« We All Remember how that day unfolded. | Main | I'll Be on Square Off This Sunday Morning at 8:00 on Channel 12. »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love how she can't even spell his name.
Typical Libtard

The right wing just continues to overflow with civility, though.


He even spelled all his words right. I bet he knows how to spell Quayle, potato, and Dupnik.

R-dub, I'm not sure whether you are being disingenuous or if you really don't see the difference. Either way, it's probably worthless to try to explain it to you.

Oh, it's okay. The Left has different rules than the Right. They can say anything and get away with it. Virtually no one on the Left will criticize this woman. In fact, they will defend her. (Correct, Robert W?) But even just make fun of Dupnik and all hell breaks loose from the Left. (Correct, Robert W?) Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites!

So, Sarah Palin can't say "blood libel" because of the unique meaning of that term to Jews, but this woman can drop an H-bomb on Pearce?

"Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race. I have met black, white and even asian hispanics in Central America.

And "Race" shouldn't be capitalized either.

I wonder what she would say if you asked her, "How, exactly, do you think Russell Pearce is plotting to exterminate the Hispanic race?"

It would probably be similar to the answer you'd get if you asked Jared Loughner, "So, how, exactly, is the government trying to control grammar?"

"Either way, it's probably worthless to try to explain it to you."

I imagine that's because you don't actually have an explanation, but are playing the "Absolute Conservative Morality" card because you think we're impressed by it.

Hint: We're not.

There is no way around conservatives having to jump through some intellectual hoops to defend Russell Pearce.

Perhaps she thinks that Pearce is after the Sephardim (/sarcasm). Is he targeting Filipinos? Spaniards? Is he calling for invasions of Venezuela and Argentina? No, I didn't think so. So her sign -- besides being offensive -- doesn't even make sense.

Perhaps the increased call for greater civility in political discourse could be more specific and promote actual dispassionate debate of the issues and condemn ad hominem attacks. That would be a good start.

That lady tried to jump in front of the camera today while I was giving an interview. The Cronkite News graduate student took control of the situation and told her to move along. I didn't even notice what her sign said, I tend to zone out protesters.

So, Klute, you don't see the difference either, and you think by declining to waste my time with R.W., I'm somehow playing an "Absolute Conservative Morality" card? What on earth are you even talking about?

No, I'm not trying to impress anyone, and I don't care whether you are impressed. Everyone else gets it (I'm sure even todd does, if he's reading), so I still don't see a need to waste any more time with you or R.W. on this issue.

"I guess that "civility" thing was short lived..."
No, it just doesn't apply to Liberals.

Wow, you found an ignorant lady with a sign that doesn't make much sense! Well, I guess that must mean Russell Pearce isn't racist and will make a great politician!

The lady in the picture isn't the only ignorant person with a presence on this blog.

She probably learned her Hitler references from Glenn Beck. Bottom line: Pearce is a racist.

"So, Klute, you don't see the difference either..."

I see a difference, I would just like to see *your* explanation on how it is different. You obviously do want to engage me and Robert Woodman on this (since you're replying to us), but your argument is "I have a point, I believe it, it's so", which frankly just makes you look like you can't ACTUALLY explain the difference - and you obviously do believe you're superior to me and Robert...

But that fact is not in evidence.

So explain it.

Wow. Because I don't feel like explaining how 2+2=4, I must not have an explanation.

I'll give in and provide one obvious answer. One of the examples is an action that no conservative or liberal, outside of the most extreme outer fringes, would ever support. The other example is something that is perfectly acceptable to one whole side of the political debate. The difference in magnitude of the two actions (a death threat vs. a ridiculous poster) is actually irrelevant, for reasons stated in the second sentence of this paragraph. If you wanted to make a point of this second difference I've mentioned, know that Russell has received countless death threats. But those are probably okay with you.

Interesting that you say I "obviously do believe [I'm} superior to [you] and Robert..." It is you and Robert who come on here with your psychobabble, presuming yourselves to be more intellectual than the rest of us because of your far-left ideas.

You're good. You stuck with it and got me wasting time typing up an answer. I'm done. If you want a treatise on all the other ways the two examples are different, I'll just have to let you win because I'm not adding anything else here.

Please cite me any racist statement Russell Pearce has uttered. You will find Zip, Zero, Nada! Just because you disagree with his policies (enforcing the law--what a concept!) doesn't make him a racist. On the otherhand, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror. All the hate speech is coming from the Left.

I love that ladies sign!
Really, what IS a Hispanic Race?

Are Castillians *Hispanic*?
Are Mestisos *Hispanic*?
Are Brazilians *Hispanic*?
Are Puerto Ricans *Hispanic*
Are Native American/Irish *Hispanic*?

Does that woman even know what a *race* is? Hispanic by definition is NOT a race, just FYI

FYI...the group recalling Pearce is NOT legit:


It's really hard to double down on stupid, but this gal pulls it of masterfully.

The comments to this entry are closed.