Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

Perhaps your misplaced malaise would offer more of an effectual response if you could separate the skills and manner of the creature from your pre-conceived notions of how the machine functions. Politics has become spectacle and cult-of-personality and "administrating" government the business of an elite mafiosiesque thugfest.

A "superior" politician, what the hell does that even matter? First and foremost, he's a fucking liar. A seasoned, prolific, professional liar with a hundred leashes around his neck. POTHEAD. Smoked weed all through high-school with the persona of a anarchistic drug pimp.


CHICAGO: Poster-child of corrupt city government from a state up to it's historic ass in graft, collusion with organized crime, and piece of shit law enforcement, not to mention again, the WORST gun laws in the U.S.

If anything I would hope that his administration would finally wake the somnambulant masses up to the idea that the shits' broken to the point of insurrection of a nation, not some fairyland ideal of "Next time, our vote will work for, "Change"....Fuck change, time for seizure of assets public executions!

lyrics

Bugger The Bankers 

When I was a lass I was proud of my class, like my father and mother before me
They taught me to fight for my civil rights, but it’s always the same old story – 
The rich reign supreme while the poor can but dream under Labour or Liberal or Tory 
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

The system is bent and the money’s all spent, we’re badgered from every direction
The workers get taxed while the wealthy relax with nary a moment’s reflection
Where there’s brass, there’s muck and they don’t give an arse 
‘Cos we’re programmed against insurrection
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

DANCE BREAK 

Now all you good people with passion to vent, don’t give up the struggle for justice 
But I’ve done my time on the protesters’ line and these days I show my dissent
By loitering within my tent
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you, oh 

Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

© Suzy Davies 2012 

nemesis was fine as an "epic episode".. not quite so much as a movie. Although it beat out Insurrection easily. ANY star trek fan would be doing themselves a disservice to just skip over it.

As for the first comment.. lets just say for as many people who thought the screen test was better, there are just as many who think the final cut was better. The thing is they were both great.

I watched it, I upvoted it, but redletter media did it much better.

I think the main liberal commentary is that the Tea Party thinks the Boston Tea Party was some sort of conservative anti-government protest against taxes levied on tea.

What it was actually a protest against was the 18th century equivalent of tax breaks for oil companies.

Now, if the modern day teabaggers wanted to earn the kind of rich ideological history they pretend they have, they'd actually be applauding centrist proposals from Obama that would close those kinds of loopholes to raise revenue and help reduce the deficit.

Instead they just mostly go around saying racist shit about Obama and talking about armed insurrection against their own government.

There is an actual historical predecessor for the teabaggers, but it's not the Tea Party -- it's the Confederacy.

Yeah i suspect something was lost in the cutting. As it is it all comes across a bit ranty. Didnt explain anything about extensions of power through supporting insurrection? Countries only support those countries willing to trade with them? Yeah duh. One ideology vs another? Brilliant. Not an external threat? Poland, east germany, malaysia, vietnam, cuba? New way of thinking about the cold war? Hardly. Probably a lot better when hearing opposing views.

>> ^hpqp:

What a trustworthy source, Webster Tarpley, 9/11 "it's-an-insidejob"er and climate change denialist.

Did man also never set foot on the moon, oh bearer of unwanted truths?
>> ^marbles:
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen
edit - link added:
Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?



Typical hpqp response. Scared to address the facts but has no problem tossing out lazy ad hominem static.
For the record 9/11 was an inside job, and Tarpley is not a "climate change denialist".

Furthermore, Tarpley's first article is completely sourced so I guess those idiots at West Point must be wrong about North-eastern Libya having the greatest concentration of Al-Qaeda fighters anywhere in the world.

The Telegraph and Washington Times must be conspiring with Tarpley also.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html (link dead?)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen

edit - link added:

Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?

>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.
BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar
As I guessed, you consider even Al Jazeera to be a right wing funded anti-arab propaganda machine...
You are insane.
For the sane people, it's Al Jazeera interviewing Syrian refugees in Turkey and reporting that Al-Assad's forces are deliberately and systematically killing unarmed protesters. Your insistent denial of this and refusal to acknowledge it is beyond sick, it's actively harmful. It's people like you that are the paid tools and sycophants of the worst murderous dictators in the world today.

Instead of trying to characterize me into something you don't like and attacking me, try attacking my argument.

You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications. Fine.
You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda. Crazy, but if you like tinfoil hats that's your choice.
You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth...
The above is the characterization you've painted for yourself, and it's infinitely worse than anything I could try and project onto you.

Please provide a citation for any and all of your claims if you wish to be taken seriously.


It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!

Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.

1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.

3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.

And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.

All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.

The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.

I kinda surprised that I disagree with a lot of what these people are saying. One point I hear all the time is that Gaddafi was going to "massacre" thousands of people. When did he threaten this? Seems to me his goal has always been to stop an armed insurrection. The real mistake seems to have been made when the Libyan "protesters" quickly/suspiciously picked up arms against the government. Did Gaddafi do something worse than the Bahrain and Yemen governments, who were firing machine-guns into crowds of unarmed protesters?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.