Liberals On Here Care To Respond?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because I'm a supreme cheapskate I opt for Netflix streaming ($9/month) over cable (I think it's pushing $100 these days with all the goodies and fees). Sometimes it's hard to be a cheapskate, weighing the pros and cons of alternative options. This one very much wasn't a difficult decision.

i would love to save the $106/month I'm paying for DirecTV, but my kids watch channels not offerred on basic service (Nik, NGC, History, NFL, etc, etc...)

but the money is not all wasted:

[angus]

We get about 80 channels for something like 39.99 plus tax and fees per month.  And it's another 40 plus tax for the high-speed internet, so I'm giving them about 85 dollars a month already.

I think there's a megapackage, which includes internet and about a zillion cable channels for a over a hundred per month.  That one may have LOGO.  I know it has the Playboy Channel.  Sometimes they do systems tests, at odd hours, and I get Playboy for free all night.  I like to watch Melissa Scott as Barbie Bridges, back when she was doing fishnet porn, before she married money and got her religion degree and became Pastor Melissa Scott.  She's still pretty hot, though.

[memphis]

Just for the lulz I checked Comcast's (now xfinity tv) website. You can get Logo here, but you have to get more than just the basic cable package. And evidently, cable tv now requires a 2 year contract. WTF? Or maybe that's just to get the teaser price for the first few months. Yeah, I'll be sticking with netflix streaming. TV shouldn't be that damn complicated.
And Jmfsct, surely you know that you can get pictures/videos of girls with waterguns on the internet. Reminds me of our local classic rock station that advertises their online bikini girl of the day over the radio. Like, if that's what I'm in the mood for and am already online, I'm going to opt for bikini girl? No. Also, isn't there some Jimmy Carter clause in your relgion that frowns upon lusting in your heart or whatever? Or not coveting somebody's wife? Granted, so many of the girls these days aren't bejeweled.

[Holmes]

kind of hard to miss when you bring up the guide and one of the choices is a show with a title like "5 gays and a girl"

Dude. 1 girl 5 gays is a ing awesome show. Away with you.

[angus]

We had to do a 3-month contract.  It came with free showtime (three feeds) and a reduced rate.  After the 3-months are up, you lose the showtime unless you sign up for it.

The mega-option includes channels that number up to about 500, but we already get PBS (three feeds), Qubo, Disney, Nat Geo, and Animal Planet.  That's all the boy really needs. 


Any Melissa Scott fans out there?

Check out Melissa Scott.

Then:



And now:



Hers is my favorite show on the Jesus Channel.  By far.

[BigSkyBob]

Response:

Seems that you completely made up that he was attacked for being a gay conservative.

He was just attacked for being a friend of Ann Coulter.

So, it's okay to beat people if their friends hold political positions you oppose?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And Jmfsct, surely you know that you can get pictures/videos of girls with waterguns on the internet...Also, isn't there some Jimmy Carter clause in your relgion that frowns upon lusting in your heart or whatever?

well, my wife already has the keys to the internet at our house...if I have to go to her and ask, "Honey, would you protect me from the nickelodeon channel, also?" she's gonna think I'm some kind of a pervert, and then those 17 year old black high school girls on my daughter's basketball team wont be able to come over anymore.

[fezzyfestoon]

Yeah saying something in that way probably didn't do himself any favors. But you're acting like I agree with everything put in the article or even like the guy.

And you're acting like all liberals agree with everything done to this dude, whatever it was. Pointless prompts breed pointless discussions. I'd delete this crap thread if I were you, to be honest.

No I'm not! I don't know how I could make it more clear because I've said the opposite in multiple posts now.

Thread title: "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/12/gay-tv-star-claims-he-was-assaulted-bloodied-for-being-a-conservative-associated-with-ann-coulter/

"Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV, said in an interview that he was attacked outside a birthday party in Dallas after finding a vandal scratching “F–k Coulter” on the side of his car."


So if they are a gay republican then its open season on their a$$?

The purpose of the thread is pretty obvious.

[BigSkyBob]

What does his being gay have to do with anything?  Did the vandal scratch the word "fag" on there too?

How do we even know the vandal was a liberal?  As Coulter is an embarrassment to conservatives anyway, perhaps the vandal was a conservative himself?

1) Conservatives, not you, will decide whom in their movement is "an embarassment," and whom isn't.

2) There is absolutely no reason to take this seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you asked a thousand people on the street randomly, I doubt more than a handful would even take this position seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Phony Moderate]

You know, on any forum with competent moderators, this thread would have been locked and/or deleted after the first page or two. 

[BigSkyBob]

If I actually told you what I thought of you for posting that as a response to this article I would be sanctioned by the mods.

Unbelievable. So now every time any gay, black, etc. that gets beaten or has his property damaged because he's a republican or conservative we should just assume they are faking it?

How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Say what you want about me. You're easily one of the dumbest people on this forum, and chances are I'd be amused by whatever pathetic little attack your peanut-sized brain could come up with.

I'm not going to get worked up over some guy getting punched in Texas. Even according to his own (probably fake)

Throw the conspiracy theory out there. Don't provide any evidence. Give yourself an out in case the conspiracy theory collapses. Use ad hominem abuse to cover your lack of substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blame the victim.

[Wonkish1]

While you are right that the OP opened up rather poorly, does it really require trolling?

Whether it contributed to productive discourse or not, it had exactly the intended effect:

Well first of all in the article it said what he was doing in the parking lot. He came back to his car to get a present for a friend. Maybe you didn't read that far?

And who cares how bought the car.

Where is the outrage on here like the kid from Bachmann's district which I came on said was a shame. I at least expected people to come on here and decry what happened. Instead there is one post from a person acting like it was justified because supports the GOP and another that asks pointless questions about the situation. And then everybody else just doesn't post anything.

Are Dems on here trying to advertise that bigoted behavior is tolerable towards particular groups when people in those groups support Republicans? Do Dems just care about gays only to the extent that benefits the Democratic party?

These answers and the lack of answers are very telling and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Actually that post you quoted was a result of me seeing posts that I didn't think would happen. If you think I intended to have Democrats dismiss this, call him a liar, act like people deserve it when you back NAZI GOPers, etc. you are sorely mistaken.

The part that I just struck out I shouldn't have posted! Otherwise Lief's first response deserved every bit of that response!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

note to BigSkyBob:  adding quoted material to the end of your posts is very confusing to the reader.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You know, on any forum with competent moderators, this thread would have been locked and/or deleted after the first page or two. 

but then you would have missed the contributions of jmfcst, which didn't begin until page 5

[BigSkyBob]

You know, on any forum with competent moderators, this thread would have been locked and/or deleted after the first page or two. 

That would be the behavior of a forum like the dailykos.

[Phony Moderate]

You know, on any forum with competent moderators, this thread would have been locked and/or deleted after the first page or two. 

That would be the behavior of a forum like the dailykos.

Well, you ought to know.

[angus]

Thread title: "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?"

yes, it seems provocative to me as well.  we reap what we sow.  

[Wonkish1]

Yeah saying something in that way probably didn't do himself any favors. But you're acting like I agree with everything put in the article or even like the guy.

And you're acting like all liberals agree with everything done to this dude, whatever it was. Pointless prompts breed pointless discussions. I'd delete this crap thread if I were you, to be honest.

No I'm not! I don't know how I could make it more clear because I've said the opposite in multiple posts now.

Thread title: "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?"

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/12/gay-tv-star-claims-he-was-assaulted-bloodied-for-being-a-conservative-associated-with-ann-coulter/

"Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV, said in an interview that he was attacked outside a birthday party in Dallas after finding a vandal scratching “F–k Coulter” on the side of his car."


So if they are a gay republican then its open season on their a$$?

The purpose of the thread is pretty obvious.

LOL "open season on their a$$" was kind of funny and still is! A very minor attempt to add a little bit of humor to a not funny situation doesn't constitute me having sinister plans here to make liberals look bad. Instead you want to read into that to make me the subject of this thread because you don't like anything that make any liberals look bad.

The lengths people will go to, to make their party and their side of the aisle as clean as the wind driven snow is unbelievable.

Add ulterior motives to me, call the guy a liar, and in at least 1 instance say it was justified because he supports the KKK/NAZI's = GOP.

[Wonkish1]

The part that I just struck out I shouldn't have posted! Otherwise Lief's first response deserved every bit of that response!

It's not at all clear from that post that it's meant as a response to Lief, but you're right about that, at least: Lief made an offensive and idiotic comparison.

Well it was an address to Lief and you! I shouldn't have added the part about people who were not responding.

[The Mikado]

What's there to respond?  Acts of politically motivated violence should not be condoned.  Past that, what more is there to say?

[BigSkyBob]

Thread title: "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?"

yes, it seems provocative to me as well.  we reap what we sow.  

"Poor Conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain." [thread title]


Apparently, you have reaped what you sowed.

[Wonkish1]

What's there to respond?  Acts of politically motivated violence should not be condoned.  Past that, what more is there to say?

^^See that is the type of responses that I expected people to say. Surprising it took 7 pages though.

[angus]

Thread title: "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?"

yes, it seems provocative to me as well.  we reap what we sow.  

"Poor Conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain." [thread title]


Apparently, you have reaped what you sowed.

I must admit that your response has gone over my head.  If you have a point, please restate it.

[BigSkyBob]

The majority of posters in this thread are being quite juvenile. How can you decry the average American voter for not engaging in what you deem intelligent conversations about issues and events, if you cannot do it yourselves?

Simply put, the premise of this thread is too ridiculous and dishonest to encourage sincere and productive discourse.

A few minutes ago, I posted another response to Wonkish1 that was nothing more than blatant trolling. That was before I'd read through every post in the thread. The tone of the discussion is, as you say juvenile. I decided that more sarcasm would be out of line, and I deleted my post.

But Wonkish could not have expected anything more productive. Posting a thread that starts with the assumption that every left-leaning, liberal, or Democratic poster supports violence is either an extremely dishonest act of provocation or a consequence of total obliviousness. 

Someone posted something you didn't like, and you responded ad hominem by assigning him strawman motivations.

Yours is a denial position. You don't have to response to the substance of his post because the "real" issue is him.

[memphis]

well, my wife already has the keys to the internet at our house

Seriously? Who made the money for that house and that internet? Your life. Not my business, but I'd say you're being raped. Also, you never responded regarding the Jimmy Carter clause. Are you not supposed to lust/covet/whatever. And yes, nobody's perfect, but you seem to be rather unapologetic in your sinfulness. Which if I recall correctly, was your major beef with teh gayz.