A MAJOR LEFTIST MEDIA ASSHOLE DOES THE COUNTRY A FAVOR

[bobblehead]

Tyrone-

After a long discussion you and I had on another thread you stated something to the effect of, I can't be for the republican party in its present form due to its intolerance. We had specifically been talking about race issues, and the religious right. Couple that in with your sig, and I don't think I made that big of a leap in logic.

Also, I didn't say we aren't more unified than the left, I was merely making the point we are not in lock step, the left has positions all over the map, many in direct contradiction with each other...it drives me batty, so you don't have to convince me that they are more diverse in their beliefs.

Tex's post hits it right head on...trying to get a lib to actually make a stance instead of simply attacking conservative issues is like jacking off with sandpaper...its much to painful to do just to get the desired result.

As far as conserves and social issues, I was merely pointing out how a lot of conservatives differ from the "lockstep" party line, I wasn't addressing anything you said.

Now, that being said, I don't think all libs have socialist or communistic desires, but I think a good hefty percentage of them do, or at the very least they desire the power of control over me and my money. Those few do their damndest to label consevatives close minded, rascist, bigoted, homophobe, or any other thing to try and brainwash the youth(and some adults) into buying into their party as somehow the "enlightened" ones. This helps them win elections and further their destructive tendencies economically.

Again, the Judeo Christian thing. Strong family, consequences for your actions, responsibility ect...these are all the things that give you a better chance in life. The left will tell you I'm "judging" behavior outside of these boundries, I'm NOT!! I simply can intellectually acknowledge that they are advantageous and refuse to want to support someone who makes bad choices. You can get knocked up at 17 if you want, you can drop outta high school, you can be pissed at the man, but don't whine about how society somehow owes you better than a job at wal-mart.

1. I disagree about your leap. But, no biggie.

2. What is the point of saying that conservs/repubs arent' lock step? Who suggested otherwise. Perhaps if you read where is STATED that there was diversity you would then understand why someone then feels like you are arguing to prove that is more diverse than the liberals/dems.

3. Dem party. Agreed...and that was the whole point of what is said. I stated liberals...for which there is huge differences. If we are talking classical liberalism and classical conservatism..then i would say both are equal. But, you and i both know we are talking in regards to what is going on today...liberal means tree hugger, baby murder, commie/socialist,e tc.

4. Judeo..perhaps if you knew more about the religion you wouldn't have those viewpoints...or could then understand why in a Jewish country...conservatism doesn't dominate.

My point was that to even suggest judeo christian is a joke..better to say old testament and christian..since christians, for the most part, have no interest in really following judeo values.

A few decades ago, Christian preachers would NEVER describe a moral system in terms of being 'Judeo-Christian' or having 'Judeo-Christian' values. The term would simply be 'Christian,' or often, 'Godly,' which implied 'Christian.'

But now, 'Judeo-Christian' almost seems MORE popular as a descriptive term than 'Christian' alone. How often do you hear the phrase 'This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values' as opposed to 'This nation was founded on Christian values'?

Why is this? Did any of the 'founding fathers' describe themselves as 'Judeo-Christians?'

The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented during World War II, when Christians started realizing how rude it was to rail against the Nazis for violating "Christian decency" since so many of the Nazi victims were Jewish. It was a superficial attempt to appear diverse and inclusive. Usually when I see the term used, the author actually is only talking about Christianity, and thus denies the truly different nature of Judaism.

I am neither judeo or christian so I was referring ONLY to the values of both religions. I guess I could also include budhism or other peaceful religions, but I admit, I am somewhat brainwashed by the term being used excessively.

As for the rest, we are merely arguing shades of grey, some of which we agree, and others where the differences aren't significant or important.

Oh, you could be right about if I knew more about the jewish religion, I don't know, I have always been curious why the jewish people tend to vote democrat.

[texaspackerbacker]

Quick, somebody invite St. Lou, thePack, Lamboo, RobertJ, AbeForman and Anti-Polar Bear!

PF#1, you can quit the charade. Anti-Polar Bear is here. Look in the mirror.

th87, welcome aboard. I hope to see more posts from you--my worthiest opponent probably ever.

As for your logic above, not exactly. It's not so much that I disagreed with Russert. It's the vile effectiveness of his leftist subtlety in corrupting the electorate (him and the rest of the left-saturated mainstream media) that earned him my hate.

Look at it like this: Mussolini was probably just as bad a person as Hitler, but Hitler was more effective in his evil deeds. Therefore, he gets the wrath of history. Likewise with Russert compared to just any old dumbass who has the gall to disagree with me. And no, I don't want you dead, even though you are more effective in your leftward logic than the rest of these ..... woebegone miscreants.

[bobblehead]

Okay Tex. So you're celebrating the death of an American who disagrees with you.

Which can be logically extended to say you'd celebrate the death of every American who disagrees with you.

That being the case, how does this make you different from say, oh, the terrorists?

I've been very clear where I stand on this, but it can NOT be logically extended that way. That is your logical extension, but not the one I would conclude (or many people who are trying to figure out wth he was thinking)

[the_idle_threat]

Welcome to the forum, TH.

[mraynrand]

I tried with a whole thread about political issues to draw you guys out--to get you to articulate what you are FOR, but neither you nor any of the rest of your kind would do it. How about now--without me making any disparaging remarks about leftist genitalia or anything like that, you coming out of the liberal closet and giving a simple little statement of what you are for and against, but especially what you're for?

The crickets are chirping away as we await the unveiling of Tyrone "Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns' "What I believe and Why" post. Don't hold your breath, Tex.

[Zool]

I'm for the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I'm for a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I'm for the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I'm for long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Goodnight.

[bobblehead]

So you don't think for yourself you just paraphrase a washed up BBall player? :P

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone-

After a long discussion you and I had on another thread you stated something to the effect of, I can't be for the republican party in its present form due to its intolerance. We had specifically been talking about race issues, and the religious right. Couple that in with your sig, and I don't think I made that big of a leap in logic.

Also, I didn't say we aren't more unified than the left, I was merely making the point we are not in lock step, the left has positions all over the map, many in direct contradiction with each other...it drives me batty, so you don't have to convince me that they are more diverse in their beliefs.

Tex's post hits it right head on...trying to get a lib to actually make a stance instead of simply attacking conservative issues is like jacking off with sandpaper...its much to painful to do just to get the desired result.

As far as conserves and social issues, I was merely pointing out how a lot of conservatives differ from the "lockstep" party line, I wasn't addressing anything you said.

Now, that being said, I don't think all libs have socialist or communistic desires, but I think a good hefty percentage of them do, or at the very least they desire the power of control over me and my money. Those few do their damndest to label consevatives close minded, rascist, bigoted, homophobe, or any other thing to try and brainwash the youth(and some adults) into buying into their party as somehow the "enlightened" ones. This helps them win elections and further their destructive tendencies economically.

Again, the Judeo Christian thing. Strong family, consequences for your actions, responsibility ect...these are all the things that give you a better chance in life. The left will tell you I'm "judging" behavior outside of these boundries, I'm NOT!! I simply can intellectually acknowledge that they are advantageous and refuse to want to support someone who makes bad choices. You can get knocked up at 17 if you want, you can drop outta high school, you can be pissed at the man, but don't whine about how society somehow owes you better than a job at wal-mart.

1. I disagree about your leap. But, no biggie.

2. What is the point of saying that conservs/repubs arent' lock step? Who suggested otherwise. Perhaps if you read where is STATED that there was diversity you would then understand why someone then feels like you are arguing to prove that is more diverse than the liberals/dems.

3. Dem party. Agreed...and that was the whole point of what is said. I stated liberals...for which there is huge differences. If we are talking classical liberalism and classical conservatism..then i would say both are equal. But, you and i both know we are talking in regards to what is going on today...liberal means tree hugger, baby murder, commie/socialist,e tc.

4. Judeo..perhaps if you knew more about the religion you wouldn't have those viewpoints...or could then understand why in a Jewish country...conservatism doesn't dominate.

My point was that to even suggest judeo christian is a joke..better to say old testament and christian..since christians, for the most part, have no interest in really following judeo values.

A few decades ago, Christian preachers would NEVER describe a moral system in terms of being 'Judeo-Christian' or having 'Judeo-Christian' values. The term would simply be 'Christian,' or often, 'Godly,' which implied 'Christian.'

But now, 'Judeo-Christian' almost seems MORE popular as a descriptive term than 'Christian' alone. How often do you hear the phrase 'This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values' as opposed to 'This nation was founded on Christian values'?

Why is this? Did any of the 'founding fathers' describe themselves as 'Judeo-Christians?'

The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented during World War II, when Christians started realizing how rude it was to rail against the Nazis for violating "Christian decency" since so many of the Nazi victims were Jewish. It was a superficial attempt to appear diverse and inclusive. Usually when I see the term used, the author actually is only talking about Christianity, and thus denies the truly different nature of Judaism.

Oh, you could be right about if I knew more about the jewish religion, I don't know, I have always been curious why the jewish people tend to vote democrat.

Because they hate america and all it stands for.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried with a whole thread about political issues to draw you guys out--to get you to articulate what you are FOR, but neither you nor any of the rest of your kind would do it. How about now--without me making any disparaging remarks about leftist genitalia or anything like that, you coming out of the liberal closet and giving a simple little statement of what you are for and against, but especially what you're for?

The crickets are chirping away as we await the unveiling of Tyrone "Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns' "What I believe and Why" post. Don't hold your breath, Tex.

Oh, the reverse psychology is working.

Perhaps i don't engage with Tex because, i, like the rest of the "america hating" left realize there is no point.

Nah, that couldn't be it.

[mraynrand]

I tried with a whole thread about political issues to draw you guys out--to get you to articulate what you are FOR, but neither you nor any of the rest of your kind would do it. How about now--without me making any disparaging remarks about leftist genitalia or anything like that, you coming out of the liberal closet and giving a simple little statement of what you are for and against, but especially what you're for?

The crickets are chirping away as we await the unveiling of Tyrone "Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns' "What I believe and Why" post. Don't hold your breath, Tex.

Oh, the reverse psychology is working.

Perhaps i don't engage with Tex because, i, like the rest of the "america hating" left realize there is no point.

Nah, that couldn't be it.

Yeah pass it off as a psychological ploy, that's the ticket. Still waiting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried with a whole thread about political issues to draw you guys out--to get you to articulate what you are FOR, but neither you nor any of the rest of your kind would do it. How about now--without me making any disparaging remarks about leftist genitalia or anything like that, you coming out of the liberal closet and giving a simple little statement of what you are for and against, but especially what you're for?

The crickets are chirping away as we await the unveiling of Tyrone "Fifteenth Wonder" Bigguns' "What I believe and Why" post. Don't hold your breath, Tex.

Oh, the reverse psychology is working.

Perhaps i don't engage with Tex because, i, like the rest of the "america hating" left realize there is no point.

Nah, that couldn't be it.

Yeah pass it off as a psychological ploy, that's the ticket. Still waiting.

Look, my friend, perhaps you haven't noticed, but i try as hard as possible not to respond to tex...there isn't a point. I could tell him the sky is blue, and he would refute it....claiming that liberal scientists couldn't be trusted..and that the liberal media had convinced us all that it was blue.

What is the point of responding to him?

[mraynrand]

What is the point of responding to him?

That's a reasonable question. The answer is whether you care or not to address the point - make a positive statement about what you stand for - like you did re: energy initiatives on another thread. Tex wouldn't be the only one to read it and react to it. It really comes down to whether it's something you want to do or not.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you know damn well you never say anything of substance in any context--not just to me. I don't think you have the intellectual capability.

Beyond that, though, is the shame factor--the necessity for all liberals, whether it is the forum flunkies we have around here or their heroes, the national politicians and media types to hush up their true agenda--to run and hide and NEVER come right out a say what they are FOR.

The last time I can remember a liberal really coming out and detailing what they were FOR was the Hillary-care debacle back during the Clinton Administration. America simply doesn't like what the liberals stand for when it is spelled out for them.

I wouldn't expect any intelligent response from you, Tyrone. It is kinda sad, though, that the rest of our libs don't think enough of their own political beliefs to articulate them for us.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is the point of responding to him?

That's a reasonable question. The answer is whether you care or not to address the point - make a positive statement about what you stand for - like you did re: energy initiatives on another thread. Tex wouldn't be the only one to read it and react to it. It really comes down to whether it's something you want to do or not.

Rand,

Well, tex just answered the question for you as to why i need not post..i never provide any substance...nor do i have the intellect.

I, like others, choose or try not to choose..to engage with Tex.

So, when you mention Tex...and that the crickets are chirping..well, you come across as quite stupid...as you quite clearly see that i do engage with yourself, bobble, etc.

To make it out as..character flaw, lack of ability, fear, etc...that is..well, stupid...and lame.

[mraynrand]

To make it out as..character flaw, lack of ability, fear, etc...that is..well, stupid...and lame.

I did nothing of the sort. I think I was pretty clear in pointing out that I didn't think you would do it - as in 'don't hold your breath'. I think I will be proven correct.