0
   

Useless liberal arguments

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 06:21 pm
MW, yes, I was actually completely honest there. McG is one of my favourite political posters, despite the fact that I don't always agree with him.

I read McG's profile. "Conservative ex-hippie Buddhist" was the precis, I believe. I love that. I also looked at the pics of his beautiful dogs. I feel the need to actually spread the love. McG is just misunderstood, IMO, and here he was expecting to be insulted. Wink

Judge the person, not their opinions, and if you find the person worthy, accept the opinions, and be a respectful debator. I'm somewhat new to the Politics forums, but if I choose to debate with a Conservative, I would want it to be McG. Cheers! Spread more love, think, enjoy.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 06:56 pm
When I first came on A2K McG would cuff me about the ears...but he always had a sense of humour and...one time he posted a very funny cartoon making fun of dubya...a toast to McG...

Cav, make it a B-52...straight up
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 06:57 pm
Pop into the virtual pub and we'll set you up panzade.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 07:07 pm
Come on McG...let's pop into the pub and I'll buy you a drink. Don't believe you've ever met Melita the waitress have you?
0 Replies
 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 10:15 pm
In defense of "liberals"?
Is this recently received email in defense of liberals? No offense to anyone who might have one of names used here.

If this has been published on A2K, maybe I can edit this copy "out." Please let me know.


Quote:
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - [email protected] - July - 2004

Printable version: Click here!

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - [email protected] - Published July - 2004
Printable version: Click here!
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 10:51 pm
McGentrix's egocentricity is just OOOOZING with confidence. Notice how he desperately attempts to control the conversation (just like Bush 2 does in his press conferences).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 04:04 am
Dook and Cav...

...like both of you, I see a change in McG.

The thought that comes to mind for me is:

Once a person gives up smoking, he/she becomes insufferable in smoking situations.

If you can see why that came up for me at this moment...you probably can tell how I feel about this change.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:45 am
cavfancier wrote:
MW, yes, I was actually completely honest there. McG is one of my favourite political posters, despite the fact that I don't always agree with him.

I read McG's profile. "Conservative ex-hippie Buddhist" was the precis, I believe. I love that. I also looked at the pics of his beautiful dogs. I feel the need to actually spread the love. McG is just misunderstood, IMO, and here he was expecting to be insulted. Wink

Judge the person, not their opinions, and if you find the person worthy, accept the opinions, and be a respectful debator. I'm somewhat new to the Politics forums, but if I choose to debate with a Conservative, I would want it to be McG. Cheers! Spread more love, think, enjoy.


Embarrassed Now see what you made me do! Right back at ya!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:46 am
McG is my favorite person to argue with. He might get peevish sometimes, but we all do. I'm not sure how much fun this board would be without him.

Should we rename this thread to "Toasting McG?"
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:47 am
AWwwww
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:50 am
Yeah, I know.... and he's not even dead.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:52 am
Gosh I had no idea these things annoyed McGentrix......I would like to see a more detailed lst of things he doesn't like so I could consult them every time I post bcasue God knows I'd rather die than offend him.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:57 am
McGentrix --

My reaction to your initial post is that I more or less agree with 2), 3), and 4).

Regarding 1), I followed your link, and the first thing I read was that the document it points to is titled: Bin Laden determined to attack in the US. When liberals interpret this title as meaning that Bin Laden is planning to attack the US, how is this "pointless, wrong, or stupid"? (Your words, not mine.) It sounds like a very straightforward reading of the title's words to me.

Regarding 5), is there any way of replying to you that you find acceptable? Or is silent agreement the only reaction that satisfies you?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:59 am
I'm gonna re name the Bear....Lazarus.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:00 am
panzade wrote:
I'm gonna re name the Bear....Lazarus.


don't you have to be dead first to be Lazarus? :wink:
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:02 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
God knows I'd rather die than offend him.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:07 am
I'm sure McGentrix feels he could call me back from the dead Pan....no self esteem problems there...but the question is would he? Laughing
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:09 am
Yeah he would... it gets lonely when you're always right.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:15 am
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix --

My reaction to your initial post is that I more or less agree with 2), 3), and 4).

Regarding 1), I followed your link, and the first thing I read was that the document it points to is titled: Bin Laden determined to attack in the US. When liberals interpret this title as meaning that Bin Laden is planning to attack the US, how is this "pointless, wrong, or stupid"? (Your words, not mine.) It sounds like a very straightforward reading of the title's words to me.

Regarding 5), is there any way of replying to you that you find acceptable? Or is silent agreement the only reaction that satisfies you?


Regarding 5, I would say you have demonstrated a perfect reply. Dookie and Bear and Frank gave the replies I was expecting, and Cav's and Panzade and FreeDuck's replies actually took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting that and to tell you the truth, I appreciated it.

Regarding one...

Quote:
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."


Since 1997. For 3 years, Bin Laden had been planning to conduct terrorist attacks on the US before Bush took office. What is it exactly he SHOULD have done? I don't see where anything the US did, with the exception of attacking Afghanistan in January, would really have done much to thwart 9/11. It was an excellent surprise attack.

Quote:
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the F.B.I. that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.


So, he had attempted an attack and was thwarted. Who knew what else he was planning. Clinton should have been all over this guy, well, like Bush was after 9/11.

Quote:


The administration should definitly respond to this. Maybe make it easier for the FBI and other government agencies to gain access to American citizens so they may track suspicious activity. Maybe create something similar to the Patriot Act?

Quote:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a . . . service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.


(bold = mine) Not to destroy the WTC, but to use as hostages.


Quote:
The F.B.I. is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are investigating a call to our embassy in the U.A.E. in May saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.


So, the FBI is on it. Who knew Clinton had weakened them so much that they would be so ineffective? Who would have thought anything like 9/11 might happen from reading this? How could ANYONE use this reort as a smoking gun for anything?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 07:16 am
I've never been lonely.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 05:36:22