Dear Mr. President

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

si if I'm serious...I'm an unfeeling monster.

If I'm farting around I'm not mature.

Why should I debate with you? I'm a loser either way according to you. So **** yourself.

And who backed themselves into this corner with either their unfeeling or immature comments?

'Progressives'... Gotta love 'em...

0 Replies

and who actually thinks they can back me into a corner? that's rich.....

3 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

How can they back you into a corner?You're BiPOlar. Seriously,you really ought to get some help for that bipolar condition. They have some great new pharmaceuticals that can help you.

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Sigh.

Ok. You're not being a child. Rolling Eyes

How about you decide not to sidestep the question?

I'm actually curious here. You've been pretty bold (twice now) in saying you really wouldn't give a ****.

I've provided you quite the opportunity to say you're not serious; apparently your ego will not allow you to do so.

So yeah, I backed you into a corner... This really wasn't my intention, anyway; 'progressives' are just so emotional, I guess, you guys can't help it.

Obviously, you're not going to respond to me here.

Actually, I believe I caught you dirty, and called you out. You're just a 'progressive' hypocrite who is telling us exactly what he would do, and is now embarrassed about it...

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

A Lone Voice wrote:

Sigh.

Ok. You're not being a child.

How about you decide not to sidestep the question?

I'm actually curious here. You've been pretty bold (twice now) in saying you really wouldn't give a ****.

I've provided you quite the opportunity to say you're not serious; apparently your ego will not allow you to do so.

So yeah, I backed you into a corner... This really wasn't my intention, anyway; 'progressives'
are just so emotional, I guess, you guys can't help it.

Obviously, you're not going to respond to me here.

Actually, I believe I caught you dirty, and called you out.
You're just a 'progressive' hypocrite who is telling us exactly what he would do, and is now embarrassed about it...

I take exception to use of the word "progressive"
as political liberals of the left use it,
because it PRESUMES that progress is movement along in the direction
that THAY deem appropriate (leftward, away from personal liberty)
and toward an artificial and enforced equality.

As a freedom-loving American:
I don t wanna go there.
Thay wanna progress in the rong direction.

When people use the word "progress" as to a description
of political theory, I like to remind them of progress thru time
at the end of Czarist Russia, or at the end of the Weimar Republic.

The citizens of those areas were better off without the "progress."

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid- You have expressed a thought which I have had many times. Thanks for putting it in writing.
I must give you the definition of progressive as laid out b y the renown William Safire in his book--"Safire's New Political Dictionary"

Safire writes--Progressive--a word now offering an alternative to those who do not wish to be labeled LIBERAL.

Liberals know that to self-identify themselves in a political campaign is tantamount to political death. The American Voter, by and large,identifies LIBERAL as one who is very close to and fully sympathetic with radical left wing politics as demonstrated by hard left Socialists, superannuated hippies and movements such as the Black Panthers.

1 Reply

@genoves,

During the 1930s, avowed communists
(I don t believe that thay actually carried membership cards)
ofen referred to themselves as "liberals".

Conservative means keeping rigidly unbending in the enforcement of a rule,
or law, or agreement or some paradigm; accordingly, conservatives conserve
that rule or agreement or paradigm (e.g., a common style of dress).

Liberal means deviating from some rule, or law,
or agreement or some paradigm, and not taking it too seriously.

For instance,
if men are playing poker n one rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
and when challenged on this behavior, he declares
the liberal motto: " hay, that 's CLOSE ENUF; don 't be
too technical; don 't split hairs; just don t be a ball buster, OK ?
I had a fight with my wife, yesterday I got a flat tire,
I belong to a minority group and my left foot stinks, so gimme a break n deal the cards."

Hence, he advocates the position that logic shoud be SUBORDINATED to emotion
and that thay shoud take a LIBERAL VU
of the rules of poker because his sob story OUTRANKS
the technical rules requiring 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.

"Conservative" means non-deviant.
"Liberal" means deviant.
Without having deviated from something no one can be liberal
because the essence of liberalism is turning away from something.

For instance, if u attend a formal banquet in a black tuxedo
with red sneakers, u deviate from the paradigm of formal dress,
thereby taking a liberal vu thereof. If u attend it in your underwear,
then u take a MORE LIBERAL interpretation of that paradigm.
If u attend it naked, then u apply a radical interpretation
( "from the root" ) of that paradigm.

Whether liberalism is good or bad
depends upon WHAT the liberal is veering away from.
Like when Boris Yeltsin veered away from communism, that was a GOOD thing.

Liberalism includes ANY kind of deviation,
in any direction of 360 degrees of arc + up n down.

There is no logical semantic constriction on liberalism
that it can only exist in the direction of collectivist-authoritarianism a/k/a socialism.
Deviation can be in the opposite direction or in any direction.

David

0 Replies

Okay lone voice her ya go ...I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't or wouldn't give a **** but it has nothing to do with emotional investment or hate or any of that bullshit.

I don't give a **** about you, Rush Limbaugh, super conservatives or anyone else that I feel is detrimental to the one program I attach great meaning to and that's the Bi-Polar Bear and his loved ones program whatever that may happen to be.

there are 3 groups of people...those who contribute to my program and comfort, those who don't do anything to the detriment of my comfort and program and those who **** with my comfort and program. The third group can go ahead and disappear right off the face of the Earth.

but there's no emotion (other than annoyance perhaps) and certainly no hate involved. Group # 3 means the same thing to me as a garden pest in terms of emotional involvement so how could I hate them?

Should you choose to elevate yourself by thinking you painted me into a corner or caught me dirty....go ahead. I'm content to be a small part of your make lone voice feel a sense of worthiness strategy. I'm sure I'm only one of many.

But please, can we drop the subject? Your question is asked and answered in generous detail.

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

How can they back you into a corner-- You are bi-polar by your own admission.

Seriously,you really should look into the new pharmaceuticals they have now. You might benefit from trying them.

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

Okay lone voice her ya go ...I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't or wouldn't give a **** but it has nothing to do with emotional investment or hate or any of that bullshit.

I don't give a **** about you, Rush Limbaugh, super conservatives or anyone else that I feel is detrimental to the one program I attach great meaning to and that's the Bi-Polar Bear and his loved ones program whatever that may happen to be.

there are 3 groups of people...those who contribute to my program and comfort, those who don't do anything to the detriment of my comfort and program and those who **** with my comfort and program. The third group can go ahead and disappear right off the face of the Earth.

but there's no emotion (other than annoyance perhaps) and certainly no hate involved. Group # 3 means the same thing to me as a garden pest in terms of emotional involvement so how could I hate them?

Should you choose to elevate yourself by thinking you painted me into a corner or caught me dirty....go ahead. I'm content to be a small part of your make lone voice feel a sense of worthiness strategy. I'm sure I'm only one of many.

But please, can we drop the subject? Your question is asked and answered in generous detail.

Thanks for the response.

Not sure how old you are, but I'm sure you've heard the old saw about 'First they came for my neighbor, but he was a ____, but I didn't care cause I'm not a ______ myself'. Next they came for ........' Paraphrasing here, of course.

Sorry you don't give a ****, dude. Those who you think '**** with your program' as you put it might be the only ones who would really give a **** about you in the long run, after all.

Just ask my Jewish friends...

2 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

Lone Voice-_I don't usually enter into arguments between posters but, I like your posts and your ideas,so I must appeal to you. Please don't harass BI-Polar. You must be compassionate. Do you think you would be able to operate successfully if you had an 85 IQ?

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Okay lone voice her ya go ...I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't or wouldn't give a **** but it has nothing to do with emotional investment or hate or any of that bullshit.

I don't give a **** about you, Rush Limbaugh, super conservatives or anyone else that I feel is detrimental to the one program I attach great meaning to and that's the Bi-Polar Bear and his loved ones program whatever that may happen to be.

there are 3 groups of people...those who contribute to my program and comfort, those who don't do anything to the detriment of my comfort and program and those who **** with my comfort and program. The third group can go ahead and disappear right off the face of the Earth.

but there's no emotion (other than annoyance perhaps) and certainly no hate involved. Group # 3 means the same thing to me as a garden pest in terms of emotional involvement so how could I hate them?

Should you choose to elevate yourself by thinking you painted me into a corner or caught me dirty....go ahead. I'm content to be a small part of your make lone voice feel a sense of worthiness strategy. I'm sure I'm only one of many.

But please, can we drop the subject? Your question is asked and answered in generous detail.

Thanks for the response.

Not sure how old you are, but I'm sure you've heard the old saw about 'First they came for my neighbor, but he was a ____, but I didn't care cause I'm not a ______ myself'. Next they came for ........' Paraphrasing here, of course.

Sorry you don't give a ****, dude. Those who you think '**** with your program' as you put it might be the only ones who would really give a **** about you in the long run, after all.

Just ask my Jewish friends...

and you're probably correct...and I don't need anyone else to give a **** about me. I actually like most people and would prefer that they care about me...but my self esteem isn't tied up in it.

as for your little paraphrase there... here's something you don't understand obviously, with your Nazi reference. If it had been up to me.... I would have stopped Hitler in his tracks before Poland. But I would have done it from the pragmatic view that when things are running well for everyone...then it follows they are running well for me and conversely a huge World War would make things run in a most inconvenient way. I could be conscripted and killed. We are directed by every major religion to take care as best we can of others, but not as a ******* Hallmark "Warm and Fuzzy" card but because it's the pragmatic view. when things are as good as possible for the collective things are as good as possible for the individual. There are always those taking their turn in the barrel however, and that's a stated fact religiously, historically, philosophically.... it's also an accepted fact that you can't save everyone..... otherwise we'd all have such guilty consciences people would be committing suicide or in the nuthatch. We are directed to attempt to do the right thing for it's own sake....but nowhere in organized religion or philosophy do I see where it says we have to be cheerful about it, except where the church admonishes us to be cheerful givers and that of course is because they're soliciting money.

Let me put it another way. If the ship were sinking I'd do everything I could to save you because we would be living or dying together.

If I was on the dock and you were drowning a few feet away, well, that wouldn't effect me in any way therefore I would still throw you a line because it would be good form...but were it to not work and you drowned anyway..... I'd shrug it off and go to lunch. Because we don't see eye to eye and you've insulted me....so I don't need you or your friendship. I feel you'll get along happily and fine without me as well.

Did you still want to discuss this ad nauseum?

PS I'll be 60 in May.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And so Obama won.

That seems to be a favored response to his critics: "Shut the hell up, I won."

Obama is tired of any other opinion but his own. He says its time we stop the same old political arguing. He says the time for that is over. Huh? Perhaps he just wants his way? After all, he won. I think he would just love to shut down Fox News and anybody else that disagrees with him, including I am sure Rush. And maybe he feels like telling his own vp that too!

Do we have an adult in the whitehouse or is he still in the "terrible twos?" Whah, whah, whah, I won, let me do it my way, or else.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/10/did-obama-throw-biden-bus/

"Did Obama Throw Biden Under the Bus?

GARRETT: Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two of you had in the Oval Office about a subject he didn't disclose.

"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Since the vice president brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it wasn't the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan and if, in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent failure, 70 percent success?

OBAMA: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to...

(LAUGHTER) ...not surprisingly."

1 Reply

pretty rich coming from a bush supporter. Have a freedom fry and bathe in your maturity.

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

If it had been up to me.... I would have stopped Hitler in his tracks before Poland. But I would have done it from the pragmatic view that when things are running well for everyone...then it follows they are running well for me and conversely a huge World War would make things run in a most inconvenient way.

Things were running well for many in Germany after 1933, especially after the humiliation of the Weimar Republic. Of course, the Jews began to get a tad nervous...

And that's what happens when people 'don't give a ****,' essentially.

Right?

Quote:

We are directed by every major religion to take care as best we can of others, but not as a ******* Hallmark "Warm and Fuzzy" card but because it's the pragmatic view. when things are as good as possible for the collective things are as good as possible for the individual.

Of course, when it is the government running the collective, they set the rules. And the social mores. As you probably know, lot's of good Christians in Nazi Germany. As in the rest of Europe. Just like here in the US. Everyone watched it happen, didn't they, until it was too late?

Just as, I'm afraid, many uneducated and uninformed people here would watch a popular leftist government reset the rules ("living" Constitution, anyone?) of our society without realizing - or caring - what was occurring.

As long as the collective will was doing ok, I guess.

But even the most liberal of leftists eventually regretted Stalin, didn't they?

See, my whole point here is government totalitarianism can come from either the left or the right. You seem convinced it couldn't possibly be of bother to you if it came from the left. That every aspect of a totalitarian leftist government would be acceptable to you?

Until they began to conscript 60 year old dudes to fight the right wing oppressors in Canada? Smile

I think where we differ is I see any government oppression as just that; I'm frankly glad our constitution has an eight year term limit on the president, for example, after the last administration.

But you're right; we won't agree on this. One thing I've learned here is I certainly won't change anyone's mind, but I do enjoy the tussles...

1 Reply

please name the uninformed and uneducated you refer to...or is that merely a another way of saying those who's views differ from yours?

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

please name the uninformed and uneducated you refer to...or is that merely a another way of saying those who's views differ from yours?

OK, fair enough.

Uneducated?

Here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm

Uninformed?

Here:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/03/the-ignorant-american-voter.html

This was with a 30 second google search. Note some of the author's findings in the second article.

Now that we're still playing, how 'bout you address some of the other issues I raised? I'm very interested in your response...

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Good post and links, Lone Voice.

I think its the American educational system, Lone Voice, it has been an utter failure to educate students about basic civics, how the government is supposed to operate. Unlike Obama's cry for change, which simply advocates throwing more money at a failed system, I think many conservatives believe in real change, to totally reform a failed system by injecting a healthy dose of competition into the system.

1 Reply

@okie,

Touche-- A great post-Okie. It reveals the arrogance and hubris of Obama.

You are one of four or five good conservative posters on these threads. I hope that you would consider it presumptuous of me to make a few suggestions.

l. You mad e your point. You posted your evidence. You won because Bi Polar was not able to respond in any rational way. When you r opponents like Cicerone Imposter reply to evidence as you have given with a two liner, you r argument wins.

However, I would suggest that if they deviate from the argument with irrelevancies, neglect them. Go back to the original point you made and again dare them to try to rebut you.

T here are dangers in this approach since if yousucceed in winning the debate, some will leave the scene and you will find that your evidence and documention has not been responded to.

That's fine--Just remember that when you give a rational argument buttressed by evidence and the opposition does not rebut it, YOUR ARGUMENT STANDS AND YOU HAVE WON THE DEBATE.

C heers, Okie!

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

A Lone Voice-- Bi Polar asks you to name the" uninformed and uneducated"

I hope you don't mind if I point out a couple of irrefutable facts--

l. 100 is the median IQ in this country.

2. Obama won because of a massive turnout of blacks and Hispanics.

3. AS A GROUP, blacks and Hispanics, for many complex reasons relating to enviroment, have IQ's which put their groups below the average of 100.

I would then say that those are some of the "uniformed and uneducated"

0 Replies

Dear Mr. President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know