SCOTTYM's comment history

SCOTTYM said...

happy some more

"And no, I have never heard of anybody in the pro-choice movement calling for no limits to abortions."

Then you are not paying attention. As a matter of fact, the POTUS that those on the left are so enamored of apparently thinks that if an abortion is botched (i.e. the fetus is born alive) it should be permissible to leave them alone until they die on their own.

"I've actually never heard of a pro-abortion movement, except perhaps among the Zero Population Growth people and the rhetoric of the pro-life movement who want to label the pro-choice movements with something negative.



  1. in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc.
  2. a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate.
  3. an argument, consideration, vote, etc., for something.

Your sophistry isn't very convincing. Again, you don't get to control the language I use. Get it through your soft totalitarian head.

If I were going to paint the pro-abortion troops as something negative I'd call them anti-life.

"You do want to refrain from your own strawman arguments, right?"

Point one out.

August 24, 2012 at 1:24 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...


"SCOTTYM, actually it's the "race card" card that's played all the time by the right."

Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?

"Just like you've not noticed how you've portrayed yourself as the victim here, or the "persons of faith" who you said were subject to hatred and bigotry from the left. Sorry, but that's playing the victim card."

More repetition of the same stupidity.

"Blah, blah, repitition, blah blah...You can't just sentences in different posts and string them so closely together."

What does "You can't just sentences in different posts and string them so closely together." mean?

"And yes, I do consider dictating what people can do with their bodies to be an act of totalitarianism."

So if the law prevents someone from punching another person in the face repeatedly, that's totalitarianism.

How about if the law prevents someone from using their hands to choke someone else to death, is that totalitarianism?


"Just as you do, when you were talking about consumption of food substances being totalitarian"

I never wrote any such thing.

"(Even though you are not accurate in your complaint, since that was not the subject of the law, which is to sales, not consumption)"

This is a distinction without a difference. aka sophistry. If something can't be bought, then the consumption of it would be difficult. Yes?

"And don't call it the pro-abortion movement, or wax about rhetoric of the culture of death."

I'll use whatever words I darn well please. YOU do not get to define the language I can use. Totalitarian jack-a**.

"And you complain about me and strawmen with that?"

I never complained. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacies that you peppered into your arguments.

"That's just like how you won't admit to hatred, or making complaints, or even being an apologist for the Christian Right, it's lacking in integrity. Maybe you expect me to just take you at your word."

Are you still beating your wife?

August 24, 2012 at 1:07 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...


"Blah, blah, blah...same stupidity...blah, blah..."

"And the President's job is to follow the Constitution. If he considers that a law violates the Constitution, that priority comes up first."

And the Constitution says that is up to the Courts to decide matters of Constitutionality. It isn't in POTUS's job description or legally within his power. It is blatantly illegal for POTUS to ignore laws passed by the Legislature and signed by a previous POTUS just as much as it would be for you or I to ignore those laws.

But then as a leftist, you probably don't know or don't care what the Constitution actually says.

"But do keep blaming me for hating, when you can't admit to any of it yourself."

I'm not blaming you for anything, you admitted to being a hater all on your own. And again, I hold no hate for anyone or any thing.

"You'd just rather pretend to hold the high ground. Another common trait of conservatives. Just like continuing to represent a position as disagreement, as if people were simply saying "No, sir, I don't like it" and not "That cannot be tolerated or permitted, because the wrath of God shall descend upon us" which is what those people you're defending have been doing."

You really like the stereotyping don't you. I've not defended anyone but myself. I have pointed out that Christians are subject to hatred and bigotry from the left, and you've proven my point repeatedly.

"But yes, if you see genuine intolerance, you should not fool yourself into the trap of sophistry that says to be truly tolerant, you must tolerate that."

Which is why I pointed out that Christians are quite often the victims of intolerance at the hands of folks like you, and you just keep reinforcing my point.

"They're bigots and bullies being told they won't be allowed to use the force of law to support their intolerance and they're getting upset about it."

Fixed it for you. ;)

bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

This definition fits you to a T.

"Or when you say you're hating."

Nope, I never said that I was hating, it is you who is embracing hatred.

I know it's hard to keep up, goodness knows I get off track occasionally as well.

"Stop wasting your time, you only make yourself look bad."

I'm not the one embracing hatred, that would be you.

August 24, 2012 at 12:40 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...


"Same sex marriage is "marriage" in many European countries, Canada, South Africa, Mexico and other countries."

Then move there and get "married". It's called voting with your feet.

"Slavery was widely popular as well. Does that make it ok?"

Slavery was abolished, largely, by christian Republicans, and those opposed were very vocal about their rights being violated.

"That is blatant bigotry."

No more than your own position.

Bigotry = stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

""Radical gays"? What does that even mean?"

Those who will not compromise and are willing to do things like walk into an office run by the opposition and start shooting.

"The world has redefined a lot of things over the years."

Sure, but not basic civil institutions.

" But, of course, you wish to deny them the same basic rights as you for no reason."

Wrong, the same right to marry anyone of the opposite sex exists for everyone. The fact that gays aren't oriented in such a way as to make marriage appealing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.

"This "very small portion of society" deserves the same rights as anyone else."

Again, they have exactly the same rights as everyone else, they just aren't oriented in such a way to exercise that right.

"The fact that you are trying to make a compromise for a basic right gives you away. You are ethically bankrupt and a bigot to boot."

That's a nice opinion you have there. I'm glad you are one of those leftists who are so tolerant of opposing viewpoints./sarc

"You are the one trying to deny a subgroup of Americans the right to marry based solely on their sexuality."

They can get married anytime they want. Unfortunately they don't like people of the opposite sex that way.

"People like you did the same thing to women (voting), African-Americans (slavery, voting, 3/5 human, etc.) and now people like you are doing the same to gays with marriage. Should we have kept those laws against women and African-Americans? They meet your "tradition" criteria."

Really? So the traditional definitions of the words "voting", and "slavery" were changed to fit a new interpretation? I must have missed that in history class.

"Gays deserve the right to marry. But your bigotry has been duly noted."

Gays already have the right to get married, they just don't exercise it. Your intolerance of opposing viewpoints is also duly noted.

August 24, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...


"Also abortion with no limits?..."

You are ignoring a large chunk of pro-abortion folks who think it should be a free for all.

"I've never heard any pro-choice advocate oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, just to specific provisions that were considered excessive."

Then you're not paying attention.

"I have heard many pro-life advocates take the position of no abortions though."

Me too, and I disagree with them.

August 23, 2012 at 11:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"But it's not honest or legitimate."

Cry me a river!

""But no, you can't claim that you believe in the sanctity of life on the one hand which you use to justify your totalitarian interference in the bodies of others and then in the lives of others.""

WTF does this mean? Read it carefully. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

"Why? Because nobody except the right-wing noise brigade ever has that kind of problem, but I see them use it on others too."

Please define what "that kind of problem" means in this statement.

Right-wing noise brigade? I like that, do you mind if I use it?

"It's your version of calling something racist."

So pointing out you occasionally can't assemble a thought into a cohesive sentence is the same as calling you a racist? That's rich.

""That's good. And quite possibly the death penalty too. The number of pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty is rather low in correlation.""

Yup, indeed reading comprehension failure on my part. I apologize for that.

"Also, no, I said you were posturing about being a libertarian anarchist. That it wasn't your true beliefs. That's why you can find reasons to justify totalitarian actions. You're not actually standing by those principles, just pretending. As I clearly said, but you apparently forgot, you can't own up to them."

I'm not "pretending" to be anything. If anything, I'd label myself as a Constitutional Fundamentalist. If you consider advocating for the protection of innocents from murder (with well considered exceptions) to be totalitarianism, I'd say your idea of what the word "totalitarianism" means is extremely skewed.

"Maybe you're the one who can't follow a conversation and hold a train of thought."

As I wrote to Easy: "I apologize for confusing your posts with happy's.

It is difficult to differentiate between multiple people who are all caught up in the same rigid ideology, though at least yours are not so full of logical fallacies and gibberish."

I also helped two kids with homework assignments, did a load of laundry, prepared dinner/cleaned the kitchen and got the young ones off to bed during the course of this thread. My multi-tasking skills are apparently fading.

"I think I see who's projecting here.

You're the one embracing the hatred which you then project upon others.

August 23, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...


"Namely that the right is proclaiming that the only reason they're not being taken seriously on their criticisms is because it's being dismissed as racism."

Nonsense. The fact is that the race card is thrown at the drop of a hat by many on the left to dismiss the critics themselves. i.e. We (POTUS supporters) don't have to pay attention to criticism because the critics are racists and therefore have no legitimate arguments.

"The idea that maybe their criticisms just aren't legitimate is beyond so many on the right, so they try make themselves the victim."

Oh please. You'll find that very few folks on the right have any interest in portraying themselves as victims. That's the leftist's gig.

"And I've seen your posts, you do have a rather strident agenda against regulation."

Back to that again? So which is it, totalitarian or libertarian anarchist? Make up your mind.

"And if you think that there's a large component on the right that would the drug war, then I've got to say you've been copious in your silence."

I have repeatedly argued for legalization of drugs in the past. The fact that you weren't here to read it at the time, doesn't make it any less true. You're welcome to go through all of my posts and attempt to find evidence to the contrary.

" But no..."

More gibberish.

"If you don't know where the pedantry is, it's where you claiming you're not the victim, but you're still portraying somebody else as the victim, so that's pedantry."

Not even close. Try again. Perhaps a dictionary would help.

"Then you can blame it on it being because you're being accused of racism!"

Again, more gibberish. Is English a second language for you?

"Do claim I'm the one engaging in indecipherable gibberish, I think you're just not willing to face up to your own course of actions."

You're engaging in fits of indecipherable gibberish. Happy?

What course of actions?

"I could respect you for your honesty if you could acknowledge that your desire tit's not doing that at all."

...control the ACTIONS of women. Exactly like the law is used to control the ACTIONS of anyone else who would murder innocents. This is not that hard of a concept to grasp. You're caught up in the rhetoric of the culture of death that is the pro-abortion movement.

P.S. I care not a whit about whether you have any respect for me or not.

"No, you'd rather just say I'm at fault, that you can't understand what I'm saying because I'm not writing clearly. That's a common tactic on the part of the right-wing."

So now it's my fault that many of your "sentences" are disjointed piles of semi-random words. O.K.

August 23, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy, "Are you speaking to "the left"?"

In general, i.e. the talking heads, the pundit class and various commentators, not you or anyone in particular.

"You or anyone else can't give any honest, logical reason for keeping gays from getting married."

It is not a marriage if it doesn't include at least one person of each sex. This has been so for thousands of years across multiple cultures. Just because the radical gays want to pretend that they are married doesn't mean that the rest of us have to roll over and allow them to redefine a historical institution to fit their desires. It is an attack on traditional culture to satisfy the wants of a very small portion of society, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that the compromise of Civil Unions is not acceptable to them gives the game away.

"HappyWithNewBulbs wrote this. Not I."

I apologize for confusing your posts with happy's.

It is difficult to differentiate between multiple people who are all caught up in the same rigid ideology, though at least yours are not so full of logical fallacies and gibberish.

August 23, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

" And you hate anyway, you just don't want to admit it, because then you can pretend you're better."

There is that projection again. I hate no one, and if better or worse can be judged by a surfeit vs. a lack of hate, I guess I am in fact better than you.

"You know what I've seen lead to a lot of the worst actions of humanity? Listening to people who try to argue that hating them for their intolerance and bigotry is the true oppression. You know, the people falsely playing that victim card."

First, disagreement is not intolerance.

Second, you seem to be trying to justify your own hatred by demonizing those who have an opinion which differs from your own.

"Because according to them, not tolerating their intolerance is the real sin!"

So in your world, perceived intolerance should be met with more intolerance? Am I getting that right?

If so you are on sick puppy.

August 23, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"As far as being a libertarian anarchist, that's what you've adopted. You won't label yourself that way, but that just means you won't own up to the ramifications of your own words and ideals."

Back to that again? Which is it, totalitarian or libertarian anarchist? You do know that those two are pretty much diametric opposites, yes?

"You can complain about it being straw man arguments, or just gibberish, but that's a rather common tactic of yours and the rest of the right."

If you mean insisting that arguments be based upon the reality of my positions and statements and be written in such a way as to be understood by those of us who do not speak jibberish, then yes, you're right it is common among rational folks.

"Somebody questions you? Well, who cares, you can just dismiss them as having no basis in reality."

Please, question away, I come here for an exchange of ideas, I merely insist that you base you questions upon statements I've actually made and write them in such a way that they can be understood by normal humans

"And you don't even have the integrity to recognize what it is. Hate."

There is that projection again.

"Just like you'll complain about strawman arguments from me, while never acknowledging your own misrepresentations. Don't think because I don't respond to them line-by-line that I'm not noticing them."

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that you are making things up out of thin air.

"But no, you being for Civil Unions doesn't mean that others are,..."

And this is my fault how?

"It isn't just the disagreement that matters, but the actions and reasons behind it. I know, you don't want to have to admit to the bigotry and intolerance of the Christians you're serving as an apologist for."

Jeez dude, another strawman, and more projection. When have I apologized for anyone. You sure do like to beat up on Christians.

"It's not the left who won't compromise, it's on the right."

More projection. You're a hoot.

" It's not the left who won't compromise, it's on the right. They passed DOMA and are still defending it."

Yes, and it is currently the law of the land, though the Obama administration refuses to defend it as required by his oath of office.

"That's another thing I feel comfortable hating."

You seem to be quite comfortable with your hate. Perhaps you should keep it for yourself and quit projecting upon others.

August 23, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.