So, Rush is not the only bad guy.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: Do you really think that Stewart was using the manger scene to depict "a deep and emotional extreme dislike" of Christianity? Is that what the alleged hate speech was? I don't see it as an attack on Christianity, nor do I see it as hate speech directed at any group.

It doesn't matter what I think... does it? I was directing my comment to you... I already spent three long paragraphs filled with facts about the manager scene, Catholic (and Christian) sensibilities and vaginas (I never thought I would use those 3 thoughts in the same sentence). Now... you never answered my question. I gave you a detailed explanation of why the Catholic League would consider this hate speech. I asked you "What was not hateful about Stewart's rhetoric?" I expect in the least NOT YOUR OPINION but some facts, just like I presented you three paragraphs of reasons why this comment by Stewart is hateful.

And there really was a second question hiding in plain sight in my comment, the hypothetical question I proposed about Stewart making a joke about Mohammed, woman, the Koran and vaginas. Would you see THAT as hateful speech?

Let's see if you can actually give me an answer that addresses the facts, not your feelings.

Where is it required that a person answers any question thrown at them? Is it in the terms of service?

You really didn't explain how it is hate speech. You gave a dictionary definition of speech and hate, but failed to show why it is hate, other than your declaration, so I asked for clarification. When you answer that, then I'll answer yours.

Kate wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: Do you really think that Stewart was using the manger scene to depict "a deep and emotional extreme dislike" of Christianity? Is that what the alleged hate speech was? I don't see it as an attack on Christianity, nor do I see it as hate speech directed at any group.

It doesn't matter what I think... does it? I was directing my comment to you... I already spent three long paragraphs filled with facts about the manager scene, Catholic (and Christian) sensibilities and vaginas (I never thought I would use those 3 thoughts in the same sentence). Now... you never answered my question. I gave you a detailed explanation of why the Catholic League would consider this hate speech. I asked you "What was not hateful about Stewart's rhetoric?" I expect in the least NOT YOUR OPINION but some facts, just like I presented you three paragraphs of reasons why this comment by Stewart is hateful.

And there really was a second question hiding in plain sight in my comment, the hypothetical question I proposed about Stewart making a joke about Mohammed, woman, the Koran and vaginas. Would you see THAT as hateful speech?

Let's see if you can actually give me an answer that addresses the facts, not your feelings.

Where is it required that a person answers any question thrown at them? Is it in the terms of service?

You really didn't explain how it is hate speech. You gave a dictionary definition of speech and hate, but failed to show why it is hate, other than your declaration, so I asked for clarification. When you answer that, then I'll answer yours.

You don't know why it's hateful. You don't know why it's hate speech. That's sad, because you will probably go through life being unthoughtful and hurtful and you'll never know it. I'm sorry that you can't answer the question.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: Do you really think that Stewart was using the manger scene to depict "a deep and emotional extreme dislike" of Christianity? Is that what the alleged hate speech was? I don't see it as an attack on Christianity, nor do I see it as hate speech directed at any group.

It doesn't matter what I think... does it? I was directing my comment to you... I already spent three long paragraphs filled with facts about the manager scene, Catholic (and Christian) sensibilities and vaginas (I never thought I would use those 3 thoughts in the same sentence). Now... you never answered my question. I gave you a detailed explanation of why the Catholic League would consider this hate speech. I asked you "What was not hateful about Stewart's rhetoric?" I expect in the least NOT YOUR OPINION but some facts, just like I presented you three paragraphs of reasons why this comment by Stewart is hateful.

And there really was a second question hiding in plain sight in my comment, the hypothetical question I proposed about Stewart making a joke about Mohammed, woman, the Koran and vaginas. Would you see THAT as hateful speech?

Let's see if you can actually give me an answer that addresses the facts, not your feelings.

Where is it required that a person answers any question thrown at them? Is it in the terms of service?

You really didn't explain how it is hate speech. You gave a dictionary definition of speech and hate, but failed to show why it is hate, other than your declaration, so I asked for clarification. When you answer that, then I'll answer yours.

You don't know why it's hateful. You don't know why it's hate speech. That's sad, because you will probably go through life being unthoughtful and hurtful and you'll never know it. I'm sorry that you can't answer the question.

And I'm sorry you can't tell me why you consider Stewarts actions hate speech.

Kate wrote: And I'm sorry you can't tell me why you consider Stewarts actions hate speech.

I already did that. This is very typical of the left. They have redefined hate. If a certain group or religious organization or type of people are not in their playbook... then it's not hate. Sorry Kate, it really doesn't work that way. Hate is easy to recognize by honest intelligent people. Too bad your don't fit that category.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Kate wrote: And I'm sorry you can't tell me why you consider Stewarts actions hate speech.

I already did that. This is very typical of the left. They have redefined hate. If a certain group or religious organization or type of people are not in their playbook... then it's not hate. Sorry Kate, it really doesn't work that way. Hate is easy to recognize by honest intelligent people. Too bad your don't fit that category.

No, you didn't explain. You gave definitions of speech and hate. You did not succeed in showing how Stewarts comments were hateful, which is why I asked you for clarification. Continually repeating that you explained it, when you did not, is not a particularly effective way to debate.

So....

Maher = -1
Limbaugh = -141 ..(at last count)

Got it....

LadyJazzer wrote: So....

Maher = -1
Limbaugh = -141 ..(at last count)

Got it....

Geeze, you can't even get something simple right. It's Stewart, not Maher (who is on HBO with no sponsors).

And I have to wonder, did Limbaugh really have 141 sponsors, or are they counting some twice or making it up? Amazing he's still on the air. I guess he must of had far more than 141 to begin with. And that's probably an old number. I suppose he's lost 500+ by now? :rofl

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: So....

Stewart = -1
Limbaugh = -141 ..(at last count)

Got it....

Geeze, you can't even get something simple right. It's Stewart, not Maher (who is on HBO with no sponsors).

And I have to wonder, did Limbaugh really have 141 sponsors, or are they counting some twice or making it up? Amazing he's still on the air. I guess he must of had far more than 141 to begin with. And that's probably an old number. I suppose he's lost 500+ by now? :rofl

Sorry, it's late and I've been working for 10 hours on a project....

Got me... Stewart then...

Feel better?

LadyJazzer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: So....

Stewart = -1
Limbaugh = -141 ..(at last count)

Got it....

Geeze, you can't even get something simple right. It's Stewart, not Maher (who is on HBO with no sponsors).

And I have to wonder, did Limbaugh really have 141 sponsors, or are they counting some twice or making it up? Amazing he's still on the air. I guess he must of had far more than 141 to begin with. And that's probably an old number. I suppose he's lost 500+ by now? :rofl

Sorry, it's late and I've been working for 10 hours on a project....

Got me... Stewart then...

Feel better?

Yes, thanks! lol

Hope your project went better...