PDA

View Full Version : What is up...



M&K's Retrievers
08-03-2010, 10:45 PM
...with all this chest poking? Is everyone pi$$ed? Has the heat taken it's toll? Been too long since hunting season? Has this Congress and Pres gotten everyone worked up? Or are we all just a$$holes? If that's the case, why do our dogs stay with us?

Mike Whitworth

JDogger
08-03-2010, 10:51 PM
...with all this chest poking? Is everyone pi$$ed? Has the heat taken it's toll? Been too long since hunting season? Has this Congress and Pres gotten everyone worked up? Or are we all just a$$holes? If that's the case, why do our dogs stay with us?

Mike Whitworth

Cause they're all born here...JD

dnf777
08-04-2010, 05:41 AM
...with all this chest poking? Is everyone pi$$ed? Has the heat taken it's toll? Been too long since hunting season? Has this Congress and Pres gotten everyone worked up? Or are we all just a$$holes? If that's the case, why do our dogs stay with us?

Mike Whitworth

I'm tired of trying to be polite, in the face of personal and professional attacks, so I will play the game as most others (not all) play here. What, you guys don't like being called names when it happens to you? Too bad. Get some thicker skin.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 06:14 AM
Well, I think it may be time for several to re-read Chris and Vicky's posts at the top of this forum. As "the man" says, "Be civil or be banned."

road kill
08-04-2010, 07:13 AM
It's my fault!!!:shock:



RK:twisted:

ducknwork
08-04-2010, 07:22 AM
...with all this chest poking? 1.Is everyone pi$$ed? 2Has the heat taken it's toll? 3Been too long since hunting season? 4.Has this Congress and Pres gotten everyone worked up? 5.Or are we all just a$$holes? 6.If that's the case, why do our dogs stay with us?

Mike Whitworth

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Waaaay too long...
4. Everyone except Yardley and RP.;)
5. Yes
6. Beats the hell outta me! Maybe because they can't type and haven't discovered POTUS?:p

Ken Bora
08-04-2010, 09:15 AM
Well, I think it may be time for several to re-read Chris and Vicky's posts at the top of this forum. As "the man" says, "Be civil or be banned."

Define “civil”


1.</SPAN></SPAN>
of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2.
of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3.
of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
4.
of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty.
5.
befitting a citizen: a civil duty.
6.
of, or in a condition of, social order or organized government; civilized: civil peoples.
7.
adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.
8.
marked by benevolence: He was a very civil sort, and we liked him immediately.
9.
(of divisions of time) legally recognized in the ordinary affairs of life: the civil year.
10.
of or pertaining to civil law.






I feel,
As citizens of this republic. We have been exceptionally civil.
Probably more civil than the average, “sitting on their butt, waiting for a welfare check, hoping their cousin makes it across the border with the back pack of meth, before their 6th illegitimate child they are having to increase their government stipend, is born so they can all go out and party at Red Roberts” type of citizen.

But I could be wrong……..:rolleyes:



.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Define “civil”


1.</SPAN></SPAN>
of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2.
of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3.
of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
4.
of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty.
5.
befitting a citizen: a civil duty.
6.
of, or in a condition of, social order or organized government; civilized: civil peoples.
7.
adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.
8.
marked by benevolence: He was a very civil sort, and we liked him immediately.
9.
(of divisions of time) legally recognized in the ordinary affairs of life: the civil year.
10.
of or pertaining to civil law.






I feel,
As citizens of this republic. We have been exceptionally civil.
Probably more civil than the average, “sitting on their butt, waiting for a welfare check, hoping their cousin makes it across the border with the back pack of meth, before their 6th illegitimate child they are having to increase their government stipend, is born so they can all go out and party at Red Roberts” type of citizen.

But I could be wrong……..:rolleyes:



.
Hey, I just quoted Chris' words.

When comments move away from the issues to focus instead on personal characteristics of posters, or simple labeling of ideas as if a name defines the substance, we are all diminished. I will admit that both can be done as a form of teasing humor, but we seem to have progressed well beyond that.

Part of the problem rests with those who post out of hate. Hate provides no room for exchanging ideas or finding common ground. By its nature, it rejects the validity of both. Hate understands only the logic of bigger guns and heavier boots -- right and wrong are irrelevant when applied to the manner in which ideas are presented since the thing hated deserves no consideration. Calling someone who posts or speaks out of hate a bully is tautological. Calling such a person a "retard" is an insult to the mentally challenged. I have never known a mentally challenged person who was either a hater or a bully.

Ken Bora
08-04-2010, 11:08 AM
Hey, I just quoted Chris' words..........

When comments move away from the issues to focus instead on personal characteristics of posters, or simple labeling of ideas as if a name defines the substance, we are all diminished. I will admit that both can be done as a form of teasing humor, but we seem to have progressed well beyond that. .......
.

I agree, in part.
Often for me, here in potus, it is more about the debate that the topic.
I sometimes miss debate club from back in school. Being assigned a side of a topic.
Especially one you did not believe in or support, and having to argue on it’s behalf.
I like to challenge, I like to push, a bit. When my opponent ends up “Loosing it”
And resorting to name calling, I’ve won. It is especially amusing because we are
Typing, not face to face. Folk have the time to ponder the words they will use.
Live debate is much more funner. You really get to see folk thing on their feet then.
This is like an open book test at home on the kitchen table.
If you need name-calling here, buy a thesaurus.

Have you guys seen on the news, Mahmoud challenged Barrack to a live debate?
I know, I know a US President should not even talk to him as to give him credibility.
But I sure would like to see it, yes I would.


.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 11:46 AM
I made an effort for the past year to remain civil despite having myslef, my family and my professional life brought under fire. If not attacked, even mentioned. In my mind, there is no reason whatsoever to bring one's profession into this forum. After repeatedly bowing out gracefully, I just got damned sick and tired of it, and responded in kind. It seem some either haven't read Vicky and Chris' stickys, or have and choose to ignore them.

Maybe if some of the people are given a taste of their own venom, they will shut up and behave, which seems to be the case. Some have resorted to whining and crying like schoolyard bullies, who when their bluff is called, revert to being crybabies, then behave or take their toys and go home. So maybe I'm doing the same thing now, but it will be metered out appropriately and sparingly.

ducknwork
08-04-2010, 11:48 AM
I really thought you were better than that Dave. I am disappointed. I used to admire your ability to remain a gentleman in the face of said attacks. Too bad you couldn't stay on the high road.


^^serious post^^

david gibson
08-04-2010, 12:21 PM
I made an effort for the past year to remain civil despite having myslef, my family and my professional life brought under fire. If not attacked, even mentioned. In my mind, there is no reason whatsoever to bring one's profession into this forum. After repeatedly bowing out gracefully, I just got damned sick and tired of it, and responded in kind. It seem some either haven't read Vicky and Chris' stickys, or have and choose to ignore them.

Maybe if some of the people are given a taste of their own venom, they will shut up and behave, which seems to be the case. Some have resorted to whining and crying like schoolyard bullies, who when their bluff is called, revert to being crybabies, then behave or take their toys and go home. So maybe I'm doing the same thing now, but it will be metered out appropriately and sparingly.

didnt you already do that?? a couple of times?

i seriously dont care what anyone calls me on the internet - its not to my face and i really dont care. the only time i respond to someone calling me a name is when they themselves got all bent out of shape because someone said something mean to them. just pointing out hipocracy. do i care that dogger called me a "pendejo"? i speak near fluent spanish and am very well associated with that word in conversation, and its not a nice label. i really dont care that he called me that online, but yeah it just ticks me off when he calls me that after he calls me out for supposedly hurting someone else's feelings. and you really think i was upset at being called "francis"? really?? ever hear of sarcasm??? very few of you have taken the high road. even you dnf. thicken up your own skin for a change.

amazing how many in here fail to admit they do the same thing they call others out for. i take it a little further sometimes at a failed attempt at humor maybe, but at least i admit it. but what did you do dave? instead of just saying it was uncalled for, you retorted with a little poll of your own about whether i like it on top or bottom. first of all, i laughed that you posted that and thought you were really zinging me back like it really hurt me. then i shook my head that you just attacked me in the same manner but still sit high on your horse.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs110.ash2/38815_149270658422044_118330578182719_491766_68260 42_n.jpg

Hoosier
08-04-2010, 12:35 PM
I made an effort for the past year to remain civil despite having myslef, my family and my professional life brought under fire. If not attacked, even mentioned. In my mind, there is no reason whatsoever to bring one's profession into this forum. After repeatedly bowing out gracefully, I just got damned sick and tired of it, and responded in kind. It seem some either haven't read Vicky and Chris' stickys, or have and choose to ignore them.

Maybe if some of the people are given a taste of their own venom, they will shut up and behave, which seems to be the case. Some have resorted to whining and crying like schoolyard bullies, who when their bluff is called, revert to being crybabies, then behave or take their toys and go home. So maybe I'm doing the same thing now, but it will be metered out appropriately and sparingly.

I'm gonna be mean now, but only because I'm a victim. Huh

road kill
08-04-2010, 01:26 PM
Hey, I just quoted Chris' words.

When comments move away from the issues to focus instead on personal characteristics of posters, or simple labeling of ideas as if a name defines the substance, we are all diminished. I will admit that both can be done as a form of teasing humor, but we seem to have progressed well beyond that.

Part of the problem rests with those who post out of hate. Hate provides no room for exchanging ideas or finding common ground. By its nature, it rejects the validity of both. Hate understands only the logic of bigger guns and heavier boots -- right and wrong are irrelevant when applied to the manner in which ideas are presented since the thing hated deserves no consideration. Calling someone who posts or speaks out of hate a bully is tautological. Calling such a person a "retard" is an insult to the mentally challenged. I have never known a mentally challenged person who was either a hater or a bully.

Just curious, what is the motivating drive behind your "fact based well thought out" posts?




RK

dnf777
08-04-2010, 01:55 PM
didnt you already do that?? a couple of times?

i seriously dont care what anyone calls me on the internet - its not to my face and i really dont care. the only time i respond to someone calling me a name is when they themselves got all bent out of shape because someone said something mean to them. just pointing out hipocracy. do i care that dogger called me a "pendejo"? i speak near fluent spanish and am very well associated with that word in conversation, and its not a nice label. i really dont care that he called me that online, but yeah it just ticks me off when he calls me that after he calls me out for supposedly hurting someone else's feelings. and you really think i was upset at being called "francis"? really?? ever hear of sarcasm??? very few of you have taken the high road. even you dnf. thicken up your own skin for a change.

amazing how many in here fail to admit they do the same thing they call others out for. i take it a little further sometimes at a failed attempt at humor maybe, but at least i admit it. but what did you do dave? instead of just saying it was uncalled for, you retorted with a little poll of your own about whether i like it on top or bottom. first of all, i laughed that you posted that and thought you were really zinging me back like it really hurt me. then i shook my head that you just attacked me in the same manner but still sit high on your horse.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs110.ash2/38815_149270658422044_118330578182719_491766_68260 42_n.jpg

See? Already your post is much more civil. Its working already! :D

You make a lot of good points above. I admit, guilty as charged. But know what? That's what it took to get a decent post out of you, so all the rest is really a waste of time. It's what I've been saying for quite a while, but I had to make YOU say it before you could see.

Maybe now we can all hit the "reset" button, and try to limit the name calling. I admit, it was fun, but not really productive....other than to get this aired out and maybe back on an even keel.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Just curious, what is the motivating drive behind your "fact based well thought out" posts?




RK
i believe the issues are important to discuss without demonizing those on either side. I also believe that rational discourse attempting to find areas of mutual accord despite our differences is the only way we will survive as a country. If we continue to value ideological purity over pragmatic accords, we do not deserve to survive. Finally, I enjoy the debate.

david gibson
08-04-2010, 02:07 PM
See? Already your post is much more civil. Its working already! :D

You make a lot of good points above. I admit, guilty as charged. But know what? That's what it took to get a decent post out of you, so all the rest is really a waste of time. It's what I've been saying for quite a while, but I had to make YOU say it before you could see.

Maybe now we can all hit the "reset" button, and try to limit the name calling. I admit, it was fun, but not really productive....other than to get this aired out and maybe back on an even keel.

OMG now you take credit for my "rehab"????

unreal.

david gibson
08-04-2010, 02:08 PM
i believe the issues are important to discuss without demonizing those on either side. I also believe that rational discourse attempting to find areas of mutual accord despite our differences is the only way we will survive as a country. If we continue to value ideological purity over pragmatic accords, we do not deserve to survive. Finally, I enjoy the debate.

perhaps you should copy your messiah on this idea.

road kill
08-04-2010, 02:08 PM
OMG now you take credit for my "rehab"????

unreal.


One of my favorite T-shirts reads;

"REHAB is for QUITTERS!!"


Peace my brothers & sisters.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA


RK:D

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 02:09 PM
perhaps you should copy your messiah on this idea.
Newsflash: I'm an atheist. I have no messiah. If you are talking about Obama, he does a lot less of that than almost any other politician on the US stage today.

road kill
08-04-2010, 02:12 PM
Newsflash: I'm an atheist. I have no messiah. If you are talking about Obama, he does a lot less of that than almost any other politician on the US stage today.

So....when I identified you as a "secular progressive," I was not name calling, it's who and what you are?


So why then would that offend you?

I don't bristle when called a whisky drinking, gun toten', biker trash redneck????


WTH????:D



RK

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 02:29 PM
So....when I identified you as a "secular progressive," I was not name calling, it's who and what you are?


So why then would that offend you?

I don't bristle when called a whisky drinking, gun toten', biker trash redneck????


WTH????:D



RK
The very first time you called me that, I agreed that it was a reasonable characterization, although I was not considered liberal enough by most "progressives" to be called one by them. I also pointed out that most of the more liberal/moderate people on POTUS were more likely to be offended since, as far as I knew, I was in a minority in my lack of religious belief. You agreed that it was equally reasonable for you to be called a right wing extremist. I have certainly not been offended by the term secular progressive and assume that you are not offended when I call you a RWE.;-)

Franco
08-04-2010, 02:37 PM
So, what would y'all call a Conservative Atheist?

Remember now, old-fashioned Conservatives never considered religion as an issue except when someone was forcing it on others. Only in the last two-three decades has the Religious Right stolen the Conservative label. Not that all old fashioned Conservatives were godless, it just wasn't an issue like it is today.

Just one reason why so many Conservatives have become Independents and/or Libetarians.

david gibson
08-04-2010, 02:44 PM
Newsflash: I'm an atheist. I have no messiah. If you are talking about Obama, he does a lot less of that than almost any other politician on the US stage today.

but he does a LOT more finger pointing than any president in modern history. he campaigns 24/7/365.

and plays golf.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 02:52 PM
So, what would y'all call a Conservative Atheist?

Remember now, old-fashioned Conservatives never considered religion as an issue except when someone was forcing it on others. Only in the last two-three decades has the Religious Right stolen the Conservative label. Not that all old fashioned Conservatives were godless, it just wasn't an issue like it is today.

Just one reason why so many Conservatives have become Independents and/or Libetarians.
A Goldwater Republican:D

In an interview on NPR's Fresh Air this week, Rev. Richard Cizik, an evangelical conservative, voiced his belief that the aims of evangelicals and tea party conservatives were probably headed for collision. He said:


"The Tea Party movement is irreligious and significantly so. It's got lots of problems. I wouldn't join it if I were an evangelical and I would urge others not to or at least to be suspicious of it because it doesn't bring with it the whole biblical concept of responsibility and the rest to God and so I'm not a Tea Party fan." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128776382

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 02:54 PM
but he does a LOT more than any president in modern history. he campaigns 24/7/365.

and plays golf.
So, if I understand you correctly, the problem with Obama is that he works too hard, accomplishes too much, and still manages to play golf...:D:D

road kill
08-04-2010, 03:24 PM
A Goldwater Republican:D

In an interview on NPR's Fresh Air this week, Rev. Richard Cizik, an evangelical conservative, voiced his belief that the aims of evangelicals and tea party conservatives were probably headed for collision. He said:


"The Tea Party movement is irreligious and significantly so. It's got lots of problems. I wouldn't join it if I were an evangelical and I would urge others not to or at least to be suspicious of it because it doesn't bring with it the whole biblical concept of responsibility and the rest to God and so I'm not a Tea Party fan." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128776382


"Good times.....good times!!!":D



RK

david gibson
08-04-2010, 03:59 PM
So, if I understand you correctly, the problem with Obama is that he works too hard, accomplishes too much, and still manages to play golf...:D:D


Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
but he does a LOT more finger pointing than any president in modern history. he campaigns 24/7/365.




there - now even you can understand it - posted ala RP

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
but he does a LOT more finger pointing than any president in modern history. he campaigns 24/7/365.




there - now even you can understand it - posted ala RP

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Ronald Reagan, January 1983 State of the Union (two years following election)

But you're right, I never heard George W. Bush blame Clinton for leaving behind a budget surplus, low unemployment, and even some warnings about a dangerous group headed up by a guy named Osama bin Laden. However, six years after taking office, Bush was still blaming Clinton for economic woes, for Korea, and for the Middle East.

david gibson
08-04-2010, 05:02 PM
"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Ronald Reagan, January 1983 State of the Union (two years following election)

But you're right, I never heard George W. Bush blame Clinton for leaving behind a budget surplus, low unemployment, and even some warnings about a dangerous group headed up by a guy named Osama bin Laden. However, six years after taking office, Bush was still blaming Clinton for economic woes, for Korea, and for the Middle East.

i never said no other president EVER blamed the previous, what i am saying is none of them did it to the extreme obama does. please stop your liberal spin. do we have to go back to the basketball analogy again?

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 05:23 PM
i never said no other president EVER blamed the previous, what i am saying is none of them did it to the extreme obama does. please stop your liberal spin. do we have to go back to the basketball analogy again?
Well, since you don't want spin, I assume you have some quantitative evidence to back up your claim of the number of times each President blamed a prior administration for problems that persisted more than one year into the new Presidency. Why don't you post it so we can all see the basis for your claim. My memory is that Reagan blamed Carter every chance he got for the 2+ years it took for the economy to finally begin to turn around. Bush blamed Clinton for every problem in foreign policy and the economy throughout the eight years of his Presidency (setting what is probably an all time record). Nixon never stopped blaming Johnson for Vietnam and Cambodia for the entire duration of the war. The fact is, that with the exception of the complaints by Bush, I think the complaints by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were pretty well justified. And each of those Presidents managed to turn around the problems that they inherited after 2-3 years, but the record is still unfinished for Obama, who has not yet served two years. Bush, however, had almost no excuse for the things that he blamed on others. But after eight years of failure, what else could he do?

david gibson
08-04-2010, 06:00 PM
Well, since you don't want spin, I assume you have some quantitative evidence to back up your claim of the number of times each President blamed a prior administration for problems that persisted more than one year into the new Presidency. Why don't you post it so we can all see the basis for your claim. My memory is that Reagan blamed Carter every chance he got for the 2+ years it took for the economy to finally begin to turn around. Bush blamed Clinton for every problem in foreign policy and the economy throughout the eight years of his Presidency (setting what is probably an all time record). Nixon never stopped blaming Johnson for Vietnam and Cambodia for the entire duration of the war. The fact is, that with the exception of the complaints by Bush, I think the complaints by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were pretty well justified. And each of those Presidents managed to turn around the problems that they inherited after 2-3 years, but the record is still unfinished for Obama, who has not yet served two years. Bush, however, had almost no excuse for the things that he blamed on others. But after eight years of failure, what else could he do?

you are right! Obama is a great president and doing everything right. see? you just have to persevere and you will convince us all that the left way is the right way! um, i mean correct way:confused:

sir, no amount of links and facts ever sway your leftist perspective, so why bother? any reasonable person knows that you did not see Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or even Carter as bad as he was blaming the other side every time a teleprompter is within sight. especially when our muslim president vowed all this transparency and bipartisanship. but its only bipartisan if the right gives in to the left. i have yet to see our muslim president concede anything to the right in the name of "bipartisanship"

oh thats right, the others didnt use a teleprompter. so the poor muslim president cant help it, he is just reading what he is told to read.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 06:27 PM
you are right! Obama is a great president and doing everything right. see? you just have to persevere and you will convince us all that the left way is the right way! um, i mean correct way:confused:

sir, no amount of links and facts ever sway your leftist perspective, so why bother? any reasonable person knows that you did not see Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or even Carter as bad as he was blaming the other side every time a teleprompter is within sight. especially when our muslim president vowed all this transparency and bipartisanship. but its only bipartisan if the right gives in to the left. i have yet to see our muslim president concede anything to the right in the name of "bipartisanship"

oh thats right, the others didnt use a teleprompter. so the poor muslim president cant help it, he is just reading what he is told to read.
Given that so far you have presented no facts or links in support of your positions, it is hard to understand your basis for saying that none would have an effect.

For you, it appears that "facts" are whatever blather you choose to spout at the moment. Witness your triple repetition of the phrase "our muslim president". You have said before that you don't need a road map to know when you are being called a bigot. Well the fact is that no one needs a road map to understand that by calling him "our muslim president" you are using religious bigotry to push a position. When you begin to respect facts as mch as you love calls to bigotry, what you say will carry more weight.

JDogger
08-04-2010, 08:58 PM
you are right! Obama is a great president and doing everything right. see? you just have to persevere and you will convince us all that the left way is the right way! um, i mean correct way:confused:

sir, no amount of links and facts ever sway your rightist perspective, so why bother? any reasonable person knows that you did not see Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or even Carter as bad as he was blaming the other side every time a teleprompter is within sight. especially when our muslim president vowed all this transparency and bipartisanship. but its only bipartisan if the right gives in to the left. i have yet to see our muslim president concede anything to the right in the name of "bipartisanship"

oh thats right, the others didnt use a teleprompter. so the poor muslim president cant help it, he is just reading what he is told to read.

Dayum. Have we all just had an epiphany or what? Here I thought we were all gonna sway one another with our "change yer hearts n' minds posts. Now DG sez, "aint gonna happen".
I knew some gen-x's a few years ago whose slogan was WET, 'Why Even Try'.
Prolly good advice, particularly here on PP.

But hey, we're all tryin' to shine an apple to put on the janitor's desk.

A self-moderated forum is best, and we seem to be doin' it, well, for a day anyway.

JD

david gibson
08-04-2010, 09:11 PM
Given that so far you have presented no facts or links in support of your positions, it is hard to understand your basis for saying that none would have an effect.

For you, it appears that "facts" are whatever blather you choose to spout at the moment. Witness your triple repetition of the phrase "our muslim president". You have said before that you don't need a road map to know when you are being called a bigot. Well the fact is that no one needs a road map to understand that by calling him "our muslim president" you are using religious bigotry to push a position. When you begin to respect facts as mch as you love calls to bigotry, what you say will carry more weight.

well, i asked DNF Dave for facts to back his claim that there are homosexuals in this forum and i get zero facts, so whats the difference? in fact, after all the finger pointing here i think his claim is the most egregious.

but of course you wont see it that way......

dnf777
08-04-2010, 09:15 PM
well, i asked DNF Dave for facts to back his claim that there are homosexuals in this forum and i get zero facts, so whats the difference?

The difference is that I didn't make that claim, and you are again spewing lies to support your position. Your typical MO. I carefully used terms like "many" (not "all") and "quite possibly", (not "most definitely") so that debate team washouts like you couldn't pin me down.

And again, oh the horrors, there may be a homosexual involved in dog training! What's your problem with that? They can throw birds too, you know. Jeez, the homophobia is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

david gibson
08-04-2010, 09:27 PM
The difference is that I didn't make that claim, and you are again spewing lies to support your position. Your typical MO. I carefully used terms like "many" (not "all") and "quite possibly", (not "most definitely") so that debate team washouts like you couldn't pin me down.

And again, oh the horrors, there may be a homosexual involved in dog training! What's your problem with that? They can throw birds too, you know. Jeez, the homophobia is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

yes there are and i know it so whoopee, a frew gays in a few thousand in the game. quit backing out of your claim there are some in this forum of less than a dozen.

oh yeah, you used your clever ambiguous terms to cover your tracks.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 09:35 PM
oh yeah, you used your clever ambiguous terms to cover your tracks.

Yeah, its called choosing your words carefully. Foreign concept, I know.

All I said was:

I've also found that many homophobes are homosexual themselves, or have irrepressible feelings of homosexuality, that is outwardly manifested as anti-gay rhetoric. Look at Ted Foley, Larry Craig, and quite possibly, some on this list.

You have been the first and only to promptly respond with more rhetoric. I'm not drawing any conclusions because I frankly don't care. Its not even an issue with me.

JDogger
08-04-2010, 09:40 PM
yes there are and i know it so whoopee, a frew gays in a few thousand in the game. quit backing out of your claim there are some in this forum of less than a dozen.

oh yeah, you used your clever ambiguous terms to cover your tracks.


Simmer down DG. You've almost made it through a day.;)

road kill
08-04-2010, 10:03 PM
Well, since you don't want spin, I assume you have some quantitative evidence to back up your claim of the number of times each President blamed a prior administration for problems that persisted more than one year into the new Presidency. Why don't you post it so we can all see the basis for your claim. My memory is that Reagan blamed Carter every chance he got for the 2+ years it took for the economy to finally begin to turn around. Bush blamed Clinton for every problem in foreign policy and the economy throughout the eight years of his Presidency (setting what is probably an all time record). Nixon never stopped blaming Johnson for Vietnam and Cambodia for the entire duration of the war. The fact is, that with the exception of the complaints by Bush, I think the complaints by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were pretty well justified. And each of those Presidents managed to turn around the problems that they inherited after 2-3 years, but the record is still unfinished for Obama, who has not yet served two years. Bush, however, had almost no excuse for the things that he blamed on others. But after eight years of failure, what else could he do?

HMMMMMMM, very interesting.

He needs quantatative facts, you use your memory.

I think I get how this works now!!:D



RK