And it seems that everyone is intent on putting me into some generic libtard box. I’m an elitist. I’m in the community arts crowd (I liked that!). I’m over-educated, etc. I’m intellectually deficient. I scribble incoherently. As I mentioned in a previous post, these words lose all meaning when they’re constantly being tossed around. It’s difficult to be offended by them—they’re just repeated punch lines with no jokes.

Regarding Acorn, We KNOW that Acorn has engaged in some heinous crimes. That’s clearly evident.

But it was the language and cheap devices employed in the article that concerned me. Conservatives are supposed to have the moral high ground, but frankly, I no longer believe that to be the case. Certainly, I...

I’m not a young man – And although I’m an agnostic, I was once an Independent Baptist preacher. (We thought that the Southern Baptist Convention, and even brother Falwell, was too liberal.) I attended a few “Bible colleges” where I was training to be a missionary. I led 18 people to Christ over the years (well, helped to lead – I believed that only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of their sins). On one occasion I had a Seven Eleven clerk abandon his register, fall to his knees with me (in front of a line-full of customers) and recite the sinner’s prayer. On another occasion, I had a broken bear bottle held to my throat as I witnessed to a group of people, and I just lifted my head, further exposing my throat, and kept on...

Thanks for the reply.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm absolutely horrified by what I witnessed in those videos. And I'll be the first to admit that I had NO idea that Acorn was engaging in such disgusting behavior. I don't even have the words to express how shocking it all was. I was completely ignorant of the facts.

And I agree with you that the lack of coverage in the "mainstream media" is deplorable. News should be unbiased, but every network has its own agenda.

As for clarity's name-calling, it was just nasty—the word "vermin" and the like—but not really a big deal. I wasn't whining about it; I was just pointing out that the sentiments he expressed were neither sarcastic nor good-natured (as he had claimed...

"Clarity. Good job! You just nailed the scum libtard Steve'sFront! Another mental case unworthy of citizenship. Maybe Obama Care's death panels will eradicate the vermin from our midst should he get his way by supporting the lying mack daddy Obama and the libtard congress!"

I saw your name at the beginning of the rant and mistook it for your post.

I'm sorry.

Steve

Hi guys.

Thanks for putting up with all of my "liberal" opinions.

clarityseeker - If I can quote you for a moment:

"STEVEN----you are a standup guy in recognizing that you were lazy in reading---then---turning that into a rebuke of me when it was ill deserved. MUCH wasted time.”

Please let me be clear about one thing: I was, and still am, sorry for accusing you of saying things that you did not say. While I want you to know that it was not intentional, I DO take 100% responsibility for my carelessness and I'm genuinely sorry. There are no strings attached. I didn't mean to make it sound conditional. And it hurts that you think I was trying to use it a cheap device to launch into some rebuke. Honestly - I'm...

I fancy myself on a higher plane?

a) That's not an argument.
b) No, I don't fancy myself on a higher plane.
c) For you say that leads me to believe that perhaps you may.

You called my comment a diatribe?

(That's not an argument.)

You claim that I close my eyes out of fear?

(That's not an argument.)

That I'm delusional?

(That's an ad hominem attack - an accusation without illustration.)

You say that ACORN is a rotten organization.

(Okay. It has nothing to do with my point, but okay.)

You say, and I quote, "I hope the plainness of my words are comprehensible to you."

(Sarcastic. And, yes, they were quite plain. I grok sarcasm dude.)

I clearly stated what I meant in a post above.

I hate quoting myself, but what I said was:

"As for the “common knowledge” bit regarding Acorn – For over a year now, this site has been calling Acorn a criminal organization, and with just as much and vitriol and outrage as is currently being expressed. So, yeah, it’s common knowledge, at least on this site. Is it not?"

I was claiming that it was common knowledge HERE.

And I find it quite ironic that you're accusing me of anger, when I have displayed none, but many others have, up to including the wish of my death.

Again, I apologize for mistaking arch's comments for you own - Your name was that first word in the quote and I mistook the words for you...

And now you actually have a MASSIVE reason to be outraged. Acorn was setting up a prostitution ring for 14 and 15 year-old girls for crying out loud! I can hardly think of a more outrageous, immoral crime. The problem is - you guys sound like you always have – frothing at the mouth with a pitchfork in one hand and a gun in the other. Words lose their meaning when they’re expressed over, and over, and over again, and with equal indignation. It’s a bit like the Peter and the Wolf scenario.

When you're constantly calling everyone a libtard, or some equally childish label, it eventually becomes self-parody. It's laughable.

Another thing that I regularly see on this site is traitorous, treasonous talks of sedition. But this is...

The last paragraph of the article sums it all up.

It’s nothing more than a “call to arms” for the conservative base to employ the foulest of tactics in order to further their own cause. Acorn is accused of spreading chaos by any means necessary – with no moral compass and with no boundaries.

But this is merely a diversion – the real message here is the justification for the “conservative, capitalistic, Christian world” to employ the very same foul tactics of which they accuse Acorn.

Of course, when these immoral tactics are employed by the good guys, it will be “chaos for glory.”

For a moment, just consider the terminology – “chaos for glory.” The term is made to sound logical and reasonable – and even...

Charles Sch

See! I’m not that bright a guy – I didn’t understand what the word “pontificate” meant. I’m hardly one of the “intellectual elite”.

MaineConservative

I agree – the term “chaos for glory” is gibberish – But it was a quote from the article, not my own.


Crispian

I wasn’t trying to be philosophical. I was just remarking that the article actually advocated employing the same tactics that Acorn uses, and justified it as “chaos for glory”? That’s the kind of argument a five-year old would make. “Well, he did it first!”


Tommy (my favorite guy)

I haven’t resorted to insulting anyone here, and I think I’ve taken the insults directed at me with good humor. Certainly I...