Can book burnings be far behind?

I am neither a statist or a republican. I tend to vote for republicans because the democrats have banished all but liberal thought from their party so it is either libertarian or republican. I'm too tired to go back to the beginning to see if you did (or maybe it was Old T) use the word thumper. If you say you didn't then I will go along with that. Still I see too many uninformed people equating conservative and religious as being the same. I mean how is in all those black churches with people who vote for democrats 98% of the time. If the idiots were correct then they would all vote for the GOP wouldn't they?

That's right, Old-Twerp, it was CJOHN who claimed he was from Texas: you two are almost intellectual twins, though he probably has the edge on you. But you did claim to live in Florida, Old-Twerp. So, what happened, did your "evolved" Yankee neighbors kick your ignorant ass out, Old-Twerp? BTW, Old-Twerp, you didn't comment on your lib-retard crowd's revision of history. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your post is not really worth a lot of effort to reply to, but I am feeling generous so I will give it more than its fair due:

--If you confuse CJOHN's writing style with mine, your reading skills are worse than I imagined

--Yes, I did live in Florida, and left of my own accord. I lived in what at that time was a community that bridged a 19th Century Redneck community a few miles down the road in one direction (there really was a lynching while I was there, and a bunch of Bubbas threatened me and the folks I was with because we wanted to go watch a basketball game they didn't believe "your kind" should be attending). In the other direction were a transplanted bunch of Michiganers. Even hotter and flatter than Texas. Put it all together and I couldn't wait to leave, but I had a four year assignment to complete before I could.

--You are correct, I did not comment on that link--mostly because it wasn't the topic of the thread. I'll give you my short commentary: assuming your referenced article is correct, the park department was seriously wrong. If you want to discuss that topic any more, suggest you start a separate thread. Happy now?

Hey JD! I can't find any posts where I used the term "thumper". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm too tired to go back to the beginning to see if you did (or maybe it was Old T) use the word thumper.
To clarify, the "Thumper" reference was indeed mine, not COG's.

If you say you didn't then I will go along with that. Still I see too many uninformed people equating conservative and religious as being the same. I mean how is in all those black churches with people who vote for democrats 98% of the time. If the idiots were correct then they would all vote for the GOP wouldn't they? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Completely agree with you on this point, JD. Conservatives can be religious or not. Religious can be liberal, conservative, or apolitical. And in my mind a Thumper can be of any religion and any part of the political spectrum.

Not every conservative religious person is a thumper--not at all. I have sincere respect for most the ministers of most religions I have met--whether I agree with all their beliefs or not.

Thumpers are a small but very vocal, obnoxious minority found anywhere on the political/religious spectrum. A Thumper is someone who generally fits these characteristics:
--They are extremely closed minded about what is morally acceptable
--The believe they have a divine right to shove their morals on everyone else
--They don't rely upon facts or logic, but more upon "MY book is divinely inspired and therefore is perfect. MY interpretation of this book is perfect. YOU must believe as I believe."
--They often convince themselves they are "special" and have divine dispensation to ignore the same morals they want to shove on everyone else (homo-hate ministers who themselves see gay prostitutes come to mind, but the hypocrisy takes other forms as well).

Personally, I seem to hear more of the conservative thumpers than liberal ones on the radio when driving across the bible belt, but I have certainly heard liberal thumpers who are equally disgusting. And as I mentioned above, plenty of atheist thumpers have existed in the past, and muslim thumpers, and probably a lot of varieties I have never had the misfortune to hear.

Again, personally, I am far more likely to categorize a person as a Thumper when they try to regulate activities that don't "contaminate" them, but just exert their control over others. For example: gay marriage, someone else buying a drink on a Sunday morning, prostitution that is truly consensual, etc.

Some topics such as abortion I find much more difficult to categorize because depending upon your real, personal convictions some people do see it as affecting another life, and some don't. I have strong personal views about abortion, but I would never classify anyone as a Thumper because of how they stand on that issue--though I may disagree with them.

So, you may still disagree with me, you may still dislike my use of the term, but I wanted to make sure you at least understood what I mean when I use the term. I do not mean to categorize all sincere religious people as Thumpers, nor to imply that all Thumpers are conservative.

I am neither a statist or a republican. I tend to vote for republicans because the democrats have banished all but liberal thought from their party so it is either libertarian or republican. I'm too tired to go back to the beginning to see if you did (or maybe it was Old T) use the word thumper. If you say you didn't then I will go along with that. Still I see too many uninformed people equating conservative and religious as being the same. I mean how is in all those black churches with people who vote for democrats 98% of the time. If the idiots were correct then they would all vote for the GOP wouldn't they? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

SIMPLISTIC.

The liberal "thumpers" are out there; Pfleger of Chicago, Jackson of Chicago, Sharpton of New York City to name three. They are not ridiculed or exposed in such a way as to make them look ridiculous. How about the Reverend Wright of Obama fame? They cloak themselves in terms like human freedom and social rights but if you listen closely or read what they write then they are revealed. They have much more impact that your "right wing" activists. Here is one example http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...on-anniversary Seems logical to not have anyone shot on MLKs birthday but if you read what else he has written Pfleger supports a complete gun ban!

The liberal "thumpers" are out there; Pfleger of Chicago, Jackson of Chicago, Sharpton of New York City to name three. They are not ridiculed or exposed in such a way as to make them look ridiculous. How about the Reverend Wright of Obama fame? They cloak themselves in terms like human freedom and social rights but if you listen closely or read what they write then they are revealed. They have much more impact that your "right wing" activists. Here is one example http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...on-anniversary Seems logical to not have anyone shot on MLKs birthday but if you read what else he has written Pfleger supports a complete gun ban! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No disagreement with you there. In other forums I am far more vocal about that version of Thumper. On here the vast majority seem to be conservative of some form so those guys already get piled on. Still, you very rarely see me supporting their version of hate speech.

I will state it again, the vast majority that you HEAR about that are not ridiculed like Falwell, Robertson, and that idiot from Oklahoma. If others got the exposure that the "right" got then you would know them by their deeds.

Up here in KCMO we have a radio show on Sunday morning (go figure) with a priest, a rabbi, and a reverend. I listen to them and call in. They all seem to agree and they are all of a like mind on things like gun control but don't have a clue on what they are talking about. They can't tell you the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic. They don't know what caliber means. They don't know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge (all things I have tried to explain to them) but they have a great deal of influence in KCMO.

the REAL thumper:

Perhaps you'd better read the OP again, you ignorant Yankee fuck. You obviously and ignorantly missed Old-Twerp's purpose and intent. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, dipshit, I don't need to re-read it. I didn't miss his points. Nor did I miss your hypocrisy.

Even if Old-T failed to criticize left-wing intolerance while chastising the right-wing, YOU are in NO position to correct him for that.

You do the same thing, but in reverse. You have innumerable posts critical of the left-wing intolerance that never mention right-wing intolerance.

Or are you too stupid to miss that point?

You are a pseudo-intellect. When you could not think of a rebuttal to Old-T's criticism of right wing intolerance, you took the lazy way out and criticized him for things he didn't mention.

No, dipshit, I don't need to re-read it. I didn't miss his points. Nor did I miss your hypocrisy.

Even if Old-T failed to criticize left-wing intolerance while chastising the right-wing, YOU are in NO position to correct him for that.

You do the same thing, but in reverse. You have innumerable posts critical of the left-wing intolerance that never mention right-wing intolerance.

Or are you too stupid to miss that point?

You are a pseudo-intellect. When you could not think of a rebuttal to Old-T's criticism of right wing intolerance, you took the lazy way out and criticized him for things he didn't mention. Originally Posted by ExNYer

"Lazy way out", you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass? Old-Twerp was criticized for the bias he posted, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because Old-Twerp ignorantly didn't post a link in his ignorant OP, so take your ignorant, dumb-fuck Yankee-ass elsewhere.

Your post is not really worth a lot of effort to reply to, but I am feeling generous so I will give it more than its fair due:

--If you confuse CJOHN's writing style with mine, your reading skills are worse than I imagined

--Yes, I did live in Florida, and left of my own accord. I lived in what at that time was a community that bridged a 19th Century Redneck community a few miles down the road in one direction (there really was a lynching while I was there, and a bunch of Bubbas threatened me and the folks I was with because we wanted to go watch a basketball game they didn't believe "your kind" should be attending). In the other direction were a transplanted bunch of Michiganers. Even hotter and flatter than Texas. Put it all together and I couldn't wait to leave, but I had a four year assignment to complete before I could.

--You are correct, I did not comment on that link--mostly because it wasn't the topic of the thread. I'll give you my short commentary: assuming your referenced article is correct, the park department was seriously wrong. If you want to discuss that topic any more, suggest you start a separate thread. Happy now? Originally Posted by Old-T

But you're content with removing Twain and Melville from the classroom and "The Bellringer of Notre Dame," Old-Twerp, and your lib-retard friends in the U.S. Park Service did produce a film applauding "Islam’s Contributions To Women’s Rights."

"Lazy way out", you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass? Old-Twerp was criticized for the bias he posted, you dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because Old-Twerp ignorantly didn't post a link in his ignorant OP, so take your ignorant, dumb-fuck Yankee-ass elsewhere. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LIAR.

My post No. 67 is here:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...9&postcount=67

It responded to your post No. 56, which is here:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=56

Your post No. 56 didn't criticize Old-T for not posting a link in post No. 1.

You only attacked him for focusing only on right wing "book burners" while ignoring the left-wing book burners.

But you are a complete hypocrite for criticizing a lack of balance in someone's posts. You have ZERO balance in your posts.

So I will repeat what my point in Post No. 56:

From now on, whenever you vilify the left for being intolerant of opposing viewpoints, will you also make sure to balance that by pointing out the intolerance of right-wingers as well?

What say you, tranny fucker?

LIAR.

My post No. 67 is here:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...9&postcount=67

It responded to your post No. 56, which is here:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=56

Your post No. 56 didn't criticize Old-T for not posting a link in post No. 1.

You only attacked him for focusing only on right wing "book burners" while ignoring the left-wing book burners.

But you are a complete hypocrite for criticizing a lack of balance in someone's posts. You have ZERO balance in your posts.

So I will repeat what my point in Post No. 56:

From now on, whenever you vilify the left for being intolerant of opposing viewpoints, will you also make sure to balance that by pointing out the intolerance of right-wingers as well?

What say you, tranny fucker? Originally Posted by ExNYer

You're a dumb-fuck Yankee jackass that deceitfully ignores that the post you are citing is a reply to Old-Twerp's subsequent post and not to his OP. So take your lame-ass Yankee lies and deflections elsewhere, you racist SOB.

You're a dumb-fuck Yankee jackass that deceitfully ignores that the post you are citing is a reply to Old-Twerp's subsequent post and not to his OP. So take your lame-ass Yankee lies and deflections elsewhere, you racist SOB. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LIAR.

We can read it for ourselves. The text of your post is UNMISTAKEABLE, regardless of what post you say you are replying to. Here is the text:

-----------------------------------------------
"That's precisely the point, Old-Twerp, you left out Stalin and several other notorious lefties in your miscreant attempt to vilify the religious as the only "book burners" of note. Plus, as a reminder, you didn't mention where Stalin and the others imprisoned and killed authors, Old-Twerp. It's important that your ignorant biases be balanced by facts, Old-Twerp."
-----------------------------------------------

So you are criticizing Old-T for not including the left in his criticism of the right. You even said he did not balance out his biases - SOMETHING YOU NEVER DO, EITHER.

Everything else you have added is just LIES.

Fact is, IBIdiot frequently paints himself into a corner and then tries to escape by changing the discussion.

Fact is, IBIdiot commonly resorts to personal insults to deflect from his frequent lies and unwillingness to recant his false sources.

Fact is, IBIdiot wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up his ass and ... well, you know!

Fact is, IBIdiot wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up his ass and ... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

... and got packed in by the tranny's dick?