O/T: Knee Jerk

Two observations:

1. Hypocrisy is not intrinsically bad; 95% of the nation's gynecologists are men.

1. You can't really criticize a progressive for profanity - it's what they do. A recent study of mainstream blogs found that the comments section of liberal blogs contained eighteen times the number of naughty words compared to conservative sites. For example, "Lucianne.com" has virtually zero profanity whereas "dailykos.com" contains a high percentage of "the seven forbidden words."

I suspect, but can't prove, the latter is because liberals argue from an emotional, child-like, ego state rather than a dispassionate, adult position. An emotional argument often involves an anecdotal example whereas an adult discourse usually involves aggregates of a population ("one child becomes Autistic due to measles vaccine" vs. "thousands don't die because they don't contract the disease").

I've seen that statement before, but for the life of me, I don't see how it relates to being a hypocrite. With some things, I'm extraordinarily dumb. Guess this is one of them.

I'd rather take a verbal "f*ck off" in the face, than a knife in my back Right-Wing-Stein style..

Yeah, it's killing me!

Your mastery of words is overwhelming...

I never suggested any such thing. I merely provided a short list of folks that post off topic when someone else suggested filtering names rather than subjects. I may have correctly noted that filtering names would be much easier than filtering subjects.

F*ck all socialists! Where did this "progressive" s*it come from anyway? "Progressive" implies moving forward, making things better. This is like 180° opposite of the people being described. Socialist is the correct word, and "progressive" doesn't come close to describing power hungry, anti-individual, anti-freedom, left wing, socialists...

I use expletives to keep in touch with my feminine side and to increase the likelihood those left wing, socialist bastards will comprehend whats being said...

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm sure I'm not the only one sitting on the edge of my chair wondering how you felt about that very thing...

QED

You are either profoundly dumb or lying, I can't tell which. I've repeated explained in small words and simple sentences - that accepting that which you are forced to pay for is no moral foul. Your thievery derives from something different - from the fact that you

People with immoral worldviews always call shining light on those ideas an "attack" and you're no different. But it's not an attack, it is a simple observation: When you support a system that takes what belongs to other people, you are a thief- or at least you are enabling a system of theft. All of us need help from time to time. Decent people

I have already said that your primary infirmity demonstrated here is moral not physical. I stand by that. I have no question that your needs are real. I've no problem with you using the system you're compelled to be part of. But you'll recall that all this started because I do not want

(all the bullshit snipped)

As usual, you don't bother to reply to the question at hand and launch into some unrelated rhetoric. Just between you and me, did you or did you not start with the accusations and recriminations.

Answer the question dweeb.

So ... the basic problem with keeping "OT:" in the subject line ... was ... what, again?

Thanks.

Your question has a lie as a premise - it cannot be answered by a rational person.

I guess not being able to enrage me diminishes your energy considerably. Good! BTW, I found you some help:

Then your list may need some tuning. I have NEVER started an off-topic conversation (except maybe a humorous one or two and so labeled). On the other hand, I don't let some things go unchallenged either.

Point is, it's okay to admonish someone about what they should do even though you, yourself, can't or won't do it. Like teachers.

But you won't get a "f*ck off" from a right-winger. There are two reasons why this won't happen:

1. We don't often use profanity, and
2. As you correctly point out, we have no inhibition against killing our enemies.

When Saul told David to bring back the foreskins of a hundred Phillistines as a bride-price, David got all excited and started figuring how many men he would need to subdue each Phillistine (because he wasn't counting on voluntary compliance) and how long it would take, considering he would have to sharpen his knife between events, and so on, Saul's emissary got all exasperated: "David, David," he said, "You don't understand! Saul want you to KILL the Phillistines, not CONVERT them! Saul doesn't care if you bring back the whole prick!"

We have ways of detecting modern-day Phillistines: Usually it involves the spontaneous declaration of "f*ck off."

That's why the liberals are going nuts over the "You lie!" shout-out and the Tea Party crowds and the "Help me set up a child-prostitution bordello so I can run for Congress" methodologies. These, they understand.

I feel left out. Sniff.