Conservatism-It's meanings in American politic its true opposition to Islam/terrorism

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A thread to define, debate, criticize, moan about , cry about and general discuss conservatism and terrorism today in American politics but not absolutely limited to just American politics because a true history of conservatism will branch out well beyond just that limited scope. Dedicated to my friends Drummond and fj. ;) Take your best shots amigos. ;) I am guessing this could get quite interesting if both you guys care to participate. -;)--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A thread to define, debate, criticize, moan about , cry about and general discuss conservatism and terrorism today in American politics but not absolutely limited to just American politics because a true history of conservatism will branch out well beyond just that limited scope. Dedicated to my friends Drummond and fj. ;) Take your best shots amigos. ;) I am guessing this could get quite interesting if both you guys care to participate. -;)--Tyr Here to get it started ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/30/americans-are-more-conservative-than-they-have-been-in-decades/
The Monkey Cage

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades
By Larry Bartels
September 30 at 2:23 am
James Stimson knows as much about public opinion as anyone in America. He has been tracking the nation’s policy preferences for more than 20 years using a “policy mood” index derived from responses to a wide variety of opinion surveys involving hundreds of specific policy questions on topics ranging from taxes and spending to environmental regulation to gun control.

The latest update of Stimson’s policy mood series suggests that the American public in 2012 was more conservative than at any point since 1952. (Actually, since mood in each year is estimated with some error, it seems safer to say that the current level of conservatism roughly equals the previous highs recorded in 1980 and 1952.) While the slight increase in conservatism from 2011 to 2012 is too small to be significant, it continues a marked trend that began as soon as Barack Obama moved into the White House.

Conservative Policy Mood, 1952-2012 (Graph by Larry Bartels)
Conservative Policy Mood, 1952-2012
(Graph by Larry Bartels)

Stimson ’s book, Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, provides a detailed description and discussion of his approach. (Stimson tracks liberal policy mood, but I have reversed his index in order to highlight the striking current level of conservatism.) Measuring public opinion by tracking common trends in a wide variety of specific policy questions is a marked improvement over the more usual approach of simply asking people to identify themselves as conservatives or liberals. Many people don’t think in such abstract ideological terms, and even those who do sometimes use the conventional labels in unconventional ways.

[glockmail]

...conservatism and terrorism today in American politics ... Are you trying to equate one with the other? Terrorism is more often associated with liberalism. Domestic terrorists are tyupically your environmental whack jobs, and international terrorists are typically fighting against American capitalism and support of Israel.

[fj1200]

A thread to define, debate, criticize, moan about , cry about and general discuss conservatism and terrorism today in American politics but not absolutely limited to just American politics because a true history of conservatism will branch out well beyond just that limited scope. Dedicated to my friends Drummond and fj. ;) Take your best shots amigos. ;) I am guessing this could get quite interesting if both you guys care to participate. -;)--Tyr

I'm game. Your only folly was to equate conservatism and terrorism. A conservative may have a stance on terrorism, likes taxes, welfare, regulations, etc., but they are not on the same footing as political beliefs.

Oops, just noticed Glock's post. Though I would associate terrorism with tyranny which is not always liberal... but is usually big government... hmm.

[fj1200]

Here to get it started ...


The Monkey Cage

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades

Doesn't appear to be much there to really draw from:


As Christopher Wlezien (gated (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111666)) nicely put it, the public tends to act as a “thermostat,” shifting to the left when the political climate in Washington shifts to the right and to the right when policy shifts to the left. In the past four years, the thermostat has been trending significantly rightward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2013/09/stimson.conservativism.jpg-300x277.jpg

Seems to chaotic to be helpful.

[Drummond]

I'm game. Your only folly was to equate conservatism and terrorism. A conservative may have a stance on terrorism, likes taxes, welfare, regulations, etc., but they are not on the same footing as political beliefs.

Oops, just noticed Glock's post. Though I would associate terrorism with tyranny which is not always liberal... but is usually big government... hmm.

Well, I am one Conservative who has a stance on terrorism. It's one of zero tolerance. No tolerance of the act. No tolerance of the scum responsible for it. And absolutely NO acceptance of anything that tries to give any terrorist a preferential status it couldn't possibly have earned ..

... such as, being categorised as HUMAN, for example ...

I say that this is a Conservative position to have, and to maintain. Those defying it invariably try to present a case which favours the terrorist in outlandish ways ... such as trying to say that terrorists somehow merit 'human rights' .. by being anything BUT human in what they do !!

Go down that road, and you insult terrorism's victims, who have infinitely more reason to earn and respect our sympathy and support than the scum who'd maim and kill them !!

Since a terrorist isn't human .. and, more, is an avowed and bloodthirsty enemy ... what happens to them in incarceration is outside the realm of consideration FOR them. If they suffer, then they deserve it, as the savage enemies that they are. If they go through torture, then SO WHAT .. they lack any semblance of humanity, so human considerations about it don't apply.

Nobody has ever shown me good reason to suppose that a terrorist is human, therefore, deserving of the slightest human consideration. But the case for devoting all of one's energies to being supportive of terrorism's VICTIMS is all too obvious.

On the issue of terrorists being tortured ... those taking strong positions against it take a recognisably LEFT WING attitude to that. Jimmy Carter certainly did. Obama, in wanting Gitmo closed, took a line which its terrorist inmates would've profited from. Lefties, in point of fact, fall over themselves in their enthusiasm for finding ways of being kinder to terrorists !!

This is just one of a whole host of ways that the Left proves its disreputability.

It has been said that Margaret Thatcher (or just 'Thatcher', if you want to be a Leftie who's intent on insulting her memory .. as the Daily Mirror, a British Left-wing rag, considered doing in those terms just after her death) .. was someone strongly opposed to the torture of a terrorist. Well, this isn't completely untrue by any means. Lady Thatcher did indeed take a position contrary to accepting torture of terrorists, but she did so for two particular reasons.

CONTEXT is important here.

Firstly, Lady Thatcher was placed in the position of needing to consider the extent of MI5's own range of permissible methods to take against terrorists .. in the act of interrogation. In considering this, she had to consider the legality of torture as this was understood in international law. After careful consideration, she felt she had to regard terrorism torture as illegal, therefore, not to be supported.

The other reason had to do with her concept of British fair play .. she considered that torturing a terrorist ran counter to that.

This all said ... it ALSO has to be recognised that, in the days when Lady Thatcher wielded authority and had reason to judge these things, the world had NOT seen the range, extent, sheer savagery and subhumanity of the terrorism which Islamic terrorists unleashed in an unforgettable way on 11th September 2001 .. and all the various acts of their own terrorism seen since. So ... did Lady Thatcher's judgment really equate to the truth of today's Islamic terrorist ?

I REALLY THINK NOT.

Now, specifically for FJ .. I've considered the latest signature text you include in your postings. What you call an 'essential of Thatcherism' ... I've checked out the source of the wording you include.

What I found, led me to a blog site run by one Andrew Sullivan, writing on his site called 'The Dish'. The wording 'she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.' .. is to be found in one of his blog pieces there.

Now ... is Andrew Sullivan a Conservative ? From what I've seen, he likes to call himself one. But his views don't correspond to solid Conservatism as I readily recognise it to be. For example .. he took the bog standard Leftie concerning the War on Terror. From his writings, I've seen ....


We now know that Tony Blair knew about and acquiesced in the war crimes of George W. Bush.

That could've come straight from the Morning Star, the UK's one Communist newspaper. Or from John Pilger, an Australian journalist who's a known Left winger and rabid supporter of the likes of Assange, the creator of Wikileaks.

Sullivan is evidently a Conservative when it suits him to be, AND RATHER MORE LEFT WING WHEN IT DOESN'T.

But don't take my word for it .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Politics


Sullivan describes himself as a conservative and is the author of The Conservative Soul. He has supported a number of traditional libertarian positions. He favours a flat tax, limited government, and opposes welfare state programs and interventionism. However, on a number of controversial public issues, including same-sex marriage, social security, the U.S. government's use of torture, and capital punishment, he takes a position typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum

So, for FJ, there you have it. Clear evidence that when you take an anti-torture line, YOU ARE ARGUING AND ADVANCING A LEFT WING POSITION. Just as is true of Sullivan, your adherence to Conservatism is ONLY as solid as your whim of the moment .. and you'll happily try to sell a LEFT WING thought process as something OTHER than what it is.

In other words ... you think, and act, as a Leftie would.

[gabosaurus]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7868581632/hD0C0734E/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you trying to equate one with the other? Terrorism is more often associated with liberalism. Domestic terrorists are tyupically your environmental whack jobs, and international terrorists are typically fighting against American capitalism and support of Israel. Sorry, my bad. I made that post in much haste and did not correct my mistake. I had intended to say its arch enemy terrorism , more precisely muslim terrorism. Certainly had not intended to compare the two to be the same. This was included because the conservatives in America are primarily its core of patriots defending the Constitution and the Islamists terrorists oppose our Constitution and its freedoms/rights. You are indeed correct liberalism is the culprit that opposes conservatism and patriotism while it allies with Islam. I made the post complete with mistake and hit submit because I was late for an appointment. Thanks for pointing it out... -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm game. Your only folly was to equate conservatism and terrorism. A conservative may have a stance on terrorism, likes taxes, welfare, regulations, etc., but they are not on the same footing as political beliefs.

Oops, just noticed Glock's post. Though I would associate terrorism with tyranny which is not always liberal... but is usually big government... hmm. See my explanation made to Glockmail in post number 8.... I did not intend to equate the two. I intended to link it as the arch enemy of American conservatism. Haste makes wastes and in this case SOME UNNEEDED confusion. -;) WAS MY BAD.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7868581632/hD0C0734E/

Conservatives 'suck', eh, Gabby ?

What sucks about them ?

Is it their wish to see standards founded on human decency succeed ? Is it their regard for, support of, the individual ? Is it their desire to see the individual materially prosper ? Is it their patriotism ? Is it their staunch opposition to, intolerance of, terrorism and terrorists ?

Please enlighten us, Gabby (IF you return back to this thread ??) ... what, out of the above, do you consider 'sucks' .. and why ??

[red states rule]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7868581632/hD0C0734E/



http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/f/fb/Liberal_Brain.jpg/450px-Liberal_Brain.jpg

[red states rule]

Conservatives 'suck', eh, Gabby ?

What sucks about them ?

Is it their wish to see standards founded on human decency succeed ? Is it their regard for, support of, the individual ? Is it their desire to see the individual materially prosper ? Is it their patriotism ? Is it their staunch opposition to, intolerance of, terrorism and terrorists ?

Please enlighten us, Gabby (IF you return back to this thread ??) ... what, out of the above, do you consider 'sucks' .. and why ??

We are seeing the results of generations of liberalism in such liberals meccas as Detriot

What about three cities in the blue state of CA filing bankruptcy?

Seems to me liberalism is all about punishing success and rewarding failure. Shackling generations of people into a never ending cycle of dependency.

Right now under Obama we have more people on food stamps then the number of people who live int he states of CA, WA, and OR combined. Is this something libs are proud of?

[red states rule]

Well, I am one Conservative who has a stance on terrorism. It's one of zero tolerance. No tolerance of the act. No tolerance of the scum responsible for it. And absolutely NO acceptance of anything that tries to give any terrorist a preferential status it couldn't possibly have earned ..

... such as, being categorised as HUMAN, for example ...

I say that this is a Conservative position to have, and to maintain. Those defying it invariably try to present a case which favours the terrorist in outlandish ways ... such as trying to say that terrorists somehow merit 'human rights' .. by being anything BUT human in what they do !!

Go down that road, and you insult terrorism's victims, who have infinitely more reason to earn and respect our sympathy and support than the scum who'd maim and kill them !!

Since a terrorist isn't human .. and, more, is an avowed and bloodthirsty enemy ... what happens to them in incarceration is outside the realm of consideration FOR them. If they suffer, then they deserve it, as the savage enemies that they are. If they go through torture, then SO WHAT .. they lack any semblance of humanity, so human considerations about it don't apply.

Nobody has ever shown me good reason to suppose that a terrorist is human, therefore, deserving of the slightest human consideration. But the case for devoting all of one's energies to being supportive of terrorism's VICTIMS is all too obvious.

On the issue of terrorists being tortured ... those taking strong positions against it take a recognisably LEFT WING attitude to that. Jimmy Carter certainly did. Obama, in wanting Gitmo closed, took a line which its terrorist inmates would've profited from. Lefties, in point of fact, fall over themselves in their enthusiasm for finding ways of being kinder to terrorists !!

This is just one of a whole host of ways that the Left proves its disreputability.

It has been said that Margaret Thatcher (or just 'Thatcher', if you want to be a Leftie who's intent on insulting her memory .. as the Daily Mirror, a British Left-wing rag, considered doing in those terms just after her death) .. was someone strongly opposed to the torture of a terrorist. Well, this isn't completely untrue by any means. Lady Thatcher did indeed take a position contrary to accepting torture of terrorists, but she did so for two particular reasons.

CONTEXT is important here.

Firstly, Lady Thatcher was placed in the position of needing to consider the extent of MI5's own range of permissible methods to take against terrorists .. in the act of interrogation. In considering this, she had to consider the legality of torture as this was understood in international law. After careful consideration, she felt she had to regard terrorism torture as illegal, therefore, not to be supported.

The other reason had to do with her concept of British fair play .. she considered that torturing a terrorist ran counter to that.

This all said ... it ALSO has to be recognised that, in the days when Lady Thatcher wielded authority and had reason to judge these things, the world had NOT seen the range, extent, sheer savagery and subhumanity of the terrorism which Islamic terrorists unleashed in an unforgettable way on 11th September 2001 .. and all the various acts of their own terrorism seen since. So ... did Lady Thatcher's judgment really equate to the truth of today's Islamic terrorist ?

I REALLY THINK NOT.

Now, specifically for FJ .. I've considered the latest signature text you include in your postings. What you call an 'essential of Thatcherism' ... I've checked out the source of the wording you include.

What I found, led me to a blog site run by one Andrew Sullivan, writing on his site called 'The Dish'. The wording 'she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.' .. is to be found in one of his blog pieces there.

Now ... is Andrew Sullivan a Conservative ? From what I've seen, he likes to call himself one. But his views don't correspond to solid Conservatism as I readily recognise it to be. For example .. he took the bog standard Leftie concerning the War on Terror. From his writings, I've seen ....



That could've come straight from the Morning Star, the UK's one Communist newspaper. Or from John Pilger, an Australian journalist who's a known Left winger and rabid supporter of the likes of Assange, the creator of Wikileaks.

Sullivan is evidently a Conservative when it suits him to be, AND RATHER MORE LEFT WING WHEN IT DOESN'T.

But don't take my word for it .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Politics



So, for FJ, there you have it. Clear evidence that when you take an anti-torture line, YOU ARE ARGUING AND ADVANCING A LEFT WING POSITION. Just as is true of Sullivan, your adherence to Conservatism is ONLY as solid as your whim of the moment .. and you'll happily try to sell a LEFT WING thought process as something OTHER than what it is.

In other words ... you think, and act, as a Leftie would.

An Obama lap dog like FU telling anyone about conservatism is like Bill Clinton telling people how important fidelity is in a marriage

FU does think he knows everything but in reality he is only stroking his huge ego and trying to do his imitation of an internet bully

[fj1200]

Well, I am one Conservative who has a stance on terrorism. It's one of zero tolerance. No tolerance of the act. No tolerance of the scum responsible for it. And absolutely NO acceptance of anything that tries to give any terrorist a preferential status it couldn't possibly have earned ..

I see no point in another attempt to have a rational conversation with you; You do not have the capacity within you. I know this will go in one eye and out the other, whether it gets into your head at all, but your view is based on the emotions of hate and rage. Conservatives should see the issues for what they are and be able to rationally discuss the issues. There is copious evidence that torture is counterproductive that you constantly ignore and your attempts to couch the discussion in terms of justice is evidence of your emotions on the issue.

I see no point. If you want to have a discussion on conservatism then we can have at it and if you truly are the conservative you think you are then we won't have much disagreement but your torture/terrorism stance is utterly contrary to a conservative position.

[fj1200]

An Obama lap dog like FU telling anyone about conservatism is like Bill Clinton telling people how important fidelity is in a marriage

FU does think he knows everything but in reality he is only stroking his huge ego and trying to do his imitation of an internet bully

I think you'd have no problem informing everyone here of all my liberal positions then. As you have miserably failed at the challenge in the past I predict miserable failure on your part again.

[red states rule]

IOW folks FU is screaming



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7ZnNJJQaJl0/To4NKrQH7DI/AAAAAAAABXE/luITdCPzLEY/s1600/surrenderflag.jpg

[fj1200]

IOW folks FU is screaming

My predictive abilities are amazing.


... I predict miserable failure on your part again.

You can't even ignore like a man.

[red states rule]

FU and Obama do have many things in common

One of which...............



http://rlv.zcache.com/hes_a_legend_in_his_own_mind_post_card-ra75ed89c462742209e28765355c1308c_vgbaq_8byvr_324. jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://batr.org/gulag/010504.html The prevalent understanding of populism is that it seeks involvement of government to intercede on behalf of ordinary people. This distortion is rooted in a systemic effort by Statists of all ranks to disguise the factual nature of populism. You are mislead to believe that a populist seeks a more equitable distribution of wealth. Contrary to adopting a benign socialism, populism is inherently the philosophy of individualism. All rights reside in persons, and are not at the mercy of governments. The State possesses no rights at all. It’s only purpose is to serve the people. The ability for the will of the populace to be expressed, dwells in the representation within a republic form or government. Within that framework the repose of society maintains a balance as long as officials are held accountable to the fundamental principles of the American experience. Those standards are the essence of conservatism. Violating these codes, while claiming the designation of a traditionalist, does not make one unprogressive. A progressive accepts the State as a solution. A genuine conservative understands the State to be the greatest threat to Liberty. The counterfeit conservatives are closet progressives, who are so embolden with their new found power, that they enjoy opening the door to their true motives. We live in an age where people excel in their own stupidity. They have succumbed to the momentum of mediocrity. They have surrendered to suitors who charm with promises of fragrant flowers, while actually delivering flagrant bouquets. Insidious democracy produces ubiquitous socialism. The merging of underlying and ultimate goals, under the seal of disinformation and the label of conservative, is the latest weapon of the Statist. A person can’t be a real conservative if he rejects the primary populist message. The government is answerable to the people . . . The responsibility of the individual is to become a knowledgeable and a capable citizen. That means that pledges for a free lunch must be rejected as just another swindle dressed in a pretty package. The performance seldom matches the rhetoric and never attains compatibility with basic conservative principles. Our test is clear; if it harms individual liberty, it can’t be conservatism. The political solution is to become a populist and convince the uninformed that real conservatism is the best hope for promoting the maximum opportunity for the greatest number of people. While people are not equal by birth, talent or inclination; they are equivalent in their God ordained human dignity and common nature. Fulfillment of that character can be achieved one individual at a time. Government doesn’t exist to make people coequal, to control them or to force them to love one another. A bona fide conservative understands what are legitimate functions for the State and opposes all efforts to create a leviathan. - See more at: http://batr.org/gulag/010504.html#sthash.eIwOwD1J.dpuf Our freedom is for the individual first, the society second and the government is formed to protect that order. What we have now is a government that has propagandized the society into thinking it is to be empowered to provide for society's every wish and need! In so doing we are taught that government must be first, served first and respected first thus replacing the individual freedoms our founders sought to protect! -Tyr

[fj1200]

Our freedom is for the individual first, the society second and the government is formed to protect that order. What we have now is a government that has propagandized the society into thinking it is to be empowered to provide for society's every wish and need! In so doing we are taught that government must be first, served first and respected first thus replacing the individual freedoms our founders sought to protect! -Tyr


The prevalent understanding of populism is that it seeks involvement of government to intercede on behalf of ordinary people. ... Contrary to adopting a benign socialism, populism is inherently the philosophy of individualism. ... A genuine conservative understands the State to be the greatest threat to Liberty. The counterfeit conservatives are closet progressives, who are so embolden with their new found power, that they enjoy opening the door to their true motives. ... A person can’t be a real conservative if he rejects the primary populist message. ... Our test is clear; if it harms individual liberty, it can’t be conservatism. The political solution is to become a populist and convince the uninformed that real conservatism is the best hope for promoting the maximum opportunity for the greatest number of people. ... A bona fide conservative understands what are legitimate functions for the State and opposes all efforts to create a leviathan.

I don't disagree with much of that, especially the bold, but I'm a little concerned about his populism aspect. I think there is very little good that can come from a populist movement:


Populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) is a political doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_doctrine) where one sides with "the people" against "the elites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite)".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-1) While for much of the twentieth century, populism was considered to be a political phenomenon mostly of Latin America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America),[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] since the 1980s, populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in First World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World) democracies such as Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands), and Scandinavian countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_countries).The terms populist and populism are also often used as pejoratives by political parties and politicians against their opponents who claim that they are merely only empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or 'unrealistic' proposals) to increase their appeal across the political spectrum.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-2)
...
Fascism and populism[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Populism&action=edit&section=3)]Scholars have argued that populist elements have sometimes appeared in far-right authoritarian or fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) movements.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-22)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-23)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-25)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-26) Conspiracist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracist) scapegoating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating) employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-27) National socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialism) populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-28) In this case, distressed middle–class populists during the pre-Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) Weimar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic) period mobilized their anger at government and big business. The Nazis "parasitized the forms and themes of the populists and moved their constituencies far to the right through ideological appeals involving demagoguery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery), scapegoating, and conspiracism."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-29) According to Fritzsche:

The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle–class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization....Against "unnaturally" divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonwealth, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public....Breaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people's community...[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-Fritzsche_1990:_233-235-30)
In Argentina in the 1940s, a local brand of fascist populism emerged known as Peronism, after its leader Juan Perón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n). It emerged from an intellectual fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s that delegitimized democracy.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#cite_note-31)

I generally see populism as taking grains of truth and expanding it too a larger degree than is justifiable, or taking something that sounds true but is not borne out by reality, and as taking something that is popular, or can be made popular, and using it to justify the ends; The Occupy movement for example. By the bold in your post above I would suggest that you agree with that.

[aboutime]

FU and Obama do have many things in common

One of which...............



http://rlv.zcache.com/hes_a_legend_in_his_own_mind_post_card-ra75ed89c462742209e28765355c1308c_vgbaq_8byvr_324. jpg



red states rule. And....if you don't mind my saying Just ask them!

[Drummond]

We are seeing the results of generations of liberalism in such liberals meccas as Detriot

What about three cities in the blue state of CA filing bankruptcy?

Seems to me liberalism is all about punishing success and rewarding failure. Shackling generations of people into a never ending cycle of dependency.

Right now under Obama we have more people on food stamps then the number of people who live int he states of CA, WA, and OR combined. Is this something libs are proud of?

... yes ! I know what you mean, from my part of the world.

Generations of strong Socialist influence have produced a disdain of wealth, and of prosperity. It's something I've never properly understood, because our version of this actually manifests in people as a desire to say, 'You've got a lot of money, so you should be prepared to be hit hard by taxes, or to share it around'.

There are Lefties over here who believe elections are winnable on policies such as this. Needless to say ... those impoverished, or benefit scroungers, are very much on board when it comes to this sort of thinking. A dependency culture .. yes, a very Left wing goal. One that ultimately impoverishes nearly everyone, unless of course you can manage to 'milk' the system to a massive degree.

We, too, see the results of generations of Liberalism in our own 'Meccas' of it. I know of two London boroughs .. Hackney and Haringey come immediately to mind (east and north London respectively). Each has been run by Labour-controlled councils for decades - in the case of Haringey, continually since the 1960's. The result ... these are two of the poorest boroughs there are. In parts, you can actually find slum conditions. Both are high immigrant areas, a far greater than average percentage of the population are on benefit payments, and there's generally a feeling of decay everywhere.

Haringey has found 'fame' recently in the national news thanks to two childcare scandals (cases of children who died of neglect, not least because the Council's social workers were blind to danger signs) and a riot (that's the Tottenham riot which became a national phenomenon for a week). Yes, such 'happy times' are experienced in these Leftie 'paradises' ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P

Think of this as a Socialist council 'at its best' ...


Peter Connelly (also known as "Baby P", "Child A" and "Baby Peter") was a 17-month-old British boy who died in London after suffering more than fifty injuries over an eight-month period, during which he was repeatedly seen by Haringey Children's services and NHS health professionals. Baby P's real first name was revealed as "Peter" on the conclusion of a subsequent trial of Peter's mother's boyfriend on a charge of raping a two-year-old. His full identity was revealed when his killers were named after the expiry of a court anonymity order on 10 August 2009.

The case caused shock and concern among the public and in Parliament, partly because of the magnitude of Peter's injuries, and partly because Peter had lived in the London Borough of Haringey, North London, under the same child care authorities that had already failed ten years earlier in the case of Victoria Climbié. That had led to a public enquiry which resulted in measures being put in place in an effort to prevent similar cases happening.

Peter's mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker, and Jason Owen (later revealed to be the brother of Barker) were all convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child, the mother having pleaded guilty to the charge. A court order issued by the High Court in England had prevented the publication of the identity of Baby P; this was lifted on 1 May 2009 by Mr Justice Coleridge. An order sought by Haringey Council to stop publication of the identities of his mother and her boyfriend was granted, but expired on 10 August 2009.

The child protection services of Haringey and other agencies were widely criticised. Following the conviction, three inquiries and a nationwide review of social service care were launched, and the Head of Children's Services at Haringey was removed by direction of the government minister. Another nationwide review was conducted by Lord Laming into his own recommendations concerning Victoria Climbié's killing in 2000. The death was also the subject of debate in the House of Commons.

Gabby thinks - apparently - that 'Conservatives suck'. I ask: what does she think of its alternative ??

[Drummond]

I see no point in another attempt to have a rational conversation with you; You do not have the capacity within you. I know this will go in one eye and out the other, whether it gets into your head at all, but your view is based on the emotions of hate and rage. Conservatives should see the issues for what they are and be able to rationally discuss the issues. There is copious evidence that torture is counterproductive that you constantly ignore and your attempts to couch the discussion in terms of justice is evidence of your emotions on the issue.

I see no point. If you want to have a discussion on conservatism then we can have at it and if you truly are the conservative you think you are then we won't have much disagreement but your torture/terrorism stance is utterly contrary to a conservative position.

My 'view', as you characterise it, is founded on realism. I deal with stark reality, no matter how unpalatable it is, and squarely face it.

The whole 'terrorist' debate, in terms of what they are, what they do, and what they deserve, is for me a matter of facing up to the realities involved and taking a line that's the most realistic, and appropriate, and yes, the most DESERVED, to take. You, for your part - AND EXACTLY AS A LEFTIE WOULD ALSO DO - much prefer to wear rose-tinted glasses in 'viewing' these same realities. For you, no matter what a terrorist DOES, no matter what a terrorist IS, they must still receive 'human rights' and receive total protection from 'overly unpleasant' treatment.

And for the life of me, I cannot see how all this is anything other than sheer wishful thinking on your part. That you (no doubt due in great measure to an enslavement to an agenda Left-wingers have influenced you with) cannot see reality AS IT IS, rather than AS YOU WISH IT WAS (!!) ... is really your problem, not mine.

I wish you joy in resolving your problem. Not, of course, that you will ever try to do so, since your delusion is doubtless a comforting one for you ...

I am not surprised that you wish to avoid a rational debate with me, FJ (and I'm fine with that ... I've already said that you're a waste of my time). Fact is, FJ, that you cannot ultimately flourish under the glare of the bright spotlight of truth and realism when it's trained down on you. You profess to be a Conservative, yet I've proved that the individual you took a delight in quoting, as part of your 'proof' of what you believe in, DOES HIMSELF ARGUE RECOGNISABLY LEFT-WING POSITIONS.

I think the truth is that you are determined to sell yourself as a Conservative .. and people like me are too busy seeing your Left-wing thought processes for what they are, to find it remotely believable.

Worse for you ... as much as you try to, you also can't say that it's just me who sees this truth. If you are a 'Conservative', FJ, how is it that there are OTHER Conservatives here who don't believe you're one ?? And why is it, FJ, that you have such a track record of being in opposition to them ?

But never mind. Continue as you have, because it doesn't ultimately matter. Your adherence to views that most Left-winger types would happily support themselves, says all that needs to be said.

-- Have fun.

[fj1200]

My 'view', as you characterise it, is founded on realism. I deal with stark reality, no matter how unpalatable it is, and squarely face it.

Everyone deals in reality. You just let your emotions run rough shod over rational thought.


I am not surprised that you wish to avoid a rational debate with me, FJ (and I'm fine with that ... I've already said that you're a waste of my time). Fact is, FJ, that you cannot ultimately flourish under the glare of the bright spotlight of truth and realism when it's trained down on you. You profess to be a Conservative, yet I've proved that the individual you took a delight in quoting, as part of your 'proof' of what you believe in, DOES HIMSELF ARGUE RECOGNISABLY LEFT-WING POSITIONS.

Rational thought and you are not too well acquainted. And I assume you're referring to Sullivan but you should try linking to the actual source rather than glomming onto something that might make your argument have more weight. I'm sure though that once you stumble onto the source that it will of course be derided as some bit from a "leftie." Setting aside of course that you attack the source when you can't attack the statement; Quite the "leftie" tactic that you use frequently.


If you are a 'Conservative', FJ, how is it that there are OTHER Conservatives here who don't believe you're one ?? And why is it, FJ, that you have such a track record of being in opposition to them ?

Got a list? Oh yeah, make sure that they can back up their opinion. It's clear that you can't back it up or you would have provided some proof already.


But never mind. Continue as you have, because it doesn't ultimately matter. Your adherence to views that most Left-winger types would happily support themselves, says all that needs to be said.

Most "left-wingers" believe in lower taxation, less regulation, smaller government, etc.? Do tell.

[Nukeman]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7868581632/hD0C0734E/

And yet most Liberals suck off the Govt teet... So who sucks again!?!?!!?

[aboutime]

And yet most Liberals suck off the Govt teet... So who sucks again!?!?!!?



Nukeman. When I saw gabby's name under that kitten, with those words.

I fully expected to see gabby demonstrate the word "SUCK".

[glockmail]

Her hubby is a Republican, so perhaps she's assuming we all suck like him.

[aboutime]

Her hubby is a Republican, so perhaps she's assuming we all suck like him.



Really? So her real last name is HOOVER, or BISSEL?

[Drummond]

Everyone deals in reality. You just let your emotions run rough shod over rational thought.

You insist that terrorists have 'human rights', and find any suggestion that they have no right to them 'disgusting'.

This flies in the face of one simple REALITY .. that terrorists, through what they do, and what they exult in, prove themselves to be completely devoid of humanity.

Enter Left-wingers, AND YOU, on to the scene to argue in any way you can that it's wrong to deny those subhumans their 'human rights'

MINE is recognition of REALITY. YOURS, is a DENIAL of it.

... so who's being the more rational here ?


Rational thought and you are not too well acquainted.

Check again.


And I assume you're referring to Sullivan

The description was too obviously about him, for you to deny it .. quite ...


but you should try linking to the actual source ...

Nothing easier, FJ. Here it is .... here's what ANDREW SULLIVAN has to say .. IN HIS OWN WORDS .......

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2011/08/05/thatcher-vs-torture/


In the autumn of 1990, in the immediate aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, British intelligence sought a special kind of permission from Downing Street. They wanted the prime minister to make it clear that they could, in defiance of international law, make use of information which they knew to have been acquired as a result of torture.

Margaret Thatcher, then in the last few weeks of her magnificent premiership, carefully considered this request. She consulted her conscience and pondered what was the right thing to do. Within a very short space of time, a clear and magisterial instruction was issued from Downing Street and dispatched around Whitehall: Mrs Thatcher wanted it known that the British state was not, in any circumstances, to make use of intelligence that might have come from victims of torture…

I am told that there were two principal reasons Margaret Thatcher was so strongly opposed to torture. The first was simply pragmatic: she understood that information extracted from terrified victims under duress could never be relied on or trusted.

But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

There's your source, FJ. Now ... are you going to admit that you quoted from Sullivan, a figure noted by Wikipedia as someone having sympathy with many LEFT WING views ... or, are you going to say it's 'pure coincidence' that EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING YOU USE IN YOUR SIGNATURE HAPPENS TO APPEAR IN A SULLIVAN BLOG-PIECE ?

Since these are the thoughts of a 'part time' Leftie, FJ, what weight - what authority - MUST I, of necessity, accord them, by your reckoning ? Please advise .. !! .....


Got a list? Oh yeah, make sure that they can back up their opinion. It's clear that you can't back it up or you would have provided some proof already.

So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that other Conservatives here DO NOT oppose you ???? :laugh2::laugh2:


Most "left-wingers" believe in lower taxation, less regulation, smaller government, etc.? Do tell.

Left wingers, FJ, 'believe' whatever it'll take to gain them power over people.

Left wingers over here have fought elections on a platform of promising to lower taxes ! Of course, when in power, they actually hate to do it, and invariably go in for tax hikes. Blair was somewhat different to the Leftie norm, but yes, by and large, they love their tax hikes.

But what they SAY they believe in, frequently seems to be the exact opposite of what's true - according to their need to propagandise at any one time.

Is all of this seeming to be suspiciously familiar, FJ ?

Less regulation. You say you believe this. Lefties over here have been known to bleat on about the burden of regulation on the ordinary person. But again, what they SAY, AND WHAT THEY DO, ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Smaller Government ... not really, no. Although ... they like to empower local Councils with regulatory powers, so in that sense, they are believers in 'small governments' ....

[aboutime]

You insist that terrorists have 'human rights', and find any suggestion that they have no right to them 'disgusting'.

This flies in the face of one simple REALITY .. that terrorists, through what they do, and what they exult in, prove themselves to be completely devoid of humanity.

Enter Left-wingers, AND YOU, on to the scene to argue in any way you can that it's wrong to deny those subhumans their 'human rights'

MINE is recognition of REALITY. YOURS, is a DENIAL of it.

... so who's being the more rational here ?



Check again.



The description was too obviously about him, for you to deny it .. quite ...



Nothing easier, FJ. Here it is .... here's what ANDREW SULLIVAN has to say .. IN HIS OWN WORDS .......

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2011/08/05/thatcher-vs-torture/



There's your source, FJ. Now ... are you going to admit that you quoted from Sullivan, a figure noted by Wikipedia as someone having sympathy with many LEFT WING views ... or, are you going to say it's 'pure coincidence' that EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING YOU USE IN YOUR SIGNATURE HAPPENS TO APPEAR IN A SULLIVAN BLOG-PIECE ?

Since these are the thoughts of a 'part time' Leftie, FJ, what weight - what authority - MUST I, of necessity, accord them, by your reckoning ? Please advise .. !! .....



So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that other Conservatives here DO NOT oppose you ???? :laugh2::laugh2:



Left wingers, FJ, 'believe' whatever it'll take to gain them power over people.

Left wingers over here have fought elections on a platform of promising to lower taxes ! Of course, when in power, they actually hate to do it, and invariably go in for tax hikes. Blair was somewhat different to the Leftie norm, but yes, by and large, they love their tax hikes.

But what they SAY they believe in, frequently seems to be the exact opposite of what's true - according to their need to propagandise at any one time.

Is all of this seeming to be suspiciously familiar, FJ ?

Less regulation. You say you believe this. Lefties over here have been known to bleat on about the burden of regulation on the ordinary person. But again, what they SAY, AND WHAT THEY DO, ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Smaller Government ... not really, no. Although ... they like to empower local Councils with regulatory powers, so in that sense, they are believers in 'small governments' ....



Sir Drummond. There is an obvious answer to fj's defense of the rights of terrorists.

It appears, from all he has tried to disguise as a defense. That he possibly is just looking out for his own future as sort of a Turncoat....who switches sides when the Going Gets Tough.

[red states rule]

Really? So her real last name is HOOVER, or BISSEL?

He must be the Andrew Sullivan type of Republican

That is the only Republican Gabby would ever associate with

[red states rule]

My 'view', as you characterise it, is founded on realism. I deal with stark reality, no matter how unpalatable it is, and squarely face it.

The whole 'terrorist' debate, in terms of what they are, what they do, and what they deserve, is for me a matter of facing up to the realities involved and taking a line that's the most realistic, and appropriate, and yes, the most DESERVED, to take. You, for your part - AND EXACTLY AS A LEFTIE WOULD ALSO DO - much prefer to wear rose-tinted glasses in 'viewing' these same realities. For you, no matter what a terrorist DOES, no matter what a terrorist IS, they must still receive 'human rights' and receive total protection from 'overly unpleasant' treatment.

And for the life of me, I cannot see how all this is anything other than sheer wishful thinking on your part. That you (no doubt due in great measure to an enslavement to an agenda Left-wingers have influenced you with) cannot see reality AS IT IS, rather than AS YOU WISH IT WAS (!!) ... is really your problem, not mine.

I wish you joy in resolving your problem. Not, of course, that you will ever try to do so, since your delusion is doubtless a comforting one for you ...

I am not surprised that you wish to avoid a rational debate with me, FJ (and I'm fine with that ... I've already said that you're a waste of my time). Fact is, FJ, that you cannot ultimately flourish under the glare of the bright spotlight of truth and realism when it's trained down on you. You profess to be a Conservative, yet I've proved that the individual you took a delight in quoting, as part of your 'proof' of what you believe in, DOES HIMSELF ARGUE RECOGNISABLY LEFT-WING POSITIONS.

I think the truth is that you are determined to sell yourself as a Conservative .. and people like me are too busy seeing your Left-wing thought processes for what they are, to find it remotely believable.

Worse for you ... as much as you try to, you also can't say that it's just me who sees this truth. If you are a 'Conservative', FJ, how is it that there are OTHER Conservatives here who don't believe you're one ?? And why is it, FJ, that you have such a track record of being in opposition to them ?

But never mind. Continue as you have, because it doesn't ultimately matter. Your adherence to views that most Left-winger types would happily support themselves, says all that needs to be said.

-- Have fun.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TECG17u0meI/AAAAAAAAIc0/RpFECVd2jLM/s400/OBAMA+CARTOON,+LOONEY+LEFT+MOONBATS.jpg

[glockmail]

Really? So her real last name is HOOVER, or BISSEL?:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't disagree with much of that, especially the bold, but I'm a little concerned about his populism aspect. I think there is very little good that can come from a populist movement:



I generally see populism as taking grains of truth and expanding it too a larger degree than is justifiable, or taking something that sounds true but is not borne out by reality, and as taking something that is popular, or can be made popular, and using it to justify the ends; The Occupy movement for example. By the bold in your post above I would suggest that you agree with that.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR] Populism is unique to the culture in which it is birthed. A populist movement can be the majority clamoring for a good cause or a very bad cause. In general a populist movement in an educated and moral society would be the right path to take as the freedoms and will of the people would be on solid ground. America's problem is the massive decay in morality and education. Thus a populist movement here would now more likely be about an unethical change that had been brought about by propaganda from the Federal government and mass media (old media) . We have recently seen this type of change being propagandized by Obama and crew. Note that in that context my use of ethical does not indicate solely a religious view but also an ordinary view of what is decent and right. A view that even non-Christians understand and have. However as you indicated a populist movement can and often does become a great threat to change for the worse rather than the better. Conservatives have to decide when such a movement is heading for the worse and we did when we totally rejected Obama and his policies! That's the mark of a true Conservative IMHO. Although Conservatives do come in varying degrees of commitment and action. -Tyr

[red states rule]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Zgy_uKrwLM/ThX7m4DHhMI/AAAAAAAAHRQ/r0wqntz517o/s1600/obamamadisontoon.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Zgy_uKrwLM/ThX7m4DHhMI/AAAAAAAAHRQ/r0wqntz517o/s1600/obamamadisontoon.jpg Positively, absolutely brilliant!!! Short, sweet and dead on target!!! :salute: :beer: :salute: :clap: -Tyr

[red states rule]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/dpi/lowres/dpin447l.jpg

[fj1200]

You insist that terrorists have 'human rights', and find any suggestion that they have no right to them 'disgusting'.

Conservatives deal in facts. The fact that terrorists are human beings, the fact that torture is counterproductive, the fact that torture leads to a diminution of national reputation, etc.. You deal in the emotional response to terrorists. Sorry, but that's the truth.


Nothing easier, FJ. Here it is .... here's what ANDREW SULLIVAN has to say .. IN HIS OWN WORDS .......

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2011/08/05/thatcher-vs-torture/

There's your source, FJ. Now ... are you going to admit that you quoted from Sullivan, a figure noted by Wikipedia as someone having sympathy with many LEFT WING views ... or, are you going to say it's 'pure coincidence' that EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING YOU USE IN YOUR SIGNATURE HAPPENS TO APPEAR IN A SULLIVAN BLOG-PIECE ?

Since these are the thoughts of a 'part time' Leftie, FJ, what weight - what authority - MUST I, of necessity, accord them, by your reckoning ? Please advise .. !! .....

You clearly aren't smart enough to know that he was quoting the words of another. So when will you be admitting how wrong you are?

:laugh: "part-time leftie." I understand is that if someone doesn't goose-step high enough for you or tie their jack-boots tight enough that your only option is break out the leftie crutch.

Let's review. Those who agree with me on torture; Ron, Mags, and Jimmy. Those who agree with you on torture; Hitler, Goebbels, various middle eastern dictators.


So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that other Conservatives here DO NOT oppose you ???? :laugh2::laugh2:

I am merely questioning whether you have the guts to back up your talking point. Ducking another challenge are you?


Left wingers, FJ, 'believe' whatever... it'll take to gain them power over people.

Left wingers over here ...

But what they SAY ...

Less regulation. You say you believe this. Lefties over here...

Smaller Government ... not really, no. Although ... they like...

:laugh: Oh boy, the lengths you go to justify your imagination is pretty damned impressive err, sad. Those leftie have done a huge number on what's left of your gray cells. :shakeshead:

And once more I'd like to note that torture is the ultimate "power over the people." Of course that's what you support. :shrug:

[fj1200]

Populism is unique to the culture in which it is birthed. A populist movement can be the majority clamoring for a good cause or a very bad cause. In general a populist movement in an educated and moral society would be the right path to take as the freedoms and will of the people would be on solid ground. America's problem is the massive decay in morality and education. Thus a populist movement here would now more likely be about an unethical change that had been brought about by propaganda from the Federal government and mass media (old media) . We have recently seen this type of change being propagandized by Obama and crew. Note that in that context my use of ethical does not indicate solely a religious view but also an ordinary view of what is decent and right. A view that even non-Christians understand and have. However as you indicated a populist movement can and often does become a great threat to change for the worse rather than the better. Conservatives have to decide when such a movement is heading for the worse and we did when we totally rejected Obama and his policies! That's the mark of a true Conservative IMHO. Although Conservatives do come in varying degrees of commitment and action. -Tyr

I suppose populism can be unique but I think the underlying methods of populism would be the problem. I also don't think conservatism, when properly defined and used as a basis, needs a populist movement for furtherance of its goals. If we had an educated and moral society then the populism would just be unnecessary.

I just have a generally negative view of populism as I don't see it as relying on a true understanding of reality. Trade protections sound good in theory, breaking up the big banks sounds good in theory, directly electing Senators sounds good in theory, etc. I just don't think the rationale pans out in the long run.

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv0/SxmMLrw1ttI/AAAAAAAALk0/jg2hvK_Bm50/s400/20.bmp

[Drummond]

Conservatives deal in facts. The fact that terrorists are human beings,

So you keep on asserting, FJ. But I've yet to see you really PROVE their so-called 'humanity'.

And just how many chances have you had to show us any such proof ??

What you're doing is to repeat a mantra which LEFTIES would gladly line up to support. 'What a coincidence' ...


the fact that torture is counterproductive

Torture certainly isn't guaranteed to get you the information you need. But, it MIGHT .. and it might well, when dealing with certain savages, be the only thing they'll either cave in to, or respond to, or even respect or understand. I take it that, for the sake of sticking to Leftie preference, you' rather forsake that possibility, and risk needless deaths of innocents ?

Would the victims, and/or their loved ones, thank you for putting TERRORIST WELFARE FIRST ?


the fact that torture leads to a diminution of national reputation, etc..

And to what extent, FJ, has it been LEFTIE propagandising over the years, from people arguing as YOU do, that's responsible for these attitudes ?


You deal in the emotional response to terrorists. Sorry, but that's the truth.

I deal in truth, as this post is proving. I also have a sense of justice. My sense of justice tells me how wrong it is to put terrorist welfare above saving innocent peoples' lives.

WHY DOESN'T YOURS .. 'MR CONSERVATIVE' .. ??


You clearly aren't smart enough to know that he was quoting the words of another. So when will you be admitting how wrong you are?

Two points:

1. Who was he quoting, and under what context ?

2. Maybe rather more importantly .. WHY was he doing so ?

Sullivan is known for having some Leftie sympathies amongst his stances. Why ? Because, obviously, he sees things in the same way as those Lefties propagating such propaganda would. Ergo, he thinks as a Leftie would in those moments. Therefore, his intended purpose in writing is to further the same causes those Lefties have, when he does.

And here YOU are, quoting Sullivan. Where have you said that doing so is a mistake ? Where have you tried to distance yourself from Sullivan .. 'MR CONSERVATIVE' .. ??

Answer .. you have done as little to distance yourself from Sullivan as Sullivan has done to distance himself from all the Left-wing sources of all the Left-wing ideals he subscribes to !!


:laugh: "part-time leftie." I understand is that if someone doesn't goose-step high enough for you or tie their jack-boots tight enough that your only option is break out the leftie crutch.

Since you can't refute the 'Leftie' categorisation outright, you try to demonise its usage .. and in a rather emotional way, it seems to me. I thought you professed to having, and practising, greater rationality ?


Let's review. Those who agree with me on torture; Ron, Mags, and Jimmy. Those who agree with you on torture; Hitler, Goebbels, various middle eastern dictators.

Let's indeed review.

'Ron' and 'Mags' (I assume you mean Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher). Their views were based on .. what ? Concern for international law ? Concern for international image ?

And were such views in answer to what we NOW know to be true of terrorist savagery ? OR, were they both speaking within the context of a bygone age, long before the world saw such disgusting subhumanites as were perpetrated on 11th September 2001 in New York, or on 7th July 2005 in London ?

As for 'Jimmy' .. I see you still can't see your way clear to refer to Carter in any other than affectionate terms (though you've derisorily referred to Lady Thatcher as just 'Thatcher') ... which is understandable ..


I am merely questioning whether you have the guts to back up your talking point. Ducking another challenge are you?

Now you're dodging .. and pointlessly, even ludicrously so. Anyone reviewing threads such as this one can see that you get opposition from other Conservatives. You cannot usefully deny this, and we all know it.


:laugh: Oh boy, the lengths you go to justify your imagination is pretty damned impressive err, sad. Those leftie have done a huge number on what's left of your gray cells.:lame2::lame2:

You've not exactly offered a thought-out or substantive reply to my points (though you're still keen on the gratuitous put-downs, I see..). Not too surprising, any of that.


And once more I'd like to note that torture is the ultimate "power over the people." Of course that's what you support.

Nope. I am content to say that there's nothing wrong with torture against TERRORISTS.

This is very different from your own allegation.

That you cannot see this (- or just refuse to -) says one thing of note: that you should find better scriptwriters than your current Leftie ones.

[red states rule]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1008/liberals-yeah-liberals-are-like-that-political-poster-1280929332.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I suppose populism can be unique but I think the underlying methods of populism would be the problem. I also don't think conservatism, when properly defined and used as a basis, needs a populist movement for furtherance of its goals. If we had an educated and moral society then the populism would just be unnecessary.

I just have a generally negative view of populism as I don't see it as relying on a true understanding of reality. Trade protections sound good in theory, breaking up the big banks sounds good in theory, directly electing Senators sounds good in theory, etc. I just don't think the rationale pans out in the long run. I do not entirely disagree with that. In fact, do agree with the majority of that. The problem is for our Republic to work using the greatest governing document ever devised by man(THE CONSTITUTION) it must have a well educated society that has a solid moral foundation. The Constitution was not designed to govern a corrupt and almost completely licentious society. Those seeking to destroy the authority and power of our Constitution have known that and use it to aid in their desired goals. Conservatives know that too and fight to stop the depravity that's so often promoted and protected by the Federal government. The stage were are now in is very conducive for a degenerate populist movement and we have entered such a movement with the Obama regime. For a regime it truly is. Slay the tiger but not the kitty kat should have been our immediate reaction to that nation destroying movement yet it was not because our education system has removed the necessary critical knowledge of what constitutes a true threat to our standing as a nation! And that was by design not happenstance. Government propaganda, media bias and racial guilt all combined to give us the perfect destroyer in Obama IMHO. NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE EVER CONSIDERED VOTING FOR HIM, AT LEAST NOT ANY OF THE INTELLIGENT ONES !! I SAW THE BASTARD COMING A MILE AWAY.. -TYR

[red states rule]

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy00MWRjZmZiODZlNmQ5OTgy.png

[fj1200]

I do not entirely disagree with that. ... NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE EVER CONSIDERED VOTING FOR HIM, AT LEAST NOT ANY OF THE INTELLIGENT ONES !! I SAW THE BASTARD COMING A MILE AWAY.. -TYR

I guess we'll have to agree to not entirely disagree. :laugh: As far as your last comment I would suggest when Republicans do not do Conservatism the way that it should be done then it should not come as a surprise when Republicans lose an election or three. It's a matter of going back to basics.

[fj1200]

So you keep on asserting, FJ. But I've yet to see you really PROVE their so-called 'humanity'.

I offer to merely prove that they are human. And that is undeniable though you attempt to deny.


Torture certainly isn't guaranteed to get you the information you need. But, it MIGHT ..

Would the victims, and/or their loved ones, thank you for putting TERRORIST WELFARE FIRST ?

So, you again deny the evidence that torture is unreliable, as Mags knew, on the off chance of "might." Further proof that you use emotion over fact.


And to what extent, FJ, has it been LEFTIE propagandising over the years, from people arguing as YOU do, that's responsible for these attitudes ?

So it's your position that agreeing with the fact that certain individuals are in fact human is responsible for global attitudes??? Wow, down is up in your world.


I deal in truth, as this post is proving. I also have a sense of justice. My sense of justice tells me how wrong it is to put terrorist welfare above saving innocent peoples' lives.

WHY DOESN'T YOURS .. 'MR CONSERVATIVE' .. ??

I deal in fact that torture is unreliable, you deal in emotion especially considering that you believe torturing another human is some form of "justice."


Two points:

1. Who was he quoting, and under what context ?

2. Maybe rather more importantly .. WHY was he doing so ?

Sullivan is known for having some Leftie sympathies amongst his stances. Why ? Because, obviously, he sees things in the same way as those Lefties propagating such propaganda would. Ergo, he thinks as a Leftie would in those moments. Therefore, his intended purpose in writing is to further the same causes those Lefties have, when he does.

And here YOU are, quoting Sullivan. Where have you said that doing so is a mistake ? Where have you tried to distance yourself from Sullivan .. 'MR CONSERVATIVE' .. ??

Answer .. you have done as little to distance yourself from Sullivan as Sullivan has done to distance himself from all the Left-wing sources of all the Left-wing ideals he subscribes to !!

1. Look it up. I linked to it when I posted it originally.
2. I'm sure he wanted to make the point that the Thatchinator was against torture and why. It's unreliable and it goes against your national character; it seems you let your emotion convince you that the former is not true and that she has a higher opinion of your country than do you.

And A, I didn't quote Sullivan. B, I don't concern myself with all of his positions. Most people know that individuals can have different views on different subjects without having to goose-step like you nor wear their jack-boots as tight as you. I await your admission that you were in fact wrong.


Since you can't refute the 'Leftie' categorisation outright, you try to demonise its usage .. and in a rather emotional way, it seems to me. I thought you professed to having, and practising, greater rationality ?

No, I just demonize you. Your positions are disgusting.


Let's indeed review.

'Ron' and 'Mags' (I assume you mean Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher). Their views were based on .. what ? Concern for international law ? Concern for international image ?

And were such views in answer to what we NOW know to be true of terrorist savagery ? OR, were they both speaking within the context of a bygone age, long before the world saw such disgusting subhumanites as were perpetrated on 11th September 2001 in New York, or on 7th July 2005 in London ?

As for 'Jimmy' .. I see you still can't see your way clear to refer to Carter in any other than affectionate terms (though you've derisorily referred to Lady Thatcher as just 'Thatcher') ... which is understandable ..

So you get upset when I call Mrs. Thatcher Maggie but I'm being affectionate to Mr. Carter when I call him Jimmy. :confused: The lengths you go to justify your delusions is quite impressive.

So according to you the "Iron Lady" would bend and go against her belief that torture is unreliable and contrary to British values... Apparently I have higher respect than one who professes to be a "Thatcherite." I'm guessing that she wouldn't get caught up in the emotion of it as you do.


Now you're dodging .. and pointlessly, even ludicrously so. Anyone reviewing threads such as this one can see that you get opposition from other Conservatives. You cannot usefully deny this, and we all know it.

I'm dodging? Another of your assertions that you can't back up and are running away from. Tell me, at what level are the mentally retarded subhuman? It's your definition remember. Nevertheless, I await your listing.


Nope. I am content to say that there's nothing wrong with torture against TERRORISTS.

Well, you started with being OK with torturing terrorists and then you moved on to stripping away the constitutional rights of American citizens. I shudder to imagine to what lengths your big-government tendencies would grow to strip away.

[red states rule]

http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rape-kit-cartoon.jpg

[Drummond]

I offer to merely prove that they are human. And that is undeniable though you attempt to deny.

What do you mean, you 'offer to prove they are human' .. we have debated this several times already. Only now do you 'offer' .. ?

So, what's been your difficulty until now ?

Besides, your premise is fatally flawed. You can't just 'merely' prove they're human, and strive to do no more. A human being has humanity - this is vital to being human !!!. AND A TERRORIST HAS NONE WHATEVER.

To succeed in proving that a terrorist is human, you must be able to show their humanity. Can you do that ?

Can you find evidence of Al Qaeda's 'humanity' in what they did on 11th September 2001 ? Evidence ....

1. ... from what they planned to do ?

2. ... from the hijackers of the planes, as they piloted them to their targets ?

3. ... from Al Qaeda afterwards - did they show remorse ? OR, EXULTATION ?

How 'human' have the terrorists been reported as being, on that thread on this forum which is devoted to listing the attacks they perpetrate ?

How 'human' are terrorists when they strap bombs on to children, and force them, and others, to die ????

Consider ALL of this in your 'evidence' of their being 'human', FJ. IF YOU DARE.

... Or will you just duck the whole thing ?


So, you again deny the evidence that torture is unreliable, as Mags knew, on the off chance of "might." Further proof that you use emotion over fact.

Its reliability - or otherwise - isn't particularly the issue. As I posted before, which seems to have escaped your reasoning (I wonder why ?) ...


Torture certainly isn't guaranteed to get you the information you need. but, it MIGHT ...

Why would you want to throw away the offchance of saving lives, FJ, and put terrorist welfare FIRST ? Torture MIGHT work. You can't guarantee that it definitely won't. Which means that, in any one instance, LIVES MIGHT BE SAVED WITH ITS USE.

Maximising the chance of saving lives, FJ, is better than minimising that chance. EVEN if it might offend liberal sensibilities !!


So it's your position that agreeing with the fact that certain individuals are in fact human is responsible for global attitudes??? Wow, down is up in your world.

Sheer commonsense, FJ. The more the Left-leaning media work to push the message that terrorists as 'humans' must be treated as such, the more people find themselves having to listen. Propaganda, rather than fact, HAS been known to win out, in defiance of truth and fact.

Which is why I now ask you to suspend your propagandising, AND PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT TERRORISTS MUST BE SEEN AS HUMAN, THEREFORE DESERVING OF 'HUMAN RIGHTS'.

Oh, and while you're at it ...

1. You might try posting evidence of your previous concern for their victims (.. I mean, it DOES exist, surely ??). OR --

2. START posting evidence of that concern !! I SAY IT'S HIGH TIME WE SAW SOME !!!


I deal in fact that torture is unreliable,

... BUT BETTER THAN NOTHING. Unreliable methods still have a chance at achieving success. Fail to employ them, and even the chance of that success is lost.


you deal in emotion especially considering that you believe torturing another human is some form of "justice."

INCORRECT. I have never advocated any torture of human beings. Just of terrorists. Please remain factual in your responses, and stop emotionalising them !!


1. Look it up. I linked to it when I posted it originally.

Better yet, if you've such a good case, present it !!


2. I'm sure he wanted to make the point that the Thatchinator was against torture and why.

Of course he did. Liberals propagandise, as I've said. Sullivan found something he could use to advance his own views, and so he went ahead and did so.


It's unreliable and it goes against your national character; it seems you let your emotion convince you that the former is not true and that she has a higher opinion of your country than do you.

The case was also made - something you've mysteriously overlooked, 'strangely' - that a major part of her concern had to do with the legal position involved, as she and her advisors understood it to be. Remember, as a world leader, Lady Thatcher was charged with its consideration as a defining part of her decision-making.


And A, I didn't quote Sullivan.

Curious. I don't recall your immediate denial of that when I first said you did.

Let me refresh your memory of what you DID SAY in reply ...


You clearly aren't smart enough to know that he was quoting the words of another. So when will you be admitting how wrong you are?

NOT a denial. This merely says that Sullivan quoted someone else. It says nothing to say that YOU did not quote SULLIVAN before.


B, I don't concern myself with all of his positions.

Which of his more Conservative positions do you disagree with, then ?? Care to list them ?


Most people know that individuals can have different views on different subjects without having to goose-step like you nor wear their jack-boots as tight as you.

Ignoring your pathetic attempt at demonisation (.. how very 'emotional' of you ..) .. most people can indeed have different views on different subjects.

But here's the clincher, FJ. If those 'differing views' happen to be taken on, or spun, in such a way that they don't interfere with a central, purposeful agenda .. then, one can conclude the true direction intended for ALL of them.

I'll give you two examples.

1. If you take on views, opinions, which just 'happen' to promote your fiction that terrorists 'deserve' not to have torture applied to them, then you have a single objective in mind, in furtherance of a single overall viewpoint.

And, guess what ? IT'S ONE WHICH FURTHERS A LIBERAL AGENDA.

2. You know, in all our debates, I'm struck by the absence of something from you. I don't recall - as would be true of any US Conservative, surely ? - ANY POSTINGS FROM YOU WHERE YOU OPPOSE OBAMA OUTRIGHT, AND ARGUE A CONSERVATIVE POSITION WHICH COMPLETELY DEFIES HIM.

If I'm wrong, show me that I am. Don't fudge your answer. Don't duck the issue. PROVE ME WRONG, WITH A LIST OF EVIDENCE.

As a 'Conservative', such a list from past postings of yours should be easily quotable ... yes ?


No, I just demonize you. Your positions are disgusting.

Said like a true Leftie propagandist, FJ. Besides ... how ... 'emotional' of you. NOT dealing in facts, then, just personal attacks ?

And what's 'disgusting', anyway ? That I put forward a case which offends liberal sensibilities ?


So you get upset when I call Mrs. Thatcher Maggie but I'm being affectionate to Mr. Carter when I call him Jimmy. :confused: The lengths you go to justify your delusions is quite impressive.

More demonising. How tiresome of you.

-- And also unrepresentative of what I objected to. At least twice you referred to Lady Thatcher simply as 'Thatcher'. When I pointed out that a Left-wing rag called the Daily Mirror planned to attack her, after her death, with an advert centred on that very form of name-calling, 'amazingly', YOU IGNORED THE POINT.

However, I do note this. You haven't ONCE, yet, managed to bring yourself to call Jimmy Carter, just 'Carter' ... until now, it's been 'JIMMY' all the way. Only now have you tried calling him MISTER Carter ....

WHAT A GIVEAWAY ....


So according to you the "Iron Lady" would bend and go against her belief that torture is unreliable and contrary to British values... Apparently I have higher respect than one who professes to be a "Thatcherite." I'm guessing that she wouldn't get caught up in the emotion of it as you do.

Not being one yourself, you won't realise the truth of this. Nevertheless .. Conservatives do insist upon being realists. Your views on Lady Thatcher's recorded stances are a contrivance which ignores the context within which all of her views and decisions were reached - namely, in the world PRE-DATING 9/11.

We hadn't seen the depth or range of terrorist savagery before then. And Lady Thatcher's viewpoint(s) therefore couldn't be based on any of this.


Another of your assertions that you can't back up and are running away from. Tell me, at what level are the mentally retarded subhuman? It's your definition remember. Nevertheless, I await your listing.

I HAVE NEVER, ONCE, ASSERTED THAT THE 'MENTALLY RETARDED' ARE SUBHUMAN - PROVE OTHERWISE !!

As is already clear, you do stoop to demonisations when arguing with me. This is another of them. Only in this instance, you've done the highly Left-wing thing of straying beyond fact altogether in order to propagandise against me.

You ARE what you ARE. QED.


Well, you started with being OK with torturing terrorists and then you moved on to stripping away the constitutional rights of American citizens. I shudder to imagine to what lengths your big-government tendencies would grow to strip away.

Citizenship is for human beings.

Show me proof of citizenship held by a cockroach, or, that the Constitution exists to serve cockroaches .. born in the US, of course ...

Cockroaches surely have such rights ? Why ever not ?

Have you heard of cockroaches ...


Flying planes into skyscrapers ?
Strapping bombs on to the young ?
Beheading people ?
Plotting insurgencies ?


YOU want human rights granted to, and respected for, creatures LESS human than cockroaches !!!!!

How very 'liberal' of you ......

[aboutime]

Being classified as being HUMAN is a state of mind.

Terrorists who intentionally would eat the heart of a Human Being, castrate, or behead another Human being DO NOT MEET the qualifications of other Human Beings.

Anyone who insists a Terrorist that intentionally kills because of their bastardized definition of a religion is a Human trait. Probably IS a TERRORIST, defending other TERRORISTS.

[Drummond]

Being classified as being HUMAN is a state of mind.

Terrorists who intentionally would eat the heart of a Human Being, castrate, or behead another Human being DO NOT MEET the qualifications of other Human Beings.

Anyone who insists a Terrorist that intentionally kills because of their bastardized definition of a religion is a Human trait. Probably IS a TERRORIST, defending other TERRORISTS.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

It says nothing to say that YOU did not quote SULLIVAN before.

...


I HAVE NEVER, ONCE, ASSERTED THAT THE 'MENTALLY RETARDED' ARE SUBHUMAN - PROVE OTHERWISE !!

I'm done with you. You can't even admit two errors, among so many, that you've made. I've never quoted Sullivan and your own proffered definition proves your lie... unless you're going to assert you didn't post this:


'HARD FACTS LIKE THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS'.

...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subhuman


: less than human: as
: failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

I see no more point in arguing the same things over and over. Have fun with your imagination unless you have something new to add.

Tell me, in all your blathering rantings did I miss where you were listing all of the conservatives who oppose me?

[aboutime]

I'm done with you. You can't even admit two errors, among so many, that you've made. I've never quoted Sullivan and your own proffered definition proves your lie... unless you're going to assert you didn't post this:



I see no more point in arguing the same things over and over. Have fun with your imagination unless you have something new to add.

Tell me, in all your blathering rantings did I miss where you were listing all of the conservatives who oppose me?


Once again. No DENIAL from fj. Guess defending Terrorists isn't easy. So stopping the conversation will SAVE 'FJ'S FACE with those he defends, and calls human. But SCUM is still SCUM.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do not often use Wiki but this is pretty good one in my opinion. -Tyr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_man Definition of man


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Definition of Man, sometimes now referred to as Definition of Human, originated from a summary essay of Kenneth Burke (1897–1993) which he included in his 1966 work, Language as Symbolic Action. Burke's work in communication has spanned many fields and focuses primarily on rhetoric. Perhaps he is best known for his theory of Dramatism, wherein he characterizes life to not just reflect or be like a drama but rather that life is drama.[1]



Contents
[hide] 1 Definition
2 Symbol-Using Animal
3 Condensation
4 Inventor of the Negative
5 Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
6 Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
7 Rotten with perfection
8 Modern-day applications
9 References
10 Additional reading

Definition[edit]

Burke's definition of man states: "Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection".[2] Essentially, Burke's definition maintains that man is distinct from other creatures by the virtue of his use of symbols to communicate, his understanding of negation, his separation from nature by his own techniques, his existence in differing social structures, and his goal to become better than he presently is.

Symbol-Using Animal[edit]

Burke distinguishes man from other animals by drawing an analogy between man and birds. He argues that unlike birds, which cannot use symbols to communicate, man is able to use language towards pragmatic ends. To illustrate this point, Burke recalls seeing a bird trapped inside a college classroom. The windows were open, but the bird kept flying upwards to the ceiling, rather than through the window. If the bird could use symbols to communicate then one could simply inform the bird of the open windows and it could fly out to freedom. Its natural instinct to fly up coupled by its inability to use symbols, however, prevents its escape. Burke, also argues that not only does man use symbols, but concedes that man makes and misuses symbols as well.[3]

Condensation[edit]

One aspect of symbols that Burke points out in his discussion of Sigmund Freud's work is condensation. This explains man's ability to condense symbols into categories that can be understood by others to include a variety of other symbols. The example he gives is using the word furniture to refer to chairs, tables, etc.[4]

Burke's defining of man in these terms leads to man's quest for identity and social belonging.[5] Burke sees all human action as infused with symbols. These symbols are used to help create our sense of who we are and where we fit. In order to accomplish these, man seeks for differences and commonalities respectively.

Inventor of the Negative[edit]

While Burke struggles with using the word inventor for he feels that language has invented man, he points out that negatives do not exist in nature. He contends that negatives are purely a characteristic of symbol systems, which he has already determined belong uniquely to man. He further refers to morality as being particularly human and based largely on the idea of negatives; that is, there are things we should not do.[6]

Intrinsic to this portion of Burke's Definition is the idea of paradox. Burke explains that the idea of negation is, by its nature, paradoxical. He explains that conditioning a statement with a negative draws a positive image of that very statement. This, he argues, defeats the purpose of negation, yet is an inescapable situation.[7]

Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making[edit]

In this section of Burke's definition he describes man's natural state as being that of basic needs and appetites. However, because of his tools and language, he has taken on a nature completely different than that of his original state. He cites an example of a day when the electricity of New York City went out and how unnatural it seemed for the streets to be filled with darkness; darkness being a state of man's first nature. However, because of man's tools, a state of lighted streets has become natural.[8] One major example of man's instruments is exemplified in technology.[9] Technology has accomplished the task of separating man from nature.

Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy[edit]

This portion of Burke's description seeks to define man as being drawn to order and status. He points to positions in society that imply this fact. One such example he draws upon is the division of labor that exists in society. Others are titles of nobility and peasantry.[10]

Rotten with perfection[edit]

This last portion of Burke's definition has particular importance to his other philosophical theories of man. Man being rotten with perfection speaks to the motives that are distinct in man; motives being an intrinsic part of Burke's Dramatism, distinguishing action from motion.

Burke refers to Aristotle's notion of entelechy, which states that we seek to reach the perfection of our kind. This, however, is not present in nature. Burke points out that a rock and a tree are perfectly acceptable as being what they are, but not so with man for he aims to be higher than he is.[11]

While man's striving for perfection may afford him to reach admirable goals and progress, Burke also sees man's goal of perfection as one rife with danger. He points to our concepts of perfection in accordance with other terms. One particularly clear example he gives is the perfection for which was strived by the Nazis thus alluding to the consequences to which such ambitions may lead. Lastly, Burke explains that such dichotomies of perfection give credence to man's belief in God and Devil and Heaven and Hell.[12]

Modern-day applications[edit]

Feminist scholarship has shown a use of Burke's definition as a framework by which a definition for woman can be derived. Their definition is as follows: "Woman is the symbol-receiving animal, inventor of nothing, submerged in her natural conditions by instruments of man's making, goaded at the bottom of hierarchy, and rotten by perfection".[13] This particular definition clearly conveys a perception that views man as the suppressor of woman and the cause for her restrained condition.

One notable scholar, Celeste Condit, has written in an effort to modernize Burke's works and his "definition of man" in particular by calling for a Post-Burkean philosophy that takes Burke's ideas and transports them into what she calls the new scene, or modern day. She calls particularly for a restructuring each part of Burke's definition into terms that are founded on but surpass radical feminist ideologies as seen above. Condit defines people as those who play with symbols, invent the negative and possible morality, changed from nature by tools that men and woman have collectively made, struggling for equality, and at times rotten and perfect. Condit seeks to transform Burke's emphases of race and class into gender and culture.

J. MacLennan has used Burkean ideas, particularly his dramatistic pentad, in analyzing criminal behavior and offering an understanding of criminal behavior that is often at odds with the ideas of many criminologists and psychologists.[14] Of particular interest to MacLennan is Burke's first clause in his definition of man as a "symbol-using animal". MacLennan maintains that this clause, coupled with Burke's ideas of motive, help explain criminal behavior. Burke posits that man uses symbols to obtain his goals, thus his motives are often carried out as acts based on his intentions. Thus Burke maintains that man's actions (use or misuse of symbols) are based on choices and not a compulsion or sickness. This has great implications for modern psychology which often views abnormal and criminal behavior as an illness that is forced upon those who act out in unacceptable ways.

References[edit]

1.Jump up ^ Miller, K. Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts (New York: McGraw Hill, 2005), p. 96
2.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 16
3.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.3-4
4.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.7
5.Jump up ^ MacLennan, J. (2005). A rhetorical journey into darkness: Crime scene profiling as Burkean analysis. KBJounal, 1, (2). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from www.kbjournal.org
6.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.9-13
7.Jump up ^ Brock, B., Burke, K., Burgess, P., & Simons, H. (1985) Dramatism as ontology or epistemology: A symposium. Communication Quarterly, 33, 17-33.
8.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.13-15
9.Jump up ^ Wess, R. (2006). Ecocriticism and Kenneth Burke: An introduction. KBJournal, 2 (2). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from www.kbjournal.org
10.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.15-16
11.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.16-20
12.Jump up ^ Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.20
13.Jump up ^ Condit, Celeste. (1992). Post burke: Transcending the sub-stance of dramatism, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, (3), 349-355
14.Jump up ^ MacLennan, J. (2005). A rhetorical journey into darkness: Crime scene profiling as Burkean analysis. KBJounal, 1, (2). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from www.kbjournal.org We each must make our best judgment of what being human means. Myself, it means having a sense of right and wrong, a desire to do good and a loathing of corruption, depravity and the vilest of man's actions = wanton murder. Can a man bring himself to a state of being not human? I see it as a possibility because man is more than just a living breathing creature. Man has a soul and if man rejects that soul to pursue any agenda or religion which encourages the deliberate murder of innocent people as a means to an end then surely many would deem him to be inhuman. Chief among those making such a judgment would surely be American conservatives IMHO. For American Conservatives are on the short list of those to be eradicated by the major players in terrorism today! A judgment call for sure but one that does have foundation. Myself, I care no a whit who or how many discount my judgment on this matter. A man must abide by his own set of principles if he is to maintain his honor. Some look upon personal honor as some kind of insanity or a mental monster to be rejected as old fashioned or selfish action from the individual but we all must make judgment calls daily about a wide variety of things. I've made mine and its that terrorists are to be shot down like the cowardly murdering dogs they are! Let God judge them after that but as to man's judgment it should be void of anything even approaching mercy! Any group (regardless of their other attributes ) that deliberately murders innocent women and children to further any agenda is guilty of having renounce their humanity in my little book. A book that I keep near and dear to my heart for any possible future action that may be called for. If that makes me a dangerous man so be it because those doing the vilest of deeds are indeed far, far worse. I can live with what someday I may be called to do about that! --Tyr

[fj1200]

We each must make our best judgment of what being human means. Myself, it means having a sense of right and wrong, a desire to do good and a loathing of corruption, depravity and the vilest of man's actions = wanton murder. Can a man bring himself to a state of being not human? I see it as a possibility because man is more than just a living breathing creature. Man has a soul and if man rejects that soul to pursue any agenda or religion which encourages the deliberate murder of innocent people as a means to an end then surely many would deem him to be inhuman. Chief among those making such a judgment would surely be American conservatives IMHO. For American Conservatives are on the short list of those to be eradicated by the major players in terrorism today! A judgment call for sure but one that does have foundation. Myself, I care no a whit who or how many discount my judgment on this matter. A man must abide by his own set of principles if he is to maintain his honor. Some look upon personal honor as some kind of insanity or a mental monster to be rejected as old fashioned or selfish action from the individual but we all must make judgment calls daily about a wide variety of things. I've made mine and its that terrorists are to be shot down like the cowardly murdering dogs they are! Let God judge them after that but as to man's judgment it should be void of anything even approaching mercy! Any group (regardless of their other attributes ) that deliberately murders innocent women and children to further any agenda is guilty of having renounce their humanity in my little book. A book that I keep near and dear to my heart for any possible future action that may be called for. If that makes me a dangerous man so be it because those doing the vilest of deeds are indeed far, far worse. I can live with what someday I may be called to do about that! --Tyr

We can all make a judgement on what terrorists are and what they do but we in the US need to stand as an example to the world. We have an ideal that has been expressed in a document that most of us hold in high regard and to sell that out in terms of what might could be betrays that IMO. If we are going to hold ourselves out to the world as some sort of policeman that will rush in when things are bad or will rush in when we see our interests being threatened we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Especially when the benefits of torture are at best nebulous and at worst harmful to our national goals it is, or should be anyway, an easy decision to keep our standards higher than what we are faced with. I just don't see the point of demeaning ourselves to a lower standard.

[Drummond]

Once again. No DENIAL from fj. Guess defending Terrorists isn't easy. So stopping the conversation will SAVE 'FJ'S FACE with those he defends, and calls human. But SCUM is still SCUM.

Judging by FJ's version of 'truth', Aboutime, you 'cannot' be offering him opposition. Or, he's just blind to everything you post.

FJ claims to be a Conservative ... but, real Conservatives are grounded in reality. We have neither the desire nor the need to manufacture our own versions of reality, the insist they're real.

That, as we know, is the preserve OF THE LEFT.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We can all make a judgement on what terrorists are and what they do but we in the US need to stand as an example to the world. We have an ideal that has been expressed in a document that most of us hold in high regard and to sell that out in terms of what might could be betrays that IMO. If we are going to hold ourselves out to the world as some sort of policeman that will rush in when things are bad or will rush in when we see our interests being threatened we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Especially when the benefits of torture are at best nebulous and at worst harmful to our national goals it is, or should be anyway, an easy decision to keep our standards higher than what we are faced with. I just don't see the point of demeaning ourselves to a lower standard. I can respect that as a judgment call you've made but not agree with it as the solution or the only one to be made about these terrorists scum. We can have a disagreement on what they truly are and how they should be treated without denying each other's right to use our own set of moral principles to arrive at that conclusion . The Constitution as great as it is, is not my set of moral principles. Not the deciding factor in my case. I have no problem with your disagreement with my stand although others may. As I've stated before we have conservatives of many different abilities and commitment. We that are totally dedicated and driven far right must trust only those so dedicated. For the others that are not as committed will be easily turned when the savagery comes into their lives. Now is talk but someday we will face action and must be best prepared to do what is necessary. A man must be willing to stand , fight and die. Not a pleasant thought but one that will be forced upon people whether they fight or not. Its coming as sure as evil exists in this world... history saw it with the advent of the Nazis and later the brutality and mass murders of the socialists. America shall not avoid facing its greatest test . Sad but true. -Tyr

[Drummond]

I'm done with you. You can't even admit two errors, among so many, that you've made. I've never quoted Sullivan and your own proffered definition proves your lie... unless you're going to assert you didn't post this:

1. You DID quote Sullivan. I produced a blog link to one of his compositions, proving conclusively that, in your signature, YOU COPIED THE EXACT WORDING FROM IT (.. even down to the punctuation !) ... and if you issue a denial, I'll post that proof a SECOND time !!!!

2. The definition LINK, yes, I did post. But .. though I posted the link, I DID NOT CHOOSE / SINGLE OUT FROM IT THE ONE SPECIFIC DEFINITION THAT YOU NOW INSIST ON LINKING WITH ME.

Here's what I considered pertinent:


not having or showing the level of kindness, intelligence, etc., that is expected of normal human beings
: not suitable for human beings

This is entirely consistent with the very argument I've been advancing for a long time. The link was provided in support of this point.

You say you're done with me. Why, because you've reached the limits of your efforts to demonise, or supposedly 'discredit' me ?

... HAH !! You, FJ, show every sign of arguing to win, fairly OR unfairly, just so long as you give the appearance of 'winning' at the end of it. THIS IS THE TACTIC OF THE LIBERAL MIND ... us Conservatives don't resort to trickery, demonisation etc to win out. But you, clearly -- DO.


I see no more point in arguing the same things over and over. Have fun with your imagination unless you have something new to add.

Not something new. No. But, something obvious --



You run away when the going gets too hot for you.
You unashamedly try to demonise your opposition.
You unashamedly denigrate your opposition on a whim, or when all else is failing you (I lost count a long time ago of the number of posts where you've done this).
You unashamedly twist what your opposition says.


In short, though you claim to be 'Conservative', you neither think nor act like one. Conservatives DO have a sense of shame, because we have a sense of right and wrong .. and of honour. And of decency.

You, in your debates, exhibit none of this.

Demonstrably, therefore, regardless of what you claim, your thought processes aren't within a light year of being Conservative. And, happily, this is plain for all to see. You need not argue any more to reveal what is already apparent.

[Drummond]

We each must make our best judgment of what being human means. Myself, it means having a sense of right and wrong, a desire to do good and a loathing of corruption, depravity and the vilest of man's actions = wanton murder. Can a man bring himself to a state of being not human? I see it as a possibility because man is more than just a living breathing creature. Man has a soul and if man rejects that soul to pursue any agenda or religion which encourages the deliberate murder of innocent people as a means to an end then surely many would deem him to be inhuman. Chief among those making such a judgment would surely be American conservatives IMHO. For American Conservatives are on the short list of those to be eradicated by the major players in terrorism today! A judgment call for sure but one that does have foundation. Myself, I care no a whit who or how many discount my judgment on this matter. A man must abide by his own set of principles if he is to maintain his honor. Some look upon personal honor as some kind of insanity or a mental monster to be rejected as old fashioned or selfish action from the individual but we all must make judgment calls daily about a wide variety of things. I've made mine and its that terrorists are to be shot down like the cowardly murdering dogs they are! Let God judge them after that but as to man's judgment it should be void of anything even approaching mercy! Any group (regardless of their other attributes ) that deliberately murders innocent women and children to further any agenda is guilty of having renounce their humanity in my little book. A book that I keep near and dear to my heart for any possible future action that may be called for. If that makes me a dangerous man so be it because those doing the vilest of deeds are indeed far, far worse. I can live with what someday I may be called to do about that! --Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

A truly excellent piece, Tyr.

Not for you the choice of seeking ways to give terrorist scum an easy time of it ! You know your enemy, and the nature of it, and you know what it deserves.

I salute you !!

[Drummond]

I can respect that as a judgment call you've made but not agree with it as the solution or the only one to be made about these terrorists scum. We can have a disagreement on what they truly are and how they should be treated without denying each other's right to use our own set of moral principles to arrive at that conclusion . The Constitution as great as it is, is not my set of moral principles. Not the deciding factor in my case. I have no problem with your disagreement with my stand although others may. As I've stated before we have conservatives of many different abilities and commitment. We that are totally dedicated and driven far right must trust only those so dedicated. For the others that are not as committed will be easily turned when the savagery comes into their lives. Now is talk but someday we will face action and must be best prepared to do what is necessary. A man must be willing to stand , fight and die. Not a pleasant thought but one that will be forced upon people whether they fight or not. Its coming as sure as evil exists in this world... history saw it with the advent of the Nazis and later the brutality and mass murders of the socialists. America shall not avoid facing its greatest test . Sad but true. -Tyr
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

BRILLIANTLY STATED !!

[fj1200]

1. You DID quote Sullivan. I produced a blog link to one of his compositions, proving conclusively that, in your signature, YOU COPIED THE EXACT WORDING FROM IT (.. even down to the punctuation !) ... and if you issue a denial, I'll post that proof a SECOND time !!!!

2. The definition LINK, yes, I did post. But .. though I posted the link, I DID NOT CHOOSE FROM IT THE SPECIFIC DEFINITION THAT YOU NOW INSIST ON LINKING WITH ME.

Here's what I considered pertinent:

1. I did not quote Sullivan. That you can quote a blog where Sullivan quoted someone else really isn't proof of anything now is it?
2. At least you admit to posting the definition; that's a start. You posted definitions as some sort of proof of your position and now when the logic that you followed is used against you, you desire to back away from your own argument. That you cherry pick what you deem "pertinent" is more proof of your duplicity.


This is entirely consistent with the very argument I've been advancing for a long time. The link was provided in support of this point.

You say you're done with me. Why, because you've reached the limits of your efforts to demonise, or supposedly 'discredit' me ?

... HAH !! You, FJ, show every sign of arguing to win, fairly OR unfairly, just so long as you give the appearance of 'winning' at the end of it. THIS IS THE TACTIC OF THE LIBERAL MIND ... us Conservatives don't resort to trickery, demonisation etc to win out. But you, clearly -- DO.

My apologies for using your own argument to show the weakness of your position. I didn't realize that British "conservatives" were so fragile.


Not something new. No. But, something obvious --



You run away when the going gets too hot for you.
You unashamedly try to demonise your opposition.
You unashamedly denigrate your opposition on a whim, or when all else is failing you (I lost count a long time ago of the number of posts where you've done this).
You unashamedly twist what your opposition says.


In short, though you claim to be 'Conservative', you neither think nor act like one. Conservatives DO have a sense of shame, because we have a sense of right and wrong .. and of honour. And of decency.

You, in your debates, exhibit none of this.

Demonstrably, therefore, regardless of what you claim, your thought processes aren't within a light year of being Conservative. And, happily, this is plain for all to see. You need not argue any more to reveal what is already apparent.

Nevertheless, not really running away, I just don't see the point of rehashing the same arguments over and over when you can't even admit that you are wrong about what I've previously posted. That you seek to now make Sullivan's arguments have any sort of relevance to this discussion is beyond the pale. I don't really care what his positions are, it makes no difference in this thread or to my position.

Nice bullet list of lies though, I only demonize you because of your disgusting position and complete inability to debate rationally. So that list of conservatives that oppose me is forthcoming? You wouldn't be ducking another challenge would you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

A truly excellent piece, Tyr.

Not for you the choice of seeking ways to give terrorist scum an easy time of it ! You know your enemy, and the nature of it, and you know what it deserves.

I salute you !! I can do no other and still keep my integrity, pride and honor! I think of the millions that died so I could live here as a free man and when it comes my time I can do no less. America faces many enemies but Islam and it's world domination goals are by far the worst IMHO. Simply because those goals call for the absolute destruction of our freedoms and our nation. Bastards start walking on the fighting side of me with such an agenda. Not to blow my own horn but I am not an easy man to deal with when its fighting. -- :flyflag:--Tyr

[fj1200]

I can respect that as a judgment call you've made but not agree with it as the solution or the only one to be made about these terrorists scum. We can have a disagreement on what they truly are and how they should be treated without denying each other's right to use our own set of moral principles to arrive at that conclusion . The Constitution as great as it is, is not my set of moral principles. Not the deciding factor in my case. I have no problem with your disagreement with my stand although others may. As I've stated before we have conservatives of many different abilities and commitment. We that are totally dedicated and driven far right must trust only those so dedicated. For the others that are not as committed will be easily turned when the savagery comes into their lives. Now is talk but someday we will face action and must be best prepared to do what is necessary. A man must be willing to stand , fight and die. Not a pleasant thought but one that will be forced upon people whether they fight or not. Its coming as sure as evil exists in this world... history saw it with the advent of the Nazis and later the brutality and mass murders of the socialists. America shall not avoid facing its greatest test . Sad but true. -Tyr

But the Constitution and the DoI are the founding documents upon which our country was founded. And it's our country that is, or did, or might, take those actions and those documents should be our first reliance. You're right though that now is mostly talk so what is our next step if during the stage of "mostly talk" that we are willing to sell out our principles? I've said before that I can respect a position that states that torture could be used to save lives but when torture is now a method of meting out "justice" then what moral ground do we have to stand on? At what level does our willingness to describe enemies as "subhuman" become a rallying cry for more despicable action?

A typical conservative position asks what are the unseen effects or costs of government action? If we create this program today, what will this program grow to tomorrow? Why can't we also ask what happens to our country tomorrow because of how we treat people today? I'm sure that there has been plenty of debate of Carter's action re: Iran in the '70s and conservatives are generally critical of the actions taken by him then. It's just as likely that some of our actions recently will be another rallying cry against us in the future.

[Drummond]

I can do no other and still keep my integrity, pride and honor! I think of the millions that died so I could live here as a free man and when it comes my time I can do no less. America faces many enemies but Islam and it's world domination goals are by far the worst IMHO. Simply because those goals call for the absolute destruction of our freedoms and our nation. Bastards start walking on the fighting side of me with such an agenda. Not to blow my own horn but I am not an easy man to deal with when its fighting. -- :flyflag:--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot again.'

.. Never have I read a post here that more deserved a 'Reputation' sent in response to it than this one !

[aboutime]

I can do no other and still keep my integrity, pride and honor! I think of the millions that died so I could live here as a free man and when it comes my time I can do no less. America faces many enemies but Islam and it's world domination goals are by far the worst IMHO. Simply because those goals call for the absolute destruction of our freedoms and our nation. Bastards start walking on the fighting side of me with such an agenda. Not to blow my own horn but I am not an easy man to deal with when its fighting. -- :flyflag:--Tyr


Tyr. Very well stated. Don't consider being your own man. A thinking, responsible American man as
blowing your own horn.
As my wife has reminded me over many years, since I retired.
If you don't remind the people you know about the life you lived, and sacrificed for so long, for total strangers. You can go to the grave, never feeling that satisfaction of GIVING, unless someone else remembers who, and what you are when you're gone.
That seems to be all any of us really want out of life Tyr. And, being remembered as a caring, honorable, responsible, patriotic...no holds barred American willing to defend America...is the least any of us can do.
Millions of Americans have gone before us to make this possible.
It is up to each of us, as Americans. To make sure there is still an America for our next generations. And that doesn't mean giving up, or in...because someone else is selfish, or weak of heart.
It's that THIN line between those Americans who only spend their time WANTING, and those Americans who spend their lives...GIVING.
We see less of that today across America. And it all begins in Washington DC.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

But the Constitution and the DoI are the founding documents upon which our country was founded. And it's our country that is, or did, or might, take those actions and those documents should be our first reliance. You're right though that now is mostly talk so what is our next step if during the stage of "mostly talk" that we are willing to sell out our principles? I've said before that I can respect a position that states that torture could be used to save lives but when torture is now a method of meting out "justice" then what moral ground do we have to stand on? At what level does our willingness to describe enemies as "subhuman" become a rallying cry for more despicable action?

A typical conservative position asks what are the unseen effects or costs of government action? If we create this program today, what will this program grow to tomorrow? Why can't we also ask what happens to our country tomorrow because of how we treat people today? I'm sure that there has been plenty of debate of Carter's action re: Iran in the '70s and conservatives are generally critical of the actions taken by him then. It's just as likely that some of our actions recently will be another rallying cry against us in the future. I do not deny that you bring up a threat of our falling into a trap of excessive punishment meted out to our enemies . And that trap is indeed a sticky, tricky and dangerous one too. Sure we to the best of our abilities must try to follow the set principles exhibited in both those documents. Yet also must be prepared to go onto new untested grounds because Islam cleverly hides itself within Constitutional protections because the Founders never presented a way to deal with a so-called religion that was almost solely based upon political, military and conquering principles. Islam hiding under protections of religion while it actively seeks to destroy both this nation and our Constitution must be addressed even if it means disregarding temporarily some of those principles. This has been done before with the two nuke bombings of civilian targets in Japan during WW2. AFETR THAT WE DID NOT GO ON A NUKE BOMBING SPREE EVERY TIME WE WENT TO WAR! I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS BUT ONE THING IS FOR SURE WE CAN NOT KEEP ALLOWING THE DAMN WOLF(ISLAM/TERRORISTAS) TO WALTZ IN USING SHEEPS CLOTHING TO WRECK IT'S VENGEANCE AND HAVE ITS WAY! That's suicidal and insane to boot IMHO. NOBODY CLAIMS THIS IS AN EASY FIX BUT BY GOD IT HAD BETTER BE FIXED SOON OR WE ALL SINK. And the muslims will show exactly zero mercy when they gain power --history shows that to be true often in their history. They execute a couple billion non-believers to gain their goal. And that's not in any way an exaggeration! That is how serious this is and we = America is the primary force standing in their way as of now! --Tyr

[fj1200]

I do not deny that you bring up a threat of our falling into a trap of excessive punishment meted out to our enemies . And that trap is indeed a sticky, tricky and dangerous one too. Sure we to the best of our abilities must try to follow the set principles exhibited in both those documents. Yet also must be prepared to go onto new untested grounds because Islam cleverly hides itself within Constitutional protections because the Founders never presented a way to deal with a so-called religion that was almost solely based upon political, military and conquering principles. Islam hiding under protections of religion while it actively seeks to destroy both this nation and our Constitution must be addressed even if it means disregarding temporarily some of those principles. This has been done before with the two nuke bombings of civilian targets in Japan during WW2. AFETR THAT WE DID NOT GO ON A NUKE BOMBING SPREE EVERY TIME WE WENT TO WAR! I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS BUT ONE THING IS FOR SURE WE CAN NOT KEEP ALLOWING THE DAMN WOLF(ISLAM/TERRORISTAS) TO WALTZ IN USING SHEEPS CLOTHING TO WRECK IT'S VENGEANCE AND HAVE ITS WAY! That's suicidal and insane to boot IMHO. NOBODY CLAIMS THIS IS AN EASY FIX BUT BY GOD IT HAD BETTER BE FIXED SOON OR WE ALL SINK. And the muslims will show exactly zero mercy when they gain power --history shows that to be true often in their history. They execute a couple billion non-believers to gain their goal. And that's not in any way an exaggeration! That is how serious this is and we = America is the primary force standing in their way as of now! --Tyr

OK, we're not going to agree on your global point. But the first part is the trap; It shouldn't be used as punishment and IMO provides them more "justification." Unseen effects my friend. Besides, we can always close the borders but then we'd have to discuss the conservative nature of that.

And I disagree that our nuclear usage was against our principles but that's another thread. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, we're not going to agree on your global point. But the first part is the trap; It shouldn't be used as punishment and IMO provides them more "justification." Unseen effects my friend. Besides, we can always close the borders but then we'd have to discuss the conservative nature of that.

And I disagree that our nuclear usage was against our principles but that's another thread. :) All war is punishment of the enemy. You punish them until they can take no more . Then they surrender entirely or sue for peace under agreed upon terms. No our use of torture must not a be an act of vengeance and I've never advocated that it should be. Other side of that coin is we must counteract and render adequate justice to those that engage in terrorist acts of murdering innocent women and children. This they do with glee and total abandonment. When they have set themselves up as total animals that will disregard any principles of right and wrong until they conquer all this world then we must be prepared to do what is necessary to counter that. No needing trying to show them we are more moral than they (which they'd never believe anyways)because they damn sure do not care. We are to be conquered , killed and enslaved. Allah commands that and its not to be altered for any reason! In that they are the most hell-bent dedicated foe we have ever faced and face them we must do to survive! As true Conservatives we simply can not allow liberal appeasement and insane policies that embrace them as future allies or non-threats. We have done this and their power here in America has increased tremendously in just the last 5 years alone! Insanity is making the wolf ever so comfortable inside the henhouse as it devours its prey!! That is exactly how the dem party and Obama approach this= appeasement and trying to make mortal diehard enemies good buddies! Sheer insanity.... --Tyr

[Drummond]

1. I did not quote Sullivan. That you can quote a blog where Sullivan quoted someone else really isn't proof of anything now is it?

-- Funny: I thought you were done with me ?? Apparently not.

Sullivan is someone who professes to be a Conservative. As you do.

Sullivan, however, has Left-wing sympathies. One of them is favouring the fate of terrorists with overly kind consideration. His stand against their being tortured, as I have proved, is one recognised as A LIBERAL POSITION.

So, it's hardly surprising that he - for the sake of that agenda - casts around for anything that will further it.

He did just this with his blog piece, and in doing so, mirrored your own thinking. And your action.

By coincidence ?!? I hardly think so.

Little wonder, therefore, that what HE blogged, YOU ended up quoting !!!


2. At least you admit to posting the definition; that's a start. You posted definitions as some sort of proof of your position and now when the logic that you followed is used against you, you desire to back away from your own argument. That you cherry pick what you deem "pertinent" is more proof of your duplicity.

This is just more of the same from you. More of an attempt at demonisation. If you were confident in your stance, you'd never need to stoop to this.

But, you do. And, lacking Conservative values, you evidently don't CARE that you do .. otherwise, you'd have stopped, long ago.

To answer you, I have never denied posting the link. The POINT is that YOU have cherry-picked that part of what the link offers, and you've tried to push the false impression that I was concerning myself with that portion of it which, in fact, I did NOT concern myself with.

Just more of an attempt at demonisation. And of misdirection, to taint my intended argument with something else of your own choosing. My previous post tells you what was always intended. But -- you don't find it convenient to address that truth, do you ? So you persist with your own chosen line, instead.

Conservatives don't stoop to this. BUT YOU DO.


Nevertheless, not really running away, I just don't see the point of rehashing the same arguments over and over when you can't even admit that you are wrong about what I've previously posted. That you seek to now make Sullivan's arguments have any sort of relevance to this discussion is beyond the pale. I don't really care what his positions are, it makes no difference in this thread or to my position.

Just covered, FJ. You and he use the same tactics, because you think similarly. He claims to be a Conservative thinker, I understand, as do you. He nonetheless exhibits Left-wing sympathies in his stances, as do you. Your anti-torture stance has been 'outed' as being Left wing, and both you and Sullivan share that in common. So .. how can you claim not to care what his positions are, when YOURS, and HIS, dovetail ???

Are you afraid of being tainted through such obvious comparisons ?


Nice bullet list of lies though, I only demonize you because of your disgusting position and complete inability to debate rationally. So that list of conservatives that oppose me is forthcoming? You wouldn't be ducking another challenge would you?

You call my bullet points 'lies', then proceed to start justifying their accuracy ?????

You CANNOT prove to me that a terrorist is human. There is therefore nothing 'disgusting' about drawing a wholly logical conclusion from what this means: THAT NO TERRORIST CAN HAVE POSSIBLY EARNED, THEREFORE DESERVE, ANY 'HUMAN RIGHTS'.

But, being liberally minded - LIKE SULLIVAN IS - you insist they enjoy them, ANYWAY !!

... talking about ducking things, though ... where's that account of your disagreements with Obama's positions ? It's notable by its absence !

And have you yet thought to call Jimmy Carter 'Carter', as Lady Thatcher has been repeatedly called 'Thatcher' by you ?

Why, thus far, have you found that to be so difficult to do ?

Does hero worship get in the way, FJ ?

[fj1200]

All war is punishment of the enemy. You punish them until they can take no more . Then they surrender entirely or sue for peace under agreed upon terms. No our use of torture must not a be an act of vengeance and I've never advocated that it should be. Other side of that coin is we must counteract and render adequate justice to those that engage in terrorist acts of murdering innocent women and children. This they do with glee and total abandonment. When they have set themselves up as total animals that will disregard any principles of right and wrong until they conquer all this world then we must be prepared to do what is necessary to counter that. No needing trying to show them we are more moral than they (which they'd never believe anyways)because they damn sure do not care. We are to be conquered , killed and enslaved. Allah commands that and its not to be altered for any reason! In that they are the most hell-bent dedicated foe we have ever faced and face them we must do to survive! As true Conservatives we simply can not allow liberal appeasement and insane policies that embrace them as future allies or non-threats. We have done this and their power here in America has increased tremendously in just the last 5 years alone! Insanity is making the wolf ever so comfortable inside the henhouse as it devours its prey!! That is exactly how the dem party and Obama approach this= appeasement and trying to make mortal diehard enemies good buddies! Sheer insanity.... --Tyr

No, I don't think you have but the issue here is to "counteract and render justice." We can do both while still maintaining our principles. We counteract by fighting, capturing, interrogating, etc. and we can render justice in an appropriate manner. Your first statement; I don't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as punishment, they needed to be defeated and that was the most effective way to defeat them.

[fj1200]

-- Funny: I thought you were done with me ?? Apparently not.

Sullivan is someone who professes to be a Conservative. As you do.

I admit that having to continually point out your ignorance is a failing of mind. But keep deflecting to someone who is of no consequence to this thread.


This is just more of the same from you. More of an attempt at demonisation. If you were confident in your stance, you'd never need to stoop to this.

To answer you, I have never denied posting the link. The POINT is that YOU have cherry-picked that part of what the link offers, and you've tried to push the false impression that I was concerning myself with that portion of it which, in fact, I did NOT concern myself with.

I cherry-picked what you posted. How unbelievably laughable of a defense is that? BTW, pointing out your failure of logic and reason is not demonizing.


Just covered, FJ. You and he use the same tactics, because you think similarly. He claims to be a Conservative thinker, I understand, as do you. He nonetheless exhibits Left-wing sympathies in his stances, as do you. Your anti-torture stance has been 'outed' as being Left wing, and both you and Sullivan share that in common. So .. how can you claim not to care what his positions are, when YOURS, and HIS, dovetail ???

Are you afraid of being tainted through such obvious comparisons ?

Calling Reagan and Thatcher "left wing" now? That's almost as funny as your other statements. I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous you sound; me, Andy, Ron, and Maggie; All just sittin' around in our left-wing smoking club laughing at "thinkers" like you. :laugh:


You call my bullet points 'lies', then proceed to start justifying their accuracy ?????

I've been proving their falseness this whole thread. For Pete's sake, of the other top four posters I have had a completely civil conversation with Tyr, while being utterly mischaracterized by you, had pot shots against me taken by rsr, and who knows what 'at' is doing but if he has posted anything civil towards me I would be utterly shocked. Try reviewing this thread honestly and tell me I'm the one that's "running away, unashamedly demonizing, unashamedly denigrating, and unashamedly twisting." Duck away at another challenge; it's what you do best.

[red states rule]

But the Constitution and the DoI are the founding documents upon which our country was founded. And it's our country that is, or did, or might, take those actions and those documents should be our first reliance. You're right though that now is mostly talk so what is our next step if during the stage of "mostly talk" that we are willing to sell out our principles? I've said before that I can respect a position that states that torture could be used to save lives but when torture is now a method of meting out "justice" then what moral ground do we have to stand on? At what level does our willingness to describe enemies as "subhuman" become a rallying cry for more despicable action?

A typical conservative position asks what are the unseen effects or costs of government action? If we create this program today, what will this program grow to tomorrow? Why can't we also ask what happens to our country tomorrow because of how we treat people today? I'm sure that there has been plenty of debate of Carter's action re: Iran in the '70s and conservatives are generally critical of the actions taken by him then. It's just as likely that some of our actions recently will be another rallying cry against us in the future.

http://rightwingpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fort-hood-workplace-violence-liberal-appeasers-politics.jpg

[fj1200]

:facepalm99:

[Drummond]

I admit that having to continually point out your ignorance is a failing of mind.

... ah. Now, here, we can agree !!

Specifically, it's a failing of your attitude .. which you REALLY need to do something about !


But keep deflecting to someone who is of no consequence to this thread.

It worries you that I keep reminding you, and others who read my posts as well, of the great similarities between yourself and Sullivan. Understandably ... since you both share an enthusiasm for declaring yourselves 'Conservatives', only without the supporting commitment to stick to Conservative stances !!


I cherry-picked what you posted. How unbelievably laughable of a defense is that?

Not as laughable as your trying to get away with doing just that.

My basis for my argument about terrorists has been posted again and again. The part of the definition posted which addresses that argument is perfectly clearly identifiable. Your 'cherry picked' portion, one NEVER chosen by me for any attempt at supportive categorisation, is entirely your own doing.


BTW, pointing out your failure of logic and reason is not demonizing.

You have yet to find any such example of a 'failure' ..


Calling Reagan and Thatcher "left wing" now? That's almost as funny as your other statements. I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous you sound; me, Andy, Ron, and Maggie; All just sittin' around in our left-wing smoking club laughing at "thinkers" like you. :laugh:

You purposely miss the point.

World leaders - as I've explained - need to pay heed to international law, international treaties, and the like. They have to take this into account when weighing matters such as their willingness .. or otherwise .. to accept torture of terrorists as an acceptable practise.

But, here's the thing. YOU ARE UNDER NO SUCH OBLIGATION. Such a duty doesn't apply to you. Nor does it to your hero, Sullivan .. YET .. you two stick to your liberal thinking regardless !

And it is liberal thinking. I have posted evidence for you which proves that this judgment isn't an invention of mine, but clear, accepted truth.

Ask any of your liberal chums if you want to question that. Not that you need do any such thing, of course.


For Pete's sake, of the other top four posters I have had a completely civil conversation with Tyr, while being utterly mischaracterized by you

.. and yet, the evidence is there that I'm correct.

And you've had no success in proving me wrong. Especially considering the closeness of parity between your views, and those of the pseudo-'conservative' figure, Andrew Sullivan (whom you've had the cheek to quote !!).


.. had pot shots against me taken by rsr, and who knows what 'at' is doing but if he has posted anything civil towards me I would be utterly shocked.

I would be, too.

Isn't it curious ? You have been confrontational about my not having posted a list of Conservatives who oppose you. Yet ... here we are, seeing YOU begin to post your OWN list !!!! FJ, why not just complete the job, and add some more ?

I clearly have no need at all to inform you of that which you know so well already.


Try reviewing this thread honestly and tell me I'm the one that's "running away, unashamedly demonizing, unashamedly denigrating, and unashamedly twisting." Duck away at another challenge; it's what you do best.

No review is necessary. I already know what you're doing. Or .. would you have me conveniently 'forget' your tactics, just because you'd prefer it that way ..?

THAT, FJ, is the way a Left wing mind works .. always insisting on believing what is preferred at any one moment, instead of what is true.

Let others review this thread instead, and decide for themselves how you've conducted yourself within it. Assuming that they even need to bother !

[fj1200]

... ah. Now, here, we can agree !!

That you're an ignorant fool. Check.


It worries you that I keep reminding you, and others who read my posts as well, of the great similarities between yourself and Sullivan. Understandably ... since you both share an enthusiasm for declaring yourselves 'Conservatives', only without the supporting commitment to stick to Conservative stances !!

Not as much as it worries you of your comparison with Hitler, Goebbels, and various Middle Eastern dictators. Besides, if you read any other threads you'd see plenty of conservative positions. But I know you. You just stick your head in the sand.


Not as laughable as your trying to get away with doing just that.

...

You have yet to find any such example of a 'failure' ..

Your entire position is that of failure of logic. You just can't own up to your own definitions.


You purposely miss the point.

... Nor does it to your hero, Sullivan ...

Now he's my hero? You are just wallowing in ignorance now. You ignorantly say that I posted his words and can't even admit to your failure and now have to cover your blithering ignorance with proclaiming him my hero... Mind bogglingly dumb.


.. and yet, the evidence is there that I'm correct.

And you've had no success in proving me wrong. Especially considering the closeness of parity between your views, and those of the pseudo-'conservative' figure, Andrew Sullivan (whom you've had the cheek to quote !!).

Seriously, you're as dumb as F'. Point out where I quoted Sullivan.


I would be, too.

Isn't it curious ? You have been confrontational about my not having posted a list of Conservatives who oppose you. Yet ... here we are, seeing YOU begin to post your OWN list !!!! FJ, why not just complete the job, and add some more ?

I clearly have no need at all to inform you of that which you know so well already.

There's no evidence that your correct, there is only evidence that you've got a nice little daisy chain going. And as I said before you're going to have some support where they can prove their opinion. You'll notice that one of those won't even respond to posts because he knows he's beat and the other couldn't make a coherent argument if his pension depended on it. So post up your own listing and let's see how well it stands up. I'm guessing it crashes into a flaming heap like the rest of your arguments.


No review is necessary.

Ducking another challenge I see. I weep for Britain.

[aboutime]

... ah. Now, here, we can agree !!

Specifically, it's a failing of your attitude .. which you REALLY need to do something about !



It worries you that I keep reminding you, and others who read my posts as well, of the great similarities between yourself and Sullivan. Understandably ... since you both share an enthusiasm for declaring yourselves 'Conservatives', only without the supporting commitment to stick to Conservative stances !!



Not as laughable as your trying to get away with doing just that.

My basis for my argument about terrorists has been posted again and again. The part of the definition posted which addresses that argument is perfectly clearly identifiable. Your 'cherry picked' portion, one NEVER chosen by me for any attempt at supportive categorisation, is entirely your own doing.



You have yet to find any such example of a 'failure' ..



You purposely miss the point.

World leaders - as I've explained - need to pay heed to international law, international treaties, and the like. They have to take this into account when weighing matters such as their willingness .. or otherwise .. to accept torture of terrorists as an acceptable practise.

But, here's the thing. YOU ARE UNDER NO SUCH OBLIGATION. Such a duty doesn't apply to you. Nor does it to your hero, Sullivan .. YET .. you two stick to your liberal thinking regardless !

And it is liberal thinking. I have posted evidence for you which proves that this judgment isn't an invention of mine, but clear, accepted truth.

Ask any of your liberal chums if you want to question that. Not that you need do any such thing, of course.



.. and yet, the evidence is there that I'm correct.

And you've had no success in proving me wrong. Especially considering the closeness of parity between your views, and those of the pseudo-'conservative' figure, Andrew Sullivan (whom you've had the cheek to quote !!).



I would be, too.

Isn't it curious ? You have been confrontational about my not having posted a list of Conservatives who oppose you. Yet ... here we are, seeing YOU begin to post your OWN list !!!! FJ, why not just complete the job, and add some more ?

I clearly have no need at all to inform you of that which you know so well already.



No review is necessary. I already know what you're doing. Or .. would you have me conveniently 'forget' your tactics, just because you'd prefer it that way ..?

THAT, FJ, is the way a Left wing mind works .. always insisting on believing what is preferred at any one moment, instead of what is true.

Let others review this thread instead, and decide for themselves how you've conducted yourself within it. Assuming that they even need to bother !


Sir Drummond. What we are seeing with the incessant fj diatribe of stupidity is proof. Some parents never had any children that survived. Or all of their abortion attempts were Absolute Failures.
You should just allow fj to fad into the abyss of endless ignorance, and the safety of his origins.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, I don't think you have but the issue here is to "counteract and render justice." We can do both while still maintaining our principles. We counteract by fighting, capturing, interrogating, etc. and we can render justice in an appropriate manner. Your first statement; I don't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as punishment, they needed to be defeated and that was the most effective way to defeat them. Not so sure we can render justice when they hide behind the religious protections given by the Constitution. Its a bit like german soldiers wearing American military uniforms in order to wreck havoc in our lines but we are not allowed to shoot them on the spot for their spying and deception. The founders never foresaw such a so-called religion that would hide behind religious protection while undermining and plotting the destruction of this nation. Take CAIR as an example its was a co-conspirator in terrorist funding etc. but is viewed as legit and even invited to meet with bamass at the Whitehouse. As if it never was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case. And then we must consider why it was unindicted even though they had the goods on it! No sir, not so sure we can counteract, render justice and maintain our principles while they hide within one principle and use their appeasers and dumbass supporters to shill for them! The division alone that garners is worth a mint to them. Better to break a principle that to not and go on to meet destruction IMHO. WE BROKE A PRINCIPLE WHEN WE NUKED TWO CITIES(HIROSIMA AND NAGASAKI) SLAYING ABOUT A HALF MILLION CIVILIANS IN JAPAN DURING WW2. WE WEIGHED THAT AGAINST THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF ABOUT A QUARTER MILLION AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIVES IF WE HAD TO INVADE JAPAN. I am not so sure we have the type of political leader these days that has the intelligence and guts to make such a call when its necessary like it was during WW2. HOWEVER I AM SURE WE HAVE ONE THAT WILL HAPPILY MAKE SUCH A CALL TO FURTHER HIS DAMN SOCIALIST AGENDA !! -Tyr

[fj1200]

Not so sure we can render justice when they hide behind the religious protections given by the Constitution. Its a bit like german soldiers wearing American military uniforms in order to wreck havoc in our lines but we are not allowed to shoot them on the spot for their spying and deception. The founders never foresaw such a so-called religion that would hide behind religious protection while undermining and plotting the destruction of this nation. Take CAIR as an example its was a co-conspirator in terrorist funding etc. but is viewed as legit and even invited to meet with bamass at the Whitehouse. As if it never was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case. And then we must consider why it was unindicted even though they had the goods on it! No sir, not so sure we can counteract, render justice and maintain our principles while they hide within one principle and use their appeasers and dumbass supporters to shill for them! The division alone that garners is worth a mint to them. Better to break a principle that to not and go on to meet destruction IMHO. WE BROKE A PRINCIPLE WHEN WE NUKED TWO CITIES(HIROSIMA AND NAGASAKI) SLAYING ABOUT A HALF MILLION CIVILIANS IN JAPAN DURING WW2. WE WEIGHED THAT AGAINST THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF ABOUT A QUARTER MILLION AMERICAN SOLDIERS LIVES IF WE HAD TO INVADE JAPAN. I am not so sure we have the type of political leader these days that has the intelligence and guts to make such a call when its necessary like it was during WW2. HOWEVER I AM SURE WE HAVE ONE THAT WILL HAPPILY MAKE SUCH A CALL TO FURTHER HIS DAMN SOCIALIST AGENDA !! -Tyr

There has been plenty of justice rendered. Both domestic and foreign, maybe a little too much justice if you count innocent women and children being hit by drone strikes. And the Constitution doesn't protect against crime. I didn't think that you'd consider the most effective way of winning a war as against our principles.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There has been plenty of justice rendered. Both domestic and foreign, maybe a little too much justice if you count innocent women and children being hit by drone strikes. And the Constitution doesn't protect against crime. I didn't think that you'd consider the most effective way of winning a war as against our principles. I was not talking about war. I was talking about a domestic threat that will have to be dealt with not war on foreign soil. I only referenced ww2 to point out that our military command lead by the President decided to wipe out a few hundred civilians to prove a point and end the war sooner. And that goes against an American principle of not attacking and killing innocent civilians. I wanted to point out that we may have to temporarily abandon a principle long enough to stop the muslims from destroying us and our nation...And that simply because the muslims have gained power here by way of influence with certain politicians , dem party and propaganda that has the American people fooled all to hell. --Tyr

[Drummond]

That you're an ignorant fool. Check.

Tut tut. Such attitude problems ...


Not as much as it worries you of your comparison with Hitler, Goebbels, and various Middle Eastern dictators. Besides, if you read any other threads you'd see plenty of conservative positions. But I know you. You just stick your head in the sand.

I'm not at all worried about your own inventions.

As for your 'Conservative positions', well, what we see with your posts is an equivalent of Sullivan's tactics. Claim to be a Conservative, then take Conservative positions only when it suits you !!

Since when was a part-time Conservative 'a Conservative' ... ?


Your entire position is that of failure of logic. You just can't own up to your own definitions.

I just showed you a logical position. And showed you a lack of yours !

As to 'my own definitions' ... eh ?? I didn't invent them. Neither did I ever build a case based on your cherry-picked portion of what the link contained.


Now he's my hero?

How isn't he ? You copy what he does .. claim to be a 'Conservative', then proceed to strongly represent recognisably liberal positions !


You ignorantly say that I posted his words

The words you refer to ARE in his blog piece, and he showed no sign of distancing himself from them.


and can't even admit to your failure and now have to cover your blithering ignorance with proclaiming him my hero...

Tiresome. See what I mean by 'demonising' ? Indeed, do you ever stop ?


Seriously, you're as dumb as F'. Point out where I quoted Sullivan.

IN YOUR POSTING SIGNATURE !!!!

Good God, are you now going to claim that someone ELSE dreamed that up ??? Try taking responsibility for your actions !!!


There's no evidence that your correct, there is only evidence that you've got a nice little daisy chain going. And as I said before you're going to have some support where they can prove their opinion. You'll notice that one of those won't even respond to posts because he knows he's beat and the other couldn't make a coherent argument if his pension depended on it.

Bizarre in the extreme. There's no evidence I'm correct, so you say, then you go on to provide some !!!


Ducking another challenge I see. I weep for Britain.

You want me to illustrate for you the blindingly obvious ? Perhaps it's all a problem of your attention span ? You appear to not be even aware of the wording of your own signature !!!

Oh, by the way ... talking about 'ducked challenges' ... you've still yet to show me evidence of your opposition to Obama. What posts have you ever posted that show Obama outright opposition ?

Will you ever answer this ? I mean ... as a 'Conservative', surely, how can you not want to ? You should be showing us all some real enthusiasm for doing that.

But - WHERE IS THAT ENTHUSIASM ? Lost in the efforts you're making to advance your 'Let's be kind to terrorists, because they're human beings, even though they're not' 'arguments' ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In my previous post I left out the word thousands after --a few hundred-- !!
I only referenced ww2 to point out that our military command lead by the President decided to wipe out a few hundred ( thousands )civilians to prove a point and end the war sooner. should be "thousands" there. Took a phone call from my daughter and messed up, just now saw it. ooppsie. ;) -Tyr

[fj1200]

I was not talking about war. I was talking about a domestic threat that will have to be dealt with not war on foreign soil. I only referenced ww2 to point out that our military command lead by the President decided to wipe out a few hundred (thousand) civilians to prove a point and end the war sooner. And that goes against an American principle of not attacking and killing innocent civilians. I wanted to point out that we may have to temporarily abandon a principle long enough to stop the muslims from destroying us and our nation...And that simply because the muslims have gained power here by way of influence with certain politicians , dem party and propaganda that has the American people fooled all to hell. --Tyr

My last sentence was in reference to Japan, not the rest, sorry. I might argue that our principle now is different than it was then or that we haven't been engaged in a war of such desperation since then. Anyway, I don't think we need to betray conservative values to meet any threats. It may take some overreach for some to grasp the realities if what you see is true. Maybe you can take heart with Maher pointing it out.

[fj1200]

Tut tut. Such attitude problems ...

How isn't he ? You copy what he does .. claim to be a 'Conservative', then proceed to strongly represent recognisably liberal positions !

My attitude is fine; you dumb. Point out my liberal positions.


The words you refer to ARE in his blog piece....

IN YOUR POSTING SIGNATURE !!!!

Good God, are you now going to claim that someone ELSE dreamed that up ??? Try taking responsibility for your actions !!!

Prove that you're not as ignorant as I've shown, point out where I quoted Sullivan.


Bizarre in the extreme. There's no evidence I'm correct, so you say, then you go on to provide some !!!

I've never disagreed that you couldn't find any morons who "oppose" me. What I've proven is that the two who are "running away, unashamedly demonizing, unashamedly denigrating, and unashamedly twisting," are those that you consider "allies" and as is typical, you won't betray your comrades who unwittingly prove your hypocrisy.


... you've still yet to show me evidence of your opposition to Obama. What posts have you ever posted that show Obama outright opposition ?

:facepalm99: Get your head out of the sand dude. Believe it or not there is more than just "Muzzy" threads here.

[Drummond]

My attitude is fine;

Not only is it NOT fine, I actually wonder if you're seriously delusional.

I suppose I could start off with ...


you dumb.

... which were your very next words !!

But if that isn't good enough, try:


I see no point in another attempt to have a rational conversation with you; You do not have the capacity within you.
... or ...


You can't even ignore like a man.
... or ....


Rational thought and you are not too well acquainted.
... or ...


You clearly aren't smart enough to know ...
... or how about ...


I am merely questioning whether you have the guts to ...


The lengths you go to justify your delusions ...


Tell me, in all your blathering rantings ...


I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous you sound ...

That you're an ignorant fool. Check. ...

You clearly aren't smart enough to know ...

.. and now have to cover your blithering ignorance ...

I only demonize you because of your disgusting position ...

BTW, pointing out your failure of logic and reason is not demonizing.

Those last two are especially curious, and worth including, because, as you claim that my so-called 'disgusting position' is a product of my 'failure of logic and reason' ... you seem to be defying .. YOURSELF .. ??

But anyway, what we have here - and these are just quoted from THIS thread, and never mind all your comparable examples I could draw on from other threads !! - are, at absolute best, gratuitous goadings, and at worst, disgusting (and equally gratuitous) attempts at denigration. There are a plethora of examples to draw on from this forum to show just how very bad your attitude IS !!

And this is how YOU, a supposed 'Conservative', choose to treat another Conservative !!! FJ, with a record like this, and even just using THIS evidence alone, there's absolutely no way you can be a Conservative yourself. You'd be nothing like as committed to all these put-down attempts if you saw me as someone sharing your political perspective .. rather, this is how political ADVERSARIES would treat each other.

And this is what you are - a political adversary. That's to say, NOT A CONSERVATIVE !

Your 'attitude is fine', you say ?? Yes .. FINE FOR A LIBERAL ...

QED.


Point out my liberal positions.

As opposed to your liberal ATTITUDE, you mean ?

We have been debating one of them here, on this thread - your insistence upon being as kind to terrorists as you feel you can possibly get away with. Jimmy Carter would be proud of you ! Or, if you prefer, so would Piers Morgan, ex-editor of a Left-wing British rag, the Daily Mirror ... an editor who tried to smear British soldiers with a wholly FALSE accusation of torture against terrorist captives, in the hope of gaining sympathy for the trash.


Prove that you're not as ignorant as I've shown, point out where I quoted Sullivan.

Good grief. Simply ... unbelievable.

This HAS to be an attention span problem, with perhaps an element of selective blindness (Left-wing trait in itself) thrown in.

Tell you what. Perhaps a bigger font will help ?

Here goes. Are you sitting comfortably ? Paying attention ??


IN YOUR POSTING SIGNATURE !!!!


Clear enough, now .. ????

But perhaps it isn't.

So let me try this tack ...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2011/08/05/thatcher-vs-torture/

I'll leave you to dig out the exact wording we've been referring to, as seen in your, er'm ..

POSTING SIGNATURE


I've never disagreed that you couldn't find any morons who "oppose" me.

Why the quote marks ? I for one am in absolutely no doubt that the individuals you disparage DO oppose you (!!) .. try finding someone who can honestly refute this !!

BUT, you've challenged me again and again to post a list of those who do - then you go on to defeat your own argument, by referring to two who DO.

I mean, really ... you just couldn't make this stuff up ! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


What I've proven is that the two who are "running away, unashamedly demonizing, unashamedly denigrating, and unashamedly twisting," are those that you consider "allies"

I can leave it to the individuals concerned to answer you, if in fact they think you're worth the effort. For my part, I think you're talking rubbish. They are certainly not 'running away' from you. They aren't 'unashamedly demonising' you, they're just reacting to you as the Left-winger you are. And ARE they denigrating, or, relaying some truth ?

These are Conservatives who know what it is they're dealing with, and so react as they find it appropriate to act. If you don't like it, then convince them that you're somehow a 'changed man', and ACTUALLY a Conservative.

:facepalm99: Get your head out of the sand dude. Believe it or not there is more than just "Muzzy" threads here.

Yes, I know. Nonetheless, that issue is an important one. I won't be silenced by YOU on that issue (no matter how awkward you find my comments to be) !

... Or anyone, in fact. Why should I be ? Because a liberal (or 2 ?) might wish it ??

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Can't blame fj. He can't help being the recipient of that SMALLEST train set.

You know? When they were handing out BRAINS, fj thought they said trains, and he got the smallest set.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Can't blame fj. He can't help being the recipient of that SMALLEST train set.

You know? When they were handing out BRAINS, fj thought they said trains, and he got the smallest set.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

See my explanation made to Glockmail in post number 8.... I did not intend to equate the two. I intended to link it as the arch enemy of American conservatism. Haste makes wastes and in this case SOME UNNEEDED confusion. -;) WAS MY BAD.. -Tyr

Tyr, your title mentioned Conservatism's true opposition to terrorism. I didn't think you were equating the two.

:beer:

[fj1200]

Not only is it NOT fine, I actually wonder if you're seriously delusional.

I'm delusional? You're the one who is arguing with their imagination. More evidence of delusion is here:


As opposed to your liberal ATTITUDE, you mean ?

We have been debating one of them here, on this thread - your insistence upon being as kind to terrorists as you feel you can possibly get away with. Jimmy Carter would be proud of you ! Or, if you prefer, so would Piers Morgan, ex-editor of a Left-wing British rag, the Daily Mirror ... an editor who tried to smear British soldiers with a wholly FALSE accusation of torture against terrorist captives, in the hope of gaining sympathy for the trash.

:laugh: Your "Jimmy ploy" crashed and burned so now you have to start talking about Morgan? When I want Thatcherism I go to the source not the perverted version you spew.


Good grief. Simply ... unbelievable.

IN YOUR POSTING SIGNATURE !!!!
...
POSTING SIGNATURE
...
I mean, really ... you just couldn't make this stuff up ! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Those aren't Sullivan's words you doddering old fool.


I can leave it to the individuals concerned to answer you...

These are Conservatives who know what it is they're dealing with...

I see you're back to, as if you ever left, letting others do your work for you. Evidence that they're conservative please; moronic rantings are not evidence of conservatism. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, your title mentioned Conservatism's true opposition to terrorism. I didn't think you were equating the two.

:beer: THANKS.-- :beer: Well to be clear I explained it again. Of course there is no similarity between conservatism and terrorism. That is the lying argument that Obama and the lib/dem /leftists in the Obama admin make. Conservatism supports fully the principles and rights insured by law in our Constitution. Islam and Islamic terrorism both deny those rights to man just as they also seek to destroy this nation. Conservatives are the true and dedicated opponents of both ISLAM AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM IMHO. Sharia law and our Constitution are at absolute odds with each other. -Tyr

[Drummond]

I'm delusional? You're the one who is arguing with their imagination.

Completely ridiculous, and presumably evidence that you ARE delusional !

I didn't 'imagine' even ONE of those quoted examples of your appalling attitude. They are here, right on this thread, FROM YOU, easily observable from each of the posts where they appear.

My advice: LEARN from your mistakes.


More evidence of delusion is here:

Also ridiculous.

YOU are the one who absolutely insists that terrorist 'human rights' are respected, in total defiance of the reality of what they ARE, and what they DO. Your belief in 'terrorist HUMANITY' has surely got to be the ultimate delusion !!! Was flying planes into the Twin Towers 'humanitarian' ? Was blowing up Tube trains on the London Underground 'humanitarian' ?? When terrorists grab captives then BEHEAD them, are they being 'humanitarian' ???

So for you to fight for the so-called 'human rights' of the scum capable of THAT ... is delusional, massively insulting to their victims, and about as cloud-cuckooland Left wing as you can possibly get !!

But .. I am the 'delusional' one ?!?

Dream on.

As, indeed, you already are ....


:laugh: Your "Jimmy ploy" crashed and burned ...

What 'ploy' ????

It remains a fact, FJ, that even up to the moment I'm typing this, you still haven't found it within you to be sufficiently 'disrespectful' to call Jimmy Carter just 'Carter'. You've called Lady Thatcher just 'Thatcher' twice, at least .. as the Daily Mirror NEARLY did, AS A DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED INSULT, just after her death (even THEY found the decency to pull the plug on that one, albeit at the last moment).

You don't mind calling Carter 'Jimmy', though. That's perfectly OK ...


so now you have to start talking about Morgan?

In your world, maybe people do need to 'have' to talk on subjects, or about people .. after all, that's part of following a script, or agenda, isn't it ? We Conservatives are individuals, however, not constrained in such ways.


...when I want Thatcherism I go to the source not the perverted version you spew.

I'm fascinated by that. OK, so as a supposed 'Thatcherite' yourself, what ARE the sources you rely on ?

I know of the sources you should be considering, because I'm a true admirer of hers. But you .. in thinking about answering that question (unless you duck it, of course), you're going to need to do some research to give me a proper answer.

Aren't you ?

So go to it. And be quick about it ....


Those aren't Sullivan's words you doddering old fool.

...Add that one to the list of evidence illustrating your appalling attitude ...

Anyway, you've missed the point. The POINT is that you mirror Sullivan's methodology .. asserting you're a Conservative, then finding ways to advance a pro-Left wing agenda (.. such a 'coincidence', eh ?). Sullivan, in his blog piece, did exactly that when he used the very wording that appears in your .... wait for it, now.....

POSTING SIGNATURE

-- I hope you're taking notes, my son.

I did a search engine search for the wording your posting signature included. That search led me to Sullivan's blog piece. That, FJ, is a fact.

Perhaps you're a fan of such coincidence. I am not.


I see you're back to, as if you ever left, letting others do your work for you.

FJ, if you're going to volunteer to do that work, why should I try to stop you ?? You DID refer to two people YOURSELF, who are Conservatives, and who do oppose you ! That you're trying to backtrack now is a ploy which I don't find to be at all a convincing one.


Evidence that they're conservative please; moronic rantings are not evidence of conservatism. ;)

['Moronic rantings' ? H'mm. How charming. Another one to add to that already long list illustrating your dire need for attitude revision ....]

Well, THEY OPPOSE YOU ! I call that good evidence, right there --- :poke:

But are you now going to tell them, directly, that their beliefs and allegiances are anything other than what this entire forum knows them to be, not least from their posting histories ?? I wonder: Can you really be THAT arrogant ?

... Care to duck that one, FJ ?

[red states rule]

Basically it all comes down to this

Conservatives believe liberals are wrong on the issues

Liberals believe conservatives are evil

[fj1200]

Completely ridiculous, and presumably evidence that you ARE delusional !

I didn't 'imagine' even ONE of those quoted examples of your appalling attitude. They are here, right on this thread, FROM YOU, easily observable from each of the posts where they appear.

My advice: LEARN from your mistakes.



Also ridiculous.

YOU are the one who absolutely insists that terrorist 'human rights' are respected, in total defiance of the reality of what they ARE, and what they DO. Your belief in 'terrorist HUMANITY' has surely got to be the ultimate delusion !!! Was flying planes into the Twin Towers 'humanitarian' ? Was blowing up Tube trains on the London Underground 'humanitarian' ?? When terrorists grab captives then BEHEAD them, are they being 'humanitarian' ???

So for you to fight for the so-called 'human rights' of the scum capable of THAT ... is delusional, massively insulting to their victims, and about as cloud-cuckooland Left wing as you can possibly get !!

But .. I am the 'delusional' one ?!?

Dream on.

As, indeed, you already are ....



What 'ploy' ????

It remains a fact, FJ, that even up to the moment I'm typing this, you still haven't found it within you to be sufficiently 'disrespectful' to call Jimmy Carter just 'Carter'. You've called Lady Thatcher just 'Thatcher' twice, at least .. as the Daily Mirror NEARLY did, AS A DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED INSULT, just after her death (even THEY found the decency to pull the plug on that one, albeit at the last moment).

You don't mind calling Carter 'Jimmy', though. That's perfectly OK ...



In your world, maybe people do need to 'have' to talk on subjects, or about people .. after all, that's part of following a script, or agenda, isn't it ? We Conservatives are individuals, however, not constrained in such ways.



I'm fascinated by that. OK, so as a supposed 'Thatcherite' yourself, what ARE the sources you rely on ?

I know of the sources you should be considering, because I'm a true admirer of hers. But you .. in thinking about answering that question (unless you duck it, of course), you're going to need to do some research to give me a proper answer.

Aren't you ?

So go to it. And be quick about it ....



...Add that one to the list of evidence illustrating your appalling attitude ...

Anyway, you've missed the point. The POINT is that you mirror Sullivan's methodology .. asserting you're a Conservative, then finding ways to advance a pro-Left wing agenda (.. such a 'coincidence', eh ?). Sullivan, in his blog piece, did exactly that when he used the very wording that appears in your .... wait for it, now.....

POSTING SIGNATURE

-- I hope you're taking notes, my son.

I did a search engine search for the wording your posting signature included. That search led me to Sullivan's blog piece. That, FJ, is a fact.

Perhaps you're a fan of such coincidence. I am not.



FJ, if you're going to volunteer to do that work, why should I try to stop you ?? You DID refer to two people YOURSELF, who are Conservatives, and who do oppose you ! That you're trying to backtrack now is a ploy which I don't find to be at all a convincing one.



['Moronic rantings' ? H'mm. How charming. Another one to add to that already long list illustrating your dire need for attitude revision ....]

Well, THEY OPPOSE YOU ! I call that good evidence, right there --- :poke:

But are you now going to tell them, directly, that their beliefs and allegiances are anything other than what this entire forum knows them to be, not least from their posting histories ?? I wonder: Can you really be THAT arrogant ?

... Care to duck that one, FJ ?

Again, you are as dumb as F'. Your challenge that you will run away from is point out my using Sullivan's words, point out my "leftie" positions, and list out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification. Don't deflect away as normal, actually own up to the challenge and prove that you're not as ignorant as you sound.

An actual Thatcherite wouldn't be as ignorant as you.

[red states rule]

The way FU likes to edit other peoples posts - I think he would be much happier in a faculty lounge at a liberal arts college bashing Tea Party members and conservatives while bellowing how great progressives while failing any student who showed a trace of conservatism in their assignments

[Drummond]

The way FU likes to edit other peoples posts - I think he would be much happier in a faculty lounge at a liberal arts college bashing Tea Party members and conservatives while bellowing how great progressives while failing any student who showed a trace of conservatism in their assignments

I think I'm recognising that he does this when he gets particularly desperate. When he thinks he can take on a post on its own terms (be it through actual argument or just snide, or otherwise rude putdowns) he concentrates on that. But when difficulties emerge, we see this, instead.

Sad -- it really is.

Here's one poster who just can't argue in a fair manner ...

[red states rule]

I think I'm recognising that he does this when he gets particularly desperate. When he thinks he can take on a post on its own terms (be it through actual argument or just snide, or otherwise rude putdowns) he concentrates on that. But when difficulties emerge, we see this, instead.

Sad -- it really is.

Here's one poster who just can't argue in a fair manner ...

When trying to have conversation with a liberal like FU (or Arbo) they demand you must accept their consensus before any debate can start

And when they are unable to counter your facts they launch into personal attacks and whine how they are being abused

Part of being liberal is having that "tolerance" for different opinions

[Drummond]

Again, you are as dumb as F'. Your challenge that you will run away from is point out my using Sullivan's words, point out my "leftie" positions, and list out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification. Don't deflect away as normal, actually own up to the challenge and prove that you're not as ignorant as you sound.

An actual Thatcherite wouldn't be as ignorant as you.

Disgraceful Denigration List: a couple more to add to an already long list (.. and that's just based on THIS thread !!!! ...):


you are as dumb as F'


and prove that you're not as ignorant as you sound.


... wouldn't be as ignorant as you.

FJ, yours was quite a short post, but STILL, you managed these three examples.

Would you mother be proud of you ?

Anyway ... now 'to business' ...

Heyy, I see the showy crossings-out of my text are back ! What's more, this time, it's just about all of my last post to you that you've done this to. As I've posted to RSR, are you THAT desperate to win through, that - since you cannot argue it in a straightforward manner, you now have to resort to a gimmick borne out of sheer desperation ?

Sad indeed.

Just to take one example of something you couldn't address ... I asked you to provide the 'source' you say you go to when you, as YOU said, 'want Thatcherism'. I thought you'd duck that one. Sure enough, you did.

You see, anyone sufficiently versed in knowledge about what Lady Thatcher stood for, and how she recorded for posterity what that was, would find this easy to answer .. right this moment, as I type, I can think of two distinct such avenues you could've offered from the Web to prove your knowledge of this. BUT, NOT BEING A GENUINE SUPPORTER, YOU COULDN'T FACE THAT CHALLENGE. YOU LACKED THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A GENUINE SUPPORTER WOULD'VE HAD.

This, FJ, is where phantom, shallow sham reinventions get you !

And there it is. You see, I am the genuine article. Yours is the cheap, ill-thought out invention.

On the subject of your 'leftie positions' (your term) .. well, I can offer you some evidence of the truth about you. Make ready to desperately cross them out ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42479-About-impeachment&p=663150#post663150e

In this example, you're trying to counter Tyr with an argument that defends Obama against an argument suggesting a basis for his impeachment (as I've posted before, you don't like to attack Obama, which is strange for a Right-winger ... but here, you're defensive on Obama's side ...).

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43393-Looooooooooooooooooking-for-new-Cabal-members&p=668665#post668665

For my money, this one's a bit more revealing. I'll quote its text ..


I'm not trying to get rid of anyone, I'm just hoping some actual liberal posters will accidentally smoke the opiate of DP and stick around for a fortnight or two.

Kathianne had just posted ... 'Good for you, manning up to being part of an attempt to get rid of posters you don't like'. The above reply was your 'defence' ... ADMITTING THAT YOU WANTED MORE LIBERAL POSTERS ON THE FORUM.

As defences go, it's pretty feeble !! More, though, it shows what you wanted for this forum, what you HOPED for. Because ... you're NOT Left wing ???

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43280-Security-Council-OKs-Syria-resolution-warns-of-consequences&p=667532#post667532

Here, you're back to defending Obama. You posted a link that you thought showed him in a good light.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43261-ADOLPH-HITLER-The-Real-Father-of-Universal-Health-Care&p=667270#post667270

Defending Obama AGAIN, only THIS time, you use wording that distances you from 'the right' ..


It started with a stretch and it ended stretching even further. Is it any wonder that the right can't get any traction when the argument goes, "BO wants universal HC so he can kill you.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

You thought derision in the service of Your Leader was the correct response .. because, you're Right wing YOURSELF ?

Yeahh, sure ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42975-George-W-Bush-%96-9-11-Bullhorn-Speech-at-Ground-Zero&p=664254#post664254

With this one, Gabby had posted a video clip of GW Bush which she though was compromising to him. What did you, as the latter-day reinvented RIGHT WINGER come up with, by way of a defence of a Republican President ?


OMGWTFBush!!! :eek::rolleyes:

How gleeful your response was ! One of a LEFT winger enjoying himself ??

FJ, I have more examples than this collection to post, if need be, but nonetheless, I'll stop here for now. My case is made. You have posted as a LIBERAL thinker, both in substance and instinctive reaction.

Your claim to be a 'Thatcherite' is exposed as the disreputable, shabby invention it really is. You are NO Right winger !!!!!

Get ready with the crossings-out ... feeling desperate enough for them, FJ ?

[red states rule]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/Liberal%20Logic%20101/liberal-logic-101-20.jpg

[aboutime]

I think I'm recognising that he does this when he gets particularly desperate. When he thinks he can take on a post on its own terms (be it through actual argument or just snide, or otherwise rude putdowns) he concentrates on that. But when difficulties emerge, we see this, instead.

Sad -- it really is.

Here's one poster who just can't argue in a fair manner ...


Sir Drummond. Actually. I find it much more entertaining to see how fj, and the other two stooges here who seem to have the same heartbeat, continue to point out how desperate, frustrated, and terribly miserable their lives are.
None of them seem to ever 'get happy' unless they feel some weird form of personal success at bringing others down to their Misery level. Then, they prance around like a Rooster who just found another dumb chicken with PMS.
Don't know how long their idiocy can continue until one, or all three of them self-destruct, or choke on their Self-impressive ignorance.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Actually. I find it much more entertaining to see how fj, and the other two stooges here who seem to have the same heartbeat, continue to point out how desperate, frustrated, and terribly miserable their lives are.
None of them seem to ever 'get happy' unless they feel some weird form of personal success at bringing others down to their Misery level. Then, they prance around like a Rooster who just found another dumb chicken with PMS.
Don't know how long their idiocy can continue until one, or all three of them self-destruct, or choke on their Self-impressive ignorance.

Yes, Aboutime. I'm sure this is all accurate. Not least because, several exchanges back, FJ declared he was 'done with me'. But he couldn't resist keeping his abusive dialogue going. Indeed, even the pace of it continued just as before.

He clearly has a need for it all.

[fj1200]

Just to take one example of something you couldn't address ... I asked you to provide the 'source' you say you go to when you, as YOU said, 'want Thatcherism'. I thought you'd duck that one. Sure enough, you did.

Honestly I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Link it up big boy since you've now discovered the search function.

Now on to the desperation of your imagination:

On the subject of your 'leftie positions' (your term) .. well, I can offer you some evidence of the truth about you. Make ready to desperately cross them out ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42479-About-impeachment&p=663150#post663150e

In this example, you're trying to counter Tyr with an argument that defends Obama against an argument suggesting a basis for his impeachment (as I've posted before, you don't like to attack Obama, which is strange for a Right-winger ... but here, you're defensive on Obama's side ...).


He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43393-Looooooooooooooooooking-for-new-Cabal-members&p=668665#post668665)The example above was statement of fact; BO can't be impeached for not starting a war and the WPA does give him coverage for short military actions. BTW, I see you ignore that I call his handling "incompetent."


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43393-Looooooooooooooooooking-for-new-Cabal-members&p=668665#post668665

For my money, this one's a bit more revealing. I'll quote its text ..


I'm not trying to get rid of anyone, I'm just hoping some actual liberal posters will accidentally smoke the opiate of DP and stick around for a fortnight or two.

Kathianne had just posted ... 'Good for you, manning up to being part of an attempt to get rid of posters you don't like'. The above reply was your 'defence' ... ADMITTING THAT YOU WANTED MORE LIBERAL POSTERS ON THE FORUM.

As defences go, it's pretty feeble !! More, though, it shows what you wanted for this forum, what you HOPED for. Because ... you're NOT Left wing ???

:laugh: Wanting actual liberals to post here so that we can have substantive debates is your evidence? Hell, you better start searching some rsr quotes because he has stated multiple times that he has invited liberals to post here. You also missed the truth of this post:


And the rest are getting smoked like a blunt at an OWS reunion. :poke:

:laugh:

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43280-Security-Council-OKs-Syria-resolution-warns-of-consequences&p=667532#post667532)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43280-Security-Council-OKs-Syria-resolution-warns-of-consequences&p=667532#post667532

Here, you're back to defending Obama. You posted a link that you thought showed him in a good light.

A news article? :rolleyes: Wouldn't a nuclear deal be good? Apparently you have an aversion to truth.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43261-ADOLPH-HITLER-The-Real-Father-of-Universal-Health-Care&p=667270#post667270

Defending Obama AGAIN, only THIS time, you use wording that distances you from 'the right' ..


It started with a stretch and it ended stretching even further. Is it any wonder that the right can't get any traction when the argument goes, "BO wants universal HC so he can kill you.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

You thought derision in the service of Your Leader was the correct response .. because, you're Right wing YOURSELF ?

Yeahh, sure ...

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42975-George-W-Bush-%96-9-11-Bullhorn-Speech-at-Ground-Zero&p=664254#post664254):laugh: Hilarious coming from Mr. Untermensch. It's exactly those types of stories and hyperbole that will hasten the coming leftie invasion, not staunch it.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42975-George-W-Bush-%96-9-11-Bullhorn-Speech-at-Ground-Zero&p=664254#post664254

With this one, Gabby had posted a video clip of GW Bush which she though was compromising to him. What did you, as the latter-day reinvented RIGHT WINGER come up with, by way of a defence of a Republican President ?


OMGWTFBush!!! :eek::rolleyes:

How gleeful your response was ! One of a LEFT winger enjoying himself ??

I see you have someone to confide in with Ms. Gabby because my post was a derisive mockery of her link. Or did you not catch that with the ":rolleyes:" at the end?


FJ, I have more examples than this collection to post, if need be, but nonetheless, I'll stop here for now. My case is made. You have posted as a LIBERAL thinker, both in substance and instinctive reaction.

I hope you have more examples because those were dripping in failure. Why don't you use your new found skills in validating my conservative views rather than a feeble justification for your imagination; you'll spend a lot less time searching. I should offer some applause though because you did at least attempt one piece of the challenge:


Your challenge that you will run away from is point out my using Sullivan's words, point out my "leftie" positions, and list out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

Two more await.

[fj1200]

Yes, Aboutime. I'm sure this is all accurate. Not least because, several exchanges back, FJ declared he was 'done with me'. But he couldn't resist keeping his abusive dialogue going. Indeed, even the pace of it continued just as before.

He clearly has a need for it all.

Actually I would say that it has picked up. The Axis of Stupid (that would be you) should be shown as such.

[Drummond]

Honestly I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Link it up big boy since you've now discovered the search function.

Back to the attention span problem you have, I see. Or, perhaps it's a CONVENIENT attention span problem ?

You've 'forgotten' post #89, then, and my challenge arising from your claim. Pasting directly from it:-

================================================== ===========================================


...when I want Thatcherism I go to the source not the perverted version you spew.


I'm fascinated by that. OK, so as a supposed 'Thatcherite' yourself, what ARE the sources you rely on ?

I know of the sources you should be considering, because I'm a true admirer of hers. But you .. in thinking about answering that question (unless you duck it, of course), you're going to need to do some research to give me a proper answer.

Aren't you ?

So go to it. And be quick about it ....

================================================== ==========================

'Remember' now ?


The example above was statement of fact; BO can't be impeached for not starting a war and the WPA does give him coverage for short military actions. BTW, I see you ignore that I call his handling "incompetent."

Even Left wingers can become testy in the face of Left-wing mishandlings. I've known staunch Left wingers detest the memory of Stalin because his atrocities gave the Left's cause such bad publicity. Doesn't make them any less committed to Left-leaning causes, though.

Your post, and considering what it was you were answering, was rather devoid of any support for the suggestion of action against Obama .. as befits a SUPPORTER of his.


:laugh: Wanting actual liberals to post here so that we can have substantive debates is your evidence? Hell, you better start searching some rsr quotes because he has stated multiple times that he has invited liberals to post here.

And .. what was it you were responding to ?? What was posted to you, just before that ?

Sorry. Your explanation doesn't wash.


A news article? :rolleyes: Wouldn't a nuclear deal be good? Apparently you have an aversion to truth.

What you offered was a piece putting Obama - you hoped - in a good light. And as for the truth of the matter, there never HAS been any real likelihood of an actual 'deal' being struck. Even now, with more friendly noises coming the way of the West, STILL, they play for time. And they may not need much more of it !


:laugh: Hilarious coming from Mr. Untermensch. It's exactly those types of stories and hyperbole that will hasten the coming leftie invasion, not staunch it.

A feeble response. You've slipped into (you'd hope) denigration mode as your main defence. Fact is that your wording betrays your true distancing from the Right, as I pointed out before. My comments stand.


I see you have someone to confide in with Ms. Gabby because my post was a derisive mockery of her link. Or did you not catch that with the ":rolleyes:" at the end?

NO, the derisive mockery was of BUSH. This is clear enough.


I hope you have more examples because those were dripping in failure. Why don't you use your new found skills in validating my conservative views rather than a feeble justification for your imagination; you'll spend a lot less time searching. I should offer some applause though because you did at least attempt one piece of the challenge:

Perhaps I could offer you applause of my own, if only you didn't KEEP evading challenge after challenge I set you (the source material of Thatcherism one is just one of several such examples).

I do have more examples waiting. However, I'm satisfied that your responses here are so feeble and unconvincing as to not - for the moment, anyway - require my offering them.

Keep asking, though, and maybe I'll supply them. After all, you seem to enjoy being exposed as a sham ...

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NG5rXDeiRIA/T6ysgK3mznI/AAAAAAAAGbk/UJaZSiShL6k/s1600/racist+liberal+logic.jpg

[fj1200]

You've 'forgotten' post #89, then, and my challenge arising from your claim. Pasting directly from it:-


...when I want Thatcherism I go to the source not the perverted version you spew.

I'm fascinated by that. OK, so as a supposed 'Thatcherite' yourself, what ARE the sources you rely on ?

My apologies I thought that was one of your blathering rhetorical questions; there are so many. My sources? There are many, news, history, opinion, fact, truth, logic, and reason. The point was that it's not the Thatcherism that you "spew."


Even Left wingers can become testy in the face of Left-wing mishandlings. I've known staunch Left wingers detest the memory of Stalin because his atrocities gave the Left's cause such bad publicity. Doesn't make them any less committed to Left-leaning causes, though.

Your post, and considering what it was you were answering, was rather devoid of any support for the suggestion of action against Obama .. as befits a SUPPORTER of his.

WTF are you even talking about. It was an impeachment thread and what Tyr mentioned did not rise to the level of impeachment unfortunately. And again, you avoid me calling him "incompetent."


And .. what was it you were responding to ?? What was posted to you, just before that ?

Sorry. Your explanation doesn't wash.

It's not my fault that your imagination is failing you... again. I'm guessing you just don't like getting "smoked." ;) And what was posted before that doesn't make it true, it also implied some behind the scenes discussion IIRC, it makes it an opinion; an incorrect one in my estimation. Nevertheless I'm not hoping anyone leaves, I'm just hoping that they ;) stop posting like morons and get to the issues rather than imagination.


What you offered was a piece putting Obama - you hoped - in a good light. And as for the truth of the matter, there never HAS been any real likelihood of an actual 'deal' being struck. Even now, with more friendly noises coming the way of the West, STILL, they play for time. And they may not need much more of it !

You do realize that the story was just at the beginning of the talks, and even then only proposed at the time IIRC, so of course couldn't have time to work. Of course not, you get to use your impressive :laugh: abilities of foresight. :laugh: I certainly don't discount the possibility that BO will fail but that's because he's incompetent and has a failed worldview.


A feeble response. You've slipped into (you'd hope) denigration mode as your main defence. Fact is that your wording betrays your true distancing from the Right, as I pointed out before. My comments stand.

:rolleyes: That imagination of yours is quite impressive. That piece was crap.


NO, the derisive mockery was of BUSH. This is clear enough.

You do realize that in that thread I was arguing FOR the military action in Afghanistan don't you? No, probably not. You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.


Perhaps I could offer you applause of my own, if only you didn't KEEP evading challenge after challenge I set you (the source material of Thatcherism one is just one of several such examples).

I do have more examples waiting. However, I'm satisfied that your responses here are so feeble and unconvincing as to not - for the moment, anyway - require my offering them.

Keep asking, though, and maybe I'll supply them. After all, you seem to enjoy being exposed as a sham ...

Newsflash: I don't want your applause. Do you wonder why ?? You seem to be ducking the challenges I set forth for you and thus far you have failed at the one challenge (this time) that you decided to take up.

BTW, I'm really looking forward to your listing of conservatives who "oppose" me. I'm betting that your scared to publish it. ;)

[red states rule]

Ah FU follows in the great ones footsteps

http://continentaldivide.us/articles/images/anchors/Liberal_arrogance.bmp

[Drummond]

My apologies I thought that was one of your blathering rhetorical questions; there are so many. My sources? There are many, news, history, opinion, fact, truth, logic, and reason. The point was that it's not the Thatcherism that you "spew."

NO.

Here's the real point, FJ. The answer you've given is an easy one to make. TOO easy. It's just the sort of answer I could've offered myself, had I known nothing at all about, say, George W Bush, then I'd gone on to claim to be some great supporter and fan of his.

And this is YOUR position regarding Lady Thatcher.

I repeat this from an earlier post:


... I asked you to provide the 'source' you say you go to when you, as YOU said, 'want Thatcherism'. I thought you'd duck that one. Sure enough, you did.

You see, anyone sufficiently versed in knowledge about what Lady Thatcher stood for, and how she recorded for posterity what that was, would find this easy to answer .. right this moment, as I type, I can think of two distinct such avenues you could've offered from the Web to prove your knowledge of this. BUT, NOT BEING A GENUINE SUPPORTER, YOU COULDN'T FACE THAT CHALLENGE. YOU LACKED THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A GENUINE SUPPORTER WOULD'VE HAD.

Even in your response - and rather arrogantly, at that !! - you didn't take the 'hint'. Still, NOTHING specific from you to answer my challenge. Why ? Because you totally lack any familiarity with Lady Thatcher's life work to get any proper sense of what I was really driving at.

Had you known your subject, you would've answered me properly. Instead .. just that generalised semi-'cop out' answer.

So I say with great confidence, FJ .. YOUR SUPPOSED 'REVERENCE' OR 'APPRECIATION OF LADY THATCHER, AND/OR HER BRAND OF POLITICS, IS A FRAUD.


WTF are you even talking about. It was an impeachment thread and what Tyr mentioned did not rise to the level of impeachment unfortunately. And again, you avoid me calling him "incompetent."

I thought I covered the 'incompetent' aspect earlier ? Why do you think I commented on Stalin's atrocities .. then made the point to say that Left-wingers can distance themselves from Stalin, because he supplies the wrong image, then continue to be JUST as committed to their liberalism as ever ? You can comment on Obama's supposed 'incompetence', yet at the same time want to support him more generally as the leader of the Dems, and leader of your country.

And no, of course you wouldn't want him impeached ! This would drive you on to find arguments to defy such calls, or wishes.


And what was posted before that doesn't make it true, it also implied some behind the scenes discussion IIRC, it makes it an opinion; an incorrect one in my estimation.

'IN YOUR ESTIMATION'. H'm !

However .. why would such a charge ever have been made against you, in the first place ? It doesn't exactly fit with the bona fides you're trying to claim for yourself these days, now, does it ??

I come back, inevitably, to a previous point. How come you get the opposition you do, on this forum, if you are genuinely what you now claim to be ?


Nevertheless I'm not hoping anyone leaves,

Sure about that ? The fewer people here to oppose you, the smaller the chance that you'll be seen in realistic terms.


I'm just hoping that they ;) stop posting like morons and get to the issues rather than imagination.

Oh, COME ON !! I get to the issues .. but your opposition to me is especially strong. Your denigrations are meant to whittle away at my confidence to continue on (... which only goes to show how little you know me ..). And/or to discredit my efforts in the eyes of others (which you can see you're getting nowhere with ..).


You do realize that the story was just at the beginning of the talks, and even then only proposed at the time IIRC, so of course couldn't have time to work. Of course not, you get to use your impressive :laugh: abilities of foresight. :laugh: I certainly don't discount the possibility that BO will fail but that's because he's incompetent and has a failed worldview.

Nicely said. Ah, but heyy, aren't you just itching to say that 'BO' is 'well intentioned', and 'so much better than his predecessor' ... you know, the Leader you derided to Gabby ???

Besides, no such talks will EVER work, short of the Iranians somehow being in the position of being forced to make them work. The whole history of their efforts to build their nuclear capability speaks of an unshakeable determination to do what the hell they like, come-what-may. They play for time, then dress it up to appear 'reasonable' and 'enlightened' so as to defuse any likelihood of real, meaningful opposition.

And Obama, your Appeaser-In-Chief', just goes along with it all. He gives them the time they want.


:rolleyes: That imagination of yours is quite impressive. That piece was crap.

Hardly persuasive.

My comments stand.


You do realize that in that thread I was arguing FOR the military action in Afghanistan don't you?

What, and the chance to deride Bush got in the way, became too good to pass up ??


Newsflash: I don't want your applause. Do you wonder why ??

With your ego problem, frankly, YES, I do. Unless you secretly do, of course.

The rest of your posting is just blather. YOU duck MY challenges on a regular basis. And as for the Conservatives who oppose you, the fictional point behind this, the one you want to assert, namely that you don't get that opposition, is being proven wrong, HERE, page by page !!!

Really, it's quite funny !! ..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[red states rule]

http://moonbattery.com/same-ideas-same-results.jpg

[red states rule]

NO.

Here's the real point, FJ. The answer you've given is an easy one to make. TOO easy. It's just the sort of answer I could've offered myself, had I known nothing at all about, say, George W Bush, then I'd gone on to claim to be some great supporter and fan of his.

And this is YOUR position regarding Lady Thatcher.

I repeat this from an earlier post:



Even in your response - and rather arrogantly, at that !! - you didn't take the 'hint'. Still, NOTHING specific from you to answer my challenge. Why ? Because you totally lack any familiarity with Lady Thatcher's life work to get any proper sense of what I was really driving at.

Had you known your subject, you would've answered me properly. Instead .. just that generalised semi-'cop out' answer.

So I say with great confidence, FJ .. YOUR SUPPOSED 'REVERENCE' OR 'APPRECIATION OF LADY THATCHER, AND/OR HER BRAND OF POLITICS, IS A FRAUD.



I thought I covered the 'incompetent' aspect earlier ? Why do you think I commented on Stalin's atrocities .. then made the point to say that Left-wingers can distance themselves from Stalin, because he supplies the wrong image, then continue to be JUST as committed to their liberalism as ever ? You can comment on Obama's supposed 'incompetence', yet at the same time want to support him more generally as the leader of the Dems, and leader of your country.

And no, of course you wouldn't want him impeached ! This would drive you on to find arguments to defy such calls, or wishes.



'IN YOUR ESTIMATION'. H'm !

However .. why would such a charge ever have been made against you, in the first place ? It doesn't exactly fit with the bona fides you're trying to claim for yourself these days, now, does it ??

I come back, inevitably, to a previous point. How come you get the opposition you do, on this forum, if you are genuinely what you now claim to be ?



Sure about that ? The fewer people here to oppose you, the smaller the chance that you'll be seen in realistic terms.



Oh, COME ON !! I get to the issues .. but your opposition to me is especially strong. Your denigrations are meant to whittle away at my confidence to continue on (... which only goes to show how little you know me ..). And/or to discredit my efforts in the eyes of others (which you can see you're getting nowhere with ..).



Nicely said. Ah, but heyy, aren't you just itching to say that 'BO' is 'well intentioned', and 'so much better than his predecessor' ... you know, the Leader you derided to Gabby ???

Besides, no such talks will EVER work, short of the Iranians somehow being in the position of being forced to make them work. The whole history of their efforts to build their nuclear capability speaks of an unshakeable determination to do what the hell they like, come-what-may. They play for time, then dress it up to appear 'reasonable' and 'enlightened' so as to defuse any likelihood of real, meaningful opposition.

And Obama, your Appeaser-In-Chief', just goes along with it all. He gives them the time they want.



Hardly persuasive.

My comments stand.



What, and the chance to deride Bush got in the way, became too good to pass up ??



With your ego problem, frankly, YES, I do. Unless you secretly do, of course.

The rest of your posting is just blather. YOU duck MY challenges on a regular basis. And as for the Conservatives who oppose you, the fictional point behind this, the one you want to assert, namely that you don't get that opposition, is being proven wrong, HERE, page by page !!!

Really, it's quite funny !! ..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Drummond, I believe the only way you will ever get through to FU is if you earn a PhD in Child Psychology

[Drummond]

Drummond, I believe the only way you will ever get through to FU is if you earn a PhD in Child Psychology:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laug h::laugh:

[fj1200]

blah, blah, blah.

Admit that you were wrong that I quoted Sullivan,
Point out my leftie positions and not your incorrect inferences, and
Point out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

And I don't have an "ego problem," I have a problem with idiots burdened by overly active imaginations and don't know how to read.

[aboutime]

Admit that you were wrong that I quoted Sullivan,
Point out my leftie positions and not your incorrect inferences, and
Point out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

And I don't have an "ego problem," I have a problem with idiots burdened by overly active imaginations and don't know how to read.


fj. Again. Another reason to totally agree with you. You DO NOT have an 'ego' problem. Only those who are capable of thinking, on their own have an ego.

[red states rule]

fj. Again. Another reason to totally agree with you. You DO NOT have an 'ego' problem. Only those who are capable of thinking, on their own have an ego.


FU does believe he is smarter then everyone else; he is the greatest poster ever to grace DP; he lowers himself to respond to posts made by others; and he is offended when anyone dares to offer a different opinion then what FU says is absolutely correct

I suspect FU stares at himself in the mirror and ponders how God was so cruel to him as he did not allow any room for improvement

[glockmail]

FU does believe he is smarter then everyone else; he is the greatest poster ever to grace DP; he lowers himself to respond to posts made by others; and he is offended when anyone dares to offer a different opinion then what FU says is absolutely correct

I suspect FU stares at himself in the mirror and ponders how God was so cruel to him as he did not allow any room for improvement

:lol:

[aboutime]

:lol:


Glockmail. You know how fj will get around what you said? He'll just insist there IS NO GOD.

But, despite what fj might say. We can all get a really GOOD LAUGH, knowing the GOD we believe in has a really good SENSE OF HUMOR. And uses people like fj as examples for the Cartoon artists he loves to give talent to so much.

[Drummond]

Admit that you were wrong that I quoted Sullivan,

I have absolutely no reason to take your word for this. I searched for where your signature wording came from. I was led to Sullivan's blog site, and the piece where the wording is to be found.

Add to this the fact that Sullivan's methodology mimics your own (... or does YOURS mimic HIS ? ...) when it comes to claiming Conservative bona fides, then advancing LEFT WING thinking ... and I consider the case made.

I really wonder why you bother to deny any of this. I really do. Unless .. you fully subscribe to the liberal notion that if you claim something often enough, everyone will believe you, and fiction substitutes for fact ?


Point out my leftie positions and not your incorrect inferences,

I've already proved my case in a number of ways. You, predictably, reject everything out of hand, and far from convincingly. I'm sure that if I continue, you'll just dish out more of the same. Denial, denial, more denial. Because you want to be centred on preference rather than fact .. WHICH IS TYPICALLY LEFT WING IN ITSELF.


and Point out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

Now, you want me to get into the minds of everyone seeing you as egotistic-driven opposition ?

FJ, try to understand. There is NO 'hive mind' effect in operation here. There is no controlling 'Fuehrer' figure, setting an agenda which we must all then slavishly follow. CONSERVATIVES AREN'T LIKE THAT, AND IF YOU WERE ONE, YOU'D UNDERSTAND THIS.

My advice to you, which I'm sure you'll ignore, is to do a review of this and other posts, see who opposes you, then ask each of them separately to present their case to you ..

... that is, of course, if you really are genuinely blind as to why that should be the status quo. Not that I really believe you ARE that blind, you understand ... you're just a sham.


And I don't have an "ego problem," I have a problem with idiots burdened by overly active imaginations and don't know how to read.

Perhaps it's nothing more than that you just can't stop insulting people. Quite an attitude problem, that. I hope you can get some help for it.

Weaning yourself away from the machinations of duplicitous Left-wing bloggers such as Sullivan might be more therapeutic for you than you probably believe.

[aboutime]

I have absolutely no reason to take your word for this. I searched for where your signature wording came from. I was led to Sullivan's blog site, and the piece where the wording is to be found.

Add to this the fact that Sullivan's methodology mimics your own (... or does YOURS mimic HIS ? ...) when it comes to claiming Conservative bona fides, then advancing LEFT WING thinking ... and I consider the case made.

I really wonder why you bother to deny any of this. I really do. Unless .. you fully subscribe to the liberal notion that if you claim something often enough, everyone will believe you, and fiction substitutes for fact ?



I've already proved my case in a number of ways. You, predictably, reject everything out of hand, and far from convincingly. I'm sure that if I continue, you'll just dish out more of the same. Denial, denial, more denial. Because you want to be centred on preference rather than fact .. WHICH IS TYPICALLY LEFT WING IN ITSELF.



Now, you want me to get into the minds of everyone seeing you as egotistic-driven opposition ?

FJ, try to understand. There is NO 'hive mind' effect in operation here. There is no controlling 'Fuehrer' figure, setting an agenda which we must all then slavishly follow. CONSERVATIVES AREN'T LIKE THAT, AND IF YOU WERE ONE, YOU'D UNDERSTAND THIS.

My advice to you, which I'm sure you'll ignore, is to do a review of this and other posts, see who opposes you, then ask each of them separately to present their case to you ..

... that is, of course, if you really are genuinely blind as to why that should be the status quo. Not that I really believe you ARE that blind, you understand ... you're just a sham.



Perhaps it's nothing more than that you just can't stop insulting people. Quite an attitude problem, that. I hope you can get some help for it.

Weaning yourself away from the machinations of duplicitous Left-wing bloggers such as Sullivan might be more therapeutic for you than you probably believe.



Sir Drummond. The one, and only way to stop a whinny child from screaming, yelling, and insisting they are right is to simply agree with ANYTHING they say, or demand. Then let them go off, thinking they are right.
It offers proof to that Abraham Lincoln quote about allowing fools to expose themselves, and removing all doubt.

[Drummond]

FU does believe he is smarter then everyone else; he is the greatest poster ever to grace DP; he lowers himself to respond to posts made by others; and he is offended when anyone dares to offer a different opinion then what FU says is absolutely correct

I suspect FU stares at himself in the mirror and ponders how God was so cruel to him as he did not allow any room for improvement

Ditto Glockmail's posting !! :laugh::laugh:

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. The one, and only way to stop a whinny child from screaming, yelling, and insisting they are right is to simply agree with ANYTHING they say, or demand. Then let them go off, thinking they are right.
It offers proof to that Abraham Lincoln quote about allowing fools to expose themselves, and removing all doubt.

Your description, as ever, is spot on !

Still, I'm not going to agree with FJ that he's a supposed 'Thatcherite' !!! That's just crazy. Besides, he's even proved to me that he doesn't know enough about Lady Thatcher's life and works to be anything other than a fraud in what he claims for himself.

Really ... I do my best to help. He had his opportunity to PROVE my suspicions wrong. Unsurprisingly, he fell flat on his face instead. :laugh::laugh:

[aboutime]

Your description, as ever, is spot on !

Still, I'm not going to agree with FJ that he's a supposed 'Thatcherite' !!! That's just crazy. Besides, he's even proved to me that he doesn't know enough about Lady Thatcher's life and works to be anything other than a fraud in what he claims for himself.

Really ... I do my best to help. He had his opportunity to PROVE my suspicions wrong. Unsurprisingly, he fell flat on his face instead. :laugh::laugh:

Sir Drummond. I agree. And, as an aside. I do find myself wondering how FJ might be feeling if he lived in your nation, rather than enjoying, and abusing all of the rights, freedoms, and liberties he takes so much for granted. Or, at least that's the impression I get from FJ.
"There, but for the grace of God, Go I" should be the prayer (If he ever bothered) he repeats to himself when speaking to you as he does.
Wonder if he'd be as abusive, or constantly disagreeable if he lived in the U.K. and you here???

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I agree. And, as an aside. I do find myself wondering how FJ might be feeling if he lived in your nation, rather than enjoying, and abusing all of the rights, freedoms, and liberties he takes so much for granted. Or, at least that's the impression I get from FJ.
"There, but for the grace of God, Go I" should be the prayer (If he ever bothered) he repeats to himself when speaking to you as he does.
Wonder if he'd be as abusive, or constantly disagreeable if he lived in the U.K. and you here???

Who can say with accuracy how that would pan out ?

I suspect ... being Left wing, he'd feel more at home here than he does in America. After all, we've had generations of Socialism here. He might even have grown up in one of the parts of Britain, say the north of England, or the 'Welsh Valleys', where belief in Socialism is a generational thing, where families vote a certain way 'because they always have, and if you don't, you're a class traitor' ...

My guess ... he'd see British Socialism as superior, he'd be even MORE eaten up with sheer egotism than he is now, and he'd probably be one of those liberal types we have over here who make hating America an abiding passion ... the type that delighted, for example, in calling GW Bush a 'war criminal', and who thought that Obama was some sort of Messiah ..

The one 'good' thing about that would've been that hiding behind Conservative 'credentials' probably would've been a non-starter for him. He wouldn't see a need for it. He'd feel too grounded in his Socialism to think of bothering with such sham performances such as what we're getting these days.

[aboutime]

Who can say with accuracy how that would pan out ?

I suspect ... being Left wing, he'd feel more at home here than he does in America. After all, we've had generations of Socialism here. He might even have grown up in one of the parts of Britain, say the north of England, or the 'Welsh Valleys', where belief in Socialism is a generational thing, where families vote a certain way 'because they always have, and if you don't, you're a class traitor' ...

My guess ... he'd see British Socialism as superior, he'd be even MORE eaten up with sheer egotism than he is now, and he'd probably be one of those liberal types we have over here who make hating America an abiding passion ... the type that delighted, for example, in calling GW Bush a 'war criminal', and who thought that Obama was some sort of Messiah ..

The one 'good' thing about that would've been that hiding behind Conservative 'credentials' probably would've been a non-starter for him. He wouldn't see a need for it. He'd feel too grounded in his Socialism to think of bothering with such sham performances such as what we're getting these days.


Really kind of disturbing for me personally. Despite all the obvious hatred many members, like fj have shown for me, and toward me. As fellow veterans, and fellow Americans. I do wonder what caused people like him...supposedly intelligent, and possessing some, but not much, common sense, to be so easily swayed, or convinced to be as he seems to be. Namely, more a negative part of America's problems, than a positive solution.
I just can't, for the life of me. Understand what makes someone become so absolutely hate filled, and spiteful. Without mentioning how it appears. A form of something like brainwashing has taken over MILLIONS of people like him. So easily willing to allow their lives to be dominated by perpetual lies that please them...despite knowing those lies are rarely questioned by the same people out of fear, or just plain old...stupidity.

[Drummond]

Really kind of disturbing for me personally. Despite all the obvious hatred many members, like fj have shown for me, and toward me. As fellow veterans, and fellow Americans. I do wonder what caused people like him...supposedly intelligent, and possessing some, but not much, common sense, to be so easily swayed, or convinced to be as he seems to be. Namely, more a negative part of America's problems, than a positive solution.
I just can't, for the life of me. Understand what makes someone become so absolutely hate filled, and spiteful. Without mentioning how it appears. A form of something like brainwashing has taken over MILLIONS of people like him. So easily willing to allow their lives to be dominated by perpetual lies that please them...despite knowing those lies are rarely questioned by the same people out of fear, or just plain old...stupidity.

I actually can't add anything useful to what you've just said.

I can observe what Socialists say, how they think, what it drives them to. But ultimately, when it comes down to it, I really just don't get what it is that sustains it all, makes it durable, easy to spread.

Taking my description of ignorant, barely-reasoned generational thinking out of it ... the fact is that we all have human natures. We all want to prosper. We all have it in us to want to be our own person, and to achieve. So, in the face of that, how does a brand of thinking, a philosophy that DEFIES all of that manage to endure ? I just don't get it.

That Socialists may be hate filled, this is perhaps explainable, though. ENVY ... being wedded to a philosophy that's anti-profit, that defies the Capitalist model ... if you've got someone fixated on thinking in a way that defies all that would define what they'd instinctively want to achieve, that's got to create problems !! Maybe it's envy that's the source of FJ's need to spew hateful behaviour. He envies the success of Capitalism, and Conservatism, but can't ultimately bring himself to properly accept it. So ... he's at war with his own nature, but in an egotistical way that helps him maintain a form of self-worth.

But why does Socialism endure. I'm baffled !! I WAS one, in my teens, so I thought ... but realism eroded it to nothing. Watching the chaos, the sheer ruin, that Socialist Trade Unions brought us to, then seeing Conservatism being used as an ANTIDOTE for that evil ... well, I was convinced. Why everyone else wasn't too, how it is that a belief in Socialism in defiance of hard reality can STILL OCCUR ... it makes not the slightest sense.

I KNOW that Conservatism is right. It's not a belief, but certain knowledge. I've had PROOF handed to me on a plate.

I can only think that the durability of Socialism is some sort of mental disorder.

[red states rule]

Really kind of disturbing for me personally. Despite all the obvious hatred many members, like fj have shown for me, and toward me. As fellow veterans, and fellow Americans. I do wonder what caused people like him...supposedly intelligent, and possessing some, but not much, common sense, to be so easily swayed, or convinced to be as he seems to be. Namely, more a negative part of America's problems, than a positive solution.
I just can't, for the life of me. Understand what makes someone become so absolutely hate filled, and spiteful. Without mentioning how it appears. A form of something like brainwashing has taken over MILLIONS of people like him. So easily willing to allow their lives to be dominated by perpetual lies that please them...despite knowing those lies are rarely questioned by the same people out of fear, or just plain old...stupidity.

It is one of the traits found in most liberals that you are well aware of AT. They portray themselves as open minded, tolerant, logical, kind, and caring
. They bellow how they care about the middle and lower classes

Yet when dare to offer up another opinion on the role and size of government they turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs. These are the same people who are so damn worried about the rights of F'ING TERRORISTS yet they will treat their fellow citizens (and fellow vets) with pure contempt.

They are willing to spend millions to save a stray whale in the San Francisco Bay but refuse to lift a finger to prevent a mother from murdering her unborn child

And of course you NEVER criticize their leader Obama. No he is not responsible for gas prices doubling. In fact nothing is his fault with them except Obama was not liberal enough

My favorite from FU was the citizens of MD need to pay the "rain tax" to solve the "problem" of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. My God FU busted a gut defending that one. All the while his huge blue nose was out of joint when I posted how there were taxes already in place to address the "problem"

Instead of being here FU really should apply to be a host of MSNBC where he can only have people on that agree with them and marvel at his greatness

[fj1200]

Ignorant redundant blather.

So...


Admit that you were wrong that I quoted Sullivan,
Point out my leftie positions and not your incorrect inferences, and
Point out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

[fj1200]

... the citizens of MD need to pay the "rain tax" to solve the "problem" of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

Do you need me to point out where I called it a stupid tax. That was an awesome thread though because it clearly showed that you have no capacity to discuss conservative principles. IIRC every bit of fact you tried to bring up was patently false and proven so.


Nevertheless the daisy chain crew is back in fine form. Dissenting opinion must be crushed, only what it is in the echo chamber is truth.

[red states rule]

and once again FU shows his desperate attempt to rewrite history and the facts. It is amazing that someone who has such an inflated opinion of himself in reality has enough mold on his brain to produce a gallon of penicillin

and like a liberal he plays the victim card when he is unable to counter the facts presented by others

I damn near pity him.

[fj1200]

FU

... facts ...

Living rent free in your head is awesome. Except for the dead parrot in the corner there's plenty of room to stretch out.

"facts" :laugh:

[red states rule]

It is clear being a liberal pain in the ass is part of FU's "charm" :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Everyone can read and draw their own conclusions

FU and LR seemed to have no problem with the tax

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40187-Dems-Push-Rain-Tax-in-MD

Sorry FU - now you can sue me for definition of character

[fj1200]

FU's


FU and LR

FU

That's OK dude, let it all out. Let the anger flow.

EDIT:


... in fact I think it's kind of a stupid way.

;)

[red states rule]

I posted the thread so everyone can read it and see I am right

You on the other hand slice and edit posts and cherry pick what you respond to. Which is fine FU - it is all you have left. Your creditability is all but gone and few here take you seriously anymore

Like a child having a temper tantrum you are screaming for attention and respect that many here refuse to give you. And that only fuels your anger and desperation

Now I have housework to do so you go on and find someone on Dem Underground that will pat you on the back on how great you are

[fj1200]

I posted the thread so everyone can read it and see I am right

FU ... attention ...

:confused: You made a statement and I proved it wrong. That's not slicing and dicing that's truth. I think we're still waiting for your "conservative" solution to pollution. ;)

But I understand that some have so much anger that they must let it out, if you don't it will fester and grow. It seems that my living in your head has the unintended effect of increasing the attention you think I desire. Such a paradox you've identified.

Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

[red states rule]

Folks, it is clear FU has the following attitude regarding his stature on the board. His ego has completely taken over. With FU this is how he feels everyone else should treat him


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyHTU8tg_0



and the board is not about an exchange of opinions and idea. No FU believes...

http://www.shmaya.co.uk/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/its-all-about-me.jpg

[fj1200]

FU FU FU

I'm here for you, let the stress roll out of you, let the anger flow.


Start a Stress Journal (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_management_relief_coping.htm)A stress journal can help you identify the regular stressors in your life and the way you deal with them. Each time you feel stressed, keep track of it in your journal. As you keep a daily log, you will begin to see patterns and common themes. Write down:


What caused your stress (make a guess if you’re unsure)
How you felt, both physically and emotionally
How you acted in response
What you did to make yourself feel better



Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

[Drummond]

HAH.

Rewriting other peoples' posts - you've done it to mine, you've done it to RSR's as well. How many other contributors ?

More denigrations. More insults from you. Denying that you have opposition ranged against you that anyone can see for themselves.

Denying your liberal methodology and form of 'thinking' when that, too, anyone can see for themselves.

What an ego .. taken to the point where you think you can rewrite the truth, and have people take notice of YOUR version of things, instead of clear truth. Let me guess .. the thread RSR linked to, what anyone can read for themselves there .. you would prefer people not to take the proper notice of it. In FjWorld, I suppose you'd rather assert none of it exists ?

What an ego. And .. what a joke.

[Drummond]

Admit that you were wrong that I quoted Sullivan,
Point out my leftie positions and not your incorrect inferences, and
Point out the conservatives who "oppose" me along with their justification.

Already answered. A search was done based on the wording of your signature. That led me to Sullivan's blog piece, where that signature wording was found .. even complete with punctuation copied. I have NO REASON AT ALL to doubt that you quoted from Sullivan's blog entry.

Your Leftie stances, your Left-wing argumentation, I have already posted examples of. RSR has also posted a revealing thread as well. But you just deny everything presented (and, I'm sure, will continue to) ... and, ego fully engaged, you doubtless think that your mere 'word', along with your rewrites, will hold sway over actual evidence.

Well, Fj, there are people out there who have a greater regard for truth than they have the 'need' to pander to your high opinion of yourself.

And I see you STILL want me to identify the opposition that you get (.. are you BLIND ??) along with doing the liberal thing of trying to get into their minds.

I have explained already: CONSERVATIVES ARE INDIVIDUALS WITH THEIR OWN THOUGHTS, NOT WEDDED TO PREDETERMINED SCRIPTS OR AGENDAS.

If you were a Conservative yourself, you'd know this. But not only don't you, you even - apparently - lack the capacity to comprehend this at all.

And you still deny being Left wing ? Absurd ....

[fj1200]

HAH.

Rewriting other peoples' posts - you've done it to mine...

I didn't rewrite anyone's post. I may have summarized but I didn't rewrite.

[red states rule]

OMG!!!!

FU's last post reminds me another famous LIE. I wonder if FU knows you can go to hell for lying just as you can for stealing?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

[fj1200]

Already answered.

No, you've deflected repeatedly but you haven't answered.


I have absolutely no reason to take your word for this.

You don't even have to take my word for it. THOSE AREN'T SULLIVAN'S WORDS.


I've already proved my case in a number of ways.

I've noticed that all of your justifications are internal to you. They are YOUR impressions of what I post. Showing you the error of your logic wasn't enough apparently to contradict your internal justifications.


Now, you want me to get into the minds ... then ask each of them separately to present their case to you ..

Well this is awkward for you. You already put yourself into their minds and now you're backing away from having to prove it. And BTW, I've asked REPEATEDLY for them to present their case and all I get is circular logic if I get any at all. Your own logic is circular as well. You say I'm a leftie and when I tell you that I'm not a leftie that proves your case because a leftie would deny that they are a leftie.

[red states rule]

FU is getting more boring the more he posts


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUx0BYtrr3q5ElqDjmDo5ZMbsr5pEuS NL4BRBE4miQlZyXELVfcg

[fj1200]

FU's FU


FU

It's OK, let it out. Count backward from 10 and breathe...


Stress management strategy #1: Avoid unnecessary stress (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_management_relief_coping.htm)

Not all stress can be avoided, and it’s not healthy to avoid a situation that needs to be addressed. You may be surprised, however, by the number of stressors in your life that you can eliminate.


Learn how to say “no” – Know your limits and stick to them. Whether in your personal or professional life, refuse to accept added responsibilities when you’re close to reaching them. Taking on more than you can handle is a surefire recipe for stress.
Avoid people who stress you out – If someone consistently causes stress in your life and you can’t turn the relationship around, limit the amount of time you spend with that person or end the relationship entirely.
Take control of your environment – If the evening news makes you anxious, turn the TV off. If traffic’s got you tense, take a longer but less-traveled route. If going to the market is an unpleasant chore, do your grocery shopping online.
Avoid hot-button topics – If you get upset over religion or politics, cross them off your conversation list. If you repeatedly argue about the same subject with the same people, stop bringing it up or excuse yourself when it’s the topic of discussion.
Pare down your to-do list – Analyze your schedule, responsibilities, and daily tasks. If you’ve got too much on your plate, distinguish between the “shoulds” and the “musts.” Drop tasks that aren’t truly necessary to the bottom of the list or eliminate them entirely.



Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

Unless you're suggesting that I broke the rules, then that would be a whole different issue. :)

[red states rule]

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/236x/df/58/6f/df586fbf3aae5ec04551921df8e3a269.jpg

[Drummond]

OMG!!!!

FU's last post reminds me another famous LIE. I wonder if FU knows you can go to hell for lying just as you can for stealing?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

Unbelievable, isn't it ? The proof of the lie is there for anyone to see. But we still get the denial, regardless ... !!

FJ ... try to get this. If you can. For a Left-wing lie to be usefully attempted, there has to be some halfway credible attempt made to get the lie to substitute for the truth, in such a way as the truth isn't immediately evident to everyone ! You just can't brazen it all out through sheer egotism and expect to 'sell' your lie in such a fashion.

You're just being ridiculous, FJ.

[fj1200]

... proof of the lie ...

Point out the lie please. Is this your first time on the interwebs?

[red states rule]

Unbelievable, isn't it ? The proof of the lie is there for anyone to see. But we still get the denial, regardless ... !!

FJ ... try to get this. If you can. For a Left-wing lie to be usefully attempted, there has to be some halfway credible attempt made to get the lie to substitute for the truth, in such a way as the truth isn't immediately evident to everyone ! You just can't brazen it all out through sheer egotism and expect to 'sell' your lie in such a fashion.

You're just being ridiculous, FJ.

I used that clip for a reason. FU is just like Obama and Clinton. All three are narcissistic megalomaniacs who lack a conscience. They have zero morals and believe simply by saying something makes it true

All three also get angry when anyone points out the truth to them. No wonder FU cannot debate and carry on a conversation.

Of course FU loves talking to himself since he is the most fascinating person he has ever met

[Drummond]

No, you've deflected repeatedly but you haven't answered.

Another lie. This thread proves it.


You don't even have to take my word for it. THOSE AREN'T SULLIVAN'S WORDS.

BUT HE USED THEM FOR HIS AGENDA, IN HIS BLOG POSTING.


I've noticed that all of your justifications are internal to you. They are YOUR impressions of what I post. Showing you the error of your logic wasn't enough apparently to contradict your internal justifications.

This is getting too laughable for words. Denial and more denial.


Well this is awkward for you. You already put yourself into their minds and now you're backing away from having to prove it. And BTW, I've asked REPEATEDLY for them to present their case and all I get is circular logic if I get any at all. Your own logic is circular as well. You say I'm a leftie and when I tell you that I'm not a leftie that proves your case because a leftie would deny that they are a leftie.

Well, you DO. You ARE one, and you DO deny it !!

No, the real proof comes in the form of ACTUAL proof, presented to you, which you then ridiculously deny. Such is your egotism that you'll deny even the blatantly obvious when it's right in front of your - and everyone's !! - nose.

[Drummond]

I used that clip for a reason. FU is just like Obama and Clinton. All three are narcissistic megalomaniacs who lack a conscience. They have zero morals and believe simply by saying something makes it true

All three also get angry when anyone points out the truth to them. No wonder FU cannot debate and carry on a conversation.

Of course FU loves talking to himself since he is the most fascinating person he has ever met:clap::clap::clap:

Spot on ! Completely agree !

[red states rule]

Another lie. This thread proves it.



BUT HE USED THEM FOR HIS AGENDA, IN HIS BLOG POSTING.



This is getting too laughable for words. Denial and more denial.



Well, you DO. You ARE one, and you DO deny it !!

No, the real proof comes in the form of ACTUAL proof, presented to you, which you then ridiculously deny. Such is your egotism that you'll deny even the blatantly obvious when it's right in front of your - and everyone's !! - nose.

Drummond, trying to have a discussion with FU is like ramming your head into a stone wall

It hurts like hell and serves no useful purpose

[fj1200]

FU FU FU

I know the stress is awful, especially when getting pwned so badly, but I'm here to help. I'll be the lightning rod to your inabilities.


Stress management strategy #2: Alter the situation (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_management_relief_coping.htm)If you can’t avoid a stressful situation, try to alter it. Figure out what you can do to change things so the problem doesn’t present itself in the future. Often, this involves changing the way you communicate and operate in your daily life.


Express your feelings instead of bottling them up. If something or someone is bothering you, communicate your concerns in an open and respectful way. If you don’t voice your feelings, resentment will build and the situation will likely remain the same.
Be willing to compromise. When you ask someone to change their behavior, be willing to do the same. If you both are willing to bend at least a little, you’ll have a good chance of finding a happy middle ground.
Be more assertive. Don’t take a backseat in your own life. Deal with problems head on, doing your best to anticipate and prevent them. If you’ve got an exam to study for and your chatty roommate just got home, say up front that you only have five minutes to talk.
Manage your time better. Poor time management can cause a lot of stress. When you’re stretched too thin and running behind, it’s hard to stay calm and focused. But if you plan ahead and make sure you don’t overextend yourself, you can alter the amount of stress you’re under.



Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

[fj1200]

Completely agree !

There's a shock. ;)


FU

Let it out. It's OK.

[red states rule]

Drummond, trying to have a discussion with FU is like ramming your head into a stone wall

It hurts like hell and serves no useful purpose

and now FU has degenerated down to using the same response over and over to everything I post.

He is now stuck in the self pity mode where he portrays himself as the victim

Sad - very sad. But typical when the liberal is unable to deal with reality

[Drummond]

Drummond, trying to have a discussion with FU is like ramming your head into a stone wall

It hurts like hell and serves no useful purpose

I have to agree. Here, we have one Leftie who'll say white is black and then argue you into the ground (with some denigrations, insults and rewrites thrown in for 'good' measure) rather than ever admit a truth he doesn't like.

.... nuts ....

[red states rule]

I have to agree. Here, we have one Leftie who'll say white is black and then argue you into the ground (with some denigrations, insults and rewrites thrown in for 'good' measure) rather than ever admit a truth he doesn't like.

.... nuts ....

Have a great day Drummond. time for me to watch some football

Have fun taking FU to school.

[fj1200]

Another lie. This thread proves it.

You see what you want to see. Unfortunately that's the truth of it for you.


BUT HE USED THEM FOR HIS AGENDA, IN HIS BLOG POSTING.

This is getting too laughable for words. Denial and more denial.

Well, you DO. You ARE one, and you DO deny it !!

No, the real proof comes in the form of ACTUAL proof, presented to you, which you then ridiculously deny. Such is your egotism that you'll deny even the blatantly obvious when it's right in front of your - and everyone's !! - nose.

I can't imagine how dizzy you're making yourself spinning your own circular logic in on itself. Nevertheless, I'm unconcerned that Sullivan used them especially when you can't even say the words that I didn't quote him. My only guess here is that you found who actually posted the words and are unable to paint them into being a leftie. But maybe you can, you can attempt to spin anything into "leftie."

I await more of your spin. :)

[fj1200]

FU


I have to agree.


FU

Are my efforts at being the lightning rod wasted? It seems likely; the hate runs deep with many. Maybe the message will sink in soon.


Stress management strategy #3: Adapt to the stressor (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/stress_management_relief_coping.htm)If you can’t change the stressor, change yourself. You can adapt to stressful situations and regain your sense of control by changing your expectations and attitude.


Reframe problems. Try to view stressful situations from a more positive perspective. Rather than fuming about a traffic jam, look at it as an opportunity to pause and regroup, listen to your favorite radio station, or enjoy some alone time.
Look at the big picture. Take perspective of the stressful situation. Ask yourself how important it will be in the long run. Will it matter in a month? A year? Is it really worth getting upset over? If the answer is no, focus your time and energy elsewhere.
Adjust your standards. Perfectionism is a major source of avoidable stress. Stop setting yourself up for failure by demanding perfection. Set reasonable standards for yourself and others, and learn to be okay with “good enough.”
Focus on the positive. When stress is getting you down, take a moment to reflect on all the things you appreciate in your life, including your own positive qualities and gifts. This simple strategy can help you keep things in perspective.



Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

[Drummond]

Have a great day Drummond. time for me to watch some football

Have fun taking FU to school.

Likewise, have a great day yourself.

But 'FU' is a waste of space. He's taking egotism to idiotic extremes. I'm getting the impression that he just craves the attention.

[aboutime]

I have to agree. Here, we have one Leftie who'll say white is black and then argue you into the ground (with some denigrations, insults and rewrites thrown in for 'good' measure) rather than ever admit a truth he doesn't like.

.... nuts ....


Sir Drummond. What makes all of this so much more interesting, and laughable is...how Any of us are constantly warned, and even threatened with having our posts....that contain the same kinds of stuff fj enjoys, moved to the Cage, or even threatened with bannings. Yet fj, better known as FU just manages to be ignored, and slides on by. Unseen, and unheard by the BOSS here.

Small wonders???

[fj1200]

Likewise, have a great day yourself.

But 'FU' is a waste of space. He's taking egotism to idiotic extremes. I'm getting the impression that he just craves the attention.

:laugh: I "crave" debate. It's just a shame that I can't get that while having to watch you fulfill your own prophecy.

[Drummond]

I can't imagine how dizzy you're making yourself spinning your own circular logic in on itself. Nevertheless, I'm unconcerned that Sullivan used them especially when you can't even say the words that I didn't quote him. My only guess here is that you found who actually posted the words and are unable to paint them into being a leftie. But maybe you can, you can attempt to spin anything into "leftie."


How many MORE times ??

I did a search to find where you got your signature wording from. That search led me to Sullivan's blog piece. Add that simple FACT to the similarities between your methodology (.. of selling yourself, or trying to, as a Conservative, when your thinking, in truth, is Left wing) and that of Sullivan's own, adds up to a 'coincidence' that's too preposterous to accept as one.

So, QED .. you DID quote from Sullivan's piece. No doubt some hero worship was involved on your part, as well, for using Sullivan as your material.

I think you're just keeping this going because you love the attention.

Ridiculous.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. What makes all of this so much more interesting, and laughable is...how Any of us are constantly warned, and even threatened with having our posts....that contain the same kinds of stuff fj enjoys, moved to the Cage, or even threatened with bannings. Yet fj, better known as FU just manages to be ignored, and slides on by. Unseen, and unheard by the BOSS here.

Small wonders???

Interesting point ... still, perhaps a more productive approach would be to put 'FU' on ignore.

I'm sure there's nothing he'd hate more than that.

[fj1200]

How many MORE times ??

I did a search to find where you got your signature wording from. That search led me to Sullivan's blog piece. Add that simple FACT to the similarities between your methodology (.. of selling yourself, or trying to, as a Conservative, when your thinking, in truth, is Left wing) and that of Sullivan's own, adds up to a 'coincidence' that's too preposterous to accept as one.

So, QED .. you DID quote from Sullivan's piece. No doubt some hero worship was involved on your part, as well, for using Sullivan as your material.

I think you're just keeping this going because you love the attention.

Ridiculous.

I agree ridiculous your attempts to deflect and that you continue with your obvious lie is more proof for me. Are you so daft that you're unable to find the actual source of the quote? Are you not able to demonize that link like you can attempt with Sullivan? And fyi, Sullivan's site isn't even in the top two on google, DP is first BTW, which makes it just the one that you can demonize.

Actually I appreciate the truth; you just are unable to accept what is in front of your eyes.

[fj1200]

Interesting point ... still, perhaps a more productive approach would be to put 'FU' on ignore.

I'm sure there's nothing he'd hate more than that.

You two just can't get enough of me; Are you two suggesting that I've broken some rules?

[aboutime]

You two just can't get enough of me; Are you two suggesting that I've broken some rules?


True fj. In fact. We get so much of you. Here's a good place for us to find you. 5742
No need to suggest anything. Your endless need to defend yourself says just about all.

[red states rule]

You two just can't get enough of me


http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_4054244_j79wrksf2j.png

[red states rule]

True fj. In fact. We get so much of you. Here's a good place for us to find you. 5742
No need to suggest anything. Your endless need to defend yourself says just about all.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to aboutime again.

[Drummond]

You two just can't get enough of me; Are you two suggesting that I've broken some rules?

How about a moral one .. of telling the TRUTH ?

But never mind. It may well be that you lack any capability to understand.

Go back to reading Sullivan. Or to quoting from his blogs. Then see me discover that you've done so, AGAIN .. 'coincidentally' ...

I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

[red states rule]

How about a moral one .. of telling the TRUTH ?

But never mind. It may well be that you lack any capability to understand.

Go back to reading Sullivan. Or to quoting from his blogs. Then see me discover that you've done so, AGAIN .. 'coincidentally' ...

I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

You must admit FU is a better liar than Lance Armstrong

[fj1200]

How about a moral one .. of telling the TRUTH ?

But never mind. It may well be that you lack any capability to understand.

Go back to reading Sullivan. Or to quoting from his blogs. Then see me discover that you've done so, AGAIN .. 'coincidentally' ...

I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

You could point out where I haven't told the TRUTH but I'm sure you'll run away from this as well. So will you keep with the great Sullivan lie or will you try addressing the actual question:


Are you so daft that you're unable to find the actual source of the quote? Are you not able to demonize that link like you can attempt with Sullivan? And fyi, Sullivan's site isn't even in the top two on google, DP is first BTW, which makes it just the one that you can demonize.

[fj1200]

FU

I'm still in your head but I was wrong the first time. The parrot isn't dead, it's just in a moribund state from all the hate.

[red states rule]

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-captions-131.jpg

[Drummond]

You could point out where I haven't told the TRUTH but I'm sure you'll run away from this as well. So will you keep with the great Sullivan lie or will you try addressing the actual question:

What a waste of time you are. I'm convinced, now, that you're arguing because you love the attention.

Here's a blatant lie which you typed earlier ..

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43641-Conservatism-It-s-meanings-in-American-politic-its-true-opposition-to-Islam-terrorism&p=672803#post672803


I didn't rewrite anyone's post. I may have summarized but I didn't rewrite.

Seen in post #123 .. a supposed 'quote' from me, posted BY YOU ..

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43641-Conservatism-It-s-meanings-in-American-politic-its-true-opposition-to-Islam-terrorism&p=672633#post672633

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=672576#post672576)
Ignorant redundant blather.


I didn't type those words, despite your use of the quote facility, and this bearing the words 'Originally Posted by Drummond'. You did. The illustrated 'ignorance', and the lie of yours it led to, was your own in so doing.

Since this was done so blatantly, AND you've STILL chosen to lie about it, why should I take your word for anything ? Why, in fact, would any of us ?

No doubt your ego won't allow you to apologise, or do anything other than try to excuse yourself, or even reply with further denigrations or insults (.. whatever).

What a waste of time you are .. LEFTIE.

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=672576#post672576)
Ignorant redundant blather.


I didn't type those words, despite your use of the quote facility, and this bearing the words 'Originally Posted by Drummond'. You did. The illustrated 'ignorance', and the lie of yours it led to, was your own in so doing.

Yeah, that falls under "summarized," accurately I might add. :laugh:

It is amazing though how you can outright lie but I can't "summarize." If you weren't such a hypocrite it would be more humorous... still funny though. :laugh:

Still waiting though for you to admit that I didn't quote Sullivan,
for you to prove I'm a leftie, and
for you to provide a listing of conservatives who "oppose" me.

;)

[tailfins]

A thread to define, debate, criticize, moan about , cry about and general discuss conservatism and terrorism today in American politics but not absolutely limited to just American politics because a true history of conservatism will branch out well beyond just that limited scope. Dedicated to my friends Drummond and fj. ;) Take your best shots amigos. ;) I am guessing this could get quite interesting if both you guys care to participate. -;)--Tyr

I always thought of conservatism relating to precision, verifiably correct answers, attention to detail, victory, competence, pride in a job well done. So why all the sloppy prejudice regarding Islamic terrorism?

[aboutime]

fj, or fu is, by far. His own, worst enemy here.

Say hello to the gang in the ward for us. And, you have our permission to turn-on the tv fj.

[Arbo]

fj, or fu is, by far. His own, worst enemy here.

LOL. You and a few others are utter morons that offer nothing beyond pre-programed partisan hackery. FJ actually appears to think for himself. Something you all should grow up and learn. He'd wipe any of in the 'goon squad' off the table in a one on one debate.

Of course the rest of the squad would be in denial, but that's nothing new, as you pat each other on the back for stupidity with hand clap smilies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

A thread to define, debate, criticize, moan about , cry about and general discuss conservatism and terrorism today in American politics but not absolutely limited to just American politics because a true history of conservatism will branch out well beyond just that limited scope. Dedicated to my friends Drummond and fj. Take your best shots amigos. I am guessing this could get quite interesting if both you guys care to participate. ---Tyr I always thought of conservatism relating to precision, verifiably correct answers, attention to detail, victory, competence, pride in a job well done. So why all the sloppy prejudice regarding Islamic terrorism? So my total opposition to ---- Islamic terrorism--- is sloppy prejudice eh? I find that description greatly in error and certainly a biased judgment on your part. Care to describe your opposition to -- Islamic terrorism--- so I can compare the two?? Of course my judgment when and if I get to make that comparison will be highly biased simply because I know how greatly you have erred in your mistaken analysis of my stand against Islamic terrorism.- ;) By the way , I have a question for you. Why the attempted backhanded defense of Islamic terrorism??? -;) --Tyr

[Drummond]

Yeah, that falls under "summarized," accurately I might add. :laugh:

It is amazing though how you can outright lie but I can't "summarize." If you weren't such a hypocrite it would be more humorous... still funny though. :laugh:

Still waiting though for you to admit that I didn't quote Sullivan,
for you to prove I'm a leftie, and
for you to provide a listing of conservatives who "oppose" me.

;)

NO, FJ ... that won't do.

You used the 'quote' facility, and this introduced with the words 'Originally Posted by Drummond'. You then offered a REWRITTEN quote, using words I didn't use myself.

... so STOP LYING. You rewrote the quote - FACT. Anyone can see that you did this.

How on earth can I 'admit' you didn't quote Sullivan, when I've absolutely no reason whatever to doubt that you DID, and for the reasons I've now repeatedly explained ?

How on earth can I doubt you're a Left-winger, WHEN YOU HAVE THEIR SAME CONTEMPT FOR THE TRUTH ?

As for that list you keep on 'requiring' of Conservatives who oppose you, well, you are clearly blind to the opposition you've had on these very pages !!! ANOTHER reason to categorise you as a 'Leftie', since, just like one, you will only see what you want to see !!

What a waste of space you are.

[Drummond]

LOL. You and a few others are utter morons that offer nothing beyond pre-programed partisan hackery. FJ actually appears to think for himself. Something you all should grow up and learn. He'd wipe any of in the 'goon squad' off the table in a one on one debate.

Of course the rest of the squad would be in denial, but that's nothing new, as you pat each other on the back for stupidity with hand clap smilies.

What an eminently refutable set of assertions.

FJ so 'thinks for himself', that he copies the methodology used by a duplicitous online blogger, copies the material posted by one, and then shows all the contempt for truth that SO MANY on the Left wing see as bog standard behaviour !!

It bothers you that Conservatives can appreciate each others' posts, and show that appreciation ? Well, GET OVER IT. Your 'thought police' offering holds no sway here. People are free to do as they choose, not to march in lockstep with your preferences. If you're envious of such praise, my suggestion is that you post in such a way that some of that praise eventually goes to you.

[tailfins]

So my total opposition to ---- Islamic terrorism--- is sloppy prejudice eh? I find that description greatly in error and certainly a biased judgment on your part. Care to describe your opposition to -- Islamic terrorism--- so I can compare the two?? Of course my judgment when and if I get to make that comparison will be highly biased simply because I know how greatly you have erred in your mistaken analysis of my stand against Islamic terrorism.- ;) By the way , I have a question for you. Why the attempted backhanded defense of Islamic terrorism??? -;) --Tyr

No defense here. I'm for victory with a well planned, precision executed plan to break the back of Islamic terrorism. Giving dirty looks to the Middle Eastern guy that runs the corner convenience store brings us no closer to victory. If dropping nuclear weapons on Tehran would break the back of terrorism, I'm all for it. Sometimes I think you would rather see one dropped on Mecca just to make Muslims suffer as opposed winning to a strategic objective.

[Arbo]

What an eminently refutable set of assertions.

Then go one on one with him. It would be very entertaining.



It bothers you that Conservatives can appreciate each others' posts,

Partisan hacks are not 'conservatives', they are merely hacks that repeat the meal that has been feed to them. What is pathetically sad, is you (and those that do it) don't seem to realize how transparent the 'dumb old boy' network is that you have running. Applause for brainless babble and talking points, over and over, silly posts about not being able to give moron points to fellow old boy members. Yeah, you are right, you are free to say whatever you like, and in that look the part of a moron each and every time. I don't care about praise on an anonymous internet forum, that you do speaks to a retarded mental development and attention whoring.

You all are so far down the well of stupidity you can't even recognize where others stand politically… you all are stuck in the 'if they don't back slap and thump their bible with us, they are against us' mentality. That makes each and every one of the goons no better than the idiots on the left.

[gabosaurus]

fj, or fu is, by far. His own, worst enemy here.

Say hello to the gang in the ward for us. And, you have our permission to turn-on the tv fj.

Speaking of the gang in the ward, when was the last time you checked with the VA about your mental health? Korean War veterans are just as welcome as younger people.

[red states rule]

Then go one on one with him. It would be very entertaining.



Partisan hacks are not 'conservatives', they are merely hacks that repeat the meal that has been feed to them. What is pathetically sad, is you (and those that do it) don't seem to realize how transparent the 'dumb old boy' network is that you have running. Applause for brainless babble and talking points, over and over, silly posts about not being able to give moron points to fellow old boy members. Yeah, you are right, you are free to say whatever you like, and in that look the part of a moron each and every time. I don't care about praise on an anonymous internet forum, that you do speaks to a retarded mental development and attention whoring.

You all are so far down the well of stupidity you can't even recognize where others stand politically… you all are stuck in the 'if they don't back slap and thump their bible with us, they are against us' mentality. That makes each and every one of the goons no better than the idiots on the left.

Reminds me of one of Virgil's Greatest Hits.

And anyone who disagrees with him is a moron

Trust me, the last thing you have to worry about is being praised here

[red states rule]

Speaking of the gang in the ward, when was the last time you checked with the VA about your mental health? Korean War veterans are just as welcome as younger people.

You have majored in mathematics in college Gabby - you are an expert in that field

You add trouble

Subtract pleasure

Divide attention

Multiply ignorance

[Arbo]

And anyone who disagrees with him is a moron

More of the same lame projection from one of the guys that can't think for himself. It would be sad if it wasn't so damn funny.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No defense here. I'm for victory with a well planned, precision executed plan to break the back of Islamic terrorism. Giving dirty looks to the Middle Eastern guy that runs the corner convenience store brings us no closer to victory. If dropping nuclear weapons on Tehran would break the back of terrorism, I'm all for it. Sometimes I think you would rather see one dropped on Mecca just to make Muslims suffer as opposed winning to a strategic objective. Don't forget Medina.. :laugh: A twofer is almost always a better choice. ;) No, what I prefer is that we "infidel Americans" wake up to the threat and take the proper preemptive actions necessary for our survival. Yet we have our own government an other infidel shills constantly telling us the threat is just our imagination and/or mad ravings coming from crazy paranoid people!!!! This after 9/11 should ring false and hollow but I see that it gains ground. That's because its always easier to ignore a threat but the price eventually paid for that is usually tragic and utter defeat. --Tyr

[tailfins]

Don't forget Medina.. :laugh: A twofer is almost always a better choice. ;) No, what I prefer is that we "infidel Americans" wake up to the threat and take the proper preemptive actions necessary for our survival. Yet we have our own government an other infidel shills constantly telling us the threat is just our imagination and/or mad ravings coming from crazy paranoid people!!!! This after 9/11 should ring false and hollow but I see that it gains ground. That's because its always easier to ignore a threat but the price eventually paid for that is usually tragic and utter defeat. --Tyr

Good Military Science and good military intelligence can hardly be called crazy and paranoid.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Good Military Science and good military intelligence can hardly be called crazy and paranoid. Are you daring to seriously suggest that USA nuke one of the two holiest cities in all of Islamville!!!???? If you are , then I must say this with all sincerity and great appreciation , bravo welcome to the club!! --:beer:-- :laugh:---Tyr

[fj1200]

NO, FJ ... that won't do.

How on earth can I 'admit' you didn't quote Sullivan...

As for that list you keep on 'requiring' of Conservatives who oppose you...

:laugh: You don't get to be the judge. Point out where I broke the rules; I'll even post the relevant portion for you:


Quoting Posts - Members should not use the "quote" function to alter what another member has actually stated without making it clear to the reader that they have changed the quoted text.

So in lieu of you not being able to show where I've broken the rules, point out which ignorant rube of a board member, for you must think that there is one, that was so taken by my treachery ;) that they would think that you took the opportunity to call your own posts, "ignorant redundant blather." Considering who your cohorts are I'm sure at least one of them falls into that category. :slap:

You can admit that I didn't quote Sullivan because I didn't and you have no evidence other than your ignorant ramblings that I did. :) If Sullivan happens to agree with me on torture then I'm all for it but considering that you share your views with Hitler, Goebbels, and various middle eastern dictators... I'm OK siding with Ron and Mags on the issue. ;)

So you won't back up your own words and post the list. OK, not that I expected any different.


... copies the material posted by one, and then shows all the contempt for truth that SO MANY on the Left wing see as bog standard behaviour !!

Your 'thought police' offering...

Oh the irony. :laugh: Correction of your lies; I didn't copy anything from Sullivan and I have contempt for you and your denial of truth.

[tailfins]

Are you daring to seriously suggest that USA nuke one of the two holiest cities in all of Islamville!!!???? If you are , then I must say this with all sincerity and great appreciation , bravo welcome to the club!! --:beer:-- :laugh:---Tyr

What's holy about Tehran? It's the capital of Iran, a state sponsor or terrorism.

[fj1200]

Then go one on one with him. It would be very entertaining.

Of course it would have to be with the understanding that he doesn't get to engage in his bog-standard tactics of lies, demonizing, and personal attacks. Staying on point hasn't been his strong point thus far.

[fj1200]

No, what I prefer is that we "infidel Americans" wake up to the threat and take the proper preemptive actions necessary for our survival.

Which would bring us back to your OP. What is the Constitutional, conservative response to Islam? What is the Constitutional, conservative response to terrorism?

[Arbo]

Of course it would have to be with the understanding that he doesn't get to engage in his bog-standard tactics of lies, demonizing, and personal attacks. Staying on point hasn't been his strong point thus far.

What does that leave them with?

[fj1200]

^You're lucky I wasn't drinking coffee. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which would bring us back to your OP. What is the Constitutional, conservative response to Islam? What is the Constitutional, conservative response to terrorism? It certainly isn't --" workplace violence " Obama type lying. That's to direct opposite of the correct response. Directly in opposition to what conservatives want IMHO. CAN NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM UNTIL ADMITTING THAT IT EXISTS! As I've noted before ,only one religion here poses a direct and current threat to this nation and that is Islam. It should be dealt with legally but Islam and its appeasers are seeing to it that its not dealt with. In fact, they are buying their way into politics and corrupting even more that arena. We should be noticing how Obama advances and aids all the groups in this nation that are out to destroy it. The NBPP, the Islamists, La Raza, etc.. Until Obama is out of power nothing will be done . In fact, those trying will be punished by him and his crew of traitors. Fact.--Tyr

[Arbo]

It certainly isn't --" workplace violence " Obama type lying. That's to direct opposite of the correct response. Directly in opposition to what conservatives want IMHO. CAN NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM UNTIL ADMITTING THAT IT EXISTS! As I've noted before ,only one religion here poses a direct and current threat to this nation and that is Islam. It should be dealt with legally but Islam and its appeasers are seeing to it that its not dealt with. In fact, they are buying their way into politics and corrupting even more that arena. We should be noticing how Obama advances and aids all the groups in this nation that are out to destroy it. The NBPP, the Islamists, La Raza, etc.. Until Obama is out of power nothing will be done . In fact, those trying will be punished by him and his crew of traitors. Fact.--Tyr

Since I'd like to know the answer to FJ's question, and you sort of dodged all around it, I'll ask it again:

What is the Constitutional, conservative response to Islam? What is the Constitutional, conservative response to terrorism?

[Drummond]

Then go one on one with him. It would be very entertaining.

Most of your post isn't worth responding to. I've just quoted the bit that MAY be ...

What would going 'one on one' with FJ achieve (.. quite apart from the fact that past threads have become something akin to that anyway, at times ?) .. ?

When I argue with FJ, I get denials of the agenda he advances .. I get denials that posts which clearly are interpretable in a particular way, really SHOULD BE ... and then the troll stuff starts. Insults. Denigrations. Redirections, meant to redirect away from those challenges he finds too awkward to meet. Reproductions of text, pathetically crossed out. Or even rewritten entirely, as has very recently been the case (.. oh, he calls them 'summaries', regardless of THE USE OF THE QUOTATION FACILITY ..). In short .. FJ indulges in all the tricks he can think of to win through, using fair means OR FOUL.

This might, I grant you, seem 'fun' or 'entertaining'. But what it also is, is futile. What I've described is not fair and decent debate in the slightest.

I see only one good outcome likely from any of that ... the outing of a supposed 'conservative' as the 'Sullivan clone' he truly is ...

... except that this goal has already been met, it seems to me.

So, what's the point ?

[Arbo]

What would going 'one on one' with FJ achieve (.. quite apart from the fact that past threads have become something akin to that anyway, at times ?) .. ?

A structured debate, each has so many responses, judged by all other forum members at the end. Calling people liars and uppercase don't win such things, logic and reason do. So I can see why you may fear such a thing. :laugh:

[fj1200]

It certainly isn't --" workplace violence " Obama type lying. That's to direct opposite of the correct response. Directly in opposition to what conservatives want IMHO. CAN NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM UNTIL ADMITTING THAT IT EXISTS! As I've noted before ,only one religion here poses a direct and current threat to this nation and that is Islam. It should be dealt with legally...

I thought you had essentially agreed with the case put forth by Log re: Ft. Hood; I think conviction was the overriding priority there. Nevertheless I'll agree that you can't solve a problem until you admit that it exists but you also have to define the problem before you can address it; government is very good at "solving" symptoms without addressing... :laugh: Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face there, there not really good at solving anything. And it isn't necessarily what "conservatives want," it's what is the conservative response to... There is a difference there.

[Drummond]

:laugh: You don't get to be the judge.

Assuming the intervention of active moderation, you may have a point. Assuming that none occurs, then I get to use my own mind to think, judge and conclude just as I choose.


Point out where I broke the rules; I'll even post the relevant portion for you:


Quoting Posts - Members should not use the "quote" function to alter what another member has actually stated without making it clear to the reader that they have changed the quoted text.

Very good. I mean, really, it is. Splendid, even ...

Now thumb back to post #123 (.. here, let me help .. use this link ...) ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43641-Conservatism-It-s-meanings-in-American-politic-its-true-opposition-to-Islam-terrorism&p=672633#post672633

What do you see ??

Do you not see, represented ....



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=672576#post672576)
Ignorant redundant blather.



Now, these are not my words. Regardless, plain as day, you can see THAT THE QUOTATION FACILITY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR THEM !!

What, FJ, is the point of the rule you cite, if it's not to ensure that whenever the quotation facility is used, it accurately represents what a poster has previously posted ?? I mean, what could be clearer, more irrefutable, than that it begins with ...

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND

But, FJ, it WASN'T.

Since you're so fond of mucking about with text, be it pathetic crossings-out of it, or 'just' complete redrafts .. why didn't you do the same with ..

"ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND" ... ???

Why did you leave THAT alone ? H'mm .. ?

Fact is, FJ, that you have no respect at all for fair debate, or, indeed, for the rules of this forum. You evidently, for all to see, DID use the quote facility, and you DID change the supposed 'quote' out of all recognition from anything I'd posted.

At minimum, therefore, I say that you're culpable for being cavalier with forum rules.


So in lieu of you not being able to show where I've broken the rules, point out which ignorant rube of a board member, for you must think that there is one, that was so taken by my treachery ;) that they would think that you took the opportunity to call your own posts, "ignorant redundant blather." Considering who your cohorts are I'm sure at least one of them falls into that category. :slap:

Such is your arrogance that, even when playing roughshod with the letter of the forum rules, you even find time for another bit of sniping.


You can admit that I didn't quote Sullivan because I didn't and you have no evidence other than your ignorant ramblings that I did.

I have posted the link leading directly to Sullivan's blog piece AT LEAST twice, and I'm getting fed up of doing so !!! Please don't waste my time with these denials, they achieve nothing.


If Sullivan happens to agree with me on torture then I'm all for it

Well, quite. LEFTIE that he is ....


but considering that you share your views with Hitler, Goebbels, and various middle eastern dictators

What, this, AGAIN ? Has someone handed you a script to work from ?

Besides, there are Middle Eastern dictators out there who've had murky connections WITH terrorists. Saddam immediately comes to mind as a bankroller of Hamas ...


I'm OK siding with Ron and Mags on the issue. ;)

... as, indeed, is Sullivan ... IN THE FURTHERANCE OF HIS LEFT WING AGENDA !!!

'Ron and Mags', as you refer to them, weren't in positions of high authority when 9/11 happened. The full disgusting horror of terrorist subhumanity wasn't properly revealed back in their day. So ... I say, stop messing about with contextual settings, and face the stark TRUTH.


So you won't back up your own words and post the list. OK, not that I expected any different.

-- Redirection ? You do a lot of it.

You HAVE such opposition, on these very pages !! Just review the thread, and do so honestly. There's all the answer you need.


I didn't copy anything from Sullivan

Enough of this.

PROVE TO US BEYOND DOUBT THAT YOU DIDN'T. DON'T DUCK THIS CHALLENGE ... MEET IT.

[fj1200]

When I argue with FJ...

Oh get over yourself. This is your first post to me in this thread and it didn't come close to attempting to stay on topic and what was on topic was lost in all of your "leftie" babble.


... recognisably LEFT WING attitude... Jimmy Carter... Obama... Gitmo closed, ... Lefties...

... the Left ...

... a Leftie ... a British Left-wing rag...

... is Andrew Sullivan ... the bog standard Leftie ...

... the Morning Star, the UK's one Communist newspaper. Or from John Pilger, ... a known Left winger ...

... RATHER MORE LEFT WING WHEN IT DOESN'T.

...... A LEFT WING POSITION. ... your adherence to Conservatism is ONLY as solid as your whim of the moment .. and you'll happily try to sell a LEFT WING thought process as something OTHER than what it is.

... a Leftie ...

From post one in this thread you were wholly incapable of discussing the issue straight up. Face it, even with your crutch you're still hobbling along.

[Drummond]

A structured debate, each has so many responses, judged by all other forum members at the end. Calling people liars and uppercase don't win such things, logic and reason do. So I can see why you may fear such a thing. :laugh:

Truly an excellent point, Arbo. Well stated.

Perhaps FJ would like to save himself some embarrassing hassle (.. even were I to indulge in an exercise this futile with him) and concede to me right now ?? :lol::lol::dance::laugh:

[Drummond]

Oh get over yourself. This is your first post to me in this thread and it didn't come close to attempting to stay on topic and what was on topic was lost in all of your "leftie" babble.



From post one in this thread you were wholly incapable of discussing the issue straight up. Face it, even with your crutch you're still hobbling along.

The truth hurts, eh, FJ ?:laugh:

[fj1200]

Assuming the intervention of active moderation, you may have a point.

Of course I do, it's how things work especially when it's been shown how poorly you judge truth.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=672576#post672576)
Ignorant redundant blather.

I love that you keep posting that. :)

Why did you leave THAT alone ? H'mm .. ?

Fact is, FJ, that you have no respect at all for fair debate, or, indeed, for the rules of this forum. You evidently, for all to see, DID use the quote facility, and you DID change the supposed 'quote' out of all recognition from anything I'd posted.

... you're culpable for being cavalier with forum rules.

You do realize don't you that the particular field in question is not editable? It seems not. Nevertheless your inability to engage in fair debate, see previous post, leads me to having fun with what you post and it is perfectly within my purview to both edit for brevity and to summarize. So, your challenge to avoid is show where I have broken the rules. Or are you just going to sit back and be all puffy about my "cavalier" attitude. :laugh:

Such is your arrogance that, even when playing roughshod with the letter of the forum rules, you even find time for another bit of sniping.

So you do think one of your cohorts was taken in by my treachery? Do tell.

I have posted the link leading directly to Sullivan's blog piece AT LEAST twice, and I'm getting fed up of doing so !!! Please don't waste my time with these denials, they achieve nothing. .... Well, quite. LEFTIE that he is ....

I don't care if you mailed me a paper copy of his post it only shows what he linked to so... Show me where I quoted Sullivan. Oh that's right, you can't so you have to blather on about how he's a leftie like Ronaldus and the Thatchinator.

What, this, AGAIN ? Has someone handed you a script to work from ?

Besides, there are Middle Eastern dictators out there who've had murky connections WITH terrorists. Saddam immediately comes to mind as a bankroller of Hamas ...

Yes, truth again. Deflecting with Saddam now?

... as, indeed, is Sullivan ... IN THE FURTHERANCE OF HIS LEFT WING AGENDA !!!

'Ron and Mags', as you refer to them, weren't in positions of high authority when 9/11 happened. The full disgusting horror of terrorist subhumanity wasn't properly revealed back in their day. So ... I say, stop messing about with contextual settings, and face the stark TRUTH.

The TRUTH is that they were against torture. You apparently think so low of Mags that the Iron Lady would bend to a lower enemy.

-- Redirection ? You do a lot of it.

You HAVE such opposition, on these very pages !! Just review the thread, and do so honestly. There's all the answer you need.

Asking you to prove your posit is redirection? That's pretty sad that you think so considering all of your hyperbolded rantings to meet challenges. ;)

Enough of this.

PROVE TO US BEYOND DOUBT THAT YOU DIDN'T. DON'T DUCK THIS CHALLENGE ... MEET IT.

You don't seem to understand what burden of proof is and on whom it lies. :dunno: Nevertheless I posted the link ages ago.

[fj1200]

... concede to me right now

Proclaiming victory without even engaging in debate; nice leftie move right there.


The truth hurts, eh, FJ ?

:confused: Doesn't hurt me.

[Arbo]

Now, these are not my words.

Anyone with a functioning brain knew that, and understood what he did was sum up your words… which were ignorant blather. It was clear he wasn't breaking the rule by making it appear you said something you never said, he was making fun of your post. Catch up. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Perhaps FJ would like to save himself some embarrassing hassle (.. even were I to indulge in an exercise this futile with him) and concede to me right now ??

So you will avoid being embarrassed by saying it is futile? Pretty lame. Your own thread, just the two of you, whatever topic… you all pick sides, and pick who starts, you each get a certain number of replies to state your side and counter what the other says, one posts, one replies, back and forth for the predetermined # of messages. Nobody get's to spam the thread or pat backs. Mano e mano.

If you think you actually understand what reason and logic are, go for it. I think it would be a slaughter. And you wouldn't be the one doing the slaughtering.

[Drummond]

Of course I do, it's how things work especially when it's been shown how poorly you judge truth.

Ludicrous. I have never ONCE judged you to be a 'Conservative' ... fantasist claim of yours though that is ....


I love that you keep posting that. :)

I don't particularly mind doing so, myself ! Any and all examples proving your true worth here, to say nothing of your refusal to concede your argument's weakness that's staring you in the face, these are worth doing.


You do realize don't you that the particular field in question is not editable?

Completely immaterial. The point surely is ....

WHY USE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE ???


Nevertheless your inability to engage in fair debate, see previous post, leads me to having fun with what you post and it is perfectly within my purview to both edit for brevity and to summarize.

... and you skate over those tell-tale words, words you need never have called upon, NOR SHOULD HAVE (.. facility likewise !) .... which said ...

'ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND'


So, your challenge to avoid is show where I have broken the rules. Or are you just going to sit back and be all puffy about my "cavalier" attitude. :laugh:

Have I not already covered that ? Quotations are meant to be accurate reproductions of what it is you're quoting, hence the rule you posted .. and not total inventions !!!

'ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND'... should mean what it says, and not be subverted into becoming something different.


So you do think one of your cohorts was taken in by my treachery? Do tell.

My so-called 'cohorts' (YOUR term, not mine) are altogether too intelligent to be taken in by liberal idiocy. However liberal idiocy, being just that, cannot come to terms with that reality.
Wouldn't you agree, FJ ? And ... if not ... WHY not ? :lol:

I don't care if you mailed me a paper copy of his post it only shows what he linked to so... Show me where I quoted Sullivan. Oh that's right, you can't so you have to blather on about how he's a leftie like Ronaldus and the Thatchinator.

Is this your way of ducking the challenge I required you to MEET ?

Let me refresh your conveniently (amazingly so) shoddy memory ...


Enough of this.

PROVE TO US BEYOND DOUBT THAT YOU DIDN'T. DON'T DUCK THIS CHALLENGE ... MEET IT.


Deflecting with Saddam now?

I'm reminding you that your scripted piece is actually shot full of holes.


The TRUTH is that they were against torture. You apparently think so low of Mags that the Iron Lady would bend to a lower enemy.

The TRUTH is that part of what they were required to consider, and to definitively rule on for their respective countries, is where they stood on the subject in terms of their understanding of international law.

[Drummond]

Proclaiming victory without even engaging in debate; nice leftie move right there.

You want to claim that you're my mentor ?!?


:confused: Doesn't hurt me.

Perhaps, then, if you had a better acquaintance with it .. ? :p

[fj1200]

Ludicrous.

I agree.


... I required you to MEET ?

:laugh:

Show where I quoted Sullivan,
show me my leftie positions, and
show me conservatives who "oppose" me.

Anything else is just more round-and-round.

[fj1200]

You want to claim that you're my mentor ?!?

Perhaps, then, if you had a better acquaintance with it .. ? :p

:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Anyone with a functioning brain knew that, and understood what he did was sum up your words… which were ignorant blather. It was clear he wasn't breaking the rule by making it appear you said something you never said, he was making fun of your post. Catch up. :laugh:

'ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND'

--- Catch up ! :laugh:

[Drummond]

I agree.



:laugh:

Show where I quoted Sullivan,
show me my leftie positions, and
show me conservatives who "oppose" me.

Anything else is just more round-and-round.

Oh dear. You just can't avoid ducking my challenges, can you ?

YOU show ME, BEYOND DOUBT, that you DID NOT quote Sullivan.

And in conceding your total inability to do any such thing (.. except that all you'll do is duck it !), you show me how your evident reverence for a duplicitous Left-wing blogger fails to be evidence of your true Left-wing sympathies.

Show you conservatives who oppose you ? You want me to show you this thread ???!?

[Arbo]

'ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DRUMMOND'

--- Catch up ! :laugh:

You laugh, when it is you that is not understanding. THAT is humorous. Thanks for continuing your misplaced outrage that comes about due to your inability to understand.


YOU show ME, BEYOND DOUBT, that you DID NOT quote Sullivan.

So you don't understand how that works either? If you accuse someone of something, it is your burden to prove it. So clueless.

[fj1200]

Oh dear. You just can't avoid ducking my challenges, can you ?

YOU show ME, BEYOND DOUBT, that you DID NOT quote Sullivan.

Oh my.


You don't seem to understand what burden of proof is and on whom it lies. :dunno: Nevertheless I posted the link ages ago.


Show where I quoted Sullivan,
show me my leftie positions, and
show me conservatives who "oppose" me.

Anything else is just more round-and-round.

:dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought you had essentially agreed with the case put forth by Log re: Ft. Hood; I think conviction was the overriding priority there. Nevertheless I'll agree that you can't solve a problem until you admit that it exists but you also have to define the problem before you can address it; government is very good at "solving" symptoms without addressing... :laugh: Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face there, there not really good at solving anything. And it isn't necessarily what "conservatives want," it's what is the conservative response to... There is a difference there. Not sure what post you've read of mine but I don't recall ever agreeing that Obama's lying is alright. Although I have agreed with logroller before. Conservatism is more about what the response should be instead of what it is at times. These days Conservatives are compromising far too damn much for my tastes. A sign of the times I guess. --Tyr

[red states rule]

The FU and Virgil show continues to roll along


http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000776685/polls_elitism_4337_515938_poll_xlarge.jpeg

[Drummond]

You laugh, when it is you that is not understanding. THAT is humorous. Thanks for continuing your misplaced outrage that comes about due to your inability to understand.

Absurd. 'Originally posted by Drummond' either means what it says, or, it doesn't.

IF IT DOESN'T ... THEN WE SEE A LIE.

[/COLOR]So you don't understand how that works either? If you accuse someone of something, it is your burden to prove it. So clueless.

No 'accusation' is involved. My search for FJ's signature wording led me to the Sullivan blog site. FJ chooses to deny the link that is obvious.

FJ should have a greater regard for the truth. THAT is the issue.

[red states rule]

No 'accusation' is involved. My search for FJ's signature wording led me to the Sullivan blog site. FJ chooses to deny the link that is obvious.

FJ should have a greater regard for the truth. THAT is the issue.

You have to remember FU and Virgil are cut from the same mold as their leader Obama

http://www.moonbattery.com/Liberal.jpg

[Drummond]

Oh my.

And there we have it. You just can't do any better than this, in refuting what's obvious.

Yet another cop-out. Why am I not surprised ?

[red states rule]

And there we have it. You just can't do any better than this, in refuting what's obvious.

Yet another cop-out. Why am I not surprised ? [/QUOTE]

Drummond, by now you know it is a lost cause to try and talk to either FU or Virgil.

http://p.twimg.com/AzjG1F1CMAAj4A4.jpg:large

[Drummond]

... tell you what, FJ ....

Since you deny getting your wording from Sullivan's blog piece (.. unless you now wish, finally, to ADMIT to it ??) ... why not prove to us where you 'did' get it from ?

I find it suspicious in the extreme, FJ, that in all your posts where you've challenged me, NOT ONCE have you VOLUNTEERED ANY OTHER LINK to show the 'source' of the wording. Now - UNLESS I'VE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT 'FAILURE' ..???

[Drummond]

Drummond, by now you know it is a lost cause to try and talk to either FU or Virgil.



http://p.twimg.com/AzjG1F1CMAAj4A4.jpg:large[/QUOTE]

... YES. Don't I just !!!

I'm preparing to go to work (around 9:15AM where I am ..) ... so I'm leaving this site for most of the day (I might drop in to scan a couple of threads, though).

Have a great day - I'll revisit properly later tonight.

[red states rule]

http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/files/2013/02/the-opposite-of-what-american-liberals-do.jpg

[fj1200]

Not sure what post you've read of mine but I don't recall ever agreeing that Obama's lying is alright. Although I have agreed with logroller before. Conservatism is more about what the response should be instead of what it is at times. These days Conservatives are compromising far too damn much for my tastes. A sign of the times I guess. --Tyr

I don't recall what BO said about the subject but you do agree with getting a conviction right? Core conservatism should remain consistent in dealing with fact and not emotion; what should conservatism's Constitutional response be to Islam/terrorism?

[fj1200]

FU


FU


FU

It's OK, let out the frustrations of your life in here. That you have an unhealthy fetish regarding former members is quite telling though. It's a shame that you are what passes for a conservative to some around here. :dunno:

Kill the parrot dude, kill the parrot...

[Arbo]

The FU and Virgil show continues to roll along

Oh look, another of the good squad has come along to take up the concept that I am a sock by calling me a previous users name. And of course trying to push what that user was on me.

Not only ignorant, but already disproven by the owner repeatedly. But the good squad continues to try the same old things over and over.

Yes, FJ is correct, you are an embarrassment to those on the right.

[fj1200]

No 'accusation' is involved. My search for FJ's signature wording led me to the Sullivan blog site. FJ chooses to deny the link that is obvious.

FJ should have a greater regard for the truth. THAT is the issue.

Point out where I denied the link on Sullivan's blog. Own your failure. Or are you so stupid that you're unable to follow through to the original? Are you not able to demonize that link?


And there we have it. You just can't do any better than this, in refuting what's obvious.

Yet another cop-out. Why am I not surprised ?

I've already proven your failure. I'll remind you with this summary:


You don't seem to understand what burden of proof is and on whom it lies. :dunno: Nevertheless I posted the link ages ago.


Show where I quoted Sullivan,
show me my leftie positions, and
show me conservatives who "oppose" me.

Anything else is just more round-and-round.


... tell you what, FJ ....

:edgeofmyseat:


I find it suspicious in the extreme, FJ, that in all your posts where you've challenged me, NOT ONCE have you VOLUNTEERED ANY OTHER LINK to show the 'source' of the wording.

I've already provided the link, that you fail to look for it is not really my fault now is it? Suspicious in the extreme. :laugh:

[fj1200]

... the concept that I am a sock by calling me a previous users name.

Not only ignorant, but already disproven by the owner repeatedly. But the good squad continues to try the same old things over and over.

Yes, FJ is correct, you are an embarrassment to those on the right.

It's not really a sock argument, he's just overly compensating for his failure to actually have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't drink his koolaid. The more it's shown that he fails the more he reaches for the most egregious former posters. It starts out with you just being a "liberal," the next step of course being "lap dog," then it moves on to being just like OCA (Obnoxious Condescending A'hole), with the final mark of his inabilities is declaring someone just like "Virgil."

That's almost the sure sign that you've won the argument against his blather and that he will soon go on another self-imposed sabbatical where he hopes that everyone will forget he doesn't really have anything other than 3 TBs of cartoons on his hard drive. Quite sad methinks.

[Arbo]

It's not really a sock argument, he's just overly compensating for his failure to actually have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't drink his koolaid. The more it's shown that he fails the more he reaches for the most egregious former posters. It starts out with you just being a "liberal," the next step of course being "lap dog," then it moves on to being just like OCA (Obnoxious Condescending A'hole), with the final mark of his inabilities is declaring someone just like "Virgil."

That's almost the sure sign that you've won the argument against his blather and that he will soon go on another self-imposed sabbatical where he hopes that everyone will forget he doesn't really have anything other than 3 TBs of cartoons on his hard drive. Quite sad methinks.

The last sabbatical was quite nice, as far more actual discussion occurred.

[tailfins]

It's not really a sock argument, he's just overly compensating for his failure to actually have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't drink his koolaid. The more it's shown that he fails the more he reaches for the most egregious former posters. It starts out with you just being a "liberal," the next step of course being "lap dog," then it moves on to being just like OCA (Obnoxious Condescending A'hole), with the final mark of his inabilities is declaring someone just like "Virgil."

That's almost the sure sign that you've won the argument against his blather and that he will soon go on another self-imposed sabbatical where he hopes that everyone will forget he doesn't really have anything other than 3 TBs of cartoons on his hard drive. Quite sad methinks.

Why do you care? If you don't like someone, you can flip them the bird and move on. It takes much less effort.

[Drummond]

Point out where I denied the link on Sullivan's blog.

FINALLY - YOU ADMIT IT !!!!

OR, WERE YOU JUST CARELESS IN YOUR WORDING ?

EITHER WAY -- YOU'VE FINALLY DONE IT. THANK YOU !!!!

Better late than never.

Now, if you'd care to take that final step and admit you're a liberal thinker, NOT a Conservative, so much the better.

But still .. if you'd like, that can wait for another time - I don't want to spoil the moment. Congratulations in FINALLY COMING CLEAN.

[Arbo]

F
Now, if you'd care to take that final step and admit you're a liberal thinker, NOT a Conservative, so much the better.

You really are a moron that has never actually read a single post of his, aren't you?

[fj1200]

FINALLY - YOU ADMIT IT !!!!

OR, WERE YOU JUST CARELESS IN YOUR WORDING ?

:rolleyes: My, my you're not smart. I never denied you went trolling and found a link on Sullivan's blog all the while ignoring the actual source of the quote. I never linked to Sullivan's blog and that remains true.

[fj1200]

You really are a moron that has never actually read a single post of his, aren't you?

Silly boy, don't you know that he can read through my posts to my underlying agenda??? :laugh:

drummond fodder

[Arbo]

Silly boy, don't you know that he can read through my posts to my underlying agenda??? :laugh:

drummond fodder

Nice bit of sarcasm. Of course the reality is he can barely put together a clear thought. Just look at all the bolding and large letters needed. Very 6 year old stuff.

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: My, my you're not smart. I never denied you went trolling and found a link on Sullivan's blog all the while ignoring the actual source of the quote. I never linked to Sullivan's blog and that remains true.

Nice try, but now you're backsliding. A pity .. there was real hope for you, short lived though it was ...

In reply to ...


My search for FJ's signature wording led me to the Sullivan blog site. FJ chooses to deny the link ...

... YOU posted ...


Point out where I denied the link on Sullivan's blog.

... which speaks for itself. I had SAID that I used your wording, searched with it, and found the Sullivan blog site from that, as indeed I had. You, however, chose to deny that this was the source of your quote. Hence my wording, 'FJ chooses to deny the link'

Then YOU posted as you did.

So, then. An admission, which you have now withdrawn from ! Tut tut. You know, for a moment there, it looked like some ray of sunshine might've crept into your soul, and some truth had emerged.

I think it very briefly did. Then, your liberalism took hold, and we're right back to your propagandist rubbish.

But perhaps you just like to play games, and I'm giving you too much credit.

[Drummond]

Nice bit of sarcasm. Of course the reality is he can barely put together a clear thought. Just look at all the bolding and large letters needed. Very 6 year old stuff.

Oh dear. Lefties banding together, swapping denigrations ??

Very 6 year old stuff.

A funny aspect of all this is that FJ, in trying to sell himself as a so-called 'conservative', keeps challenging for a list of Conservatives who oppose him. Yet, what does this very thread reveal ? OPPOSITION FROM CONSERVATIVES - WHICH HE REMAINS 'BLIND' TO (!!) .... and SUPPORT FROM THE LEFT !

No doubt this'll draw more denials, black will be white, the earth will be declared flat, the moon is made of cheese, Obama's a decent President, etc etc etc :laugh:

[aboutime]

Oh dear. Lefties banding together, swapping denigrations ??

Very 6 year old stuff.

A funny aspect of all this is that FJ, in trying to sell himself as a so-called 'conservative', keeps challenging for a list of Conservatives who oppose him. Yet, what does this very thread reveal ? OPPOSITION FROM CONSERVATIVES - WHICH HE REMAINS 'BLIND' TO (!!) .... and SUPPORT FROM THE LEFT !

No doubt this'll draw more denials, black will be white, the earth will be declared flat, the moon is made of cheese, Obama's a decent President, etc etc etc :laugh:


Sir Drummond. Now it's time to just....let them go. Let them continue unabated in everything they believe, and say.
The members who read their endless Drool, and BS, know very well what, and who they are trying to be. And, who they think they are.
Let them roll. Give them the floor. Allow them to prove what Abe Lincoln, and several of the Founding Fathers have said about people like them.
They have nothing. Only more of the same Nothing.

[fj1200]

Nice try, but now you're backsliding.

:laugh: Whatever you need to convince yourself that you're unable to back up your lies.


... keeps challenging for a list of Conservatives who oppose him. Yet, what does this very thread reveal ? OPPOSITION FROM CONSERVATIVES...

A listing your unable?/unwilling? to provide? That would of course take away another of your talking points that you blather on about but fail to provide support for because you know that they have no justification besides blind ignorance. Besides, I have conservatives attest to my positions all the time, you just explain them away with your imagination. And I'll point out that I've only been challenged by "conservatives," actual conservatives would be able to have a conversation without relying on crutches.

[Arbo]

Lefties banding together, swapping denigrations ??

I love every time one of the goon squad members rants on about others being 'lefties'. Because it shows their ignorance, or inability to read things other write.

[Drummond]

:laugh: Whatever you need to convince yourself that you're unable to back up your lies.

Our interactions on this and other threads speak for themselves. I am convinced that they attest to your TRUE bona fides, not that which you claim for yourself.


A listing your unable?/unwilling? to provide? That would of course take away another of your talking points that you blather on about but fail to provide support for because you know that they have no justification besides blind ignorance. Besides, I have conservatives attest to my positions all the time, you just explain them away with your imagination. And I'll point out that I've only been challenged by "conservatives," actual conservatives would be able to have a conversation without relying on crutches.

Anyone reading JUST this thread will readily see that you DO have Conservatives opposing you .. and that the only solid support you're getting is from those who have a record of combating Conservatives. So no such list as that which you pointlessly request would really serve a useful purpose if provided, since the case is already - and at great and tiresome length - proven !

Your many (- so many !! -) insults, etc, have no ultimate power to persuade. Quite the opposite, if anything. TRUTH, however, DOES, and any examination of this and other threads where you've been active will readily reveal your true nature.

Aboutime is right. No purpose is served in debating with you (.. other than a certain amusement value ?). Even on those rare occasions when you do decide to come clean (amid all the many insults, jibes, and the like) .. you backslide afterwards. Evidently, to you - as is true of liberals more generally - truth is a highly malleable commodity, even a dispensable one entirely.

[Drummond]

I love every time one of the goon squad members rants on about others being 'lefties'.

It's heartening to see that even a Leftie can appreciate the truth when faced with it. Well done !!:clap:

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Now it's time to just....let them go. Let them continue unabated in everything they believe, and say.
The members who read their endless Drool, and BS, know very well what, and who they are trying to be. And, who they think they are.
Let them roll. Give them the floor. Allow them to prove what Abe Lincoln, and several of the Founding Fathers have said about people like them.
They have nothing. Only more of the same Nothing.:clap::clap::clap:

Well said.

[red states rule]

Oh look, another of the good squad

:laugh2:

[red states rule]

It's heartening to see that even a Leftie can appreciate the truth when faced with it. Well done !!:clap:

Goon squad or good squad? The poor boy cannot seem to make up his mind

[red states rule]

Why do you care? If you don't like someone, you can flip them the bird and move on. It takes much less effort.

Great point. Of course FU always offers up unwanted and unsolicited advice but fails to take it himself

Please note I was trying to be polite and civil to him at that time - but it was a lost cause

Please start with post #31

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38752-ConHog-s-back/page3&highlight=conhog

[Arbo]

It's heartening to see that even a Leftie can appreciate the truth when faced with it. Well done !!:clap:

My lord, you really are as clueless as you appear to be. I didn't think such a thing was possible.


always offers up unwanted and unsolicited advice but fails to take it himself

The biggest irony meter explosion ever, right there.

[fj1200]

Our interactions on this and other threads speak for themselves. I am convinced that they attest to your TRUE bona fides, not that which you claim for yourself.

Now that you've twisted in the wind long enough. Proof that I didn't quote Sullivan's site:


What??? Could this be (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100099683/we-covered-up-our-involvement-in-torture-now-we-must-expose-it/)???


Margaret Thatcher, then in the last few weeks of her magnificent premiership, carefully considered this request. She consulted her conscience and pondered what was the right thing to do. Within a very short space of time, a clear and magisterial instruction was issued from Downing Street and dispatched around Whitehall: Mrs Thatcher wanted it known that the British state was not, in any circumstances, to make use of intelligence that might have come from victims of torture.

Check the link. :laugh:


How would you know how conservatives think? Here are a couple of folks who agree with me:

Ronald Reagan
Maggie Thatcher

I am told that there were two principal reasons Margaret Thatcher was so strongly opposed to torture. The first was simply pragmatic: she understood that information extracted from terrified victims under duress could never be relied on or trusted.
But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

Of course I applaud her, she doesn't take the easy way out that you do. You're just a bit miffed because your "Jimmy Carter" ploy backfired on you in a flaming fireball of epic proportions err, a most disagreeable way.



Anyone reading JUST this thread will readily see that you DO have Conservatives opposing you ..

Aboutime is right. No purpose is served in debating with you

A. Name a conservative opposing me along with their justification or are you to scared to post up an actual name and you put your knucklehead crew on the spot? They've failed before and I suggest that they will fail again.
B. 'at' is right??? :laugh: Well, he might be. You should stop debating because you are continually made to look the fool. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Great point. Of course FU always offers up unwanted and unsolicited advice but fails to take it himself

Please note I was trying to be polite and civil to him at that time - but it was a lost cause

Please start with post #31

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38752-ConHog-s-back/page3&highlight=conhog

Interesting. Is that the source of your irrational hatred of me? But why start with #31? How about we look back at #30 and see how you welcome former board members. Is that thread a great example of your "civility"? I think not.


If Debate Policy was listed on the Dow, the board would have lost more then 50% yesterday. I for one am shocked to see so many people (including staff) welcome this piece of trash back with open arms

Contrasted against posts welcoming you back:


An interesting juxtoposition here. Both RSR and I took quite a bit of time off from the board and when he returned I wrote this

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35534-Thanks-Jim&p=556625#post556625


welcome back!! And I am glad to hear that things are good with you.

... The past is the past.

But you do what you gotta do.

Of course that all makes post #31 provably true. :)


Then ignore him. And yes, the board suffers.

Considering that you find it tough to follow your own advice and ignore members, without trolling them, then you're not exactly in a moral position.

[Drummond]

My lord, you really are as clueless as you appear to be. I didn't think such a thing was possible.

... this, replying to my comment, as follows ...


It's heartening to see that even a Leftie can appreciate the truth when faced with it. Well done !!

I was 'clueless' in posting my comment ?? Meaning .. that a Leftie CAN'T appreciate the truth when faced with it ??

Arbo, I must thank you. You've confirmed what I've long since believed was true.

And it explains a lot of all the argumentation one Leftie in particular has been offering me, here !!

[fj1200]

And it explains a lot of all the argumentation one Leftie in particular has been offering me, here !!

Who?!? Where?!? :eek: