment that you were WRONG.

    I showed the evidence for voter suppression. But it should be obvious to any impartial observer.

    It’s only “obvious” to radical leftists, and they’re hardly impartial. Again, you were shown the polling data and corresponding demographic info; you continue to choose to ignore it, and indeed, you are implying people are stupid AGAIN because they somehow cannot be objective merely b/c they do not concur with the ridiculous conclusions you and your radical leftist friends come to.

  34. “But that’s NOT what you wrote. You plainly wrote that, when Obama took office, the rate was 10%. This was either a lie or a blatant error; whatever the case, your “answer” above is anything but an acknowledgment that you were WRONG.”

    OMG, koolo, you are a case study! I was going on memory with my statement, which was incorrect, as I discovered when you corrected me and I checked out your statement, then I acknowledged my error. Do you have a delete function on your computer?

    And on the voter suppression issue, do you mean to tell me that you always rely on what the majority of Americans think? If so, you make a grave mistake, as you have in this case. You have yet to explain to me why photo ID’s are necessary to vote, when there has been no evidence shown to demonstrate that there is a problem. And again, this is mostly a red states phenomenon. [Insult deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]

    Here, koolo, read this piece on GOP voter suppression, think about it, then come to class tomorrow with your questions and comments. We’ll try to do some critical thinking on this topic.

  35. “Wagonwheel obviously cannot control himself and is violating the conduct policy with several of his statements above. Again.”

    Oh man, what a [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]. Some of you supposedly tough righties are the opposite, can’t stand up to a debate, with a little bit of color added. Look, koolo, if it doesn’t fit, don’t wear it, if it does, then check it out, and review some of the stuff you’ve thrown out on here, of which it never occurred to me to complain. Now stand back up and act like a man!

    [Please note boldfaced portion; this is an admission by the author that he was testing the Comments & Conduct Policy. Please, do not attempt to push the envelope on this. -- Editor]

  36. “There goes [deleted] yet again, being his usual self! And Mr. Editor having to deal with it AGAIN. (And not forcefully enough.)”

    It’s Wagonwheel on here Hube, and you know it! And you know what, Hube, although I will admit that retaliation in kind is mighty tempting, I’ll not do it, because I do not wish to stoop down to your level of behavior. Shame on you!

  37. WW asked:

    And the evidence for that is exactly what, Mr. Editor?

    The way y’all keep fighting for a system susceptible to fraud. Given that there have been many suggestions to meet your objections about some voters not having proper identification, and your complete unwillingness to even acknowledge such, what other conclusions can be drawn?

  38. 2 comments:

    First to Koolo and Wagonwheel: Shut up. I don’t want your childish (and boring) bickering on my post. I received nearly 50 msgs today saying I had comments, but about 2/3 were you guys saying, “I know you are, but what am I?” Stop it.

    Secondly, to Andy S.: the Change.org petition is not about “saving kids’ lives.” It’s about forcing organizations and individuals to agree with them or be held up to ridicule. I highly doubt any kid thinking about suicide is going to change his or her mind because of a PSA.

    This is precisely the insidious nature of these supposed “do-gooders.” Kids may commit suicide and bullying happens to a lot of people. But bullying organizations and individuals like Tebow (and that’s precisely what this is) is still bullying. Not supporting your petition does not make someone pro-suicide.

    And I’ll put my God up against your God any day.

  39. As for WW’s “there is no voter fraud” argument, read it and weep:

    Today, four Democratic operatives, including a city councilman, have pleaded guilty to felony charges in a voter fraud scandal to try to steal the primary election — this time in Troy, New York.

    Fox News first broke the story nationally about the allegations that absentee ballots were forged in the 2009 primary in Troy of the Working Families Party, a group once associated with the defunct community group ACORN. Voters told Eric Shawn that they never signed absentee ballot applications and that ballots were cast in their names…

    One of the Democratic operatives who pleaded guilty, Anthony Defiglio, told New York state police in 2009 that absentee ballot fraud works. “This is an ongoing scheme and it occurs on both sides of the aisle. The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions … what appears as a huge conspiracy to non-political persons is really a normal political tactic,” Defiglio said.

    Democrats don’t mind voter fraud because the frauds virtually always vote for Democrats; however, voter fraud is also very hard to prove. Photo ID, which is ubiquitous in modern America, can help prevent the fraud. And the wide variety of acceptable ID is an effective rebuttal to the claim that Democrats can’t vote if they can’t cheat.

    As for the complaints about shorter early voting, early voting is expensive for municipalities. That’s why many places are offering fewer days this year. Even with that, if voting is important to you, you can get off your butt and go vote.

  40. I had a bit of time to read through quite a bit of CSPT, and I must say WW — you’re a piece of work. You constantly complained about personal attacks, yet you had little reservation about making snide personal attacks against me here, and then had the gall to say to me “be a man.”

    Why weren’t you “a man” when people directed attacks YOUR way at CSPT? Indeed, you ALREADY stooped low — the lowest, in fact — by revealing personal information about one of your nemeses.

    And you STILL wonder about me bringing up you not applying standards to yourself that you (perpetually) apply to others? Really???

  41. although I will admit that retaliation in kind is mighty tempting, I’ll not do it, because I do not wish to stoop down to your level of behavior. Shame on you!

    Too late. You already did — in spades. And you speaking of shame is like Stalin opining on genocide.

  42. Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, made the famous pro-life Focus on the Family commercial, and our friends on the left can’t stand it. In this thread on Pandagon, you can practically see the hatred dripping from Jesse Taylor, the author, and most of the commenters. But, despite their vitriol and complaints that Mr Tebow is a rotten quarterback, the Broncos are winning with him at QB, and they were losing when Kyle Orton was starting. Mr Tebow was popular in Denver, no doubt about that, and Coach Fox was under a lot of public pressure to pull Mr Orton and give the job to Mr Tebow, but Mr Orton was really pulled for one reason: the team wasn’t winning.

    And now they are. As an Oakland Raiders fan, I hate to see it, but wins and losses are absolutes in the NFL.

    As for “Tebowing,” when players are in high school, and the first row of seats is close to field level, players who are on the sidelines are instructed to “take a knee,” so that the fans in the first rows can see the game, so at least half of “Tebowing” is coached behavior.

    Ben Roethlisberger has been forgiven for the (unproved) rape allegations . . . because he is a good quarterback who helps the Pittsburgh Steelers win games . . . even though he often looks ugly doing so. Michael Vick has been forgiven for the dogfighting scandal, because he is was an exciting quarterback who has a dramatic impact on the game. You don’t hear much hate for Plaxico Burris, who spent time in the big house for carrying a handgun into a nightclub and then shooting himself in the leg, nor for “Pacman” Jones, who’s nothing but a thug. But Tim Tebow? The guy is helping the Denver Broncos win games, and there are a whole bunch of people who desperately want to see him fail.

  43. “As for WW’s “there is no voter fraud” argument, read it and weep:”

    So Sharon, you are going to base your case for a photo ID requirement on one case of voter fraud? You righties cannot hide from your voter suppression efforts all of a sudden throughout many of the red states. Come on!

    And don’t forget that your party has been guilty of voter fraud big time, the kind that swings close Presidential elections!

  44. Mr. Editor, I understand that you are trying to do a good job, but you still leave me wondering, because frankly I have no idea what I said to break your rules.

    I understand that the tolerance of most of the conservatives on here for push back is pretty low, and that I am about the only one on here who is doing the pushing back, which makes me the target. So be it!

  45. OK Sharon, this is the last one.

    “Why weren’t you “a man” when people directed attacks YOUR way at CSPT? Indeed, you ALREADY stooped low — the lowest, in fact — by revealing personal information about one of your nemeses.”

    Don’t believe everything you read, koolo, because Hube is not telling the truth. I never directly revealed his identity as he just did to me, again. No word from you on that. And since you have perused CSPT, you certainly witnessed the incessant personal attacks on me, with Hube being one of the worst. In fact, you can see that he just made another one. I note that you chose to single me out, which tells me something about your character. As I said before, you need to inspect your own standards.

    I also note that you asked for citations, koolo, which I provided you with some and yet more, then no response from you. Thus, you are definitely not up to the debate, not even on your own terms.

    So Sharon, you are right. We strayed from your topic, which is a common occurrence as you well know. Whatever, I’m done on this thread.

  46. WW wrote:

    And don’t forget that your party has been guilty of voter fraud big time, the kind that swings close Presidential elections!

    While this is in violation of the Comments & Conduct Policy, and I will not get into or allow a debate on whether the 2000 (or 2004) elections were stolen, I’d point out here that when I wrote:

    I, of course, would certainly compromise here, or Bridge the Gap, as it were: I would certainly be willing to see additional vote security measures along the lines of clearly produced paper ballots by the voting machines, ballots which could be used to confirm the machine counts, if you would consent to the simple security measure of photo ID. Then again, it’s not even a compromise for me; I’d agree to what I suggested whether you’d agree or not, because I do believe that the security of the vote is important,

    you were in no way interested, despite more than one comment calling this to your attention. I would certainly be willing to put in place measures which would make vote-counting more secure, and vote-counting is where you (plural) seem to think that there were problems in 2000 and 2004.

    Yet, when increased voter security is suggested, you resist mightily, telling us that there are no problems at all. Then, whenever someone points out that yes, there have been problems in the past, you simply counter by calling them anecdotal or, as above, “one case.” It’s almost as though you are very interested in preventing what you see as Republican efforts at skewing the vote, but fighting to retain the ability Democrats to cast fraudulent votes.

  47. WW,
    My irritation is not with the idea that you “strayed from the topic” (something that will get you banned from Pandagon if you are a conservative). Conversations change course. My problem is that the 2 of you hijacked the thread to attack each other repeatedly. The idea is to make your point and move along, not spend all day sniping at each other. While the 2 of you may enjoy that, it kills participation from others.

  48. WW writes

    In fact, you can see that he just made another one. I note that you chose to single me out, which tells me something about your character. As I said before, you need to inspect your own standards.

    Indeed I did choose to single you out. Because, as I’ve seen here and back at CSPT through my extensive readings, it is YOU who insists people follow standards which you refuse to apply to yourself. I don’t know what it was that you said about Hube that essentially ended CSPT, but obviously it was pretty bad. And after all your complaining about personal attacks, you seem to have little compunction about using them yourself. Or, is asking someone if they “need to be led by the hand to the toilet” just a term of endearment?

  49. WW writes

    I also note that you asked for citations, koolo, which I provided you with some and yet more, then no response from you. Thus, you are definitely not up to the debate, not even on your own terms.

    Wrong again. You just conveniently chose to forget the OTHER thread on which this topic was discussed in depth, and in which NUMEROUS cites and quotes were shown (by me and others) to totally refute and shred your silly contentions about “suppression.”

    Why did you forget these? Do you have a bad memory?

Comments are closed.