Bush is a hero

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161363 Apr 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Chris, I hope this will speak to you the way it did to me. I deleted the swear words, but the rest remain.
"Boston.**ing horrible.
I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, "Well, I've had it with humanity."
But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths.
But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out.(Thanks, Gallery founder and owner Paul Kozlowski, for pointing this out to me). This is a giant planet and we're lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they're pointed towards darkness.
But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago.
So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."
That's a letter from Patton Oswalt, a comedian whose political leanings don't matter at the moment any more than ours do, but whose heart (at least as far as I'm concerned) in the right place.
We are NOT dying as a nation. And we mustn't let the bad stuff that happens, make us think we are.
Peace.
Most of this is true and good but I fear what has made this nation is dying friend. I have two friends that without a doubt have influenced me. One is from Ireland the other Venezuela. They both perhaps see some things in this nation that those of us born here may not and they both see us changing for the worst. It does go far beyond left/right but what these two people see is a move that empowers a gov and hurts a free people. Yesterday on Cnn, a news souce many trust, I heard John King say they had info shared from a police souce concerning events in Boston but wouldn't repeat it as to not offend some group. Where are we going as a nation when the very people that should be watchdogs are nothing more than puppets. Imo its not too far off to call what we have nothing more than state run crap. And if it comes to that we have died as a nation and many good people died for what?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161364 Apr 18, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of this is true and good but I fear what has made this nation is dying friend. I have two friends that without a doubt have influenced me. One is from Ireland the other Venezuela. They both perhaps see some things in this nation that those of us born here may not and they both see us changing for the worst. It does go far beyond left/right but what these two people see is a move that empowers a gov and hurts a free people. Yesterday on Cnn, a news souce many trust, I heard John King say they had info shared from a police souce concerning events in Boston but wouldn't repeat it as to not offend some group. Where are we going as a nation when the very people that should be watchdogs are nothing more than puppets. Imo its not too far off to call what we have nothing more than state run crap. And if it comes to that we have died as a nation and many good people died for what?
What made this nation, was a great many people who saw opportunity wherever they looked, who were joyous at the opportunity to strive passionately and be rewarded greatly, and who were unafraid to reach out and take the opportunities when they presented themselves. We still have those people, Chris. All of us have the capacity to BE those people, and hundreds of thousands of us are expressing that capacity. Yes, we have our problems, our personal blinders, our each and several fears - but America is STUFFED with people who focus on the good, love our country fiercely, and do their best every single day. Our innovators are still tinkering, our scientists are still researching, our students are learning new things all the time. There's a ton of good stuff going on, Chris.

Maybe we should focus more on that.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161365 Apr 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>What made this nation, was a great many people who saw opportunity wherever they looked, who were joyous at the opportunity to strive passionately and be rewarded greatly, and who were unafraid to reach out and take the opportunities when they presented themselves. We still have those people, Chris. All of us have the capacity to BE those people, and hundreds of thousands of us are expressing that capacity. Yes, we have our problems, our personal blinders, our each and several fears - but America is STUFFED with people who focus on the good, love our country fiercely, and do their best every single day. Our innovators are still tinkering, our scientists are still researching, our students are learning new things all the time. There's a ton of good stuff going on, Chris.
Maybe we should focus more on that.
I do hope you are right. Time will indeed tell. Working that 7-11 route didn't do much to improve my thinking but it is a new day. And its so good to be awake during the day now. Take care.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161366 Apr 18, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of this is true and good but I fear what has made this nation is dying friend. I have two friends that without a doubt have influenced me. One is from Ireland the other Venezuela. They both perhaps see some things in this nation that those of us born here may not and they both see us changing for the worst. It does go far beyond left/right but what these two people see is a move that empowers a gov and hurts a free people. Yesterday on Cnn, a news souce many trust, I heard John King say they had info shared from a police souce concerning events in Boston but wouldn't repeat it as to not offend some group. Where are we going as a nation when the very people that should be watchdogs are nothing more than puppets. Imo its not too far off to call what we have nothing more than state run crap. And if it comes to that we have died as a nation and many good people died for what?
King was told by a law enforcement source that the authorities were looking for a dark skinned male.

After he and other sources relayed the information to the public, other law enforcement sources denied it (echoes of CNN & Fox reporting that arrests were made, although Fox seemed to be backing off that first), and some blacks claimed King was irresponsible for relaying what his source said. You might have seen a Blaze article quoting Sharpton calling it shameful.

That might explain why he said what you heard about 'avoid offending' a group.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161367 Apr 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>King was told by a law enforcement source that the authorities were looking for a dark skinned male.
After he and other sources relayed the information to the public, other law enforcement sources denied it (echoes of CNN & Fox reporting that arrests were made, although Fox seemed to be backing off that first), and some blacks claimed King was irresponsible for relaying what his source said. You might have seen a Blaze article quoting Sharpton calling it shameful.
That might explain why he said what you heard about 'avoid offending' a group.
But he didn't rely that only Willie. This is just the latest example of a "hard news source" that is spewing political opinions. My problem isn't what happens during a live event, it often does and many times they get it wrong. My problem was the way he said he was going to hold some things back as to not offend. Really? I saw a kid without legs, did that offend anyone? Its like this is a bad joke when peole care more about the race hustler Sharpton says than what is really going on.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161368 Apr 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The treasured 'gun out of a poptart' icon is undoubtedly a local school decision, not an action required directly by any federal or state law.
Nobody is arguing that schools shouldn't suspend/expel kids who "beats the crap out of a classmate", either.
There is no 'one answer' to mass shootings, suicides, and murder, or gun violence in general. The kinds of things that need to be done about bullying are all at the local level; even state laws are of questionable value.
I certainly didn't look at the bill before the Senate as THE answer to Newtown, but as one of a number of things that should be done.
Treasured? I sure don't treasure what is a lack of common sense on display by a highly educated person.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161369 Apr 18, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I do hope you are right. Time will indeed tell. Working that 7-11 route didn't do much to improve my thinking but it is a new day. And its so good to be awake during the day now. Take care.
You too.

:)
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#161370 Apr 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>When in doubt, rant about liberals...
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.

Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:

*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.


*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.

*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.

* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."

*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.

* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.

* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!

* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.

* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.

But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Lima, Peru

#161371 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
Another rant.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161372 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
Who ordered the 'Liberal Dictionary' as presented by a quasi-conservative?

Wasn't me...enclosed, please find my copy, including receipt and invoice.

Sheesh.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161373 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
I'm not playing any game here, Lyndi; I'm just a guy who likes to talk about politics and current events on a message board.

Thing is, I don't consider scripted attacks on liberalism or conservatism to be talking about politics or current events. It's just talking.

For me to even ATTEMPT to rebut something it would have to be worth my while, and I've been on the record for 3-4 years before you joined the thread as saying the liberal-liberal-liberal stuff isn't worth it.

It is worthy of a little ridicule, however, or maybe pointing out the dodges some people use to talk a lot without saying anything.

You don't like it? Don't read it, or puff yourself up by claiming I can't rebut you, or crank out buzzword-laden scripted schtick like the above, or ... well, whatever you want to do.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161374 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't consider scripted attacks on liberalism or conservatism to be talking about politics or current events.
Yes well liberalism or conservatism IS about politics, including
attacks, when perceived by <the poster> to be merited.

Of course the poster may be ignored (or poked at), as is often the case. The problem then becomes like the boy who cried WOLF! When so many complaints emerge over liberalism or this administration, the fallback measure is to just pass it off as another "scripted attack".

Makes for a lot being swept under the carpet, easy to handle, AND doesn't leave the original msg unanswered.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161375 Apr 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another rant.
You traveled to Peru to say that? Not much to do in Lima.

I'd at least see if there was a museum or something else of interest in the area, and save the sniping for later.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161376 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes well liberalism or conservatism IS about politics, including
attacks, when perceived by <the poster> to be merited.
Of course the poster may be ignored (or poked at), as is often the case. The problem then becomes like the boy who cried WOLF! When so many complaints emerge over liberalism or this administration, the fallback measure is to just pass it off as another "scripted attack".
Makes for a lot being swept under the carpet, easy to handle, AND doesn't leave the original msg unanswered.
I don't know how to state my opinion any better than I've been doing for years, bob.

There is a difference between referring to liberalism/conservatism in the normal course of discussing politics, and talking about liberals/conservatives in cheap stereotypes on the other. That's true whether you spend all your time outright talking about 'the other guys', or work just a little harder and use politics and current events as props to give a bit of polish to talking about 'the other guys'.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161378 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know how to state my opinion any better than I've been doing for years, bob.
There is a difference between referring to liberalism/conservatism in the normal course of discussing politics, and talking about liberals/conservatives in cheap stereotypes on the other. That's true whether you spend all your time outright talking about 'the other guys', or work just a little harder and use politics and current events as props to give a bit of polish to talking about 'the other guys'.
I get all that Wilson.

But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.

As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.

I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.

And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.

However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161379 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I get all that Wilson.
But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.
As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.
I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.
And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.
However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).
You want to talk about Benghazi, fine.

I'll talk about Benghazi without ever using the word conservative, at least until someone else refuses to listen to what I have to say about it and attributes my opinion to me being a liberal who's only goal is to defend Obama.

The same goes for Fast & Furious, health care, or any other issue.

That's not what happened here, of course. Here you and I were talking about Soros (not that we're ever going to agree), and somebody purportedly joined the conversation only to launch into a what I've called a scripted tirade about 'liberal hypocrisy' not very different from the sort of scripted tirades some posters used to make about neo-cons.
Roberta G

Tucker, GA

#161380 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I get all that Wilson.
But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.
As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.
I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.
And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.
However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).
My hero :)

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Lima, Peru

#161381 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You traveled to Peru to say that? Not much to do in Lima.
I'd at least see if there was a museum or something else of interest in the area, and save the sniping for later.
You would be surprised.

You gringos are sooooo provincial.

Google Larco Herrera for starters.

That's a start.

There is so much more in this world of ours.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161382 Apr 19, 2013
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'll talk about Benghazi without ever using the word conservative, at least until someone else refuses to listen to what I have to say about it and attributes my opinion to me being a liberal who's only goal is to defend Obama.
What difference does it make? You propose to restrict the use of certain words as derogatory rather than descriptive? I've already said I have no beef with someone taking conservatives to task when the issue involves conservatives.

But this administration is made up of what? Liberals. So if a crisis happens during this administration, which ideology is likely to be responsible?

The opposition in this forum over the years has generally attempted to show a pattern of misguided ideology (Liberalism), which may not have been best for the US, and then attempted to put a finer point on it by illustrating the various misdeeds and errors, sometimes fatal errors. Your usual response is to remind everyone that the sky is really NOT falling.(Or something similar).

Of course, it's only natural that Liberals wanna rise up and be heard not only in defense, but as partners equally guilty. Going forward, I think it'd be interesting to compare which side has America's best interests in heart, over the years, and has backed up their words with actions. That study can be tabled for now, but one must be mindful of the aforementioned shenanigans on Capitol Hill to thwart any attempts to outperform the other side of the aisle.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
The same goes for Fast & Furious, health care, or any other issue.
That's not what happened here, of course. Here you and I were talking about Soros (not that we're ever going to agree), and somebody purportedly joined the conversation only to launch into a what I've called a scripted tirade about 'liberal hypocrisy' not very different from the sort of scripted tirades some posters used to make about neo-cons.
So what? As I said above, if liberals (or liberalism) shows a pattern of detriment, let's call it a duck, instead of making it into a paper airplane. It's true you ARE an equal opportunity skewer, and well known to stand up for the right when they've been
"misrepresented". Kudos for that.

But I don't believe that alone earns the left a pass (or whitewashing) when myself or someone else becomes angry over an important or emotional issue and rants about the opposition.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161384 Apr 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be surprised.
You gringos are sooooo provincial.
Google Larco Herrera for starters.
That's a start.
There is so much more in this world of ours.
Provincial:

having or showing the manners, viewpoints, etc., considered characteristic of unsophisticated inhabitants of a province; rustic; narrow or illiberal; parochial: a provincial point of view.

Yep, you are a bigot.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min Tm Cln 7,320
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Exchange 123,479
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Michael 681,782
Muslim airlines, Qatar, attempting stake in Ame... 32 min gimme 8
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 39 min another viewer 982,237
Virginia man charged with espionage for deliver... 1 hr Brice N Livingston 8
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Tony 6,369
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 18 hr onemale 286,526
More from around the web