Mommmmmmmieeeeee!!!  He's bad-mouthing meeeeee toooooooooo...!!!

So after about the twenty-fifth testimonial (grin) of how and why most liberals couldn't converse on a civil level with conservatives, here came this one liberal to throw his polite screaming fit.

His entire argument can be boiled down to "Yeah, but you do it tooooooooo!!!  Nyaaaaaah!!!"

So I invited him to provide a link as evidence.  He declined.

(UPDATE:  Sort of.  He provided six evidences of some conservatives calling liberals the "Extra-Chromosome Left".  None of any national prominence, and certainly after Algore had already called us the "Extra-Chromosome Right".  Make of that what you will.)

I then correctly pointed out that he, like every other liberal who claimed something without backing it up, would be condemned for it.

He didn't like this at all, nosirree...

It went like this. You mention an insult I haven't heard before. (ED. NOTE:  For the Uninitiated, Catsy here is referring to Algore calling us the "extra-chromosome Right".  Is there anyone else out there that's been under a rock that hasn't heard about when Algore called us this?)  I go "huh", and do a Google search for "extra chromosome left" in quotes. Try it yourself: the first link that pops up is the one I cited to you as a rebuttal of your assertion that "we never called you people the 'extra-chromosome Left'".

I did, and I wouldn't call that much of a rebuttal.  Looks like you've cited a couple of Amazon comment sites, plus one or two blogs.

Certainly  no one on the order of Algore, James "Captain Chromedome" Carville, Paul Begala, Lanny Davis or any of the rest of the Demoscum.  Or do you have a direct quote from someone like, say, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld...anyone with the slightest hint of national prominence?

Knock yerself out.  Oh, but don't strain yourself too  much - no need to stay up until 1:30 or anything like that.

You made an assertion. I cited proof that it was wrong.

Your "proof" is lame as Hell™.  Objection overruled.

It's not as if the question was even all that germane to the main point--that both lefties and righties are guilty of excessive rhetoric--so I don't see why you can't own up to it.

I "own up" to nothing because you have proven  nothing.  You've taken the John-boy F'n KetchupA$$ approach of making unsubstantiated claims - then, when called on it, haughtily refusing to offer evidence to back it up.  In fact, ol' Fuckface is currently railing on and on and on about the so-called "Republican Attack Machine" in his campaign stops.

So was it Terry McAwful who faxed you those talking points, or was it someone else?

Passing the "laugh test" basically means that something is so incredible, so demonstrably false that all a person can do is laugh.

I'm well aware of what it means, thank you.  And the fact remains - what I said wasn't meant to pass any laugh test of which I'm personally aware.

Let me ask you something, and this is an honest question, because apparently the point wasn't communicated clearly: what were you trying to say with the above? What point were you trying to make with these examples?

Do I have to spell out everything  for you people?  Okay, here you go:  We can't have a civil discussion with most of you because we're constantly bombarded with accusations of being Nazis, racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, and worse.

Now I give you credit for at least attempting to not steer the conversation that way.  But I'm not impressed with your attempt to disprove what I'm saying by claiming that "well, you do it too!!!" and citing the most obscure of backpages on the Web as evidence.  Pretty disingenuous, IYAM.

The thread began with about twenty-five posts of people basically arguing that liberals were largely incapable of civil disagreement, and offering up X, Y and Z as proof.

At least they  offered proof.  You,  on the other hand, whined that you didn't want to do that at, and I quote, "one-thirty in the morning".

I pointed out that, hey, you're right and that sucks--but it's not just liberals. Conservatives are guilty of it too; rudeness, stubbornness and a fanatic blindness to the facts are bipartisan traits.

Y'know what?  We try to discuss the issues; you try to discuss us.  George W. Bush tries to talk about the War on Terror; you people talk about George W. Bush.  ("Bush Lied!!!  People Died!!!)  We ask for proof that Bush lied; you respond with more "BushLiedPeopleDiedNoBloodForOilHalliburtonHalliburtonHalliburton!!!" and claim that the Madrid bombings are somehow Bush's fault.

What you wrote above was a response to that. So I took what you said at face value: it sounded like you were arguing that no, conservatives are not guilty of anything /near/ the kind of nasty rhetoric liberals have used.

And I'm sorry, but that's simply false. Demonstrably, provably false.

And you were given a chance to "demonstrably, provably" it.  And you declined.

I have news for you, Catsy:  Around here, we don't take liberals' words at face value.  If you tell us the sky's blue, then we go outside to double-check.

IOW, we don't take your word for things, ever.   We've heard too much of Das Klintonreich  - Slick Willie, Hitlary, Algore, Georgie-Porgie Snuffleupagus, Carville, Begala, Lanny Davis, Dee Dee Myers, the whole lot of them - lying to us over and over and over again  to do otherwise any further.

That may stick in your craw, and I don't give a shit.  You people in the Demoscummic Party brought this on yourselves, and now you're going to have to live with it.

It's not true for the specific examples you cited, and it's not true in the general either. It is an undeniable fact that conservatives have been guilty of rhetoric easily as nasty as anything liberals have served up.

Because the great and noble Catsy  says so?  See above, mmmmkay?

If you are able to step outside of your assumptions and ideological loyalty long enough to think about it honestly, you cannot deny that.

You're the one that made the claim, pal.  I asked you for the proof, and you failed to provide it.  That's your  problem, not mine.

You're making me even happier that I don't watch TV. That's pretty offensive and tasteless.

(Ed. Note:  He's referring to my cite of the Missouri Demoscum Party's 2000 radio ad that stated, "Every time you don't vote, you allow another [black] church to be burned to the ground.")

Now wait a minute.  If you don't watch TV, where do you get your information that conservatives are supposedly as bad as Demoscum with the ad-hominems?  Who's your source - Terry McAwful?

The argument then becomes about proving or disproving individual examples while ignoring the central point. We're already there. I'm taking a step back.

You might want to take a few more.  You've provided six examples - and extremely obscure ones, at that - of conservatives bad-mouthing liberals.  I haven't even begun  to cite people like Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Babs Streisand, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, MoveOn.org...shall I go on?

Lookit.  We're perfectly capable of having civil, respectful discussions with liberals.  Over issues  - and not the same ones over and over again.  We've already disproven "BushLiedPeopleDied".  Those 16 words in the State of the Union address?  Those were never false - the British still believe to this day that Saddam was trying to procure "yellowcake".  What Bush said wasn't a lie.

We don't give a shit about what you think of his landing on the aircraft carrier.  He's the Commander-in-Chief; it's his freakin' right.   And if he wants to air ads with images of firefighters responding during 9/11...that's his right, too.

In other words, you bastards need to start talking about the issues and quit making Bush the issue.

And if you do it in a civil manner, and quit calling us racistssexistsbigotshomophobes, etc, etc. - you might get some civility back.

Give it a try.  If you think you can, that is.

Oh, this  is cool...

This is courtesy of my beloved fiancé.  Not sure where she got it, but it's cool nonetheless...