RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons

RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (Full Version)

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

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/24/2006 9:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine One thing I've notice, and several other posters also, is that anytime someone states an opinion contrary to your own, you attack them. "Methinks she doth protest too much." William Shakespeare Sinergy She?!?!? (Think you need glasses - ROFL) Not really, but after several forum posts of CrappyDom getting shitty with me for no reason you just get fed up and want to see how he likes having shit thrown back at him. Not to mention there is some entertainment value for everyone else - I can just picture the vein in his forehead throbbing - LOL Nice use of the word "Dude." My point was that it appears to me that you spend a great deal of time attacking other people when they dont agree with your posts, and then you turn around and attack other people for being the type of person who attacks people when others dont agree with their posts. Pot calling the kettle black, so to speak. I have read a lot of what CrappyDom has written, and I have a lot of respect for his ability to be articulate and erudite about his positions, even in those instances where I do not agree with his opinion. I am happy you derive enjoyment out of angering people (throbbing vein comment) but many people, in my experience, mature to the point where their whole goal in life is not to elicit negative emotional responses in other people. Additionally, many people mature to the point where they do not allow immature and argumentative people to alter their emotional state. But as I have posted before, everybody needs a hobby. Just me, etc. Sinergy

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/24/2006 9:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine One thing I've notice, and several other posters also, is that anytime someone states an opinion contrary to your own, you attack them. "Methinks she doth protest too much." William Shakespeare Sinergy She?!?!? (Think you need glasses - ROFL) Not really, but after several forum posts of CrappyDom getting shitty with me for no reason you just get fed up and want to see how he likes having shit thrown back at him. Not to mention there is some entertainment value for everyone else - I can just picture the vein in his forehead throbbing - LOL Nice use of the word "Dude." My point was that it appears to me that you spend a great deal of time attacking other people when they dont agree with your posts, and then you turn around and attack other people for being the type of person who attacks people when others dont agree with their posts. Pot calling the kettle black, so to speak. I have read a lot of what CrappyDom has written, and I have a lot of respect for his ability to be articulate and erudite about his positions, even in those instances where I do not agree with his opinion. I am happy you derive enjoyment out of angering people (throbbing vein comment) but many people, in my experience, mature to the point where their whole goal in life is not to elicit negative emotional responses in other people. Additionally, many people mature to the point where they do not allow immature and argumentative people to alter their emotional state. But as I have posted before, everybody needs a hobby. Just me, etc. Sinergy You like the word "Dude"? - I just couldn't help myself. (ha) I don't actually have a problem with other perspectives - I've been wrong enough in the past to know I don't have all the answers. A good heated discussion can be fun and get points that normally would not get brought up into the mix. I've had many people in life (and on these forums) disagree with my ideas, my posts, my conclusions, etc. and I don't get upset with 98% (oh sure, we may banter back and forth, but there is usually humor or just an understanding that never the two shall meet) The other 2% get personally ugly in their disagreement and I just don't sit back and take it. There have been a few people that come out of left field to lambast me (one even sent an email) because I didn't completely and udderly agree with their position or argued against part of it. I actually agree with quite a few of the points these people make on the issues, but why do they decide to attack the person stating their opinion? That's just being a bully and I've backed down to bullies before and it just encourages them. I'm not asking anyone to agree with 100% of what I say (actually, that would be ridiculous to agree with 100% of what anyone says); but take it as a discourse and not a personal affront to your beliefs. It's just a disagreement, a differing of ideas (sometimes a passionate differing ideas), a merging of thoughts. Sinergy, we've disagreed on several forum posts in the past and you didn't get personal about it and neither did I (and if you thought I did, then I apologize for any misconceptions from that). It is one thing to be sarcastic and another to be mean. Mostly I'm sarcastic (like when I said "I can just picture the vein in his forehead throbbing - LOL" - that's why there is an "LOL" there) He can just being plain mean - and it's not just towards me. This may not resolve the issue and it may not improve how you or others think of me - but it would be unrealistic of me to think that everyone is going to like me, so that's just how life is. At any rate, I find most of your posts enlightening and humorous - but you will have to forgive me if I disagree (sometimes sarcastically) with some of your ideas. Nothing personal ;-)

CrappyDom -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/24/2006 10:18:29 PM)
There are people who disagree with me to whom I reply civily. They are those who articulate a given position with FACTS or who when they reply to me do so civily even if they reply with opinions. You however, want only two states to exist in politics, the Republicans are right if you can figure out something they did right or Both parties are the same when someone points out Republican failures. When someone crushes your points you start calling them names as you did in my case by calling me a hyper liberal or something. I am very much a liberal and am proud of that fact. I am not a cardboard cutout, I like guns, I wish I could be vegan, I believe in animal rights, I think Bush is a traitor, China our enemy, and Israel a semi barbarous nation although one I would pick over the Arabs any day. If I was in charge of Afghanistan, I would arrange for all the first born sons to die in tragic accidents and inform the 2nd oldest son he will too if they don't do the right thing. I think that SUVs should be banned, and I could go on, but my opinions are all over the map because I believe in what works, not in what should work, or I wish would work, but reality. Bush only just dropped "stay the course" because he and his party wouldn't know reality if it bit them on the ass which it will do in about two weeks.

popeye1250 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/24/2006 10:29:55 PM)
Togivedevine, you think you have it bad? Only highly intelligent people can understand my humor.

philosophy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 10:22:34 AM)
"Only highly intelligent people can understand my humor." ...don't always understand it Popeye, but i do respect it......does that make me intelligent to? ;)

Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 11:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sinergy, we've disagreed on several forum posts in the past and you didn't get personal about it and neither did I (and if you thought I did, then I apologize for any misconceptions from that). It is one thing to be sarcastic and another to be mean. Mostly I'm sarcastic (like when I said "I can just picture the vein in his forehead throbbing - LOL" - that's why there is an "LOL" there) First off, when somebody articulates a reasonable dissertation on why they think a certain way, simply sitting back and calling them names is a rather juvenile attempt to rebut their position. Additionally, it makes the one doing the name calling seem inarticulate and obtuse. So when you call CrappyDom names (and I am still trying to figure out why "liberal" is a bad word these days; the reason people in the US have an 8 hour work day, family leave, paid sick time, vacation pay, healthcare, clean water, clean food, clean air, etc., etc., etc., is because of laws passed by LIBERALS) and refuse to refute any of the things CD has said, or try to refute them with easily disproven talking points from some radio program, or rant about providing proof and then not responding when the person provides you with a plethora of links to information on a subject, the one who ends up looking like they got their brains from the shallow end of the gene pool is the one calling names. Most of the time when I lapse into sarcasm it is a calculated method to ridicule the other person. I consider ridiculing other people a "mean" behavior, so I tend to try to avoid it with varying degrees of success. I am generally rather sardonic, which is often confused with sarcastic. I tend to make fun of situations and behaviors, rather than individuals. Adding LOL to the end of a sentence does not actually make it sarcastic. It is generally an attempt by somebody to let the reader know it was meant to be funny. When I read it, I am always struck by the idea that if something is funny, adding LOL to the end of the sentence does not make it more funny. If it is not funny, adding LOL to the end of the sentence does not make it funny. I have been to quite a few comedy clubs, and I have never seen a stand-up comedian say LOL after a joke. I have no issue with you as an individual, so I apologize if you have taken my criticism as such. I am simply commenting on what you have written and the behavior I observe. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 12:18:43 PM)
Sinergy, No offense taking. It's all a matter of perspective and written words in an online forum can be taken way out of perspective; you don't get to see the other person's facial expressions, tonal inflections, or throbbing veins (as it were). When you go to a comedy club, the comic doesn't need to add "LOL" - unless he really sucks. You are at a comedy club ... watching a comic ... you can infer that they are trying to be funny. On a written forum, you lose the personal aspects and some things look really bad that aren't as they seem. Sometimes adding a "LOL" to let everyone know that you are attempting (and possibly not succeeding at) humor is necessary. I often read certain posts and think to myself, "hmmmm, just exactly what did they intend that to mean" because it could be taken more than one way. Point of Clarification - I like liberals (I was one) and I like conservatives (I was one of those also) - I'm more of a mutt as I take what I like from both sides. I'm just not partial to the people on the extremes - perhaps I'm to zealous about zealots (consider it a character flaw)

popeye1250 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 12:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sinergy, we've disagreed on several forum posts in the past and you didn't get personal about it and neither did I (and if you thought I did, then I apologize for any misconceptions from that). It is one thing to be sarcastic and another to be mean. Mostly I'm sarcastic (like when I said "I can just picture the vein in his forehead throbbing - LOL" - that's why there is an "LOL" there) First off, when somebody articulates a reasonable dissertation on why they think a certain way, simply sitting back and calling them names is a rather juvenile attempt to rebut their position. Additionally, it makes the one doing the name calling seem inarticulate and obtuse. So when you call CrappyDom names (and I am still trying to figure out why "liberal" is a bad word these days; the reason people in the US have an 8 hour work day, family leave, paid sick time, vacation pay, healthcare, clean water, clean food, clean air, etc., etc., etc., is because of laws passed by LIBERALS) and refuse to refute any of the things CD has said, or try to refute them with easily disproven talking points from some radio program, or rant about providing proof and then not responding when the person provides you with a plethora of links to information on a subject, the one who ends up looking like they got their brains from the shallow end of the gene pool is the one calling names. Most of the time when I lapse into sarcasm it is a calculated method to ridicule the other person. I consider ridiculing other people a "mean" behavior, so I tend to try to avoid it with varying degrees of success. I am generally rather sardonic, which is often confused with sarcastic. I tend to make fun of situations and behaviors, rather than individuals. Adding LOL to the end of a sentence does not actually make it sarcastic. It is generally an attempt by somebody to let the reader know it was meant to be funny. When I read it, I am always struck by the idea that if something is funny, adding LOL to the end of the sentence does not make it more funny. If it is not funny, adding LOL to the end of the sentence does not make it funny. I have been to quite a few comedy clubs, and I have never seen a stand-up comedian say LOL after a joke. I have no issue with you as an individual, so I apologize if you have taken my criticism as such. I am simply commenting on what you have written and the behavior I observe. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy Sinergy, it goes back further than "Liberals" passing laws! It's because of UNIONS! I know a few Union guys and they are decidedly not "Liberals." For some reason the TEAMSTERS are definately not "politically correct" and don't believe in the Liberal philosophies. And they're one of the first Unions that pushed for all those benefits.

Level -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 3:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I am still trying to figure out why "liberal" is a bad word these days; the reason people in the US have an 8 hour work day, family leave, paid sick time, vacation pay, healthcare, clean water, clean food, clean air, etc., etc., etc., is because of laws passed by LIBERALS) Not just liberals.....

Level -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 3:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sometimes adding a "LOL" to let everyone know that you are attempting (and possibly not succeeding at) humor is necessary. Yep. I put LOL on a number of posts, and it isn't because I'm sitting here laughing like a hyena, but I want to give the impression that what I've written was meant good-naturedly.

Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 6:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, it goes back further than "Liberals" passing laws! It's because of UNIONS! I know a few Union guys and they are decidedly not "Liberals." For some reason the TEAMSTERS are definately not "politically correct" and don't believe in the Liberal philosophies. And they're one of the first Unions that pushed for all those benefits. Which union was it that passed the legislation to put chlorine in water systems in the United States, popeye1250? Which union was it that passed laws requiring seatbelts in automobiles? Labelling laws on food had some union influence, but the laws that got passed were passed by Liberal congresses. The Teamsters are one of those lovely unions that sold out to The Mob in the 1960s in an attempt to secure their power base, and ended up getting kicked off the waterfront when they attempted to undercut the union I belong to. Where are the Teamsters now? Sinergy

CrappyDom -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 7:51:16 PM)
Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country.

Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 7:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sometimes adding a "LOL" to let everyone know that you are attempting (and possibly not succeeding at) humor is necessary. Yep. I put LOL on a number of posts, and it isn't because I'm sitting here laughing like a hyena, but I want to give the impression that what I've written was meant good-naturedly. Does it work? Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/25/2006 7:59:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country. You mean all those insurgents pouring into Iraq from other countries are liberals? Oh, you were not talking about Iraq. My bad. Move along, nothing to see here. Sinergy

Level -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/26/2006 12:54:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sometimes adding a "LOL" to let everyone know that you are attempting (and possibly not succeeding at) humor is necessary. Yep. I put LOL on a number of posts, and it isn't because I'm sitting here laughing like a hyena, but I want to give the impression that what I've written was meant good-naturedly. Does it work? Sinergy Well, people don't call me "asshole" as often, or so I believe [8\|].

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/26/2006 8:27:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Sometimes adding a "LOL" to let everyone know that you are attempting (and possibly not succeeding at) humor is necessary. Yep. I put LOL on a number of posts, and it isn't because I'm sitting here laughing like a hyena, but I want to give the impression that what I've written was meant good-naturedly. Does it work? Sinergy Well, people don't call me "asshole" as often, or so I believe [8\|]. Anymore, I kinda worry when someone does not call me an "asshole" - maybe I'm just getting jaded. Who knows, maybe I just like people talking dirty to me LOL (There's that damn LOL again. - Oooo, wait, how about this?) Anymore, I kinda worry when someone does not call me an "asshole" - maybe I'm just getting jaded. <sarcasm>Who knows, maybe I just like people talking dirty to me </sarcasm>

popeye1250 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/26/2006 11:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, it goes back further than "Liberals" passing laws! It's because of UNIONS! I know a few Union guys and they are decidedly not "Liberals." For some reason the TEAMSTERS are definately not "politically correct" and don't believe in the Liberal philosophies. And they're one of the first Unions that pushed for all those benefits. Which union was it that passed the legislation to put chlorine in water systems in the United States, popeye1250? Which union was it that passed laws requiring seatbelts in automobiles? Labelling laws on food had some union influence, but the laws that got passed were passed by Liberal congresses. The Teamsters are one of those lovely unions that sold out to The Mob in the 1960s in an attempt to secure their power base, and ended up getting kicked off the waterfront when they attempted to undercut the union I belong to. Where are the Teamsters now? Sinergy Sinergy, what do chlorinating water, seatbelts, and food labels have to do with Unions? Everyone knows that the Teamsters were "Mobbed Up" in their later stages. They made movies about it. The people and companies that they were against used "goons" too! I have a brother who's a Teamster and one of his friends "Johnny D." is ah,......"Associated" with some people shall we say. But, that's not just in the Teamsters, I know people in the Longshoreman's Union in Boston too and let me assure you that they are no angels either! Arson fires, beatings over the years and other things. The whole point is that Unions were in the forefront of getting benefits and decent pay for themselves as well as a lot of other Americans. Before Unions the workweek was 6 days a week.

luckydog1 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 1:23:53 AM)
"Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country. " Crappy Dom that is nonsense, and you know it. On a serious level the term "liberal" changed meaning in the late 60s/early 70s. The Chicago Democratic Convention is often considered the turning point on that. "Liberal" used to(and still does in Canada, Australia, Uk, ect) mean freedom, including economic freeedom/ laisee faire economics. The Liberal Party in Canada is very supportive of Bush. In the 60 the left wing/ socialist/ Pacifist movement took control of a segment of the Democratic party and took over the term. These people are now usually called progressives. It was a repudiation of the Liberalism of FDR and JFK. Ronald Reagan was absolutly a "classic liberal". And most Americans do not support most of the progressive agenda( Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton know this), hence to most people it is a derisive term.

farglebargle -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 1:41:04 AM)
IIRC, "Liberals" are those who believe that Personal Liberty is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to be considered in any issue. Any "Liberals" think otherwise?

nefertari -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 1:55:26 AM)
FR Anyone else read today that Bush is now taking the blame for the situation in Iraq? I don't have the newspaper in front of me (read it at the doctor's office), but Bush said something along the lines of: when it comes to the situation in Iraq, the responsibility lies with the President. This coming from the same man who stated during the 2004 debates that he had made no mistakes. ~blink~ Guess the Republicans are a bit nervous afterall.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875