And He's a SMART Leftist?
Boy, you sure love that blog title, don't you? "And they're supposed to be smart?" "And he's supposed to be smart?" You're running out of titles.
You guys are tards. It keep being repeatedly proven. No wonder you guys hate science so much.
My Leftist counterpart tried to rip me a new one, and I know he'll be reading this since he needs me for his own blog since he's incapable of original thought.
This blog is geared toward responding to your bullshit. Hey, at least I credit you by linking back, nor do I claim your comments as my own. You have no excuse.
But, as he often does, he misses the point completely.
We'll see.
Here is the blog post in question with comments from yours truly.
Without a link. hehe
As a reminder, this is Lindman's post. I'm focusing on his responses only in this post for purposes of quote clarity. See the link above for previous parts.
No. As we'll see, the Leftist blogger has little connection to reality.
We'll see.
That's the point. No judge can preside over this case, but Leftists forced the issue and managed to get a practicing gay man to preside over it. This raises the issue I referenced, and the Leftist blogger completely ignored because it he would have to concede the fact that I was right.
And what about Brown v. Board of Education?
Ooooh, sor-ray. As we've seen repeatedly (ex. Joe Lieberman, the small number of blacks allowed to head up the DNC in lieu of letting rich white men head it up, the Left's support of Margaret Sanger), the Left does discriminate much more frequently than the Right.
Joe Lieberman? So having a Jew like Lieberman as a vice presidential candidate is discrimination? Or do you mean we discriminated against a Jew because we liberals turned our backs on Lieberman for being a DINO? Or are you actually making the laughable claim that Lieberman is a "Leftist"? If you're going to use a DINO as a "Leftist", why not go all the way and use Zell Miller?
As far as blacks in the DNC: How many blacks are in the GOP? Are you saying the DNC is denying blacks because they are black? What are you basing this on? I could've sworn we've had a black surgeon general...
Margaret Sanger?! Margaret Sanger wasn't a racist! Oh, please don't tell me you're one of those freepers that copies those quotes from anti-abortion websites... like the one where she was against false rumors of black extermination, as if that somehow meant she was for black extermination. Or are you going to trot out the eugenics bullshit? Or her speaking at a Klan rally (her own comments about that rally speaks volumes of her feelings on the subject of the KKK)? If you're going to bullshit about Sanger, at least be more specific in the bullshit. Ah, "Pro-Lifers"... lying for Christ again. MLK supported Sanger and that holds more water than freepers with an agenda. Unless you think MLK was some dumb negro that got duped all that time.
But hey, I'll give you credit for not flipping me the "Byrd".
Actually, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does by laying out the prohibitions of government to intrude on citizens' rights. And last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution.
Exactly. The Constitution states what the government CANNOT do. It can't go into an exhaustive explicit list of details of what we citizens CAN do. The 9th Amendment clarifies that very point. The 9th Amendment states that the government can only restrict rights where it is given permission in the Constitution to do so, and to protect the rights of the majority of the people, all other rights are retained by the people and can not be infringed by the government. The right to marriage falls in those boundaries.
As I said before: What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population (heterosexuals) are entitled to special rights (in this case, marriage) for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.
Marriage is a civil right and a fundamental right, there's legal precedence. And thus the 9th Amendment is in play. And laws prohibiting gays from marrying is a violation of the 14th Amendment unless there is a rational basis for the prohibition. There's no rational basis, thus Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Under your logic, a straight man has the right to sue a lesbian if she denies his "right" to marry her. Under my logic, the case wouldn't even get to trial because no judge has standing to deliver a just verdict.
You call that logic? In order for your mangled theory to work, you would have to define marriage as non-consensual. Granted, that may be the only way you could get married. Maybe wayyy back in the day you could've made a case for that. Conservatives love old traditions, after all, including forced marriages.
By your idiotic logic: I guess the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to sue you for not giving me your guns for free. I have the right to bear arms, after all.
Marriage is a fundamental right in The United States, and there's plenty of legal precedent for it. Such as Zablocki v. Redhail and of course Loving vs Virginia.
How about the fact that the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law? Inventing a right out of whole cloth so that gays can "marry" violates the 14th Amendment at its face, as it does not provide equal protection under the law since it elevates one portion of the population above another.
This isn't "inventing" a right. The right to marry is already a fundamental right. Prop 8 was trying to violate the 14th Amendment by stating a certain portion of the population (gays) cannot marry. Shooting down a law that violates the 14th Amendment is not "inventing" a right any moreso than Loving vs. Virginia was "inventing" a right.
And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the authority to rule on this matter since the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to rule on this matter and the states haven't given up their authority to the federal government.
Oh, wait. I just did. Sorry.
When it comes to civil rights, the feds can override the states. Just as they did back in the 1960's when Conservatives tried to pull the "states rights" issue when it came to (un)equal rights for blacks.
:-)
Hey! The Lindaman passive-aggressive smiley (tm) has appeared! Usually you reserve that for chatrooms when you're getting your ass kicked.
Awww...two personal attacks in lieu of an intelligent comment on the issues I raised? I'm flattered!
"That's not a denial."
Of course, this lame attempt at slandering Limbaugh would make more sense if I had said Limbaugh was the judge in this hypothetical example. After all the times the Leftist has blasted me for "mistakes" from a "lack of reading comprehension," one would think that he wouldn't have made such a glaring error. But why let intellectual consistency get in the way of spreading another Leftist lie?
Actually "to the Right of Rush Limbaugh" just makes it funnier.
Limbaugh wasn't in the Dominican Republic with Viagra for a book tour, that's for sure. The place is only worth visiting for cabana boys, not cabana girls.There's no other reason to go there. According to you, a person has to walk the walk before they're innocent. Rush doesn't walk the walk, so he deserves to be accused of blowing little boys.
So, by raising a legitimate question about whether a practicing gay judge can deliver impartial justice to all parties involved and by questioning whether anyone has a right to marry, the Leftist calls me homophobic. That's illogical, even for the Left. Under the Leftist definition of homophobia, wouldn't I have to exhibit a clear hatred for gays? And, no, questioning a "right" of anyone to marry doesn't constitute homophobia, as it covers both straight and gay people. Try again.
You're not "raising a question". You're explicitly stating he's an "activist judge" for no other reason except that he's gay, and struck down a law that you agreed with. While ignoring the facts that the judge is a Libertarian, that he was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush, that Pelosi led the defeat to his first nomination, and that his original nomination was by Ronald Reagan.
Oooh, sor-ray. See, civil rights cases involve more than just blacks, so a black judge can rule on a civil rights case if the particulars of the case are such that the judge can avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Which is the point I've been making all along.
Ah, I see. Well, since you're being deliberately obtuse: Can a black judge rule on a civil rights case where a black man was discriminated against? I guess a lot of cases have to be reversed in LindamanLand.
What most interesting here, is that these arguments from Conservatives sound a lot like the arguments they made in Loving v Virginia in 1967.
Actually, it wasn't. The Leftist's own masthead states he is "Exposing Right Wing Lies and Lunacy." Yet, the vast majority of his posts deal with...me. Unless I'm the only "right winger" who lies and is a lunatic, then one could conclude that one of his statements (his masthead or the portion quoted above) is a lie.
Are you not a right-winger? So because I cut you a break and didn't say "Exposing Right Wing Lies And Lunacy... ESPECIALLY THOMAS LINDAMAN!!", this somehow makes it a lie? Even when I make posts that have nothing to do with your views? Just a few posts back you made a post urging Conservatives not to make a big deal about Obama being on "The View". My response post was to right-wingers that WERE making it a big deal. Remember that? Or are you having memory problems again?
And given that he's purposely misstating the purpose of my "Leftist Coward Watch" (which was to point out how it was hypocritical of him to post comments but not allow others to post), it's clear who the liar really is.
"Misstating your purpose"? The blog wouldn't have been created in the first place if you hadn't backed down from a face-to-face! I saw it happen. You made a personal attack on someone who was asking a legitimate question about the Bush administration, and did not personally attack you. I wasn't on the receiving end of the attack, but I was there and saw it. You were called out to a face-to-face, and you backed down (but it sure wiped that chatroom smiley off your face since tons of people saw it). Since you weren't willing to fight him or apologize, this is the result. And you don't like it... good. And even so, you still get full credit and linkbacks to your responses.
Funny, but I didn't lie about that.
You absolutely lied about it, you lying liar. And I can prove it. Read on and see.
Besides, why make it a condition that I accept your discredited premise to allow for me to comment? Shouldn't you want an intellectual exchange if your ideas are superior?
Here's the proof that it's not a "discredited premise":
I'm going to go through this VERY clearly. One step at a time. There's no wiggle room for you here.
For those just tuning in, Lindaman stated in THIS post by him, in response to my truthful statement that Lindaman couldn't come up with a single climatologist to back up any of his anti-AGW assertions, Lindman states:
And no matter how many times you repeat "97% of scientists say man is causing global warming" (with no links to back up the claim, something you've whined about me never doing and that you've used to "prove" that I'm not telling the truth), it doesn't make it so.
This is a lie. Because I did link to the source.
This was the source.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
I linked to that source right from the very beginning. This was the post where I provided the link.
http://realbottomline.blogspot.com/2009/12/manmade-climate-change-no-lies-to.html
The source link is toward the bottom.
So that's Lindaman Lie #1.
In that same blog post, Lindman stated this:
By the way, Mr. Leftist Blogger, are you aware that a chunk of your "97% of scientists" aren't climatologists, either? I guess when you're so desperate to "prove" a myth, you'll cling to anybody with an impressive sounding title to give your lame argument intellectual heft. Of course, I'm sure you could show us all the hard-hitting climate research done by pediatricians and veterinarians, two groups of "scientists" who have signed onto AGW.
But that very source, which I did link to, explicitly states that it's climatologists. Not "pediatricians and veterinarians" or other generic scientists. Climatologists.
So that's Lindaman Lie #2.
So in response to these two lies, I pointed out Lindaman's two lies to him in THIS post.
http://realbottomline.blogspot.com/2009/12/nope-wasn-debunked.html
When faced with two proven lies, what does Lindaman do in his very next post in response?
Lindaman did what he always does. He repeats the same lies again. And again, I can easily prove it.
This is Lindaman's very next post in response to my post to him:
http://thebottomlineblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/inconvenient-truthfor-agw-side.html
In it, Lindaman states this:
And while we're here, Mr. Leftist Blogger, I notice you haven't taken up for the "scientists" (read: pediatricians and veterinarians) who have signed onto AGW as being man-made. I'm sure you can provide us a link to a study done by, say, a pediatrician that has been peer reviewed and shows all the scientific heft your side claims to have on this subject.
You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to man up.
See? Lindaman deliberately says the same lie, again. Even though he is directly responding to a post where I proved that it was never just "scientists", but climatologists.
And as you can see, in that same post, Lindaman has the audacity to tell others to "man up", when he always clams up when his lying is explicitly pointed out. He just pretends it didn't happen.
When offered open commentary when he explains why he lied over and over again on this particular subject, he just denies it, again.
And to this very day, he still won't admit that he was lying, and won't admit that he repeated the same lies when proven wrong.
And that, Lindaman, is why you don't deserve open commentary. And also why you don't deserve to be a famous pundit.
I bet when this blog first popped up, you thought I would just be one of those "Bush is teh antichrist!" trollers, didn't you? Wasn't the case, was it? I do my research better than you. And I have a much better memory than you do. Not to mention that I have reality on my side when you're forced to blow it off due to having to align with the radical right-wingers.
Of course, the Leftist missed the point Karl made. Karl actually agreed with me. Unless he wanted me to post "dittos," there really isn't a need to respond.
Unless, of course, the Leftist is trying to set up a straw man argument in lieu of an actual argument...
Except for the fact that Karl agreed with me. Why would I insult someone who agreed with me?
Ducking a comment I agreed with? That makes no sense, even for a Leftist. :-)
Nice try, Lindaman. You said neither a homosexual or a heterosexual can preside over a case like this. Karl is stating that isn't practical. Now you're somehow conflating this as agreeing with you? Karl's not stating such cases can't be argued! He's not agreeing with you. And you know that, too. Because you had to throw out a Lindaman smiley (tm) which you always do when backed into a corner.
Now that I've spent far too much time pointing out the Leftist blogger's intellectual failures,
You'll lose every time, Lindaman.
I think we can all see he doesn't allow comments. He's afraid that a commenter will take him to task for his dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Want that open comment box? You know what you have to do. Still waiting, Lindaman.
Or will you just pretend this post didn't happen either?
Coming up next: Why animal cruelty cases can never be made, because a horse isn't the judge!
UPDATE: Lindaman, as expected, clammed up and didn't respond. Again.