Amazon Vehicles GoldBox Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Britney Spears Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Florida Georgia Line Water Sports STEM

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 40 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 7, 2012 8:27:08 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:48:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 1:54:55 PM PST
Pyrexia says:
Ironic - Writing a review merely concerning the title of a book you haven't read which you assume to be about whining, then wasting space whining about the whining you assume to be in said book.

If you'd even read the editorial review, you'd note that Mr. Goldburg points out that Mr. Gutfield is a self-described libertarian. The rest of your rant is filled with the same liberal talking points we've all heard before ad nauseum. You attempt to make a point, then cannot even perform a quick search to figure out what you're talking about. Additionally, you may want to check out this "right-wing wingnut-welfare outfit" that makes these kinds of books best-sellers. ( Hint: It's called the United States of America.

So much outrage, so little time.

Enjoy that bubble of epistemic closure in which you're apparently permanently encased. Drone.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:31:27 AM PST
Dear Mumbling Blatherer:

YOU don't read, do you. And you neither question nor possess the curiosity to do so. You do not inquire nor research and never will... YOU are a Pavlovian logical fallacy spouting left liberal mob mind. There are lazy glib identical millions of you. No, really. Colonel Neville.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 11:09:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 1:41:49 PM PST
Zmortis says:
In terms of tolerance I heard the truth of it spoken in brief on Twitter by a typical liberal leaning poser. Their quote was, "I don't tolerate the intolerant." My response was the use of simple logic, "It must be hard always living your life without tolerating yourself." The use of the "shield" of tolerance is very simple to disable. Don't let them apply their own hypocracy without challenge. Either they are tolerant, or they are not tolerant. They can not hide behind tolerance as a stance while behaving in an intolerant manner of any opposing viewpoint. Either they are willing to tolerate everyone for who they are, or they are simply another intolerant person with no grounds for a claim of the moral high ground.

The problem has always been the false positive virtue applied to being of a "tolerant" nature. The appeasers of World War II were tolerant of the abuses of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, and they soon fell victim to their own tolerance. Tolerance is synonymous with victim in political discourse. Don't be tolerant of liberal hypocracy. Challenge it for what it is, hatred cloaked in a blanket of virtue.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 11:46:03 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 3:24:49 PM PST
Yes, conservatives are such whiners! That's why you can't even remember the details of the only two examples of conservative whining you cited (i.e. vaguely alluded to).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 2:28:56 PM PST
Zmortis says:
All-Access Customer I beg to differ and correct your statement. The fact is that people are whiners. Political preferences have very little to do with a person's tendency to whine or not whine. When you only assign negative virtues to a single group, then you are demonstrating bias and prejudice. Now you may be fine with your prejudice, or you may be ignorant of your prejudice, but that doesn't mean you don't have a prejudice. If you consider prejudice to be a bad thing, then you may want to work on that trait. If you don't consider prejudice to be a bad thing, then you likely shouldn't worry about other people when they whine.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 2:34:11 PM PST
I have not "only assign[ed] negative virtues to a single group" but I did sarcastically respond to someone who DID.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 2:39:19 PM PST
K. McNamara says:
Amazing how all of the dopey polemics from the right-wing always clock in at 256 pages. Everytime.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 6:47:05 AM PST
Zmortis says:
So you are correcting your statement of "Conservatives are such whiners" then? I am glad you decided to stand corrected.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 10:22:45 AM PST
I really cannot abide people who do not understand sarcasm. It's like the people who hate Ann Coulter; they have absolutely no concept of the most basic of rhetorical devices like metaphors or irony or polemics in general. Yours is the kind of obtuseness I would expect from an intellectually dishonest (one only hopes) liberal--the kind who exhibits total derangement concerning all things right-wing.

But I especially loathe those who take things out of context and therefore misinterpret what is being said. What exactly do you think I meant by my second sentence? Who exactly do you think I was responding to in my initial post?

The POINT was that if whining were such a pervading occurrence among conservatives as the author of this thread suggests, one assumes he would be able to cite more recent examples than from "a year or two or three ago" and with more specificity than "or somebody," "for some company," "on some deal," "or some other Democrat."

Seriously, Obama has been re-elected; the time is now to buck up and stay alert. THINK!

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 4:35:39 PM PST
Zmortis says:
All-Access Customer,

The problem with sarcasm in writing is that it doesn't translate well. When I used it, you detected obtuseness. Why is that? Because the written word tends to be taken at face value without visual and vocal cues, or a lot of explanation as to the intent of the delivery. I have to say that deliberate obtuseness is a way of conveying sarcasm in writing. Deliberately pretending to miss the point being made can create that sensation of not taking the discussion seriously.

So if you just want to make jokes at someone's expense, then using unexplained and unclear sarcasm is certainly one way to attempt it. If you actually want to conduct a serious dialog, then more thought, and more effort to convey your real meaning, and less sarcasm is required. You set the pace with using sarcasm instead of clear rational dialog, and I responded in kind to demonstrate how it doesn't convey well.

In terms of my political position I would classify myself as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. In other words one of the people which isn't represented by any current political party in the US. I don't think that bitter attacks on political positions solve any problems facing our country, but they do serve to provide entertainment and distraction for the masses while the elected officials abuse their power behind the scenes. I also think the whole two political party system is a corruption of the intent of the framers of the US Constitution. Both the current Republican Party and Democratic Party are more interested in consolidating and expanding their national power base than they are with faithfully serving the people who elected them to run the necessary business of the country.

I also think that people on the conservative side are fracturing from the Republican Party more and more as their values slide further and further toward the "center" of the scale on fiscal matters. Both Republicans and Democrats have voted for less individual freedom and greater federal government control over the last one hundred years of the country's history. Why is it that I should "Worry about Barak Obama" when the Republicans have been just as complicit in the direction he is taking this country? If you bothered to watch the third Presidential debate in October this year, then you would have noticed that Mitt Romney's answer across almost every question was the equivalent of saying, "Ditto, me too" on everything Barak Obama had done regarding foreign policy. There was scarcely a paper width's distance between their two positions, yet the Republicans presented Mitt Romney as being a drastically different position to their base during the Republican convention.

The problem has long been that the Republican's as a party have abandoned conservative fiscal policy in favor of stronger federal control. In this sense the Libertarian Party, and people like Ron Paul in particular have been speaking of the dangers of ever growing federal government. Yet the people of this country have slowly traded away their autonomy for a sense of security and cradle to grave government influence in every aspect of their personal life.

So is it really a bad thing for someone of conservative fiscal principals that Barak Obama was elected for a second term? Yes, of course it was. Yet my contention is that there was no real thought that Mitt Romney would actually take the harsh austerity like measures needed to correct this country's looming fiscal disaster. Too many people both Republican and Democrat voter alike depend on the Federal Government to Lead them, direct them, and to control them. The people no longer own the government at this point in our history. The government now runs the lives of the people. People get the opportunity to root for their "Blue" or "Red" team in the "Big Game" every four years, while the politicians line their pockets with money from the special interest groups which pull their purse strings. Team "Red" lost this year. Not a big deal in my book. It is just bread and circuses for the masses while Rome starts to burn under the fiddling Nero.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 7:51:16 PM PST
Who here believes he was only *playing* dumb?

Zmortis, I have been debating in online discussions quite consistently for a long time now, and so I know how to read people in much the same way poker players read each other's facial expressions; furthermore, I pay extraordinarily close attention to linguistics and, therefore, because there is absolutely no indication that you were being sarcastic, I know full well that you are lying in order to save face and your ranting, off topic lecture is nothing but vast overcompensating.

Sarcasm, satire, irony, etc. have existed quite comfortably in written form for as long as there has been literature; deciphering them only requires a little reading comprehension and attention to context clues. If that were not possible the likes of Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and even the aforementioned Ann Coulter would not be nearly as renowned; and though I would not compare myself to them, I am fairly certain my sarcasm is quite obvious to the four people (as of this writing) who consider my initial post helpful.

As for the remainder of your garrulous, extraneous retort, you said nothing that I do not already know; but I acknowledge that Mitt Romney, once he received the nomination, was the only one with a realistic chance of defeating Obama in this election; and since there were no angels running with any hope of winning, given the choice between a heathen or the devil, I would have preferred the heathen had won for the purpose of, at the very least, buying this country more time.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 6:27:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 6:30:36 AM PST
Zmortis says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 10:30:39 AM PST
Spare me your argumentum ad verecundiam fallacies; I'm not impressed. I know as well as anyone that deliberate obtuseness is a form of sarcasm; my suggestion is that you have not employed such sarcasm. On the one hand you tell me that my sarcasm is unclear; but apparently it is clear enough for you to, on the other hand, respond "in kind to demonstrate how it doesn't convey well." That's right, when you read my initial post you said to yourself, "This person is using sarcasm which is probably totally unclear to the masses lacking my credentials. I'm going to demonstrate why such rhetorical amateurs should just keep it literal by pretending I did not get the point." Yeah, I totally believe that! (That was me being sarcastic again, for the record.)

You are a terrible liar and if you had any integrity you would admit that you misunderstood me instead of blaming your own incompetence on me. If you did not pick up on my VERY commonly structured sarcasm, that is YOUR problem.

And please don't lecture me on "serious dialogue" while we are in a discussion related to a book by Greg Gutfeld of all people!

P.S. By "garrulous, extraneous" I mean "rambling non sequitur" which is an indication of BAD writing; so no, I don't enjoy your "style."

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 2:47:57 PM PST
Zmortis says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 2:54:57 PM PST
Zmortis says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 6:59:51 PM PST
"I'm willing to bet that being 'right' is more important to you than seeking an amicable settlement here."

Seriously? You just admitted that in your first response to me you thought I was literally negatively whitewashing all conservatives; when I *politely* corrected your false assertion, instead of saying, "Oh, I'm sorry; I misunderstood you," you said, "So you are correcting your statement of 'Conservatives are such whiners' then? I am glad you decided to stand corrected." Corrected? By whom; you? That implies that I reversed my position; I did not. That is not sarcasm; it is just untrue. If it were meant to be sarcasm, what, pray, should have tipped me off? Let's be honest though--that was not meant to be sarcasm. At that time you still did not know who I was initially responding to and did not realize who I was referring to in my second post; it is clear you thought I was just a "typical liberal leaning poser" who you were trying to condescend to. My sarcasm was not evident to you until I harshly spelled it out.

If the clarity of my initial sarcasm is still in question, again I ask, who do you think it was directed toward? Did you not click on the "in reply to an earlier post" option at the upper right corner? Secondly, even if there were some other way to interpret the "That's why you can't even remember..." part than I intended, surely my next post clarified my meaning beyond dispute thus rendering your next reply wholly unwarranted regardless of your intentions.

If after my third post you had simply deleted your posts relating to our correspondence I would have gladly done likewise and thus sparring everyone of this petty, longwinded debate (which, by the way, is a terrible representation of our mutual ideological leanings). Instead, you felt it necessary to drag this out by concocting this pitiful lie so that you might say, "See, YOU messed up too!"

But please, by all means continue claiming that you were being "deliberately obtuse" in order to "demonstrate how it doesn't convey well," and rest assured in the knowledge that it does not sound REMOTELY like backpedaling.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 3:51:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 4:05:05 AM PST
Zmortis says:
You win. I'm not voting for a republican again. Republican's can not understand why conservatives are fleeing their ranks. This is a pretty good example. They have to be "right" about picking a "winner" as more important to them than seeking common cause with people of a similar view. They will bicker, fight, call people names, and impugn their character if someone does not step in line with their choice. Even when someone says, look our values are pretty much the same, but your choice doesn't reflect those values, they will double down on it being more important to win, than it is to uphold their values.

So you win. Yet you also lose. You've driven even more people away from your side because you do not play nice with others. Well hey, you really didn't want a liar, a cheat, or a literary idiot who can't even understand the brilliance of your writing on your side anyway. So I guess I am wrong. Republicans do stand up for their values, it is just that they are not actually the conservative values they declare in public. Their values are simple - "winning is what matters" more than any kind of inclusivity or conservative values.

I am also curious as to where you got your degree in mind reading.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 2:26:57 PM PST
You really are a self-aggrandizing, elitist jerk! I'm sorry I snapped at you in my third post, but I really am tired of people making conservatives look dumb and I truly believe there was absolutely no excuse for not being able to pick up on my sarcasm; and instead of proving me wrong by picking apart the case I have articulated--or even remotely acknowledging it--you consistently trail off on these patronizing, projecting lectures which only prove you to be hypocritically presumptive and whitewashing--the very kind of whitewashing that started this whole conversation. Despite your grandstanding, you are far from a saint here. THIS is what is impeding the advancement of conservatism--few are capable of articulating its values or effectively ANSWERING CRITICISM!

I will ask once again, am I wrong in thinking that my second post indisputably clarifies my initial sarcasm? If not, and you really were being deliberately obtuse, why could you not just trust that everyone else is smart enough to understand it as well? And here is something that just occurred to me: you mock ME for not picking up on YOUR sarcasm WHILE you are telling me that you "responded in kind to demonstrate how it doesn't convey well." In other words, you were TRYING to be unclear; you were TRYING to hide any indication of sarcasm. You know, it is common knowledge that people who are lying frequently contradict themselves.

I'm not a mind reader; I just know how to read. More than you realize, it is what you have written (or not written) that has betrayed you.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 6:56:04 PM PST
Zmortis says:
You are also a sore winner. I said you won already. What more do you want?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 3:13:43 PM PST
Andrew, don't forget; be sure and tell them it was just a bloody game.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 4:07:54 PM PST
Zmortis says:
Bob, you can come out now. The parents are finally done fighting.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 3:27:50 PM PST
Jack Goodman says:
Hilarious that anyone would mention Juan Williams to be anything but the hack he always is for the president.

Fox News should be ashamed to try to brand him as an "analyst" - he is a commentator at best. Hopefully, like NPR - Fox fires the low IQ hack Williams as soon as possible!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 11:24:51 PM PST
Bookgirl says:
Jack, I was pleased when Fox first hired Juan Williams after being canned by NPR; but I had no idea he's just like the people Greg Gutfield talks about in his book. I didn't know much about him. He appears to be getting more hysterical as time passes. He needs to move along;)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  11
Total posts:  40
Initial post:  Nov 7, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 14, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about