NationStates Jolt Archive

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:

im a conservative.. and thats a load.. get one conservative on the issue of abortion and youll see my point.. conservatives are far more abusive

[QUOTE=Invidentia]im a conservative.. and thats a load.. get one conservative on the issue of abortion and youll see my point.. conservatives are far more abusiva

abortion? interesting i dont get all pissy about it

I’m liberal and try to go about debates with care, and respect for the other sides. To me, that's what being liberal is all about... tolerance for other people's views.

I've had some interesting conversations with the likes of CM/DA before, and even though we disagree entirely, the conversations have been very civil – with both getting points across.

Some liberals are arrogant and somewhat bigoted, yes. But there are plenty of people on both sides like that...

Each side is equally capable of insulting and denigrating their opponents. I don't particularly think that conservatives or liberals are any "more" insulting.

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:

I disagree with you.

Fascist pig. ;)

I disagree with you.

Fascist pig. ;)

gee thanx

[QUOTE=Invidentia]im a conservative.. and thats a load.. get one conservative on the issue of abortion and youll see my point.. conservatives are far more abusiva

abortion? interesting i dont get all pissy about it

perhaps then your of the few and far between... Just talk about the state of welfare then... Its simple to see why.. even though Conservatives now control everything there are still Massive Libertarian policies running amock... Now we have a chance to legislate some real conservatism while we see our tax dollars going down the gutter in dead end programs.. why wouldn't we get alittle rambouncious at the notion of change

gee thanx

You're welcome, imperialist dog. :p

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:
Are you talking true liberals or social democrats, a.k.a. the jackass party.

For being such potential flamebait, this thread is going surprisingly well!
*bows to everyone involved*
Still, i'm gettin' out the popcorn ....
;)

Are you talking true liberals or social democrats, a.k.a. the jackass party.

Wow, that was unexpected.

You're welcome, imperialist dog. :p

not really disproving my point, but ok

Man, Winchester, he's just kidding.

not really disproving my point, but ok
Bourgeois pig! ;)

(What the hell does bourgeois mean anyways?)

Man, Winchester, he's just kidding.
Stop spoiling the fun, damn it!

Are you talking true liberals or social democrats, a.k.a. the jackass party.

Jackass party? go on

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:one opinion article disproves your theory

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=759&e=4&u=/ucac/20050310/cm_ucac/comebackliberals

Jackass party? go onlike calling the Republican Party the elephant party

Bourgeois pig! ;)

(What the hell does bourgeois mean anyways?)

Main Entry: 1bour·geois
Pronunciation: 'burzh-"wä also 'buzh- or 'büzh- or burzh-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French borjois, from borc
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2 : marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3 : dominated by commercial and industrial interests :

(www.m-w.com)

one opinion article disproves your theory

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=759&e=4&u=/ucac/20050310/cm_ucac/comebackliberals
Ann Coulter isn't a conservative. She's a member of the grouping "Psycho bitches that look like transvestites".

Wow, that was unexpected.
Hey, it's not my fault they chose an animal that has that nickname.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jackass

jack·ass n.

1. A male ass or donkey.

For being such potential flamebait, this thread is going surprisingly well!
*bows to everyone involved*
Still, i'm gettin' out the popcorn ....
;)

Alright listen up. Conservatives (hereinfater referred to as cons.) are for the most part ignorant, immature, childish and blinded by ‘faith’. Most, in my experience, seem to have a few screws loose and buy heavily into the craziest of conspiracy theories, while criticizing liberals for questioning their 'facts'.... They’re fuckin’ messed up gits. Don't get me started on the rich ones, they're the worst of all, and the most hypocritical ... one more thing, cons. are easily scared.

Happy? :D

like calling the Republican Party the elephant party

as in fatass couch potato, then Democrats would be anorexic caffeine heads
ok :)

Hey, it's not my fault they chose an animal that has that nickname.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jackass

jack·ass n.

1. A male ass or donkey.

I know that, but I also know that it was meant as a double-meaning.

Alright listen up. Conservatives (hereinfater referred to as cons.) are for the most part ignorant, immature, childish and blinded by ‘faith’. Most, in my experience, seem to have a few screws loose and buy heavily into the craziest of conspiracy theories, while criticizing liberals for questioning their 'facts'.... They’re fuckin’ messed up gits. Don't get me started on the rich ones, they're the worst of all, and the most hypocritical ... one more thing, cons. are easily scared.

Happy? :D

And liberals seem to suck up know it all who think anyone who dosnt agree with them is a lesser species of uneducated idiots who are intolerant while liberals are just as intolerant as anyone. blinded by faith isnt blinding its a moral base
and there are just as many crazy ass liberals as there are dumbass conservatives

while criticizing liberals for questioning their 'facts'....

You mean like those "Dan Rather Facts"?!?! :rolleyes:

That's what I thought...

Liberals never met a "fact" they just couldn't make-up! :p

Regards,
Gaar

Man, Winchester, he's just kidding.

Indeed. *shakes head*

That's the second thread i've noticed where people don't "get it"

Ah, well.

Indeed. *shakes head*

That's the second thread i've noticed where people don't "get it"

Ah, well.

i caught on i just didnt really feel like playing along

i caught on i just didnt really feel like playing along

*covers forehead with hand*

...

You mean like those "Dan Rather Facts"?!?! :rolleyes:

That's what I thought...

Liberals never met a "fact" they just couldn't make-up! :p

Regards,
Gaar

Conservatives come up with some weird ones, like how there is a massive conspiracy by the gays and lesbians of America to destroy the family... :o

Conservatives come up with some weird ones, like how there is a massive conspiracy by the gays and lesbians of America to destroy the family... :o

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw a Conservative News Reporter trying to push that deception on us just before an Election!?!?! :rolleyes:

Not sure how that relates to an "actual" incident by a named Reporter trying to sway an Election, but ok... if you say so. :rolleyes:

You wouldn't happen to be a Liberal, would you?

Like I said, Liberals never met a "fact" they couldn't just make-up... Just like this one!

Regards,
Gaar

Liberals are fucked up too. You’re right, when we can’t handle something, like Bush being popular and in power, we fabricate stuff… but that's just part of our superior intellectual abilities. Cons. aren't very good at making stuff up, you see, it's all crazy stuff... we focus on smaller stuff, which is easier to deceive with.

Dan Rather is my idol.

For CBS... JRV

*covers forehead with hand*

...

heh, sigh :)

Liberals are fucked up too. You’re right, when we can’t handle something, like Bush being popular and in power, we fabricate stuff… but that's just part of our superior intellectual abilities. Cons. aren't very good at making stuff up, you see, it's all crazy stuff... we focus on smaller stuff, which is easier to deceive with.

Dan Rather is my idol.

For CBS... JRV

And they continue to wonder why they lost the Election. :rolleyes:

All I have to say is... KEEP IT UP!

I hope to see the same results in four years and at this rate it is going to be a "cake-walk"!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

You forget Dubya though, and his ‘weapons of mass destruction’. That’s a classic case of cons. making shit up… and notice how nobody bought it anyway. But that's okay, they won the war. Yeha.

You forget Dubya though, and his ‘weapons of mass destruction’. That’s a classic case of cons. making shit up… and notice how nobody bought it anyway. But that's okay, they won the war. Yeha.

Hmmm...

And here I thought there were four Independant Intelligence Agencies that "gave him" that information.

That wouldn't happen to be one of those "Rather Facts" that we were talking about earlier, would it?

That's what I thought...

Again, Liberals never met a "fact" they just couldn't "make-up"!

And here we have empirical evidence of just that...

Regards,
Gaar

if you think about it just about every damn thing is based on lies from the UN to lifers

side note everyone should watch this
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-video/Media/video/2005/01/27/golfgti.mov

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:

Not buying it.

Just talk to a consertative about Bill and Hillery and you will probably hear some nastying things. ;)

Look at the case with Terri S. Insults are flying at the husband, the judge and even the President.

Nasty people are not defined by the philisophical codes for life.

Alright listen up. Liberals (hereinfater referred to as Libs.) are for the most part ignorant, immature, childish and blinded by ‘faith’. Most, in my experience, seem to have a few screws loose and buy heavily into the craziest of conspiracy theories, while criticizing Conservatives for questioning their 'facts'.... They’re fuckin’ messed up gits. Don't get me started on the rich ones, they're the worst of all, and the most hypocritical ... one more thing, Libs. are easily scared.

fixed

Happy? :D

Very :D

Hmmm...

And here I thought there were four Independant Intelligence Agencies that "gave him" that information.

That wouldn't happen to be one of those "Rather Facts" that we were talking about earlier, would it?

That's what I thought...

Again, Liberals never met a "fact" they just couldn't "make-up"!

And here we have empirical evidence of just that...

Regards,
Gaar
For posterity's sake, why don't you educate everyone with the public statement saying specifically that ANY FACTS IN THAT RELEASE WERE IN ERROR. Any of them. Not what it was delivered by, not the release's manufacture itself, but the facts within. I just wonder if anyone has already reconciled this. And i don't mean pass on a thread to a rightwing mouthpiece, someone specifically in the administration qualifying or disqualifying the FACTS IN THE PAPER.

And, while you're at it, you should mention how many times the information regarding Bush's assumed duty disappeared and reappeared over the course of the months leading into the SBV (USA NEXT) attacks on Kerry. Do you have the links for that?
It doesn't really add up much. But you probably can find that stuff easy enough, right?

fixed



Very :D

Thanks. You saved me a job. I was just going to do that...

And i don't mean pass on a thread to a rightwing mouthpiece, someone specifically in the administration qualifying or disqualifying the FACTS IN THE PAPER.

Well, given that they admitted that the Report was done around a "made-up" memo, it would be kind of hard to refute something that never was...

How am I supposed to refute a "fact" that never was a fact, just some made-up fiction by some Liberal who hated Bush.

So if you can point out a fact that was part of the story, perhaps I could accommodate you.

Interesting how you didn't address the FACT that the President was given 4 Independent reports about WMD's, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

Well, given that they admitted that the Report was done around a "made-up" memo, it would be kind of hard to refute something that never was...

How am I supposed to refute a "fact" that never was a fact, just some made-up fiction by some Liberal who hated Bush.

So if you can point out a fact that was part of the story, perhaps I could accomodate you.

Interesting how you didn't address the FACT that the President was given 4 Independant reports about WMD's, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar
So there ya go with your founded accusations, off topic and non-sequitir. M'kay, how the hell do you THINK you KNOW that any "liberal" made up any "fiction" about hating Bush? Not showing much moxy there. I figured you could pull something out of .....somewhere.
Since you aren't paying attention, i'll snip something for you.
That wouldn't happen to be one of those "Rather Facts" that we were talking about earlier, would it?
So deal with that. The rest of the article is pertinent to a larger problem. Deal with what i posted and i'll indulge you as well.
The fact involved preferential treatment and placement in the stead of actual duty, and the information that was missing is the timeframe that kept coming up which would be the 72-73 period. Really, are you just making sh*t up or were you actually paying attention when that happened.
I'll give you a hint - when the pertinent information was REPEATEDLY requested to explain Bush's last "year" of "service", that information disappeared and reappeared 4 TIMES, EVEN including the data disc it was on to be reportedly destroyed! AND THEN THEY MAGICALLY FOUND IT AGAIN!
What i said stands.
Interesting that you didn't address the complete ignorance of the inspector's reports leading up the invasion, as outlined in THE DUELFER REPORT. Why is that?
....waiting ....

And they continue to wonder why they lost the Election. :rolleyes:

All I have to say is... KEEP IT UP!

I hope to see the same results in four years and at this rate it is going to be a "cake-walk"!

:D

Regards,
Gaar
I have a slight feeling he's fucking around, and I hope to hell that you are :S.

I've been studying all day and I'm tired :(.

*snip*

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/133507.shtml

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembered George W. Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.


"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time, and he left at the end of the day."

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.
____________________________________

EDIT: And when you finish with that link...

http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html

New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)
Newly released records reflect payments and credits for Air National Guard service meeting minimum requirements, despite a six-month gap.

February 11, 2004
Modified: February 15, 2004
__________________________________

Anything else I can do for you?

Regards,
Gaar

So there ya go with your founded accusations, off topic and non-sequitir. M'kay, how the hell do you THINK you KNOW that any "liberal" made up any "fiction" about hating Bush? Not showing much moxy there. I figured you could pull something out of .....somewhere.
Since you aren't paying attention, i'll snip something for you.

So deal with that. The rest of the article is pertinent to a larger problem. Deal with what i posted and i'll indulge you as well.
The fact involved preferential treatment and placement in the stead of actual duty, and the information that was missing is the timeframe that kept coming up which would be the 72-73 period. Really, are you just making sh*t up or were you actually paying attention when that happened.
I'll give you a hint - when the pertinent information was REPEATEDLY requested to explain Bush's last "year" of "service", that information disappeared and reappeared 4 TIMES, EVEN including the data disc it was on to be reportedly destroyed! AND THEN THEY MAGICALLY FOUND IT AGAIN!
What i said stands.
Interesting that you didn't address the complete ignorance of the inspector's reports leading up the invasion, as outlined in THE DUELFER REPORT. Why is that?
....waiting ....


Well... consider for a moment... just a moment, now, mind, that we have a sub-par officer, and he wants to go get involved in a political activity, instead of getting in the way of his colleagues. Now... presume this Officer is holding up a slot that a real Officer could fill (and no shortage of volunteers). In the late '60s and early '70s, the obvious course is to let bozo go.

In John Kerry's case, it was (censored) up by the numbers in the field, and forgetting to duck. In GW's case, it was a bad case of the Tequila Flu. Both were Just qualified enough that they couldn't get DX'ed by courts-martial, and both were just bad enough that their respective C.O's couldn't wait to be rid of 'em.
the easy course in both cases is to okay the soft-duty, and hope the blunderer/problem child doesn't come back.

In industry, "Screw up Move up" is the term, and in the Military at that time, the phrase was...saltier, but the same principle applies.

Now, we're looking at a specific point in each man's history- both men were quite young, and irresponsible in their own ways.
(the Winter-soldier hearings were massively irresponsible. so is being a drunk-and that's come from eight years dry.)

but the Memo... was fabricated. Likewise, most of the 'evidence' comes from a source that is, at best more questionable than the 527's.
Trusting a report based on questionable data is bad practice whether you're doing an environmental impact statement/Local Survey, or making a point in a political discussion involving easily stepped-on toes.
The only real difference being, that unlike a Surveyor, it takes a really BIG blunder (typing a Memo on Microsoft Word that allegedly predates word-processing...) for a Reporter, columnist, or Activist to lose his job-a Surveyor can lose his reputation, business, and future if he makes a blunder that is not nearly so blatant.

Well, given that they admitted that the Report was done around a "made-up" memo, it would be kind of hard to refute something that never was...

Regards,
Gaar
Well, given WHERE? That's the question. I've already specified what i meant, you still haven't qualified your statement.
The information wasn't made up, the style/format of the memo was because it was a reprint. Further qualifying the issue i've already brought up about where the information was that would set the whole thing straight.

*snip*
Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.
*snip* So supplied by WHOM?
*snip* a Republican close to Bush*snip*

That's funny since Bush was grounded from flight for that time and would have little to nothing to do with that guy in that period. Hmmm.
*snip*Anything else I can do for you?*snip*
Yeah, deal with these issues:

M'kay, how the hell do you THINK you KNOW that any "liberal" made up any "fiction" about hating Bush? Not showing much moxy there. I figured you could pull something out of .....somewhere.


someone specifically in the administration qualifying or disqualifying

and
I'll give you a hint - when the pertinent information was REPEATEDLY requested to explain Bush's last "year" of "service", that information disappeared and reappeared 4 TIMES, EVEN including the data disc it was on to be reportedly destroyed! AND THEN THEY MAGICALLY FOUND IT AGAIN!


and

Interesting that you didn't address the complete ignorance of the inspector's reports leading up the invasion, as outlined in THE DUELFER REPORT. Why is that?

So what do you have? I've been wanting to reconcile this for a while now but posting a dubious at best source for a logical dead-ender doesn't cut much of anything off the meal here.
...waiting...

Well... consider for a moment... just a moment, now, mind, that we have a sub-par officer, and he wants to go get involved in a political activity, instead of getting in the way of his colleagues. Now... presume this Officer is holding up a slot that a real Officer could fill (and no shortage of volunteers). In the late '60s and early '70s, the obvious course is to let bozo go.

In John Kerry's case, it was (censored) up by the numbers in the field, and forgetting to duck. In GW's case, it was a bad case of the Tequila Flu. Both were Just qualified enough that they couldn't get DX'ed by courts-martial, and both were just bad enough that their respective C.O's couldn't wait to be rid of 'em.
the easy course in both cases is to okay the soft-duty, and hope the blunderer/problem child doesn't come back.

In industry, "Screw up Move up" is the term, and in the Military at that time, the phrase was...saltier, but the same principle applies.

Now, we're looking at a specific point in each man's history- both men were quite young, and irresponsible in their own ways.
(the Winter-soldier hearings were massively irresponsible. so is being a drunk-and that's come from eight years dry.)

but the Memo... was fabricated. Likewise, most of the 'evidence' comes from a source that is, at best more questionable than the 527's.
Trusting a report based on questionable data is bad practice whether you're doing an environmental impact statement/Local Survey, or making a point in a political discussion involving easily stepped-on toes.
The only real difference being, that unlike a Surveyor, it takes a really BIG blunder (typing a Memo on Microsoft Word that allegedly predates word-processing...) for a Reporter, columnist, or Activist to lose his job-a Surveyor can lose his reputation, business, and future if he makes a blunder that is not nearly so blatant.
A fair post, mostly. However, i was looking for any of the administration specifically putting themselves on record as disqualifying what was proposed in the memo, not the fabrication of the memo itself. They allowed the blog maniacs to do most of the work. I've also stated how the administration itself DID NOT replicate anything from the supposedly original attendance reports since they didn't have them in possession, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, the WHOLE time they were being requested, right into the SBV fray that has now turned into (yes, turned into, some of the same members) USA NEXT who so brazenly and stupidly is attacking the AARP as being homosexual supporters and whatever bullsh*t just because they don't buy Bush's bullsh*t about Social Security. The data source for the records were even PUBLICLY STATED as having been destroyed. Then, magically, they were found again. That requires an explanation that uses logic and factual backup and not mere speculation. I noticed that early on Bush had denied smoking anything, then just avoided it and the coke thing whenever it came up - until a "friend" let loose to the media an actual recording that BUSH CANNOT REFUTE that has him quite plainly admit behaviour as such.

i think asking whether or not its the conservatives or liberals that are more insulting is a pointless question in the first place, as what a persons political beliefs are have no bearing on how opinionated, arrogant, or rude they are...that all depends on each specific person.

http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html[/url]

New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)
Newly released records reflect payments and credits for Air National Guard service meeting minimum requirements, despite a six-month gap.

February 11, 2004
Modified: February 15, 2004

Regards,
Gaar
Nice attempt, i'll give you that, even though it seemed a little insidious to be an EDIT. But i'm not complaining. I was getting bored while waiting for you to finish googling, so i glanced over to the anti-goofball page and noticed how you hijacked that thread. You could ruin cereal. ;)
Well, you still didn't meet any of the requirements i asked for, but i imagine this is the best you can do with the material you can find. I'm glad you were honest enough to include the "mostly" part, "six-month gap" part.
*snip*
During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.
The Boston Globe reported Feb. 12 that Bush’s suspension from flight duty while he was in Alabama “should have prompted an investigation by his commander” in Houston under Air Force regulations in effect at the time. The Globe also said “It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.” Killian is deceased.
That tends to support Bush's statement that he did perform duty in Alabama, though it falls short of conclusive proof.
On Feb. 13, the White House released hundreds of additional pages from Bush’s military records. Nothing in those files, however, provided any further documentation of Bush’s presence at Donnelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama beyond the single dental examination record.
The Dallas Morning News reported Feb. 12 an allegation that Bush documents were discarded in 1997. The News said a retired Guard Lieutenant Colonel, Bill Burkett, said that in 1997 he overheard then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, tell the chief of the National Guard to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." The newspaper quoted Burkett as saying that a few days later he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can, and that he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.
The trash-can allegation is puzzling because the type of documents alleged to be discarded are the same type of documents that the White House produced Feb. 10 after receiving copies from and Air Force Reserve storage facility in Denver, and which the White House now cites as proof of Bush’s service.
The New York Times also quoted Burkett Feb. 12 as saying he overheard Bush aides requesting a review of Bush’s personnel files in 1997, but the Times did not report any allegation from Burkett that documents had been discarded. Both the Times and Dallas Morning News reported denials from various Guard officials and Bush aides that any documents had been destroyed.
On Feb. 13, moreover, the Boston Globe reported that Burkett’s account is contradicted by a key witness, a friend of Burkett who was present at the time and place Burkett claims to have seen documents discarded.

The Globe reported:

But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.

"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

/\The above is curteousy of provided link at factcheck.org/\
IRL is intervening so if you have any real meat here dealing with what i asked then telegram me or start a flame thread or something to let me know that i didn't waste my time, m'kay? Stay sweet.

So what do you have? I've been wanting to reconcile this for a while now but posting a dubious at best source for a logical dead-ender doesn't cut much of anything off the meal here.
...waiting...

What is the sense?

You dismiss out of hand eye witness accounts simply because of who gave the name to a reporter...

Did you check the mans credentials to see if he was who he says he was?

So, if you can just dismiss first hand knowledge, what is it I could offer that would be any more valid than that?

You obviously have a bias in the matter and will disregard anything that doesn't support it.

So why would I waste my time with you?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: By the way, you might like to read the quote you posted, it seems to be suggesting, to me anyway, that the guy who said he saw documents in the trash is a liar, perhaps you should check to see if he is they guy that "made-up" that "Rather Document"?!?!

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:
you see what you want to see. as somebody who is both liberal and conservative (and neither, as well), i can tell you that conservatives tend to bash with more frequency but liberals tend to bash with greater intensity. i would rate the net bashing as equal.

I think the reason why Conservatives are insulted more is because they're far easier to insult. Insulting a liberal won't get you much of a reaction. But insult a Conservative, oh man, they'll do everything from praying for you to threatening to shoot you (EAT 2ND AMENDMENT, YANKEE! :mp5: ) It's not quite as amusing as insulting a Liberal, who generally just shrug it off with some pseudointellectual rhetoric.

But no, honestly. Conservatives, particularly Christians, have a tendency to play possum (although I don't doubt minorities sometimes do it too). They constantly pretend to be the victims of imaginary persecution, but really, that's nonsense.

you see what you want to see. as somebody who is both liberal and conservative (and neither, as well), i can tell you that conservatives tend to bash with more frequency but liberals tend to bash with greater intensity. i would rate the net bashing as equal.

I believe you are mixing Bashing with Debate...

While I agree that there are those on both sides of the fence, I am willing to not only acknowledge those on my side of the spectrum (Religious/Conservative) but I am also willing to confront them when they are wrong...

You show me many on the other side willing to do that!

Kerry was a fine example during the Election cycle. He confronted only those who were against him, while not commenting on those who were against Bush. Where Bush confronted both sides and said they should stop.

See a bit of trend there at all?

And about that Liberals bash with greater intensity "Theory", I have to agree with you there when you see shootings at Republican Headquarters across the Nation, during the Election. As well as seeing for myself how Liberals defaced other peoples property by defacing Bush signs. I never saw one Kerry sign that was defaced, and they were all over.

Regards,
Gaar

Abuse isn't a matter of their ideology. It's a matter of who they are as a person.

Troll enough, and you can get almost anyone to flame.

BOTH liberals and conservatives are uber-disrespectful to minorities like libertarians.

BOTH liberals and conservatives are uber-disrespectful to minorities like libertarians.

I'm not. I think you're half-right ;)

I'm not. I think you're half-right ;)
Does that wink signify the double-meaning that I think I see in that statement?

Does that wink signify the double-meaning that I think I see in that statement?

There was a double meaning, yes. :D Now, tell me what you thought it was, and i'll tell you if you were right. :)

I have one name; Bill O'Reilley

Fox is a totally biased pro-conservative machine who try to show liberal as "enemy of the state"

I myself am a conservative. I go to school in one of the few conservative leaning schools in NYC. A little blotch of red in a sea of blue. Based on the debates I have been in and participaed in at my school, I agree with what some people have said, that it depends on the character of the person, not the ideology. I, myself, am a person who has often offended people with my very blunt and argumentative method of debate. There are liberals in the same boat as me. But there are also members of both sides who prefer a calm, relaxed, quiet, non-violent debate.

I have one name; Bill O'Reilley

Fox is a totally biased pro-conservative machine who try to show liberal as "enemy of the state"

I have one name: Helen Thomas. A totally biased pro-liberal bitch who tries to show conservatives as "enemies of everything".

I have one name; Bill O'Reilley

Fox is a totally biased pro-conservative machine who try to show liberal as "enemy of the state"


How about everyone on C(ommunist)N(ews)N(etwork) ? There's vitriol on both sides.

Forgive me for butting in here, but go to the political compass site. It is good way to define exactly where you stand in the political spectrum.

www.politicalcompass.org

Did it a while ago. 7.4, 5.6

What can I say? I'm a radical. ;)

Kerry was a fine example during the Election cycle. He confronted only those who were against him, while not commenting on those who were against Bush. Where Bush confronted both sides and said they should stop.

See a bit of trend there at all?


Thats because Kerry is a thouroughly incompetant fuckoff (as opposed to Bush, who is mearly a mostly incompetant fuckoff). And all you people who voted against him ruined the Great Plan! We here in Massachusetts had been plotting to get rid of him for years! Normally this is done by voting for the opposition, but the republican party is incapable of mounting a campaign against the man here. So we ran him for president. He was supposed to win, dammit. Then the country would go down the tubes for 4 years, setting up for an easy win in '08 by someone sensible, like John McCain. Now we have to face the prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president, and she might have a chance of succeeding. And its all thanks to you guys. Great job there. Now we can be just like Europe, one giant socialist paradise, where everyone has every dime they've ever earned taken away by the government and handed off to people who don't deserve it. Nice going there. And on top of all that, I'm stuck with Kerry as a senator until I can find a candidate to defeat him (not an easy task in a state filled where all the conservatives are lunatics, and the liberals are Kerry supporters). It sucks being a true centrist.

And all you people who voted against him ruined the Great Plan! We here in Massachusetts had been plotting to get rid of him for years!

Glad to be of Service...

Let us know if there's anything else we can do for you!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

There was a double meaning, yes. :D Now, tell me what you thought it was, and i'll tell you if you were right. :)
You mean I'm half-right because I agree on social issues with you, but I'm also half-right because I believe in right-wing economics. :D

Glad to be of Service...

Let us know if there's anything else we can do for you!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

I know, you can engineer a defeat of Hillary Clinton. One so bad that it crushes her hopes and dreams so badly that the thought of being president sends her into fits of quivering fear.

I know, you can engineer a defeat of Hillary Clinton. One so bad that it crushes her hopes and dreams so badly that the thought of being president sends her into fits of quivering fear.

Done. :D

Anything else?

Regards,
Gaar

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:


of course you do.

and i see the conservatives as being more abusive.


each side sees the other side as being more abusive to the other.

one opinion article disproves your theory

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=759&e=4&u=/ucac/20050310/cm_ucac/comebackliberals

One small point, not about the article but about your statement. Just a little technical thing, but using the word "opinion" and "disprove" in the same sentence is very contradictory. Proof relates to facts, which are by definition not opinions.

im a conservative.. and thats a load.. get one conservative on the issue of abortion and youll see my point.. conservatives are far more abusive


i think the point is that generally conservatives are less abusive overall than liberals and from my experience thats true. almost everyone ive tried to talk to all they have done is say im wrong because im a conservative andmy views are different. but it is a good point that we are kinda pissy about abortion sometimes

How about everyone on C(ommunist)N(ews)N(etwork) ? There's vitriol on both sides.
Communist my ass. They're liberal when it suits their ratings and they're conservative when it suits their ratings.

of course you do.

and i see the conservatives as being more abusive.

each side sees the other side as being more abusive to the other.

Well, we wish your side would at least quit shooting at us...

We can handle the verbal stuff, no problem. It's when you start throwing around lead that we become a bit concerned for our safety.

Regards,
Gaar

Well, we wish your side would at least quit shooting at us...

We can handle the verbal stuff, no problem. It's when you start throwing around lead that we become a bit concerned for our safety.

Regards,
Gaar


woah, woah.

when do we shoot at you?

last time i checked, you were the side with the doctor-murdering religious nuts and the gun-obsessed NRA.

liberals are the peace loving hippies, remember?

gogo steryotypes!

woah, woah.

when do we shoot at you?

last time i checked, you were the side with the doctor-murdering religious nuts and the gun-obsessed NRA.

liberals are the peace loving hippies, remember?

gogo steryotypes!



yes but some are peace-loving babykillers
no offense but thats what i believe

Here is how this will break down. Conservatives will be all Bush,blah blah blah, and liberals will be like Communism!NO!NO, bleh, bleh, bleh! And then the libertarians will be like, less government bloh, bloh, bloh! Then come the centrists, blah-bleh, blah-bleh, blah,bleh! And we will end up in the same way we always are, except this time there will be free beer afterwards.

yes but some are peace-loving babykillers


i am by no means pro-abortion. if i had to make the decision, i would say no.

so let me ask you: when the decision comes around 'should we let the baby come to term, or end it now?' who do you want making that decision: you, or the government?

if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

but get your government off our bodies.

Here is how this will break down. Conservatives will be all Bush,blah blah blah, and liberals will be like Communism!NO!NO, bleh, bleh, bleh! And then the libertarians will be like, less government bloh, bloh, bloh! Then come the centrists, blah-bleh, blah-bleh, blah,bleh! And we will end up in the same way we always are, except this time there will be free beer afterwards.



What side are you on?

Here is how this will break down. Conservatives will be all Bush,blah blah blah, and liberals will be like Communism!NO!NO, bleh, bleh, bleh! And then the libertarians will be like, less government bloh, bloh, bloh! Then come the centrists, blah-bleh, blah-bleh, blah,bleh! And we will end up in the same way we always are, except this time there will be free beer afterwards.


how 'bout we just skip all the 'ble,ble,ble' and get free beer now?

What side are you on?
libertarian.

i am by no means pro-abortion. if i had to make the decision, i would say no.

so let me ask you: when the decision comes around 'should we let the baby come to term, or end it now?' who do you want making that decision: you, or the government?

if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

but get your government off our bodies.



first the government isnt on your bodies. and i believe that abortion is wrong.
let me ask those of you who do support abortion how would you feel if you were aborted?

libertarian.


ok just wonderin

first the government isnt on your bodies. and i believe that abortion is wrong.
let me ask those of you who do support abortion how would you feel if you were aborted?
We wouldn't really know how we fealt because we wouldn't be here.

Done. :D

Anything else?

Regards,
Gaar


That fast? You're good. I can't wait for '08 >;o)

We wouldn't really know how we fealt because we wouldn't be here.


yes you wouldnt be here.
how does that make you feel though? the thought of not existing?
ever?

yes you wouldnt be here.
how does that make you feel though? the thought of not existing?
If that is what my mother chose, then that is her decision, no ill-will. .

If that is what my mother chose, then that is her decision, no ill-will. .

wellyea but would having been alive, do you wish she had had one?

yes you wouldnt be here.
how does that make you feel though? the thought of not existing?
ever?


doesn't bother me any.

i mean: it's gonna happen sometime, why be afraid of it?

i fear only humiliation.

yes but some are peace-loving babykillers
no offense but thats what i believe
the original post said that "It's when you [liberals] start throwing around lead that we [conservatives] become a bit concerned for our safety."

unless you are implying that medical abortions are performed by shooting pregnant women in the stomach, i think you're on a different tangent than the original post.

doesn't bother me any.

i mean: it's gonna happen sometime, why be afraid of it?

i fear only humiliation.



thats good that you fear so little but we are not all the same.

how does that make you feel though? the thought of not existing?
ever?
i would rather never have existed then know that my mother did not have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body.

the original post said that "It's when you [liberals] start throwing around lead that we [conservatives] become a bit concerned for our safety."

unless you are implying that medical abortions are performed by shooting pregnant women in the stomach, i think you're on a different tangent than the original post.


that was meant as a reply to the liberals are peace loving hippies

i would rather never have existed then know that my mother did not have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body.


yes you say that but this is one of those things that you wouldnt know until you experienced it but you wouldnt know if you did.
i just believe that abortions should be illegal. and definitely partial birth abortions those are nasty and thank God they are illegal

wellyea but would having been alive, do you wish she had had one?
No, but if she wanted one I believe she should exercise her right. Thats not a valid argument against abortion.

that was meant as a reply to the liberals are peace loving hippies
Whats wrong with peace?

No, but if she wanted one I believe she should exercise her right. Thats not a valid argument against abortion.



just a question. not meant as an argument

just a question. not meant as an argument
Sorry, it kind of sounded like one.

Whats wrong with peace?


nothing peace is great but there will never be world peace

yes you say that but this is one of those things that you wouldnt know until you experienced it but you wouldnt know if you did.

i will thank you not to tell me what i do and don't know. i am quite sure of my feelings on this subject, and you are in no position to question my evaluation.

i just believe that abortions should be illegal. and definitely partial birth abortions those are nasty and thank God they are illegal
i will also thank you to quit with the hijack...let's get back to the actual topic at hand. start an abortion thread if you want.

Sorry, it kind of sounded like one.


its ok it was worded like an argument

nothing peace is great but there will never be world peace


the longer you keep saying that, the longer it will be true

i will thank you not to tell me what i do and don't know. i am quite sure of my feelings on this subject, and you are in no position to question my evaluation.

i will also thank you to quit with the hijack...let's get back to the actual topic at hand. start an abortion thread if you want.



if its the evaluation of my post i am in the position to question your evaluation of me. and im sorry but no one alive, but Jesus(if you believe in him), knows what death is like.
about the "hijack" thats what happens sometimes people get off subject

the longer you keep saying that, the longer it will be true



yes but how could there be world peace if i did say there could be world peace? just a question

yes but how could there be world peace if i did say there could be world peace? just a question


when i said "you" i did not mean you, personally.

i said it to everyone who fights because "well, there won't ever be world peace, so i might as well shoot the bastard"

people have already given up on an end to violence, and that attitude is what prevents it from happening.

when i said "you" i did not mean you, personally.

i said it to everyone who fights because "well, there won't ever be world peace, so i might as well shoot the bastard"

people have already given up on an end to violence, and that attitude is what prevents it from happening.


good point.
but there will always be someone who gets mad at someone else for something and you can deny it if you want but its unavoidable
but people who havent given up on an end to violence are setting themselves up for disappointment
i believe anyway

good point.
but there will always be someone who gets mad at someone else for something and you can deny it if you want but its unavoidable,i believe


and i'm sure there are better ways to overcome anger then through violence.

and i'm sure there are better ways to overcome anger then through violence.


yes there are, most of the time
i guess its in the hands of those involved if everyone could get along with everyone else and solve problems diplomatically then there would be peace but everyone knows that wont happen and if it does it wont be anytime soon

i personally believe that neither is correct, communism is the best way.

i personally believe that neither is correct, communism is the best way.


except that it doesnt work.
no offense but it never has and never will because someone will eventually figure out how to use the system

As Matt Stone said:

"I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals."

Though I disagree with neoconservatism more than liberalism, but that's just about it.

This is a bit off of the current topic but I've got a question Dementedus_Yammus about that first quote in your sig...if those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, than what about you being communist? Aren't you giving up your economic liberties in exchange for economic security? If i'm way off the mark there just correct me please.

it would work just if there where no brainwashed fascist americans to mess it up, look at cuba

it would work just if there where no brainwashed fascist americans to mess it up, look at cuba

*falls over laughing*

woah, woah.

when do we shoot at you?

last time i checked, you were the side with the doctor-murdering religious nuts and the gun-obsessed NRA.

liberals are the peace loving hippies, remember?

gogo steryotypes!

During the Election there were 3 incidents, across the Country, of Republican Headquarters being shot at...

I wish some of you liberals would "live" that "peace loving" mantra.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm not fascist and I'm not brainwashed, but I still don't want communism. Communism is just as bad as authoritarianism in that it's a limitation on one's rights as an economic entity.

hey everybody i think everybody should shut up and turn communist, i think the world would be a better place with everbody being equal and all. BUSH :sniper:

i am by no means pro-abortion. if i had to make the decision, i would say no.

so let me ask you: when the decision comes around 'should we let the baby come to term, or end it now?' who do you want making that decision: you, or the government?

if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

but get your government off our bodies.

Women are all for "equal Rights"...

Right up to the point where they may have to give a man "some" say with regards to a life he helped create. Then it's all about THEIR Right's, no one else's... Not the Babies or the man who helped create it, just them.

Just a bit Hypocritical, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar

it would work just if there where no brainwashed fascist americans to mess it up, look at cuba



yea uh cubas not commmunist really
they are a military dictatorship which is not communism

Women are all for "equal Rights"...

Right up to the point where they may have to give a man "some" say with regards to a life he helped create. Then it's all about THEIR Right's, no one else's... Not the Babies or the man who helped create it, just them.

Just a bit Hypocritical, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar



and they dont wanna be drafted

and i'm sure there are better ways to overcome anger then through violence.

You are correct, there are better ways of overcoming anger than through violence, but violence is often the easiest path. It is one of several basic flaws in the human condition; they are built in, instinctual responses to stimuli that provide adequate survival chances in an uncivilized environment. To overcome these basic flaws is one of the goals of civilization, and most utopias claim to eliminate them all (selfishness, violence, competition to name a few) but fail in the end to overcome the power of the flaws. Communism purported to overcome selfishness and competition, replacing them with selflessness and support of the community, but in the end, it was defeated by the very forces it sought to eliminate.

No society in history has succeeded in eliminating violence. Some have controlled it by giving it an outlet, but none have eliminated it. The power of the flaw is too strong.

americans are very braiwashed.. but then again so were the soviets, im more like Che Guevara i am communist but also anti tyranny, and well the USA is the biggest tyrant of them all. "limitation on one's rights as an economic entity" i belive that civil rights are more important than this i dont care if disagree you wont change my mind. !No lo vamos a olvidar! HAIL CHE

You are correct, there are better ways of overcoming anger than through violence, but violence is often the easiest path. It is one of several basic flaws in the human condition; they are built in, instinctual responses to stimuli that provide adequate survival chances in an uncivilized environment. To overcome these basic flaws is one of the goals of civilization, and most utopias claim to eliminate them all (selfishness, violence, competition to name a few) but fail in the end to overcome the power of the flaws. Communism purported to overcome selfishness and competition, replacing them with selflessness and support of the community, but in the end, it was defeated by the very forces it sought to eliminate.

No society in history has succeeded in eliminating violence. Some have controlled it by giving it an outlet, but none have eliminated it. The power of the flaw is too strong.


yes outlets are good if you have them right.
like hitler his outlet was the jews. good point though conservative industry
see even if you have an outlet someones screwed

americans are very braiwashed.. but then again so were the soviets, im more like Che Guevara i am communist but also anti tyranny, and well the USA is the biggest tyrant of them all. "limitation on one's rights as an economic entity" i belive that civil rights are more important than this i dont care if disagree you wont change my mind. !No lo vamos a olvidar! HAIL CHE


your also brainwashed except for communism

This is a bit off of the current topic but I've got a question Dementedus_Yammus about that first quote in your sig...if those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, than what about you being communist? Aren't you giving up your economic liberties in exchange for economic security? If i'm way off the mark there just correct me please.

communism is an economic policy, where those who have more than they need give it up for those who have less than they need.

you do not get a jacuzzi for your learjet when you make it big, but neither does the diabetic child go without his insulin because the parents cannot afford it.

it's a system where people are rewarded for what they can give back to society, whereas a capitalism rewards the ones who do what they can to help themselves.


the quote is in there as a commentary against the use of the war on terror to deny us our most basic rights. (see the 'america imprisons innocent german' thread)

americans are very braiwashed.. but then again so were the soviets, im more like Che Guevara i am communist but also anti tyranny, and well the USA is the biggest tyrant of them all. "limitation on one's rights as an economic entity" i belive that civil rights are more important than this i dont care if disagree you wont change my mind. !No lo vamos a olvidar! HAIL CHE

Hmm... your final statement makes you sound very much brainwashed.

Anyway, anyone who thinks rights should be sacrificed because they aren't "important" really aren't pro-freedom.

Stuependousland are you a facist brainwashed american

hey everybody i think everybody should shut up and turn communist, i think the world would be a better place with everbody being equal and all. BUSH :sniper:

Would you force your equality on everyone? If no, then your system breaks down because people are inherently not equal (everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, I'm not being racist here). If yes, then you would consign the entire human race to mediocrity, because you cannot elevate someone above their capabilities, but you can certainly drag people down.

Women are all for "equal Rights"...

Right up to the point where they may have to give a man "some" say with regards to a life he helped create. Then it's all about THEIR Right's, no one else's... Not the Babies or the man who helped create it, just them.

Just a bit Hypocritical, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar


and i am not a woman.

just pointing that out.

i say 'get your government off our bodies' because i want the government making decisions about abortions as much as i want the government making decisions about tattoos or body peircings. (of which i have neither, but hey: it's the principle that counts)

except that it doesnt work.
no offense but it never has and never will because someone will eventually figure out how to use the system
Actually there has never been a truly communist state. Many have tried and all have miserably failed, but you are correct as to why.

Would you force your equality on everyone? If no, then your system breaks down because people are inherently not equal (everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, I'm not being racist here). If yes, then you would consign the entire human race to mediocrity, because you cannot elevate someone above their capabilities, but you can certainly drag people down.
My sentiments exactly.

Stuependousland are you a facist brainwashed american


yes the one who supports democracy is a fascist while the one who supports a government that would very probably be ruled by a fascist isnt yea that makes sense

Actually there has never been a truly communist state. Many have tried and all have miserably failed, but you are correct as to why.

thanks and an example is jamestown

americans are very braiwashed.. but then again so were the soviets, im more like Che Guevara i am communist but also anti tyranny, and well the USA is the biggest tyrant of them all. "limitation on one's rights as an economic entity" i belive that civil rights are more important than this i dont care if disagree you wont change my mind. !No lo vamos a olvidar! HAIL CHE

keep in mind that civil rights and communism are not connected, one is a social issue, the other is economic. One embraces the rights of the individual, the other esteems that the collective efforts of society, when directed back upon that society, improve the whole. Please, go visit http://www.moral-politics.com, take the test and read the analysis. Read through the whole site if you have time. You may find that you are not as communist as you think.

thanks and an example is jamestown
I stand corrected, but I do not think it could exist on a largescale for very long. I realize I sound like a pompous ass, ignore that.

hmmm, well I am almost about as liberal as you get, but I do my best to try to welcome my conservative brothers and sisters so that hopefully they can make their way towards a more open world view. It gets really difficult when I see blatent ignorance or want for violence though, but yeah. I would have to say I see liberals getting more defensive than abusive, being a liberal in America is hard because the media is so conservatively biased and the government leans so hard towards theocracy that its very difficult to be very liberal without being defensive about your point of view sometimes. I have a conservative friend who is pro-bush and is in the military and w00t you should hear his family talk about liberals. Me being a socialist you could see how I would have a hard time ;).

I stand corrected, but I do not think it could exist on a largescale for very long. I realize I sound like a pompous ass, ignore that.


no i meant that as an example of one that failed because ultimately it did fail as a communism

and i am not a woman.

just pointing that out.

i say 'get your government off our bodies' because i want the government making decisions about abortions as much as i want the government making decisions about tattoos or body peircings. (of which i have neither, but hey: it's the principle that counts)

Not sure when they started outlawing tattoo’s and piercing, but ok...

I was just trying to point out that, when a woman has an Abortion there are other "peoples" interest that "should" be taken into account.

I am not saying that there is never a reason to Abort, just that I don't believe the entire decision should be just the Woman's. But there is no real way of making Laws to deal with that, so we are left with Women having the ultimate decision, and all we hear about it is how we should leave them alone about it.

I just want to make sure that they are aware that their decision does not only affect them, and the others involved don't seem to have a choice, if they don't let them.

and I am not trying to suggest, in any manner, that even if there were shared decision on the matter that a man should get 50%, just saying that he does have an "interest" in a life that he has helped create, just as a Baby, after a certain amount of gestation would be able to survive outside of the womb.

Regards,
Gaar

no i meant that as an example of one that failed because ultimately it did fail as a communism
Oh, I see.

hmmm, well I am almost about as liberal as you get, but I do my best to try to welcome my conservative brothers and sisters so that hopefully they can make their way towards a more open world view. It gets really difficult when I see blatent ignorance or want for violence though, but yeah. I would have to say I see liberals getting more defensive than abusive, being a liberal in America is hard because the media is so conservatively biased and the government leans so hard towards theocracy that its very difficult to be very liberal without being defensive about your point of view sometimes. I have a conservative friend who is pro-bush and is in the military and w00t you should hear his family talk about liberals. Me being a socialist you could see how I would have a hard time ;).



your one of the liberals i get along with and i also try to be open minded and at the very least listen to the opposition and admit defeat when i realize it.

yea uh cubas not commmunist really
they are a military dictatorship which is not communism
hey stuependousland and The Hildish Alliance, where do you guys located, I'm a member of Revolutionary Communist Party and you guys are talking about the same exactly stuff that we are. I'm from seattle and it would be very interesting to get connected with some socialists on here ;).

your one of the liberals i get along with and i also try to be open minded and at the very least listen to the opposition and admit defeat when i realize it.
yay a good conservative! hehe

Conservatives are all neo-con fundamentalist Christians who support taking over the world and oppressing the weak.

Liberals are all gay communists who want to turn government into a spending contest, sharing love and multiculturalism accross the globe.

Oh wait, forums like this are supposed to be a place for civilized discussion. My bad.

hey stuependousland and The Hildish Alliance, where do you guys located, I'm a member of Revolutionary Communist Party and you guys are talking about the same exactly stuff that we are. I'm from seattle and it would be very interesting to get connected with some socialists on here ;).


im from florida and im not a socialist but hey its a great idea

Conservatives are all neo-con fundamentalist Christians who support taking over the world and oppressing the weak.

Liberals are all gay communists who want to turn government into a spending contest, sharing love and multiculturalism accross the globe.

Oh wait, forums like this are supposed to be a place for civilized discussion. My bad.



yep and people like you shouldnt be here if all you are going to do is insult others to make your self feel better

lol no biggy man, just keep an open mind ;).

lol no biggy man, just keep an open mind ;).


i try on most issues

yep and people like you shouldnt be here if all you are going to do is insult others to make your self feel better
Yeah, thats my job!

Not sure when they started outlawing tattoo’s and piercing, but ok...

they didn't.

but neither have they outlawed abortions.

i'm just saying that they have as much business regulating the first as they do regulating the others.


I am not saying that there is never a reason to Abort, just that I don't believe the entire decision should be just the Woman's. But there is no real way of making Laws to deal with that, so we are left with Women having the ultimate decision, and all we hear about it is how we should leave them alone about it.

I just want to make sure that they are aware that their decision does not only affect them, and the others involved don't seem to have a choice, if they don't let them.

Regards,
Gaar

i see completely where you are coming from, but where you give the benefit of the doubt* to the government, i give it to the parents in question (and in no way am i saying that it is only the choice of the woman alone. the abortion should be a unanimous decision between the parents.) <and yes, just the parents. i don't think that a second cousin twice removed should make the decision, if the parents have some reason to do it that the cousin has no part of>


* in this case, "the doubt" is whether an abortion is absolutely necessary in that particular instance

you say that the government should decide if the abortion is necessary, and i say that the parents should decide

Yeah, thats my job!


yes but thats not all you say or the first thing you say.

yep and people like you shouldnt be here if all you are going to do is insult others to make your self feel better


i think he was joking.

i think he was joking.


yes but i dont take kindly to people who insult my religion and my poilitical preference

i see completely where you are coming from, but where you give the benefit of the doubt* to the government, i give it to the parents in question (and in no way am i saying that it is only the choice of the woman alone. the abortion should be a unanimous decision between the parents.) <and yes, just the parents. i don't think that a second cousin twice removed should make the decision, if the parents have some reason to do it that the cousin has no part of>


* in this case, "the doubt" is whether an abortion is absolutely necessary in that particular instance

you say that the government should decide if the abortion is necessary, and i say that the parents should decide

I have never said that the Government should decide, if you believe I have, would you please show me where?

I HAVE espoused that the Father should have a say, and at some point perhaps the "Child's" Right's might want to be considered, but never have I advocated the Government decides. Perhaps the suggestion that the Baby may have Right's that the State may need to consider disturbs you?

Regards,
Gaar

Originally Posted by Lancamore
Conservatives are all neo-con fundamentalist Christians who support taking over the world and oppressing the weak.

Liberals are all gay communists who want to turn government into a spending contest, sharing love and multiculturalism accross the globe.

Oh wait, forums like this are supposed to be a place for civilized discussion. My bad.


yep and people like you shouldnt be here if all you are going to do is insult others to make your self feel better


Seriously... man what an ass. First of all there is a legitimate reason for a lot of either side to believe what they do, whether it be ignorance, elightenment, or just plain misinformation on either side. But man I have to say that you (Lancamore) have to be the most ignorant person I have heard from on this site.

and while we're at it, here are some fun quotes:

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.

Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.

Democrats (I think to myself) are liberals who believe the people are basically good, but that they need government help to organize their lives. They believe in freedom so fervently that they think it should be compulsory. They believe that the poor and ignorant are victims of an unfair system and that their circumstances can be improved if we give them help. Republicans (I think to myself) are conservatives who think it would be best if we faced the fact that people are no damned good. They think that if we admit that we have selfish, acquisitive natures and then set out to get all we can for ourselves by working hard for it, that things will be better for everyone. They are not insensitive to the poor, but tend to think the poor are impoverished because they won't work. They think there would be fewer of them to feel sorry for if the government did not encourage the proliferation of the least fit among us with welfare programs.

I have never said that the Government should decide, if you believe I have, would you please show me where?

I HAVE espoused that the Father should have a say, and at some point perhaps the "Child's" Right's might want to be considered, but never have I advocated the Government decides. Perhaps the suggestion that the Baby may have Right's that the State may need to consider disturbs you?

Regards,
Gaar


i agree about the father part.
but i believe the only time an abortion should be allowed is in cases of extreme danger to mother or child and cases of proven rape.

Seriously... man what an ass. First of all there is a legitimate reason for a lot of either side to believe what they do, whether it be ignorance, elightenment, or just plain misinformation on either side. But man I have to say that you (Lancamore) have to be the most ignorant person I have heard from on this site.


i agree heartily(sp?)

I have never said that the Government should decide, if you believe I have, would you please show me where?

sorry, i must have gotten you confused with some of the other anti-abortionists running around.


well, if that's the case, then i must say that we agree completely.

i don't like the thought of half of the people involved having no say in what goes on with their offspring.

i agree about the father part.
but i believe the only time an abortion should be allowed is in cases of extreme danger to mother or child and cases of proven rape.

that makes no sense to me.

saying "abortion is murder, except in cases where the mother got raped" is slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

if you truly believe that a lump of flesh the size of my thumb should be considered as a full citizen, then why does it matter if the father was a rapist?



plus, saying that the father should have a say in the matter, then taking the decision away from them completely is even more hypocritical.

that makes no sense to me.

saying "abortion is murder, except in cases where the mother got raped" is slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

if you truly believe that a lump of flesh the size of my thumb should be considered as a full citizen, then why does it matter if the father was a rapist?



plus, saying that the father should have a say in the matter, then taking the decision away from them completely is even more hypocritical.


oops.
whta i mean is if i have to make concessions then those are then ones i will make and if the fathers a rapist he foreited his rights the second he started raping the girl.

i regret that i have to leave tis forum. most of you have been open minded and not quick to tell me im wrong but good in pointing out my mistakes and i thank you for that. but must go bye and gnight

oops.
whta i mean is if i have to make concessions then those are then ones i will make and if the fathers a rapist he foreited his rights the second he started raping the girl.

ah, i see.

you think that the father should have no say if it was a case of rape.

that makes sense.

ah, i see.

you think that the father should have no say if it was a case of rape.

that makes sense.


i had to stay to see a reply but yes because rape is a crime correct?
and when a person willingly commits a crime then they forfeit all rights until they have completed punishment deigned necessary by a court if they are apprehended.

if you truly believe that a lump of flesh the size of my thumb should be considered as a full citizen, then why does it matter if the father was a rapist?

plus, saying that the father should have a say in the matter, then taking the decision away from them completely is even more hypocritical.

First off, I believe I said something about the Baby surviving outside the Womb, so I doubt a "lump of flesh the size of my thumb" qualifies for what I was saying...

But you got ahead and give me an opinion so you can dispute it.

You don't mind if I go now though, do you? It seems I am not required here for you to have a discussion with me.

Regards,
Gaar

First off, I believe I said something about the Baby surviving outside the Womb, so I doubt a "lump of flesh the size of my thumb" qualifies for what I was saying...

But you got ahead and give me an opinion so you can dispute it.

You don't mind if I go now though, do you? It seems I am not required here for you to have a discussion with me.

Regards,
Gaar



....


did you not see the part where that post was in response to a post by stupendousland?

hell, i even quoted the thing in that very same post.

....

did you not see the part where that post was in response to a post by stupendousland?

hell, i even quoted the thing in that very same post.

sorry, I thought it was being addressed to the larger issue of when the "Child's" Rights are to be considered. I apologize for the way I worded the response.

But my point remains...

I do not believe that there should be any consideration given to the "Child" until it is able to live outside the Womb.

Again, I apologize for my demeanor, I am getting a bit upset when people give me an opinion so they can argue with it... it seems to happen a bit around these Forums, just as my behavior of reacting to a post not addressed to me seems to on occasion.

Regards,
Gaar

What is the sense?
To qualify your arguments. You didn't.


You dismiss out of hand eye witness accounts simply because of who gave the name to a reporter...
His testimony was contradictory to a few others, not just one, AND as i said and as the record points out, the two people WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE TIME IN QUESTION.

So, if you can just dismiss first hand knowledge, what is it I could offer that would be any more valid than that?
You COULD try dealing with what i posted. Apparently you are poorly equipped to deal with the subject matter, even though i asked more than once. And pointed out specifically what i meant.

You obviously have a bias in the matter and will disregard anything that doesn't support it.
You have said just about nothing in a factual basis to support your statements, and i called you on it. Put up, or ... well, you probably know the rest.

So why would I waste my time with you?
Because you thought that your smokescreening might stand as a legitimate argument. Furthermore, why waste your time arguing semantically with people who don't deal with things on a purely semantic level? You've done better before, it's just that on this topic, you really can't pass muster.
Besides, you probably come here to waste time anyway, as a great many also do. Do you feel good that you haven't changed my mind?

And as i'd said, i'll indulge you when you indulge me. :fluffle:

Straughn, I would make you a special award, but as I've said before, I don't have the skills or the tools to do so. It's the thought that counts, right?

I'm glad that you see just how difficult Urantia can be.

how did this thread turn into abortion? oh well personally i think abortion is wrong. it comes down to black and white you either believe its murder or nothing. there is no in between

Straughn, I would make you a special award, but as I've said before, I don't have the skills or the tools to do so. It's the thought that counts, right?

I'm glad that you see just how difficult Urantia can be.
gaol benene fujijiji fewww cytytpoooo miiila. In other words, I have an idea.

gaol benene fujijiji fewww cytytpoooo miiila. In other words, I have an idea.

Muh?

im very conservative and seems to me that liberals tend to be more insulting when it comes to politics. i just tend to see more liberals bashing conservatives than the othe way around. feel free to dissagree with me :) (:


Im quite happy to agree with you. As a far left, anti-religious, atheist, pinko, hippy, punk pig I am quite happy to inform you that I have no tolerance left for the facists who refer to themselves as conservatives.

Muh?
I like your idea.

Straughn, I would make you a special award, but as I've said before, I don't have the skills or the tools to do so. It's the thought that counts, right?

I'm glad that you see just how difficult Urantia can be.
I thank you *bows*
Honestly, the just about the only thing i jump in on is when someone spouts some bullsh*t and then acts like the other guy is the fool. I've defended Urantia before, whether they remember or not, it's just that this time they were just about COMPLETELY wrong as far as facts go. Minds more and less impressionable than mine own read these threads ... for fairness's sake, if i know something about something, i'll get in and take a few hits. If i'm wrong, someone shows me up and we're both better for it in the end, as is the peruser.

As far as awards go, just keep up the good fight. *bows*

Im quite happy to agree with you. As a far left, anti-religious, atheist, pinko, hippy, punk pig I am quite happy to inform you that I have no tolerance left for the facists who refer to themselves as conservatives.

Welcome to the club! Well, I do tolerate them, unless of course they bitch like Urantia II.

I thank you *bows*
Honestly, the just about the only thing i jump in on is when someone spouts some bullsh*t and then acts like the other guy is the fool. I've defended Urantia before, whether they remember or not, it's just that this time they were just about COMPLETELY wrong as far as facts go. Minds more and less impressionable than mine own read these threads ... for fairness's sake, if i know something about something, i'll get in and take a few hits. If i'm wrong, someone shows me up and we're both better for it in the end, as is the peruser.

As far as awards go, just keep up the good fight. *bows*

*sigh* I'll learn how to work metal someday... And then the world will feel my wrath!!

*shakes fist*

Okay, staying on-topic: I completely agree with you on this. It happened all the time on the old PC Gamer forums... That place was a shithole.

Man, I don't know about you guys, but this thread seems pretty inane and trite to me! Although Conservative Industry had some insightful things to say.

I would propose, after reading this thread, that Winchester 76 is an unlikable person that provokes the people he discusses politics with. At the very least, his concious decision to misinterpret someone's sarcasm and use it against them indicates that he probably isn't all that pleasant, at least in common discussion.

In closing, people don't argue vociferously because they're liberal or conservative. They argue becuase one or more of them is not the kind of person you really give two shakes about.

Man, I don't know about you guys, but this thread seems pretty inane and trite to me! Although Conservative Industry had some insightful things to say.

I would propose, after reading this thread, that Winchester 76 is an unlikable person that provokes the people he discusses politics with. At the very least, his concious decision to misinterpret someone's sarcasm and use it against them indicates that he probably isn't all that pleasant, at least in common discussion.

In closing, people don't argue vociferously because they're liberal or conservative. They argue becuase one or more of them is not the kind of person you really give two shakes about.

I couldn't agree more.

Man, I don't know about you guys, but this thread seems pretty inane and trite to me! Although Conservative Industry had some insightful things to say.

I would propose, after reading this thread, that Winchester 76 is an unlikable person that provokes the people he discusses politics with. At the very least, his concious decision to misinterpret someone's sarcasm and use it against them indicates that he probably isn't all that pleasant, at least in common discussion.

In closing, people don't argue vociferously because they're liberal or conservative. They argue becuase one or more of them is not the kind of person you really give two shakes about.

heh heh i dont provoke people i simply arouse debate and i know sarcasm when i see i just decide to play or not play off it. i created this thread for debate and thats what i got

heh heh i dont provoke people i simply arouse debate and i know sarcasm when i see i just decide to play or not play off it. i created this thread for debate and thats what i gotActually, besides the sad display of pig-headedness between Straughn and Urantia, you had a whacky abortion thing, some people telling you that no single political group of human beings can logically be classified as holding to a single type of behavior, Conservative Industry contributing some decent intellectual material and then a bunch of people spewing partisan hackery. This was not a productive thread. Oddly enough, it's the unproductive ones that always go on for... 13 pages, now, I guess!

Actually, besides the sad display of pig-headedness between Straughn and Urantia, you had a whacky abortion thing, some people telling you that no single political group of human beings can logically be classified as holding to a single type of behavior, Conservative Industry contributing some decent intellectual material and then a bunch of people spewing partisan hackery. This was not a productive thread. Oddly enough, it's the unproductive ones that always go on for... 13 pages, now, I guess!
I agree with you about Conservative Industry ... as i'd said when the thread started i was impressed with how well it had gone for being such a flame-worthy topic.
As far as unproductive threads go .. what did you think of Heikoku's "c'mon get me pseudo-christians" thread?
BTW, i think that maybe if someone wants a simple statement and no debate they should say completely bland and uninspiring quotes. People can choose to agree or disagree at their behest, not even respond if they don't feel they need to. That's obviously not what this is, else all the threads would already be locked and it would merely be a non-responsive poster board.
Sometimes the play really works out the kinks, sometimes it's just a matter of self-indulgent entertainment. Whatever, it's not like anyone is forced to come here or review this stuff for finals for a grade!
Considering Conservative Industry again, i think those were astute points and they mightn't ever have been made had there not already been as much "argument" (tepid as it was) up that point, at all.

Personally I think liberals and anyone opposed to looney Republicans should stop worrying so much about being tolerant towards their opinions and learn to fight fire with fire. Conservatives are more tolerant of others opinions? Give me a break. Read anything by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and what you have is not a well thought out, interesting point of view, but page agfter page of scaremongering about the "liberal conspiracy". Just to but things into perspective, lets look at thing which liberals and conservatives would typically be intolerant of.

Liberals
Racism
Homophobia
Sexism
Needless killing and war
Unemployment

Conservatives
Gay rights
"Political correctness"
Feminism
Attempts to reduce racism
High taxes for rich people
Peaceful international relations
"Hypocrites" who have a go at them for it

Damn, those poor conservatives, it must be so difficult being discriminated against for their views, even though they're responsible for them, but still, shame on you liberals elitists for being so intolerant, think of the damage you've done.

Just to but things into perspective, lets look at thing which liberals and conservatives would typically be intolerant of.

Liberals
Racism
Homophobia
Sexism
Needless killing and war
Unemployment

Conservatives
Gay rights
"Political correctness"
Feminism
Attempts to reduce racism
High taxes for rich people
Peaceful international relations
"Hypocrites" who have a go at them for it


You forgot a few.

Liberals
Intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist until he's dead

Conservatives
Intolerant of live rapist

let me ask those of you who do support abortion how would you feel if you were aborted?
A question straight from the Reagan archives! I'm pretty sure I would not feel anything, not being alive and all.

yes you say that but this is one of those things that you wouldnt know until you experienced it but you wouldnt know if you did.
Then why did you ask the question?

During the Election there were 3 incidents, across the Country, of Republican Headquarters being shot at...

I wish some of you liberals would "live" that "peace loving" mantra.

Regards,
Gaar
Where did the myth that all liberals are against all violence come from? And how do you know that the nuts who shot at Republican buildings were liberal?

Women are all for "equal Rights"...

Right up to the point where they may have to give a man "some" say with regards to a life he helped create. Then it's all about THEIR Right's, no one else's... Not the Babies or the man who helped create it, just them.

Just a bit Hypocritical, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar
Where in the middle ground (between totally banning abortion and totally allowing it) do you suggest the law should go?

Your argument is a commonly used one. I really doubt that women who want abortions don't conslt with the father, and in the cases where they don't consult, the father probably doesn't give a crap anyway.

americans are very braiwashed.. but then again so were the soviets, im more like Che Guevara i am communist but also anti tyranny, and well the USA is the biggest tyrant of them all. "limitation on one's rights as an economic entity" i belive that civil rights are more important than this i dont care if disagree you wont change my mind. !No lo vamos a olvidar! HAIL CHE
Che Guevara was a violent man who routinely ordered executions of political dissidents in Cuba, and fully supported Castro's dictatorship. He also wanted to launch nuclear missiles at American cities, which would certainly have killed millions of people.

Not that I like America particularly, but Guevara was not the saint he is often made out to be.

You forgot a few.

Liberals
Intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist until he's dead

Conservatives
Intolerant of live rapist
What, so you think murder should be legal if it's in self defence? I agree that more leniency should be shown by the judge, but certainly don't let the killer off completely.

What, so you think murder should be legal if it's in self defence? I agree that more leniency should be shown by the judge, but certainly don't let the killer off completely.

It's not murder here in the US if it's self-defense. It's called a justifiable homicide.

Police have that right. And so do I. Under the law.

Or do you think a dead raped woman is morally superior to a dead murderer-rapist?

You forgot a few.

Liberals
Intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist until he's dead

Conservatives
Intolerant of live rapist

Contrary to what you might have read at Free Republic, liberals do not oppose people's right to defend their home, what they do oppose is people using their burglery victimhood as justification for murder, and believe me, not all of them do it in self-defence.

Man, I don't know about you guys, but this thread seems pretty inane and trite to me! Although Conservative Industry had some insightful things to say.

I would propose, after reading this thread, that Winchester 76 is an unlikable person that provokes the people he discusses politics with. At the very least, his concious decision to misinterpret someone's sarcasm and use it against them indicates that he probably isn't all that pleasant, at least in common discussion.

In closing, people don't argue vociferously because they're liberal or conservative. They argue becuase one or more of them is not the kind of person you really give two shakes about.

I have insightful things to say? Wow! Here I was thinking I was just complaining about the general state of the human race, and praying for the nuclear fire to come and wipe of the infestation of stupidity!

If my bitter, sardonic comments can engender insight in other people, there may yet be hope for the future of humanity.

Where did the myth that all liberals are against all violence come from? And how do you know that the nuts who shot at Republican buildings were liberal?

Well, you would hope that they would be against violence. At least as many of them as we could convince not to be violent, wouldn't you?

are you trying to suggest that the nut who shot at the Republican Headquarters was a Conservative?

Where in the middle ground (between totally banning abortion and totally allowing it) do you suggest the law should go?

Your argument is a commonly used one. I really doubt that women who want abortions don't conslt with the father, and in the cases where they don't consult, the father probably doesn't give a crap anyway.

No I do not. I only made the comment because I am sick of hearing "my body, my choice"... Yes, they get all the Right's, for the most part, do they have to rub it in? I was just pointing out there should be other concerns, and yes you are correct in that many, if not most, of the time those things are likely considered. But does that mean we don't address any that may not, just because it may be a very small number?

Regards,
Gaar

You forgot a few.

Liberals
Intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist until he's dead

Conservatives
Intolerant of live rapist

This, I think, sums it up best:

Liberals:
Intolerant of Conservatives

Conservatives:
Intolerant of Liberals


Just some fuel for this dying fire

are you trying to suggest that the nut who shot at the Republican Headquarters was a Conservative?
Are you trying to suggest that the only ideologies anyone can have is either liberal or conservative? Maybe the shooter was a neo-Nazi, or a revolutionary communist, or a libertarian? Maybe the attack wasn't politically motivated at all?

No I do not. I only made the comment because I am sick of hearing "my body, my choice"... Yes, they get all the Right's, for the most part, do they have to rub it in? I was just pointing out there should be other concerns, and yes you are correct in that many, if not most, of the time those things are likely considered. But does that mean we don't address any that may not, just because it may be a very small number?

I agree that the father deserves to be conulted, but I don't know how this matter could be (enforcably) legislated. I think that "my body, my choice" is a perfectly valid argument, and that the choice is ultimately the woman's.

You forgot a few.

Liberals
Intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist until he's dead

Conservatives
Intolerant of live rapist


not in the slightest.

people have the right to defend themselves, and nobody has a right to rape a woman.

(btw, i think his list already contradicts you. "intolerant of live woman who shoots rapist" is already on the conservative list as "feminism" and "intolerant of rapist" is already of the liberal list as "sexism"

nice try, tho)

Are you trying to suggest that the only ideologies anyone can have is either liberal or conservative? Maybe the shooter was a neo-Nazi, or a revolutionary communist, or a libertarian? Maybe the attack wasn't politically motivated at all?

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/September/03/LNtop2.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov04/273074.asp
http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/

Thats just democrats loosing their temper.

Call a protestant a heretic, and see how many guys start clawing at your feet.

Thats just democrats loosing their temper.

Call a protestant a heretic, and see how many guys start clawing at your feet.

So they lose their temper and we document it...

And that isn't indicitive of who may have commited these other acts?

Now I don't claim to have actual proof, but Logic would lead us to assume...

Or perhaps we shouldn't apply logic and just accept your version of events?

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/September/03/LNtop2.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov04/273074.asp
http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/
What is this supposed to prove? That Democrats can be violent? I never denied it.