Bush is a hero

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150743 Oct 7, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Hold on. Let me try and understand, because the rules seem to change by the hour, and I sure wouldn't want to break any of your rules.
Let's see - Higgins wrote >to him<. In that post that he wrote >to him< he inserted the obligatory ad personam that go for high political discourse around here, then closed with a comical, "...and I'm not talking to you."
So, in a nutshell.....if you write to me, it's bad form if I reply? Is that it?
I think if I understand his current position it is that he will refrain from egaging me in direct discourse on a topic of substence. This leaves him free to engage me in topics without substance which would be his thoughts of me and things he says.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150744 Oct 7, 2012
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
Does anyone else think that senility is a disqualifier for the Supreme Court? Scalia is bugnuts, and is still seated.
Why, he's almost as bad off in the head as bobin!
EGADS!!!
While I don't disagree with the intent of your message (there should be some criteria for determining a sitting judge is no longer capable of diligently performing their duty?) it opens up a whole trash can of problems.

Once criteria are accepted the race is on by the opposing side who has their President sitting in office to show how those judges in ideological conflice with the Presidents views meet said criteria.

We have enough partisanhip at this time.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#150745 Oct 7, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Hold on. Let me try and understand, because the rules seem to change by the hour, and I sure wouldn't want to break any of your rules.
Let's see - Higgins wrote >to him<. In that post that he wrote >to him< he inserted the obligatory ad personam that go for high political discourse around here, then closed with a comical, "...and I'm not talking to you."
So, in a nutshell.....if you write to me, it's bad form if I reply? Is that it?
If I ask you to leave me be I would hope that you would leave me be. I admit I'm better at just ignoring than DS is and that may come from practice. Women tend to get alot of unwanted attention at times. But when the person won't stop I've had to yell at them to "leave me alone." If you can't see that Okb likes to bring people's names into a post that have no business being there, as an additional form of peskiness, than I can't help you.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150746 Oct 7, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>If I ask you to leave me be I would hope that you would leave me be. I admit I'm better at just ignoring than DS is and that may come from practice. Women tend to get alot of unwanted attention at times. But when the person won't stop I've had to yell at them to "leave me alone." If you can't see that Okb likes to bring people's names into a post that have no business being there, as an additional form of peskiness, than I can't help you.
LisW, unless it is a personal message I have already indicated I am not replying to DS, but to those that are following the conversation. DS does the same thing, he just does not use my post to do so.

Here is the problem, you have two boys, maybe teens in a disagreement on a thread with a few key players and they both like to talk and are highly opinionated. On top of that, due to their chosen careers both are prone to speak authoritatively and directly.

There is no way that either can participate in a discussion of substance with these few numbers of posters without stepping on the toes of the other. The only difference I can see is that if DS says "A" I reply directly to what he said for all members of the group to hear. If I say "A" DS waits a minute and says "There are some that think........"

Because I reply directly to what he says and I have said I would not ignore him, every so often he likes to get boisterous and act the victim like I am committing some sin at which point he calls me a few names and reminds everyone that he will not engage me on things of substance. To which I reply in kind.

At some point, the boys/teens will mature and become adults again.....at least that is the way it is supposed to work.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#150747 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Bob, DS was telling me so often that he was ignoring me that it became a joke, literally. Since that time he shifted his position to not egaging me in direct conversation. He did that so he could continue mentioning me and what I say to others making it obvious that he was not ignoring me at all. So far, he has stayed true to his second word and has not engaged me in direct conversation. Lets hope that continues.
Had you ignored him in the 1st place, there would BE no need for further msging from EITHER of you.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#150748 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
As a general rule, since about 1980 all people serving tend to be more moral and ethical than the civilian population at large. They also tend to be more intelligent, better educated and in better health.

Even when I joined in 1976 using Marijuana was a disqualifier for joining the Marines.
Now if you want to accuse them of following orders, that is what they get paid to do.

Understand that I am not saying they are perfect, only better than their civilian peers.
Bos, you'll get no argument from me, but have you told John Kerry? I seem to recall he thinks you guys aren't bright enough to do anything else ;)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#150749 Oct 7, 2012
UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
As if this bailout doesn't sound crooked enough, Bain is now under investigation for tax evasion. Via Think Progress:
Since July, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been issuing subpoenas to private equity firms including Bain, which he believes intentionally changed management fees into capital gains as a way of hanging onto millions of dollars that would have otherwise been taxed at a higher rate. Bain alone is estimated to have saved “more than $200 million in federal income taxes and more than $20 million in Medicare taxes.” It is unclear whether the tax strategy was used while Romney was at the helm of the company, but the Times reports that Romney is still making money on funds that are using the method in question.
While an attorney for Romney insists that he “can confirm that neither he nor the trust has ever done this, whether before or after he(Romney) retired from Bain Capital," it would certainly be nice, for the sake of transparency, if Romney would release his tax returns.
Flooding the thread with "copy & paste" reruns, does NOTHING for you, except confirm you to be an annoying PEST!

You STILL can't write or comprehend the English language on an English language board, and until you can you'll be nothing more
than "material" for jokes. Even then you'll still hafta prove yourself like everyone else.

ESL classes await you.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#150750 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, it is because Lyndi is a partisan not interested in what is best for America, only what is best at supporting the Republican Party.
Bos, this is a load of Class-A horse manure and you should be ashamed of having said it.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#150751 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
While I don't disagree with the intent of your message (there should be some criteria for determining a sitting judge is no longer capable of diligently performing their duty?) it opens up a whole trash can of problems.
Once criteria are accepted the race is on by the opposing side who has their President sitting in office to show how those judges in ideological conflice with the Presidents views meet said criteria.
We have enough partisanhip at this time.
To keep the status quo, you think it's OK for one of only Nine that determine our laws is nuts?
If anything, I believe that their mental status be more scrutinized than any one else's in this country. Their job is, by far, the most important job in and for this nation.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150752 Oct 7, 2012
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Bos, you'll get no argument from me, but have you told John Kerry? I seem to recall he thinks you guys aren't bright enough to do anything else ;)
lol

There are many that join him in that view as I learned in recruiting duty.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150753 Oct 7, 2012
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Bos, this is a load of Class-A horse manure and you should be ashamed of having said it.
Well, I would give you maybe 50% of that being generous. Lyndi said on arrival that after the election a disappearence was scheduled

AND

earlier said to me in a post that Lyndi was here to support the candidate of Lyndi's choice.....period.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#150756 Oct 7, 2012
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Bos, this is a load of Class-A horse manure and you should be ashamed of having said it.
Thank you Roberta but don't give it another thought. Okb baits particular people with untruths who spurn him and/or repeatedly best him during debate for no other reason than he doesn't like be spurned and he doesn't like being bested.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#150757 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
what happened when they were going to try the terrorist in NY? Why is it not happening this time? Where is the outrage of the right?
Don't you mean outrage from the LEFT and right?

Both the House and the Senate agreed not to fund the obama administation's attempt to move the Guantanamo terrorists into the heart of NYC, or anywhere ese in the USA. Both parties saw the stupidity of that action. One of the few truly bi-partisan moves by Congress.

However, when prisoners are being extradited from another country, it's the Justice Dept that determines where they're received. What would Congress defund... the extradition? But, I do agree with you, the obama administration should have sent them right to Gitmo, and not into NYC. I don't understand why this administration insists on placing terrorists right in the middle of the city that the terrorists are actively targeting.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150758 Oct 7, 2012
UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>But remember we put Saddam (US puppet) in power and when he no longer Follow US command he got it. And, it's very reason we getting all this conflicts worldwide,as US had put quite number of ruthless dictators around the world in power so to protect our US plunders and interests in the region. As our US soldiers use to protect those plundered riches the raw resources had incite growth of enemies worldwide. This is causing alot death on both side the human toll is in millions and US war debt over trillion dollar every year, as our US taxpayers money goes to supporting our US war-for-profiteers that rarely benefit us Americans , and all this taxpayers could had gone to rebuilding our decrePIT US infrastructure, Jobs and education, Medicare, social programs... So?
I think you are confusing countries. Saddam was a puppet of the Soviets while the Shah of Iran was our boy. When the Imam's overthrew the Shah, we were able to engage Saddam who was already in power.

In 1981 after Reagan came in power he assisted both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150759 Oct 7, 2012
UIdiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:
<quoted text>Smedley is talking about Most wars the PREDATORY US Capitalistic agendas as applied in the past , and the present or into the future to come , anything to do with plunder of other nations resources those are US wars with Mid East , LAtin America , Africa, S.East Asia etc.,
Most wars are bad if a nation GO OVERSEAS to invade another nation(s), as for ill money and greedy hegemonic agendas, often as this will only incite growth of enemy(s) from around the world and all this bring untold lose of many human lives on both side, and financial lose on both sides, and better to develop through GOOD CAPITALISTIC Practices That is what China , India ... are doing Building other nations' infrastructures , FDI , and use good trade practices and use Diplomacy in exchange for access to needed raw resources to develop it own nation.... as oppose to our US illicit means use of hard power to use wars to plunder and invade for the raw resources as this will only incite the many growth of enemy(s)... HAve we Learn Anything from history of Fall of Great Empires like Ancient Rome etc.,bad nation building invading others for their riches...
As General Smedley trying to inject his wise experiences if we heed his wise saying and warnings , we do good in the world. But our greedy US leaders/Corporatist want everything through use wars and hard power to attain by illicit moneey hegemonic agendas that had cause of various conflicts around the world , and this had incite growth of enemy(s), and ruined our civil liberties and this had create a US police state, and bring its own nation to it knees. Examples like said in my previous posts Fall of Ancient Rome, NAZI germany during WW2 , Weimer Republic... Our US is following in this stupid path, if we don't heed Gen Eisenhower and Gen Smedley wise sayings then it our on doing.
To the vicotr goes the spoils. Ageless.

However, don't confuse a war fought for other reasons with a war fought for capitalist (acquisition of resources or power over them) reasons.

China are doing nothing that the US did not do between 1900 and 1970. You are comparing a 3rd world economy growing into a 2nd world economy with a mature, stable 1st world economy.

Find the 1960 Statistical Abstract of the United States and you can find stats on how many homes had a car, television, telephone and other things. they no longer list those because the only homes that don't have them are because they don't want to or are special cases. Think of all the people in China and India buying cars, telephones and televisions for the first time.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150760 Oct 7, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you mean outrage from the LEFT and right?
Both the House and the Senate agreed not to fund the obama administation's attempt to move the Guantanamo terrorists into the heart of NYC, or anywhere ese in the USA. Both parties saw the stupidity of that action. One of the few truly bi-partisan moves by Congress.
However, when prisoners are being extradited from another country, it's the Justice Dept that determines where they're received. What would Congress defund... the extradition? But, I do agree with you, the obama administration should have sent them right to Gitmo, and not into NYC. I don't understand why this administration insists on placing terrorists right in the middle of the city that the terrorists are actively targeting.
Nah, you don't agree with me. Just more hypocracy from the right.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#150761 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, you don't agree with me. Just more hypocracy from the right.
Don't fret, on January 20, 2013, President Romney will be running the Justice Department, and we will be putting terrorist dirtballs where they belong... in Guantanamo.

Can we count on you doing what's best for America's security by voting for Romney, or do you want to continue obama's policies of sending terrorists into the heart of NYC and Ambassators to the morgue?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#150762 Oct 7, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't fret, on January 20, 2013, President Romney will be running the Justice Department, and we will be putting terrorist dirtballs where they belong... in Guantanamo.
Can we count on you doing what's best for America's security by voting for Romney, or do you want to continue obama's policies of sending terrorists into the heart of NYC and Ambassators to the morgue?
It looks like the Dems will hold the Senate so I might be voting Romney.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#150763 Oct 7, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like the Dems will hold the Senate so I might be voting Romney.
How can you... Romney hasn't turned over his last 40 years of tax records yet?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#150778 Oct 7, 2012
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Had you ignored him in the 1st place, there would BE no need for further msging from EITHER of you.
Everyone knows how thick I can be, but still I'm not clear on this. I do apologize.

Let me see if I got this, using Higgins' example. Hypothetically speaking, I can write to all and sundry, running down your heritage and person, and toss in catty little asides directly to you as it pleases me. We can go back and forth like that all day. But! If I remember to toss in an injunction now and again against you replying to me, you are prohibited from doing so, and you will face censure from the room if you violate my injunction? In the meantime I can continue to do as above, and am insulated from "enduring" any response from you......is that about right?

You don't have to say anything - I >know< you see how weak this is, not to mention ludicrously sophomoric.

I've become fond of the folks in this room - perverse, I know. But every once in awhile it must be stated - it ain't nobody's personal club - it's a free and open discussion forum, primarily involving ostensibly mature adults. Those that can't take the heat would do well to stay outa the kitchen to keep their petticoats from getting scorched. Avoiding frank factually-based discussion by resort to snide barbs and snappy rejoinders seem to be lingua franca to many in TopixLand, and that's just the way it is with the population in general (I guess). Some can't or won't debate the points and feel more comfortable gossiping and flaming. Fair enough. Open forum, and nobody's got an anchor in their adz a-keepin''em here. I get it.

But, attempting to bolster one's own forensic weakness by appealing to "the gang" to join in isolating a third party are tactics straight from the playground. And beyond and below all that, those flaccid periodic "Don't talk to me", and "Ignore button on/off" games, while continuing to malign an individual as one pleases, are about as childishly lame as anything I've ever seen. I propose we cut that crap out and engage like adults with floppy clown feet and electric-red hair.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Doctor of Science 992,074
Walgreens is owned by Christ-rejecting Jews 5 min Doctor REALITY 8
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min Jim-ca 52,291
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min Michael 693,321
the Lord JEHOVAH YAHWEH..has ALWAYS EXISTED??! 17 min Doctor REALITY 6
last post wins, game 2 ! (Aug '12) 1 hr Concerned_American 360
Where's Andet 1987: Does he have AIDS? 2 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Peter Ross 445,997
More from around the web