Tea Party Leader Mocks NAACP "Coloreds" In Online Screed

[D.Turtle]

You have to love how Tom simply ignores any and all evidence posted.

But one thing Tom: Considering how dangerous you find comparisons between Republicans and the Nazis (btw, who did that?) - does this mean you also condemn comparisons between Democrats and the Nazis, for example in the following sign?

[Lagmonster]

Tom, if you're here to be a part of the discussion, please consult Link and start obeying them, particularly the bit about 'not using someone being rude as a reason to ignore their arguments, and providing evidence for your claims.

I don't think rudeness is a part of civil discourse. Some people think that because they are on the internet, they can be as rude as they damn well please, point of fact if that same person were to be as rude in person, fights would ensue.

Regardless of what you think should be the standards for discussion, here the rule of evidence is so important that we overlook social considerations in pursuit of it. This is the purest essence of the debate - solve the argument, ignore its window-dressing. If you abide by it, you may actually become a sharper debater, because you will learn to zero in on arguments and counter with evidence, rather than be derailed by red herrings and distractions put up by less generous opponents.

Thus, you are not welcome to 1) ignore requests for evidence, or 2) ignore arguments because the source of that argument is rude. I cannot phrase it any more simply than that; these are the house rules, and everyone here has agreed to abide by them.

[SirNitram]

Tom, if you're here to be a part of the discussion, please consult Link and start obeying them, particularly the bit about 'not using someone being rude as a reason to ignore their arguments, and providing evidence for your claims.

If not, I assume you're a troll, and I have no doubt the public shaming will begin, as it does for ALL trolls.

I don't think rudeness is a part of civil discourse. Some people think that because they are on the internet, they can be as rude as they damn well please, point of fact if that same person were to be as rude in person, fights would ensue.

A person's rudeness indicates that such a person has already formed his opinion, and that it would be a waste of time trying to prove anything to him as he is not going to listen. It is possible to have well reasoned arguments without resorting to words like "fucktard" and "shithead", that is actually trolling, because the person who uses such words is trying to solicit an emotional response! It is kind of distracting when people start throwing out words like that, because it doesn't contribute to the argument, and it also reveals what sort of person they are, they are boorish, rude, and immature, if they want to be taken seriously, if I'm going to spend any time trying to prove anything to them, they should stop the name calling, and stop making everything personal. You can argue with my ideas, but if you descend into name calling you are degrading only yourself.

So. You have come onto someone else's property, and having ignored the basic rules told when you came in, you are going to ignore it all. You must be a wonderful houseguest. Tell me, do you shit on furniture too, or are you at least housetrained?

[Einzige]

Anything to avoid addressing my points, eh?

He is rude, and that colors my judgement of him right off the bat. Maybe I would be more polite to him if he would be more polite to me. Its possible to disagree about politics while remaining civil about it, but that doesn't seem to have occured to him

Which has fucking what to do with the fact that Reagan raised taxes and added to the Federal deficit? You may whine and you may cry like the politically correct twat you are; at the end of the day you haven't made the slightest effort to even attempt to refute me on any of my arguments, which betrays the fundamental weaknesses of your position. Put up or shut the fuck up.

[Thanas]

*snip*

I love how you ignore the Joint Chiefs of Staff directive just because you do not like it for it destroys the American=liberators image.

If we wanted, we could have destroyed Germany, we tried to rebuild the place instead, we kept 80% of the Germans free while the other 20% fell under the thumb of the Russians. We allowed democracy and free elections in Germany,

Yeah, I really doubt the USA did those things out of the goodness of its heart. It needed Germany, so it had to keep the people loyal. If it had not been for Anthony Eden (British), there is a good chance there would not be a Germany today due to the USA wanting to split it up and to disassemble it. But let us look to the USA more closely, shall we:

On 10 May 1945 President Truman approved JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff policy) 1067 which directed the U.S. forces of occupation in Germany to "...take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [nor steps] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy". [...]The net effect was that Germany wasn't allowed to realistically produce goods for export in order to purchase food; millions of Germans were supplied only meager starvation rations, with 1947 being the worst year. It took 2 years (1945 to 1947) of death and disease, and fears that starving Germans might "go Communist" before U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes made his Stuttgart speech.

So...you where saying?

We could have been alot worse and more vengeful, we could have done the same to the Russians.

The USA royally screwed over the USSR when it had the chance in the 90s.