“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

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).

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

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

Duluth, 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 :)

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 and Honolulu

#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.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161385 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Where am I proposing to restrict anyone from saying anything, bob?

Anyone can say anything they want. I can comment back at em, and if I feel they aren't saying anything, that's what I'm going to say.

Are you now trying to restrict me from saying what I want, bob?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161386 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Where am I proposing to restrict anyone from saying anything, bob?
Anyone can say anything they want. I can comment back at em, and if I feel they aren't saying anything, that's what I'm going to say.
Are you now trying to restrict me from saying what I want, bob?
Negative. By declaring you'll discuss issues WITHOUT using the term "conservative", that's just another way of stating your preference to continue, and is a direct challenge for any counterpart to do the same (IMO).

Shouting "liberal liberal liberal", may not ALWAYS be legit, but
I don't think you should cover your eyes & ears by default.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161387 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
What happened, Bob? Lose yer 'idiot mittens'? The stuff you're posting lately is making sense. That's so unlike you.
Just yakking at ya' Bob. Good post.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161388 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative. By declaring you'll discuss issues WITHOUT using the term "conservative", that's just another way of stating your preference to continue, and is a direct challenge for any counterpart to do the same (IMO).
Shouting "liberal liberal liberal", may not ALWAYS be legit, but
I don't think you should cover your eyes & ears by default.
My eyes and ears are wide open, my head's not in the sand, none of the other things that people routinely accuse someone who refuses to concede a point of are true.

There ain't nothing cons say about libs that libs don't say about cons, and you may not like it, it may just baffle you all to hell and back why I think this way, but I don't see a whit of difference between the rants of people who go on about the hypocrisy of liberals or conservatives. I don't see any more 'truth' in the sort of demagoguery that makes either a Soros or a Koch brothers into a convenient antagonist/enemy of all things good and right.

You can take that same principle right on down the line for every point where people retreat behind the convenience of shouting 'liberal liberal liberal' or 'conservative conservative conservative'.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161389 Apr 19, 2013
I hope this terrorist in Boston stands trial in Federal Court, rather than being labeled an 'enemy combatant', and shipped off to Gitmo - he's a naturalized citizen. May his trial be speedy, and efficient. And may his name be lost in the mists of history.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161390 Apr 19, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
<quoted text>
What happened, Bob? Lose yer 'idiot mittens'? The stuff you're posting lately is making sense. That's so unlike you.
Just yakking at ya' Bob. Good post.
Thanx, Oh I was hypnotised earlier. But I'm feelin' much better now.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161391 Apr 19, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
I hope this terrorist in Boston stands trial in Federal Court, rather than being labeled an 'enemy combatant', and shipped off to Gitmo - he's a naturalized citizen. May his trial be speedy, and efficient. And may his name be lost in the mists of history.
This scumbag IS headed to Federal Court, & will subsequently be executed. Good riddance.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161392 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>My eyes and ears are wide open, my head's not in the sand, none of the other things that people routinely accuse someone who refuses to concede a point of are true.
Admitting you have a problem is the 1st step to recovery, Wilfred.

If you need a hug, I politely request your gf to administer one from me, b4 you go beddy bye tonite. Just don't get USED to them,(from me that is).
:-D

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161393 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Admitting you have a problem is the 1st step to recovery, Wilfred.
If you need a hug, I politely request your gf to administer one from me, b4 you go beddy bye tonite. Just don't get USED to them,(from me that is).
:-D
Don't got no stinkin' problems so I don't need no stinkin' hug.

;-)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161394 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Don't got no stinkin' problems so I don't need no stinkin' hug.
;-)
Then would'ja mind asking yer gf to send ME one?
:-D

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161395 Apr 20, 2013
Ho-hum. Bored this morning. Thought I'd explore what my platform would be if I actually ran for prez (per the girls .suggestion.)
1: Tax the wealthy , the middle class, and the poor at a reasonable rate, with no loopholes. Say twenty eight percent for the folks who make over two hundred and fifty thousand, twenty-two percent for one hundred to two hundred and fifty, ten percent for the fifty to one hundred thousand, and five percent for the rest.
This way, everybody pays something. With the no loopholes, the tax base should jump by a large percentage
Corporate and business taxes would be determined by congress.
@: Kick out the illegals. They say "It would cost too much to do that." No. In the long run, it would save American tax payers billion upon billions of dollars across the board.
"The task is Too Big." Nope. All journeys begin with the first step. Start with volintary exit. Give those that leave on their own a card, putting them in a 'special' line for citizenship. One that streamlines their application. IF they had a job, or marketable skills, then they get a higher grade. Welfare recipients would naturally be at the bottom of ANY list for citizenship.'Anchor babies' would get dual citizenship, and would only be allowed to stay if both parents are working. Otherwise, they are removed to their parents' country of origin, and they can exercise their citizen rights at age eighteen.
3: re-institute the chain gangs. It's time that the losers of society start earning their keep. Put prison inmates to work in the fields. Inmates who refuse to work would be put in lockdown, with zero privelages. And if an inmate never misses a day of work for X amount of time, then he/she gets time off of his/her sentence as a reward. Anyone trying to escape would be shot dead. no exceptions.
4: Term limits for all pols. If its good enough for the president, then its good enough for your congressman.
5:Free Leonard Peltier. Every President since Reagan has promised Native America that he would free the unjustly imprisoned AIM leader. They proved that the two FBI men were killed with an Armalite, which uses a special load and has a different type of bullet than the AR-15 that Peltier used. Leonard, like most Natives, had his weapon for some time, and never used any other kind. Plus there were probelms with the timeline, witnesses, and the fact that it was the feebies who started the gun battle that got them killed.
6: Talk radio hosts have to apologise for their stupidity at the end of every show.
7: Reality shows have to be cut back to two a week, or removed to 'Pay Per View'.
8: News broadcasts Must report News. No more of 'The puppy that saved a city' crap, or anything about lindsey lohan, or those slutty kardashian sisters. Nobody should be famous just because they got laid by more athletes than anybody else.
There's more, but I'm not bored anymore, so I'll sign off.

Since: Sep 10

Lima, Peru

#161396 Apr 20, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
Ho-hum. Bored this morning. Thought I'd explore what my platform would be if I actually ran for prez (per the girls .suggestion.)
1: Tax the wealthy , the middle class, and the poor at a reasonable rate, with no loopholes. Say twenty eight percent for the folks who make over two hundred and fifty thousand, twenty-two percent for one hundred to two hundred and fifty, ten percent for the fifty to one hundred thousand, and five percent for the rest.
This way, everybody pays something. With the no loopholes, the tax base should jump by a large percentage
Corporate and business taxes would be determined by congress.
@: Kick out the illegals. They say "It would cost too much to do that." No. In the long run, it would save American tax payers billion upon billions of dollars across the board.
"The task is Too Big." Nope. All journeys begin with the first step. Start with volintary exit. Give those that leave on their own a card, putting them in a 'special' line for citizenship. One that streamlines their application. IF they had a job, or marketable skills, then they get a higher grade. Welfare recipients would naturally be at the bottom of ANY list for citizenship.'Anchor babies' would get dual citizenship, and would only be allowed to stay if both parents are working. Otherwise, they are removed to their parents' country of origin, and they can exercise their citizen rights at age eighteen.
3: re-institute the chain gangs. It's time that the losers of society start earning their keep. Put prison inmates to work in the fields. Inmates who refuse to work would be put in lockdown, with zero privelages. And if an inmate never misses a day of work for X amount of time, then he/she gets time off of his/her sentence as a reward. Anyone trying to escape would be shot dead. no exceptions.
4: Term limits for all pols. If its good enough for the president, then its good enough for your congressman.
5:Free Leonard Peltier. Every President since Reagan has promised Native America that he would free the unjustly imprisoned AIM leader. They proved that the two FBI men were killed with an Armalite, which uses a special load and has a different type of bullet than the AR-15 that Peltier used. Leonard, like most Natives, had his weapon for some time, and never used any other kind. Plus there were probelms with the timeline, witnesses, and the fact that it was the feebies who started the gun battle that got them killed.
6: Talk radio hosts have to apologise for their stupidity at the end of every show.
7: Reality shows have to be cut back to two a week, or removed to 'Pay Per View'.
8: News broadcasts Must report News. No more of 'The puppy that saved a city' crap, or anything about lindsey lohan, or those slutty kardashian sisters. Nobody should be famous just because they got laid by more athletes than anybody else.
There's more, but I'm not bored anymore, so I'll sign off.
Nice guy.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161397 Apr 20, 2013
I wonder how many rants we're going to hear about political correctness over the next two weeks?

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) 4 min Rosa_Winkel 828,439
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Robert F 584,154
Gay sex in kanpur 22 min ajay 18
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 30 min MUQ2 224
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 31 min MUQ2 40,143
Israel End is Near 32 min MUQ2 62
Derrick Briggs 35 min tohonest 3
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 35 min truth 3,443
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr lightbeamrider 611,847
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr duststorm 442,863
More from around the web