|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 2, 2011 15:49:44 GMT -8
You are correct about the physical bullies. They are the solely on the left. See Wisconsin, SEIU, and any other place where the left doesn't get its way. Professor Jacobsen has a post called the Lombardi rule at Legal Insurrection... I don't like physical bullies. I never met a true liberal who was one. I think you confuse assertiveness with aggression, but then, as I said, you do not like those with whom you disagree. But that is your prerogative. It is a shame though, you are, judging from your creativity here, a talented man. Well, thank you for the civil comment. I don't like physical bullies either; and neither one of us really likes those with whom we disagree. But that goes with the territory, I guess. Perhaps this fellow is not a "true liberal"... I don't know. But he literally foams at the mouth. Watch and see. There are far too many video examples to include here on this site, but you'll get the idea. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaiyD3HXH0s&feature=related |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 2, 2011 16:04:50 GMT -8
You are correct about the physical bullies. They are the solely on the left. See Wisconsin, SEIU, and any other place where the left doesn't get its way. Professor Jacobsen has a post called the Lombardi rule at Legal Insurrection... I don't like physical bullies. I never met a true liberal who was one. I think you confuse assertiveness with aggression, but then, as I said, you do not like those with whom you disagree. But that is your prerogative. It is a shame though, you are, judging from your creativity here, a talented man. Do you mean those "assertive" guards at the polls in Philly? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jul 3, 2011 6:25:39 GMT -8
I don't like physical bullies. I never met a true liberal who was one. I think you confuse assertiveness with aggression, but then, as I said, you do not like those with whom you disagree. But that is your prerogative. It is a shame though, you are, judging from your creativity here, a talented man. Do you mean those "assertive" guards at the polls in Philly? I do not know what you are talking about with regard to Philadelphia polls. I try very hard to avoid anything Philadelphia. I am referring to George W. Bush who was, and is, a classic bully. I am referring to pro life murderers. I am referring to tea partiers screaming the "N" word as they surround a much smaller group of liberal representatives. I am referring to Republican operatives in Florida vote counting offices in 2000 who terrorized the local officials attempting to count ballots. I am referring to Republicans with hand guns in obvious display at public events. I am referring to "Second Amendment solutions". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2011 6:47:28 GMT -8
Do you mean those "assertive" guards at the polls in Philly? I do not know what you are talking about with regard to Philadelphia polls. I try very hard to avoid anything Philadelphia. I am referring to George W. Bush who was, and is, a classic bully. I am referring to pro life murderers. I am referring to tea partiers screaming the "N" word as they surround a much smaller group of liberal representatives. I am referring to Republican operatives in Florida vote counting offices in 2000 who terrorized the local officials attempting to count ballots. I am referring to Republicans with hand guns in obvious display at public events. I am referring to "Second Amendment solutions". Head in the sand? Your facts are all wrong. You will never find that kind of thing going on with Tea Party folks. Could be liberal plants like goes on from time to time, but not Conservatives or Tea Party folks. Black Panther guards at the polls and you never were aware? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jul 3, 2011 7:15:10 GMT -8
I do not know what you are talking about with regard to Philadelphia polls. I try very hard to avoid anything Philadelphia. I am referring to George W. Bush who was, and is, a classic bully. I am referring to pro life murderers. I am referring to tea partiers screaming the "N" word as they surround a much smaller group of liberal representatives. I am referring to Republican operatives in Florida vote counting offices in 2000 who terrorized the local officials attempting to count ballots. I am referring to Republicans with hand guns in obvious display at public events. I am referring to "Second Amendment solutions". Head in the sand? Your facts are all wrong. You will never find that kind of thing going on with Tea Party folks. Could be liberal plants like goes on from time to time, but not Conservatives or Tea Party folks. Black Panther guards at the polls and you never were aware? You are so funny. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2011 8:39:34 GMT -8
Head in the sand? Your facts are all wrong. You will never find that kind of thing going on with Tea Party folks. Could be liberal plants like goes on from time to time, but not Conservatives or Tea Party folks. Black Panther guards at the polls and you never were aware? You are so funny. I try! I have fun! What else is there? Ever consider looking at another view? Try to lower yourself to read Ann Coulter's "Guilty". It is meticulously footnoted and you might see some else's point of view. It might not change your mind, but you will be able to see what really goes on. It is not about whose big ideas are more correct, but just whose tactics are really dirty. I have taken critical looks at "Swift Boat Vets" and the tactics that led to the demise of Dukakis. I can see why liberals don't like the way things are done by Conservatives even when the issues are clearly correct. Might not hurt to do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 3, 2011 10:29:08 GMT -8
I try! I have fun! What else is there? Ever consider looking at another view? Try to lower yourself to read Ann Coulter's "Guilty". It is meticulously footnoted and you might see some else's point of view. It might not change your mind, but you will be able to see what really goes on. It is not about whose big ideas are more correct, but just whose tactics are really dirty. I have taken critical looks at "Swift Boat Vets" and the tactics that led to the demise of Dukakis. I can see why liberals don't like the way things are done by Conservatives even when the issues are clearly correct. Might not hurt to do the same. Ann Coulter??...really Win. No one in the middle or on the Left takes this person seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank as she taps into the easy touches that make up the true believers. Ann Coulter is playing a character. There is no clean information coming from her. If I was more talented, I could do what Ann Coulter is doing... I know the playbook pretty well. A better recommendation would be someone who's delivery is more like William F. Buckley. I think that Ann secretly wishes she could have been born earlier and joined the hippies at the Fillmore and Winterland. She has attended over 50 Grateful Dead shows(and claims she never inhaled  and has dated (nice word) some far Leftists. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 3, 2011 13:07:05 GMT -8
>>>tea partiers screaming the "N" word as they surround a much smaller group of liberal representatives<<< www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38191>>> I am referring to "Second Amendment solutions"<<< Wrt the 2nd Amendment remedy, Angle said: "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government." Not much different from JFK: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." Or Hubert Humphrey: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 3, 2011 14:57:18 GMT -8
I try! I have fun! What else is there? Ever consider looking at another view? Try to lower yourself to read Ann Coulter's "Guilty". It is meticulously footnoted and you might see some else's point of view. It might not change your mind, but you will be able to see what really goes on. It is not about whose big ideas are more correct, but just whose tactics are really dirty. I have taken critical looks at "Swift Boat Vets" and the tactics that led to the demise of Dukakis. I can see why liberals don't like the way things are done by Conservatives even when the issues are clearly correct. Might not hurt to do the same. Ann Coulter??...really Win. No one in the middle or on the Left takes this person seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank as she taps into the easy touches that make up the true believers. Ann Coulter is playing a character. There is no clean information coming from her. If I was more talented, I could do what Ann Coulter is doing... I know the playbook pretty well. A better recommendation would be someone who's delivery is more like William F. Buckley. I think that Ann secretly wishes she could have been born earlier and joined the hippies at the Fillmore and Winterland. She has attended over 50 Grateful Dead shows(and claims she never inhaled and has dated (nice word) some far Leftists. Have you read any of her books? She is pretty through in her research and documentation. When you pretend to speculate about what she really wishes is a sign you don't know much about her nor would you take the time to get informed. Informed not about the issues as much as the tactics employed. Really, she is not very complimentary about how Republicans campaign. They are too fair minded. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 3, 2011 15:44:56 GMT -8
Ann Coulter??...really Win. No one in the middle or on the Left takes this person seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank as she taps into the easy touches that make up the true believers. Ann Coulter is playing a character. There is no clean information coming from her. If I was more talented, I could do what Ann Coulter is doing... I know the playbook pretty well. A better recommendation would be someone who's delivery is more like William F. Buckley. I think that Ann secretly wishes she could have been born earlier and joined the hippies at the Fillmore and Winterland. She has attended over 50 Grateful Dead shows(and claims she never inhaled and has dated (nice word) some far Leftists. Have you read any of her books? She is pretty through in her research and documentation. When you pretend to speculate about what she really wishes is a sign you don't know much about her nor would you take the time to get informed. Informed not about the issues as much as the tactics employed. Really, she is not very complimentary about how Republicans campaign. They are too fair minded. Win, I have seen her in plenty of debates and have glanced at a couple of her books. She is playing games and marketing herself. You can't learn anything from someone who paints a black and white world with nothing in between and no nuance. This is what the 35% core she is preaching to wants. Evil versus good, us against "them", the easy argument. Ever see how her eyes dart and upset she gets when she can't get a plug in about one of her books in a television appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jul 3, 2011 16:44:29 GMT -8
I try! I have fun! What else is there? Ever consider looking at another view? Try to lower yourself to read Ann Coulter's "Guilty". It is meticulously footnoted and you might see some else's point of view. It might not change your mind, but you will be able to see what really goes on. It is not about whose big ideas are more correct, but just whose tactics are really dirty. I have taken critical looks at "Swift Boat Vets" and the tactics that led to the demise of Dukakis. I can see why liberals don't like the way things are done by Conservatives even when the issues are clearly correct. Might not hurt to do the same. I quote the Brookings Institution, the Los Angeles Times, Washington post etc. in my posts and you chose Briebart and Coulter? You don't even make the pretense of using a marginally unbiased source for your posts. And that is why you are funny. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 3, 2011 18:59:51 GMT -8
I try! I have fun! What else is there? Ever consider looking at another view? Try to lower yourself to read Ann Coulter's "Guilty". It is meticulously footnoted and you might see some else's point of view. It might not change your mind, but you will be able to see what really goes on. It is not about whose big ideas are more correct, but just whose tactics are really dirty. I have taken critical looks at "Swift Boat Vets" and the tactics that led to the demise of Dukakis. I can see why liberals don't like the way things are done by Conservatives even when the issues are clearly correct. Might not hurt to do the same. Ann Coulter??...really Win. No one in the middle or on the Left takes this person seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank as she taps into the easy touches that make up the true believers. Ann Coulter is playing a character. There is no clean information coming from her. If I was more talented, I could do what Ann Coulter is doing... I know the playbook pretty well. A better recommendation would be someone who's delivery is more like William F. Buckley. I think that Ann secretly wishes she could have been born earlier and joined the hippies at the Fillmore and Winterland. She has attended over 50 Grateful Dead shows(and claims she never inhaled and has dated (nice word) some far Leftists. If so, she is not very refined in her taste. Most far leftists are small and women do not ask for repeat performances. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 4, 2011 7:09:09 GMT -8
Have you read any of her books? She is pretty through in her research and documentation. When you pretend to speculate about what she really wishes is a sign you don't know much about her nor would you take the time to get informed. Informed not about the issues as much as the tactics employed. Really, she is not very complimentary about how Republicans campaign. They are too fair minded. Win, I have seen her in plenty of debates and have glanced at a couple of her books. She is playing games and marketing herself. You can't learn anything from someone who paints a black and white world with nothing in between and no nuance. This is what the 35% core she is preaching to wants. Evil versus good, us against "them", the easy argument. Ever see how her eyes dart and upset she gets when she can't get a plug in about one of her books in a television appearance? Glanced at a couple of her books? Like through the window at Barnes and Nobel? You would be better off in my mind to just admit that you are so biased about her that you can not be made to really look at the contents and documentation of her books. I would never read Krugman again for much the same reason. One difference is I have giver Krugman the chance to present his point of view. One other difference is the depth of documentation that Krugman does not offer. I have trouble watching her TV appearances as well since she is very condescending toward liberals rather than giving them at least a chance to present an argument. She is right on the issues and facts, but loses some strength of credability by being abrasive. She is sort of like Paul Begala in that no matter what she says or what Begala says you want to punch their lites out. (I would never punch a lady, but Begala might be picking himself off the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jul 4, 2011 7:51:15 GMT -8
My what a witty and well thought out response! Grow up! So it was OK for Dave to start a thread poking fun at "liberals" (his favorite term it seems) but not for the Imperial Valley guy to respond in kind? Come on, Win, at least make an effort at neutrality. Who is the imperial valley guy? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 4, 2011 8:09:43 GMT -8
So it was OK for Dave to start a thread poking fun at "liberals" (his favorite term it seems) but not for the Imperial Valley guy to respond in kind? Come on, Win, at least make an effort at neutrality. Who is the imperial valley guy? That is what I want to know as well. Maybe we can turn this discussion into a Geography lesson.  |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 4, 2011 10:47:37 GMT -8
Win, I have seen her in plenty of debates and have glanced at a couple of her books. She is playing games and marketing herself. You can't learn anything from someone who paints a black and white world with nothing in between and no nuance. This is what the 35% core she is preaching to wants. Evil versus good, us against "them", the easy argument. Ever see how her eyes dart and upset she gets when she can't get a plug in about one of her books in a television appearance? Glanced at a couple of her books? Like through the window at Barnes and Nobel? You would be better off in my mind to just admit that you are so biased about her that you can not be made to really look at the contents and documentation of her books. I would never read Krugman again for much the same reason. One difference is I have giver Krugman the chance to present his point of view. One other difference is the depth of documentation that Krugman does not offer. I have trouble watching her TV appearances as well since she is very condescending toward liberals rather than giving them at least a chance to present an argument. She is right on the issues and facts, but loses some strength of credability by being abrasive. She is sort of like Paul Begala in that no matter what she says or what Begala says you want to punch their lites out. (I would never punch a lady, but Begala might be picking himself off the ground. Win, you mean like here..... where she is discussing the effects of radiation right after the Tsunami/reactor event in Japan? Pretty funny huh? This is who you claim is right on the issues and facts??... I take back everything negative I have said about her and double it. (skank-scarecrow) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCjk-EPyN5w |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 4, 2011 21:45:23 GMT -8
Glanced at a couple of her books? Like through the window at Barnes and Nobel? You would be better off in my mind to just admit that you are so biased about her that you can not be made to really look at the contents and documentation of her books. I would never read Krugman again for much the same reason. One difference is I have giver Krugman the chance to present his point of view. One other difference is the depth of documentation that Krugman does not offer. I have trouble watching her TV appearances as well since she is very condescending toward liberals rather than giving them at least a chance to present an argument. She is right on the issues and facts, but loses some strength of credibility by being abrasive. She is sort of like Paul Begala in that no matter what she says or what Begala says you want to punch their lites out. (I would never punch a lady, but Begala might be picking himself off the ground. Win, you mean like here..... where she is discussing the effects of radiation right after the Tsunami/reactor event in Japan? Pretty funny huh? This is who you claim is right on the issues and facts??... I take back everything negative I have said about her and double it. (skank-scarecrow) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCjk-EPyN5w I don't see your point for sure and you do not make it by showing this strange interview. I do say that it is a little funny to see two people discuss a topic that neither one has a clue about what they are saying. Coulter said that she had just read that day about part of their discussion and was just trying to take the part or side of the scientists she had read. She was a poor choice to talk about that topic. My point about her books still is valid and until your do a little more in depth looking, you are not on solid ground. You calling her names is hardly lending any weight to getting your opinion considered seriously. The way you act, you would think she announced that she had Spotted Owl for lunch. |
|
and has dated (nice word) some far Leftists.
