RE: Partisanship

RE: Partisanship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:00:14 PM)
She's a liberal, whether something works or not is not important. It's the thought that counts.

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou No Mike it doesn't. Cars have fuel filters for a reason. Sugar is just like sand, it won't get into the engine. If you really want to do some damage to a car, pour a couple of gallons of diesel into a gasoline burning car. Kerosene will work too. I assure you the motor will be fucked after that. Didn't mean to hijack; just an FYI from your friendly neighborhood vandal. [:D] You owe Stan Lee an apology slaveboy......(friendy neighborhood Spider-Man and all that)nuff said

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:04:07 PM)
I never was a big Spider-Man fan. I was more a fan of Archie. Hey that reminds me of a good thread to start......Bettie or Veronica?

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:10:20 PM)
We're perverts why not both?

kdsub -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:12:43 PM)
ahh don't forget Archie...after all this is the 21st century...[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m9.gif[/image]

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:15:17 PM)
Ah, greedy are we? LOL. I have to admit that scenario popped up in my adolescent fantasies quite a few times; along with Princess Ardala and Erin Gray from Buck Roger with Wonder Woman making a guest appearance.

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:20:58 PM)
Slaveboy you are indeed sick.....Wonder Woman would never get involved in such a tawdry scene!

PrincessJ77 -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:29:38 PM)
Ah, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman would fit in "purrrrrfectly."

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 12:45:22 PM)
Purrrrrfect.

kittinSol -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 1:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Purrrrrfect. That was my line [:o] !

Marc2b -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 1:17:34 PM)
Concerning the sugar in the gas tank debate: The great and all knowing Cecil Adams has pontificated on it not once but twice.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 1:39:57 PM)
quote: Ah, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman would fit in "purrrrrfectly." Absolutely. Little known fact; Julie Newmar was in two Buck Rogers in the 25th Century episodes. Flight of the War Witch parts 1 & 2. She of course played the evil War Witch. If you're not a perverted, geeky lover of sci-fi cheese like your's truly...you wouldn't be partial to that little nugget of American pop culture knowledge. [;)]

LaTigresse -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 4:07:51 PM)
I am a registered independent. I've voted both ways. I look at the individual and try to determine if they are the right person for the job at that specific time. Something that is, all too often, not considered. Example: Ronald Reagan. I think he was a good president for the time he held office. However, if he was running right now I would not say he is the right person for the job. Politics, a country's needs and position in the world, they evolve and change. Hopefully we chose leaders that can lead during the time they have been chosen to do so. I think we are on unknown and shaky ground now. I honestly do not feel that a politician that has a long history of, business as usual, is the right person for the job now.

Alumbrado -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 4:31:12 PM)
Partisanship is a social construct like 'Luck' or 'God', which if people did not have, they would develop. It serves to assuage the cognitive dissonance caused by knowing they have been manipulated. When the sheeple have been swindled by the shell game one more time, it matters little whether they blame it on bad luck, god's will, or those evil thugs in the other party... as long as they fall for the illusion that there was ever a choice, the swindler is safe. There is only one party, the party of rich swindlers, and they have done a masterful job by using aliases like 'Republican' and 'Democrat' to trick people.

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 5:06:20 PM)
Really. So the actual documented history of the developement of the 2 party system,in direct conflict with Washington's warning against that specific evil ,is mere illusion a smoke screen designed to amuse the sheeple?

Alumbrado -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 6:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Really. So the actual documented history of the developement of the 2 party system,in direct conflict with Washington's warning against that specific evil ,is mere illusion a smoke screen designed to amuse the sheeple? Save the strawmen fallacies for someone who is easily taken in by such high school debate team sophistry. I'm talking about the current partisan system as a version of the age old 'have's' vs 'have not's' scam, and the fact that both parties enrich, and are led by, 'the haves', not by the have nots... the con artists, not by the victims... the power hungry, not by the selfless. Distracting the have not's and the victims by getting them to blame each other is a benefit of partisanship to those corrupted by power. This isn't news, it is just something most people can't bring themselves to face. But easy to admit to or not, it has been noted from Mo Tzi to Twain, Swift to Brustein, et al. as part of the human condition. Those who want to feed the intolerant blame game, and pretend that they and their party are on the side of good and 'Twuth' while everyone else is an evil 'one of them' are merely proving my point.

Musicmystery -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 6:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch She's a liberal, whether something works or not is not important. It's the thought that counts. Kinda like the Republican approach to fiscal policy?

Musicmystery -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 6:24:26 PM)
quote: Save the strawmen fallacies for someone who is easily taken in by such high school debate team sophistry. Honestly. Do you have a macro set up to type this phrase? It's your favorite response.

slvemike4u -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 6:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Really. So the actual documented history of the developement of the 2 party system,in direct conflict with Washington's warning against that specific evil ,is mere illusion a smoke screen designed to amuse the sheeple? Save the strawmen fallacies for someone who is easily taken in by such high school debate team sophistry. I'm talking about the current partisan system as a version of the age old 'have's' vs 'have not's' scam, and the fact that both parties enrich, and are led by, 'the haves', not by the have nots... the con artists, not by the victims... the power hungry, not by the selfless. Distracting the have not's and the victims by getting them to blame each other is a benefit of partisanship to those corrupted by power. This isn't news, it is just something most people can't bring themselves to face. But easy to admit to or not, it has been noted from Mo Tzi to Twain, Swift to Brustein, et al. as part of the human condition. Those who want to feed the intolerant blame game, and pretend that they and their party are on the side of good and 'Twuth' while everyone else is an evil 'one of them' are merely proving my point. Well I'm glad we straightened that out.

Alumbrado -> RE: Partisanship (9/29/2008 6:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Save the strawmen fallacies for someone who is easily taken in by such high school debate team sophistry. Honestly. Do you have a macro set up to type this phrase? It's your favorite response. No, I type it when someone starts dissembling about what I said in order to avoid open discourse...and this is just a target rich environment. But please, go back to discussing among yourselves all those lofty ideas, I'll try to keep up....[8\|]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125