0
   

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:19 am
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:44 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The Times Swings Its Hatchet at Bush … and Hits Mukasey
Even by low Gray Lady standards, a journalistic abomination.

By Andrew C. McCarthy


Liberty and security are forever in tension, and never more so than in wartime. This is particularly true when, as in both World War II and the ongoing struggle against radical Islam, .


Wartime? Anyone who equates the current situation to wartime as I WWII doesn't deserve my time.

Wartime is being touched by the loss of a loved one in nearly every family in America.
Wartime is women going to work in defense plants while all the able bodied men are fighting fot the cause.
Wartime is recycling your bacon grease to use for bombs to defeat the enemy.
Wartime is having a definable enemy and goal to achieve.

Wartime is everything that this current situation isn't.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 04:39 pm
parados wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


Purely an observation, but it certainly appears the "liberal" posters on A2K run in packs as opposed to their "conservative" counter-parts.

Maybe this is an extension of the "It Takes A Village" mind-set...It take a village of Liberals to counter a conservative.

I'm OK with it, as it gives me more choices, but it is interesting.

Sure, there are example of conservative pile ons, but if you are honest you will agree that the conservatives on A2K rarely even acknowledge each other's comments let alone praise and jump off on them.

Something to do with the "rugged individualist" ethos perhaps.

No value judgments here, just an observation.

Or perhaps you are just oblivious to it when cjsha, okie, mysteryman, McG amongst others get their self congratulations groups going.


Perhaps. I don't think so but certainly possible. I'll make a point of looking for it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 04:53 pm
Setanta wrote:
I just about busted a gut laughing when i read that "rugged individualist ethos" horseshit. You can't make **** like that up . . . that's just precious . . .


Glad you found it so amusing but since you kept your intestines intact over "'It Takes A Village' mindset," I have a feeling you missed the joke. But hey, laughter is a blessing.Unfortunately, I have the sense that your laugh fests tend to be strained affairs held in private.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 05:01 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


... pile ons...


you consider my comment a "pile on"?
i thought conservatives were rugged individuals, dude. Laughing

as far as the travelling in packs thing... you may want to reflect on what has happened over the last few years to not only liberals and centrists, but also conservatives who go off the rez.

chuck hagel comes to mind.

and back on topic...

i don't seem to remember the right complaining about the nyt when judy miller was pimpin' the iraq war for the administration.


No, I don't consider your comment a "pile on."

More like an A2K version of that classic Warner Bros cartoon where the little scawny mutts bounces all around the big tough Bulldog, gibbering: "That's great Spike, you're great Spike, I'm your buddy---right Spike!"

Only here it's a Hungarian herding dog and not a Looney Toon bulldog.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 05:23 pm
kuvasz wrote:
The thesis of corporate media liberal bias is nonsense, unsustained by even elementary analysis.

Whether they're called liberal or conservative, the major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger corporations, they sell a product to a market.

The market is advertisers, that is, other businesses. The product is the audiences. For the elite media that set the basic agenda to which others adapt, the product is, furthermore, relatively privileged audiences.

So we have major corporations selling fairly wealthy and privileged audiences. Not surprisingly, the picture of the world represented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers, and the product.

The media are only one part of a larger doctrinal system: other parts are journals of opinion, the schools and universities, academic scholarship and so on. We are much more aware of the media, especially the prestige media, because those who critically analyze ideology have focused on them.

The doctrinal system, which produces what we call propaganda when discussing enemies, has two distinct targets. One target is what is sometimes called the political class, the roughly 20% of the population that is relatively educated more or less articulate, playing some roll in the decision making. Their acceptance of doctrine is crucial because they are in a position to design and implement policy.

Then there are the 80% or so of the population. These are, as Walter Lippmann wrote "spectators of action", whom he referred to as the "bewildered herd". They are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the important people. They are the targets of the "real" mass media: the tabloids, the sitcoms, super bowl, and so on.

These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values:

The Holy Posture of Right Wing behavior:

Passivity
Submissiveness to Authority
The Overriding Virtue of Greed and Personal Gain.
The Lack of Concern for Others.
Fear of Real or Imagined Enemies, etc
.

The goal is keep the bewildered herd bewildered.

It is unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it is undesirable ---if they see too much of reality they may set themselves in charge.


You aren't stupid, Finn, in fact of the denizens on the Right who haunt a2k you appear the least non-intelligent, but you are just brainwashed into thinking that this is all there is. Meanwhile, you attack those who believe differently, that there is more going on beneath the surface because you know deep down its true. But, psychologically you can not deal with the idea that you've been fooled.

Those Liberals whom you attack on a2k represent something much deeper and more fearful to your allies- freedom, unconventionality, and experimentation in a materialistic, capitalistic society. We have the appearance of being Free men.

Which is why whenever I read the nonsense you guys write I think of this dialogue from Easy Rider

Quote:
George: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.

Billy: Huh. Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened, man. Hey, we can't even get into like, uh, second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel. You dig? They think we're gonna cut their throat or something, man. They're scared, man.

George: Oh, they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.

Billy: Hey man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody needs a haircut.

George: Oh no. What you represent to them is freedom.

Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.

George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Billy: Mmmm, well, that don't make 'em runnin' scared.

George: No, it makes 'em dangerous.


Oh wow! You've actually referenced Easy Rider is your reply.

When I was a HS Junior in NY I had to take a state run test called The Regents. There was a Regents test in English, Science and Math. Scoring well on these tests allowed you to receive a Regents Diploma and helped your effort to attend a NY state university.

I barely passed the Science and Math Regents but looked forward to the English test. It was a series of multiple choice followed by essays.

I took the test and felt like I had aced it.

Afterwards, I caught up with my English teacher (a horrific Satantic figure who regulary deflowered impressionable female students) and asked him how I had done.

His reply was something to the effect of "In all my years, I have never graded anyone 100% on an English Regents..." Of course, I saw this as a lead in to "Until now." Nope. He took great pleasure in telling me that I had aced the test except for the fact that in the essay that called for a comparison of a movie to a novel, I chose to compare Easy Rider to Metamorphisis, and of course Kafka's tale was a "novella," not a "novel."

I lost 2 points and scored a 98.

Your post requires a response crafted on something other than a blackberry at a bar.

I'll be back
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 05:58 pm
Are we (the liberal lunatics)now sufficiently impressed as to how intellectually superior Finn is?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 06:01 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Are we (the liberal lunatics)now sufficiently impressed as to how intellectually superior Finn is?


Come on, a paper clip is intellectually superior to most of you.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 06:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Are we (the liberal lunatics)now sufficiently impressed as to how intellectually superior Finn is?


Come on, a paper clip is intellectually superior to most of you.


LOL

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fin sniffed:

Quote:
Your post requires a response crafted on something other than a blackberry at a bar.


You are posting to a political forum from your blackberry at a bar? (Rubbing elbows with wealthy Aussies, no doubt!) With social graces like that, it is any wonder that "Prof" deflowered all the girls and not Finn?.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 06:31 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


... pile ons...


you consider my comment a "pile on"?
i thought conservatives were rugged individuals, dude. Laughing

as far as the travelling in packs thing... you may want to reflect on what has happened over the last few years to not only liberals and centrists, but also conservatives who go off the rez.

chuck hagel comes to mind.

and back on topic...

i don't seem to remember the right complaining about the nyt when judy miller was pimpin' the iraq war for the administration.


No, I don't consider your comment a "pile on."

More like an A2K version of that classic Warner Bros cartoon where the little scawny mutts bounces all around the big tough Bulldog, gibbering: "That's great Spike, you're great Spike, I'm your buddy---right Spike!"

Only here it's a Hungarian herding dog and not a Looney Toon bulldog.


sorry that's all you got out of the 4327 posts i've put up over the years.

but in deference to your delicate sensibilities, i promise to try really, really hard to never to compliment another poster ever again.

starting with you.

finn, i have rarely seen you post anything that was more than the equivalent of a cut and paste hit piece on liberals. ignore the idea and attack the messenger. apparently, it's inherent in the rugged individuals known as conservatives to avoid,even occassionally, looking beyond approved party rhetoric to consider that maybe someone else might actually have a decent, and more importantly, original idea.

perhaps you've never had one of those?

nope. none of that. if it doesn't fit neatly into your little box of "values", (because of course, only conservatives have those), you quickly sound the alarm and jump into action launching a holy seek and destroy mission on the nearest liberal before they can singlehandedly devastate this here nation under god.

really, man. it's pathetic.

are you and your gang of righteous vulture warriors really that threatened by nasty little things like free speech and inquiring mind ?

i have to laugh when you clowns label me a liberal.

since first registering to vote, i've only belonged to 2 parties. libertarian since 1979, and previously...republican. voted for ford. voted for reagan. twice.

i'll be kind here. the main reason i began voting otherwise than republican in presidentials is simple. while growing up, the republicans were pretty good with money. they also stayed out people's personal lives.

that disappeared when reagan tripled a deficit that had never doubled since the time of washington. bush senior did him one better. the current knucklehead in chief, has out done both of 'em and sold us to the communist chinese. asi viejo, dubya!

put that together with 20+ years of the republican conservative's elevation to the status of a bunch of old nellies running around wringing their hands about abortion, gays, and any number of things that are really none of their business and what you have is this;

i will never vote for another republican president until every single one of your current crop of goody two shoes, "i'll give up every liberty to be kept safe" crowd of one size fits all haircuts has been put out to pasture.

hopefully, in your town. so you can be the beneficiary of their constant pissing and moaning.

and while you are sitting there, nodding sagely to the canned speeches about "activist judges", "secular progressives", "liberal academia" (which is complete horseshit as evidenced by my mother, a teacher of over 45 years who was such a consumate conservative republican that she not only campaigned for nixon but also got me introduced to him) and worst of all, having to actually pay taxes to support your "faith based initiatives" and "proxy wars" with the villian of the week, it might actually come to pass that you realize;

you are not a conservative.

in fact, people like you give conservatism a bad name.

but hey, if you really just can't get off without demonizing at least half, and more likely three quarters of the american public, knock yourself out.

then we might get a little peace and quiet around here.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 09:24 pm
DTOM....nice post.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 03:07 am
DTOM,
I need to Correct something you said.

You said...

Quote:
that disappeared when reagan tripled a deficit that had never doubled since the time of washington.


That isnt correct.

If you look here...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm

You will see that the national debt almost tripled from 1917 to 1918, and that from 1940 to 1945 it went from
06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68
06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93

And since REagan was president from 1980 to 1988, here is what the national debt did during his admin...

09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00


The National Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government; the federal budget deficit is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. Add up all the deficits for the past 200+ years and you'll get the current National Debt.

So,there have been several times when the National deficit/debt has not only doubled,but tripled during an administration.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 04:49 am
Other than that, you agree with everything he said.

Joe(good. That's progress.)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 06:40 am
looks like dtom has met the kettle.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 04:19 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Other than that, you agree with everything he said.

Joe(good. That's progress.)Nation


Not really, but my disagreements with his post are minor.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 05:17 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Are we (the liberal lunatics)now sufficiently impressed as to how intellectually superior Finn is?


Come on, a paper clip is intellectually superior to most of you.


LOL

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fin sniffed:

Quote:
Your post requires a response crafted on something other than a blackberry at a bar.


You are posting to a political forum from your blackberry at a bar? (Rubbing elbows with wealthy Aussies, no doubt!) With social graces like that, it is any wonder that "Prof" deflowered all the girls and not Finn?.


Roxxy

I love the fact that I (figuratively of course) get under you skin to the point where you'll write anything in response, irrespective of whether or it makes sense, as long as it rises to your personal low setting for a cutting retort.

People's exhibit #1: The nonsensical relation of social graces to posting in a political forum, followed by some bizzare homophobic rip.

How the hell was that supposed to be a razor?

Here's a free lesson in writing style. The use of "sniffed," may have been wry once (not likely though since it's a Dowdian cliche) but repition has a tendency to dull the blade. Give it a rest. Try "bleated," or "superciliously sneered" Just mix it up a bit.

Similarly, you're killing the wealthy Aussie bit. First of all you've taken the comment completely out of context. If I recall correctly, I made the comment in response to someone's broad-stroked characterization of Australian public opinion. The Australians I know did not agree with him. There is relevance in understanding the nature of my Aussie friends. Perhaps the original comment was largely accurate, and it did not resonate with me because my Aussie friends held a minority view. That they happen to be "wealthy" may explain their residence within a rather small slice of Aussie opinion. But then, maybe not. In any case their description as wealthy was relevant. Secondly, you are (as is your won't) beating a dead horse.

Like when you trumpeted that are a "real estate professional" while responding to someone else's post some time ago. That was certainly fodder for ridicule, but it only would have worked once.

At this point some may wonder why I spend this much time and space responding to you. The answer is twofold and simple:

I feel a sense of responsibility to my A2K stalker (or is it groupie - good God I hope not) and secondly, in addition to being supercilious, I, at times, am pedantic.

Try these tips. Like a change in golf swing, they may feel funny at first, but with time you'll see they can improve you game - Lord know it needs it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 05:32 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


... pile ons...


you consider my comment a "pile on"?
i thought conservatives were rugged individuals, dude. Laughing

as far as the travelling in packs thing... you may want to reflect on what has happened over the last few years to not only liberals and centrists, but also conservatives who go off the rez.

chuck hagel comes to mind.

and back on topic...

i don't seem to remember the right complaining about the nyt when judy miller was pimpin' the iraq war for the administration.


No, I don't consider your comment a "pile on."

More like an A2K version of that classic Warner Bros cartoon where the little scawny mutts bounces all around the big tough Bulldog, gibbering: "That's great Spike, you're great Spike, I'm your buddy---right Spike!"

Only here it's a Hungarian herding dog and not a Looney Toon bulldog.


sorry that's all you got out of the 4327 posts i've put up over the years.

but in deference to your delicate sensibilities, i promise to try really, really hard to never to compliment another poster ever again.

starting with you.

finn, i have rarely seen you post anything that was more than the equivalent of a cut and paste hit piece on liberals. ignore the idea and attack the messenger. apparently, it's inherent in the rugged individuals known as conservatives to avoid,even occassionally, looking beyond approved party rhetoric to consider that maybe someone else might actually have a decent, and more importantly, original idea.

perhaps you've never had one of those?

nope. none of that. if it doesn't fit neatly into your little box of "values", (because of course, only conservatives have those), you quickly sound the alarm and jump into action launching a holy seek and destroy mission on the nearest liberal before they can singlehandedly devastate this here nation under god.

really, man. it's pathetic.

are you and your gang of righteous vulture warriors really that threatened by nasty little things like free speech and inquiring mind ?

i have to laugh when you clowns label me a liberal.

since first registering to vote, i've only belonged to 2 parties. libertarian since 1979, and previously...republican. voted for ford. voted for reagan. twice.

i'll be kind here. the main reason i began voting otherwise than republican in presidentials is simple. while growing up, the republicans were pretty good with money. they also stayed out people's personal lives.

that disappeared when reagan tripled a deficit that had never doubled since the time of washington. bush senior did him one better. the current knucklehead in chief, has out done both of 'em and sold us to the communist chinese. asi viejo, dubya!

put that together with 20+ years of the republican conservative's elevation to the status of a bunch of old nellies running around wringing their hands about abortion, gays, and any number of things that are really none of their business and what you have is this;

i will never vote for another republican president until every single one of your current crop of goody two shoes, "i'll give up every liberty to be kept safe" crowd of one size fits all haircuts has been put out to pasture.

hopefully, in your town. so you can be the beneficiary of their constant pissing and moaning.

and while you are sitting there, nodding sagely to the canned speeches about "activist judges", "secular progressives", "liberal academia" (which is complete horseshit as evidenced by my mother, a teacher of over 45 years who was such a consumate conservative republican that she not only campaigned for nixon but also got me introduced to him) and worst of all, having to actually pay taxes to support your "faith based initiatives" and "proxy wars" with the villian of the week, it might actually come to pass that you realize;

you are not a conservative.

in fact, people like you give conservatism a bad name.

but hey, if you really just can't get off without demonizing at least half, and more likely three quarters of the american public, knock yourself out.

then we might get a little peace and quiet around here.


Stung did it?

The Looney Tunes analogy was related to one of your posts, that you might believe it was intended to represent the totality of 4000+ contributions to A2K speaks somewhat loudly of the confidence (or lack thereof) you have in your body of cyber-work.

Spare me your bonafides as a...what? Freethinker? I'm equally disinterested in your assessment of the current conservative movement, or of me for that matter.

In addition, I have no doubt your mother was a wonderful women, but I don't really care what her politics were. The association with Nixon was interesting though. Remember his comments about his mother during his final meltdown?

Spare me as well your feeble indignation about attacks. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want peace and quite, leave this forum and take a dirt nap.It's laughable to think I might flee A2K because of a DTOM hissy fit, but I guess it was worth a try.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:20 pm
unresponsive responses

go phillies!..... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:55 pm
LOL Finn posts a lengthy diatribe responding to my one-liner and he thinks he is getting under my skin.

BTW for all would be comics, the rule is three times before the joke is trashed, so the wealthy Aussies can rear their heads one more time before being put to rest.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:44 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


... pile ons...


you consider my comment a "pile on"?
i thought conservatives were rugged individuals, dude. Laughing

as far as the travelling in packs thing... you may want to reflect on what has happened over the last few years to not only liberals and centrists, but also conservatives who go off the rez.

chuck hagel comes to mind.

and back on topic...

i don't seem to remember the right complaining about the nyt when judy miller was pimpin' the iraq war for the administration.


No, I don't consider your comment a "pile on."

More like an A2K version of that classic Warner Bros cartoon where the little scawny mutts bounces all around the big tough Bulldog, gibbering: "That's great Spike, you're great Spike, I'm your buddy---right Spike!"

Only here it's a Hungarian herding dog and not a Looney Toon bulldog.


sorry that's all you got out of the 4327 posts i've put up over the years.

but in deference to your delicate sensibilities, i promise to try really, really hard to never to compliment another poster ever again.

starting with you.

finn, i have rarely seen you post anything that was more than the equivalent of a cut and paste hit piece on liberals. ignore the idea and attack the messenger. apparently, it's inherent in the rugged individuals known as conservatives to avoid,even occassionally, looking beyond approved party rhetoric to consider that maybe someone else might actually have a decent, and more importantly, original idea.

perhaps you've never had one of those?

nope. none of that. if it doesn't fit neatly into your little box of "values", (because of course, only conservatives have those), you quickly sound the alarm and jump into action launching a holy seek and destroy mission on the nearest liberal before they can singlehandedly devastate this here nation under god.

really, man. it's pathetic.

are you and your gang of righteous vulture warriors really that threatened by nasty little things like free speech and inquiring mind ?

i have to laugh when you clowns label me a liberal.

since first registering to vote, i've only belonged to 2 parties. libertarian since 1979, and previously...republican. voted for ford. voted for reagan. twice.

i'll be kind here. the main reason i began voting otherwise than republican in presidentials is simple. while growing up, the republicans were pretty good with money. they also stayed out people's personal lives.

that disappeared when reagan tripled a deficit that had never doubled since the time of washington. bush senior did him one better. the current knucklehead in chief, has out done both of 'em and sold us to the communist chinese. asi viejo, dubya!

put that together with 20+ years of the republican conservative's elevation to the status of a bunch of old nellies running around wringing their hands about abortion, gays, and any number of things that are really none of their business and what you have is this;

i will never vote for another republican president until every single one of your current crop of goody two shoes, "i'll give up every liberty to be kept safe" crowd of one size fits all haircuts has been put out to pasture.

hopefully, in your town. so you can be the beneficiary of their constant pissing and moaning.

and while you are sitting there, nodding sagely to the canned speeches about "activist judges", "secular progressives", "liberal academia" (which is complete horseshit as evidenced by my mother, a teacher of over 45 years who was such a consumate conservative republican that she not only campaigned for nixon but also got me introduced to him) and worst of all, having to actually pay taxes to support your "faith based initiatives" and "proxy wars" with the villian of the week, it might actually come to pass that you realize;

you are not a conservative.

in fact, people like you give conservatism a bad name.

but hey, if you really just can't get off without demonizing at least half, and more likely three quarters of the american public, knock yourself out.

then we might get a little peace and quiet around here.


Stung did it?

The Looney Tunes analogy was related to one of your posts, that you might believe it was intended to represent the totality of 4000+ contributions to A2K speaks somewhat loudly of the confidence (or lack thereof) you have in your body of cyber-work.

Spare me your bonafides as a...what? Freethinker? I'm equally disinterested in your assessment of the current conservative movement, or of me for that matter.

In addition, I have no doubt your mother was a wonderful women, but I don't really care what her politics were. The association with Nixon was interesting though. Remember his comments about his mother during his final meltdown?

Spare me as well your feeble indignation about attacks. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want peace and quite, leave this forum and take a dirt nap.It's laughable to think I might flee A2K because of a DTOM hissy fit, but I guess it was worth a try.


for claiming do be disinterested you sure exhibit a lot of the behaviors of worrying quite a lot about what others think of you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 07:51:28