Liberals Go To Great Lengths

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
So, I’m more than a little curious, what does an independent call him or her self? Are there no such things as independents?

Independents go to great lengths… :p[/quote]

Oh, I forgot–the reason someone calls themselves an independent is because they want the extra credibility they think it offers, or they’re too gutless to go all the way (think Jeffords again.)
Here in NH we can be registered as Independents, and me own mum is one she is.
Even though she’d sooner shoot her cat than vote for a democrat. But she thinks it sounds better.
Me–I’m a registered republican (duh!), but I don’t consider myself one.

[vroom]

Here in NH we can be registered as Independents, and me own mum is one she is. Even though she’d sooner shoot her cat than vote for a democrat. But she thinks it sounds better.

And this doesn’t contradict anything you or Zeb has said?

P.S. Define condescension.

[ZEB]

vroom:

I get a kick out of you, and those like you. Just because you do not actively post about liberalism does not mean that you do not hold liberal views!

What makes you think that you have to get on the forum everyday and post “as a liberal I feel…” in order to be spotted as a liberal?

You seem to think the only way that one can have a political idiology is if he speaks out and says he has one.

“I cannot hear what you say for what you are speaks so loudly.”

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Here in NH we can be registered as Independents, and me own mum is one she is. Even though she’d sooner shoot her cat than vote for a democrat. But she thinks it sounds better.

And this doesn’t contradict anything you or Zeb has said?

P.S. Define condescension.[/quote]

How does it? I said that people call themselves independents because they think it sounds better than picking one or the other.
True, in my mother’s case she’s a right wing nut job, (or just a nut job?) but you’ve heard about exceptions that prove the rule?

[100meters]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

All we are is evil right wingers picking on the poor little leftys.
It’s funny how liberals argue v. conservatives.

liberals argue v. conservatives…
lets see… facts vs. name calling,

Usually–even in this forum, and with my friend The Commie I don’t get facts. Usually The Commie will say things like “this may sound condescending…but…”–actually he sounds much like vroom.
And of course there’re guys like Corzine who say Cheney=Hussein–now there’s a nice debate with no name calling, huh?
And even here–every time you–YOU 100 Meters–you disagree with something I’ve said or posted, even if it may well be fact, you accuse me of being a kook etc.
Meanwhile, the worst I accuse you of is being a stinkin lib .
[/quote]

Well, your right I do that, but I try to start in more civil ways, and I’ve never disagreed with facts, you presented opinions that I would say facts disagree with. (see Terri grandstanding thread)

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

All we are is evil right wingers picking on the poor little leftys.
It’s funny how liberals argue v. conservatives.

liberals argue v. conservatives…
lets see… facts vs. name calling,

Usually–even in this forum, and with my friend The Commie I don’t get facts. Usually The Commie will say things like “this may sound condescending…but…”–actually he sounds much like vroom.
And of course there’re guys like Corzine who say Cheney=Hussein–now there’s a nice debate with no name calling, huh?
And even here–every time you–YOU 100 Meters–you disagree with something I’ve said or posted, even if it may well be fact, you accuse me of being a kook etc.
Meanwhile, the worst I accuse you of is being a stinkin lib .

Well, your right I do that, but I try to start in more civil ways, and I’ve never disagreed with facts, you presented opinions that I would say facts disagree with. (see Terri grandstanding thread)[/quote]

See I think some of those things that I presented were factual, and I also think some of the stuff you presented as fact was opinion–so where does that leave us?

[JeffR]

Moriarity, Brother Elk (good to see you again!!!), Lumpy=100 meters,

Allow me to try to get your position straight. You are angry because one of the four people on the planet who have left the Republican party (this guy, Jim Jefferies, some guy who lost his job and lives in the mud, the fourth guy decided he didn’t want to work for a living) decided to make an anti-Fox box. You are angry because we assume it is another pro-liberal head-in-the-sand gadget.

Who is his potential market?

I wonder.

Is it the three other dinks I mentioned above. Is it Republicans?

Nope. It’s the good old ABB crowd who have decided that Fox is the enemy.

How dare Fox show good news from Iraq?!?!!??

How dare they have strong Conservative voices (aka…not Tucker Carlson/Bob Novak).

Those scum.

By the way, get over it.

It would be hard for my ABB friends to contend that there aren’t plenty of their comrades who would buy that box.

That is the real issue.

Have a wonderful four years!!!

JeffR

[vroom]

I get a kick out of you, and those like you. Just because you do not actively post about liberalism does not mean that you do not hold liberal views!

Strangely Zeb, in this thread, I have not been espousing my own views. I’ve not been promoting liberalism. I’m not even trying to claim I don’t have liberal views.

However, I suspect my views are very different than the brush you use to paint liberals with, and that is what I’d prefer to avoid.

I’m no tree hugging anti-business wishy washy person who can’t deal with tough choices. I’m not in favor of larger government and higher taxes, though I am concerned with equality and fairness with respect to government.

So, your “liberal” branding of me, that label I will avoid, because it probably isn’t true. Unfortunately, the “liberal” brush applied by conservatives in these parts is very damned wide and encompasses a lot of negative things.

I just found the thread to be yet another unfair attack and am pointing that out. That has nothing to do with my politics other than the fact the thread itself is politically biased.

Perhaps you do have an understanding of my own political beliefs, but based on your comments, I doubt it. I don’t usually have a chance to express my views in these parts, I’m often too busy pointing out craziness in the expression of other peoples views.

Take this thread for example…

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I get a kick out of you, and those like you. Just because you do not actively post about liberalism does not mean that you do not hold liberal views!

Strangely Zeb, in this thread, I have not been espousing my own views. I’ve not been promoting liberalism. I’m not even trying to claim I don’t have liberal views.

However, I suspect my views are very different than the brush you use to paint liberals with, and that is what I’d prefer to avoid.

I’m no tree hugging anti-business wishy washy person who can’t deal with tough choices. I’m not in favor of larger government and higher taxes, though I am concerned with equality and fairness with respect to government.

So, your “liberal” branding of me, that label I will avoid, because it probably isn’t true. Unfortunately, the “liberal” brush applied by conservatives in these parts is very damned wide and encompasses a lot of negative things.

I just found the thread to be yet another unfair attack and am pointing that out. That has nothing to do with my politics other than the fact the thread itself is politically biased.

Perhaps you do have an understanding of my own political beliefs, but based on your comments, I doubt it. I don’t usually have a chance to express my views in these parts, I’m often too busy pointing out craziness in the expression of other peoples views.

Take this thread for example…[/quote]

The reason that you are not trying to claim that you “don’t have liberal views” is because you do in fact have liberal views!

You sided with the liberals on the Iraq war.

You are constantly (I won’t use the word whining) complaining about fairness relative to the wealthy and taxes.

You are for gun control.

You were against President Bush’s reelection. (While that alone does not make you liberal, you were certainly pulling for the liberal candidate in the Presidential election).

Um…there are other things if I actually went back and reviewed your posts August to December, but who has the time for that? I have heard you espouse some middle of the road views relative to business. Do you think you escape the “liberal label” because of this? No…sorry.

You my T-Nation brother are a liberal! I’m sorry you don’t like that word. I’m not trying to make you mad…really I’m not. The fact that you run from that word at every opportunity really should stop, don’t you think?

Embrace what you are!

[Joe_Weider]

so how would you describe yourself, vroom?
Seriously. PM me if you don’t want to get into it in the open where it can get screwed with.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I get a kick out of you, and those like you. Just because you do not actively post about liberalism does not mean that you do not hold liberal views!

Strangely Zeb, in this thread, I have not been espousing my own views. I’ve not been promoting liberalism. I’m not even trying to claim I don’t have liberal views.

However, I suspect my views are very different than the brush you use to paint liberals with, and that is what I’d prefer to avoid.

I’m no tree hugging anti-business wishy washy person who can’t deal with tough choices. I’m not in favor of larger government and higher taxes, though I am concerned with equality and fairness with respect to government.

So, your “liberal” branding of me, that label I will avoid, because it probably isn’t true. Unfortunately, the “liberal” brush applied by conservatives in these parts is very damned wide and encompasses a lot of negative things.

I just found the thread to be yet another unfair attack and am pointing that out. That has nothing to do with my politics other than the fact the thread itself is politically biased.

Perhaps you do have an understanding of my own political beliefs, but based on your comments, I doubt it. I don’t usually have a chance to express my views in these parts, I’m often too busy pointing out craziness in the expression of other peoples views.

Take this thread for example…[/quote]

[100meters]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Well, your right I do that, but I try to start in more civil ways, and I’ve never disagreed with facts, you presented opinions that I would say facts disagree with. (see Terri grandstanding thread)

See I think some of those things that I presented were factual, and I also think some of the stuff you presented as fact was opinion–so where does that leave us?
[/quote]
My facts are from doctors, and legal guardian, and the court who have fully examined all aspects of the case, including actually examining Terri. The Schindler side has (33) affadavits from doctors who have not examined Terri,just the edited video the Schindlers provided (except the nobel prize nominee doctor whom you use, who is not a nobel prize nominee).

No examination=pure opinion
Her legal guardian spent 20 days with her and totally agrees with the diagnosis of the doctors who have examined her. That’s much more of an objective situation and much closer to being factual.

[100meters]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Is it the three other dinks I mentioned above. Is it Republicans?

Nope. It’s the good old ABB crowd who have decided that Fox is the enemy.

How dare Fox show good news from Iraq?!?!!??

How dare they have strong Conservative voices (aka…not Tucker Carlson/Bob Novak).

Those scum.

By the way, get over it.

It would be hard for my ABB friends to contend that there aren’t plenty of their comrades who would buy that box.

That is the real issue.

Have a wonderful four years!!!

JeffR[/quote]
What was I angry about? Strong conservative voice. Lots of conservatives hate phone-sex Bill and Cheney’s attack poodle Hannity. Bill can’t do a story with quoting out of context or making stuff up, and Hannity gets corrected on screen by hapless Colmes everynight. Brit Hume can’t even tell the truth about FDR and S.S. Neil Cavuto likes to gloss over down days on the market making his show worthless for investors like myself. With FOX’s proven lack of neutrality its incredibly hard to get a sense of what is factual and what are just talking points, trickled down from Roger Ailes? I myself watch to laugh at Hannity, but it’s basically like the WWF of news channels. (Lord knows the other channels aren’t great either!)

[deanosumo]

I’m a liberal,but I would never want Fox News blocked. Apart from the free speech issue, I have very little good comedy on my cable here in Japan.

[deanosumo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
… FOX’s proven lack of neutrality its incredibly hard to get a sense of what is factual … it’s basically like the WWF of news channels.

[/quote]

Hilarious!

[schrauper]

Just ask one Larry Summers, ultra-conservative former Clinton Administration Deputy Secretary of Treasury, about the liberal love of the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

[ZEB]

[quote]schrauper wrote:
Just ask one Larry Summers, ultra-conservative former Clinton Administration Deputy Secretary of Treasury, about the liberal love of the free exchange of opinions and ideas.[/quote]

As I have posted over and over through the years. Liberals love free speech as long as it’s the sort of speech they agree with. If it happens to be something they disagree with they get very, very nasty!

[Joe_Weider]

Dude–the finding of fact was based on Mike having a million dollars at his disposal, and the Schindlers having to get what amounted to a pro-bono atty. They got steam-rolled, Greer chose to believe Mike over them, hence finding of fact.
As to your comments about the ad leitum…that’s not exactly what he said and you know it.

[quote]100meters wrote:
My facts are from doctors, and legal guardian, and the court who have fully examined all aspects of the case, including actually examining Terri. The Schindler side has (33) affadavits from doctors who have not examined Terri,just the edited video the Schindlers provided (except the nobel prize nominee doctor whom you use, who is not a nobel prize nominee).

No examination=pure opinion
Her legal guardian spent 20 days with her and totally agrees with the diagnosis of the doctors who have examined her. That’s much more of an objective situation and much closer to being factual.

[/quote]

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

All we are is evil right wingers picking on the poor little leftys.
It’s funny how liberals argue v. conservatives.

liberals argue v. conservatives…
lets see… facts vs. name calling, but your right it can be funny, that’s why I love Hannity, never has anybody been on the wrong side of issues so often, but he just shouts his way through reality every night. And Bill who just makes stuff up, and then attacks, no I just couldn’t live without FOX.

[/quote]

The liberals must get beamed a different version of the TV show. They certainly see something most of us miss.

The technique that drives Colmes and the other liberal guests mad is when Hannity continues to ask a question until the libs answer it.

Hannity did it last night with the gal wearing the “American Communist” t-shirt. She became totally flustered because she wouldn’t answer any questions. She would just read canned answers she had and spout positions. Reminded me of John Kerry being interviewed.

The real question is why do the liberals seemed determined to hid their true intentions.

[vroom]

Zeb, at least here on the forums, everybody, liberals and conservatives alike, loves free speech unless it disagrees with their viewpoint – and then they get nasty.

You only paint half the picture, perhaps because you only see half the picture.

–

Joe, in all likelihood, I appear to be a libertarian. Certainly, on the boards here I’m always arguing with conservatives who are using talking points and twisted logic, ignoring anything that doesn’t match their preconcieved notions.

These people misinterpret my attempt to pry open the issues and my disagreement with their take as having the diametrically opposed view to the issue being discussed.

If you haven’t noticed, Zeb is great at jumping the gun on things. He’s sure I must be a liberal. He thinks I’m running from the lable. I just explained a few posts back that I think his label contains a lot more than I am willing to be aligned with.

I thought the explanation was pretty simple and pretty reasonable, but not to Zeb. Because I don’t have the same views he does I must be some diametrically opposed clown with ultra-liberal leanings. Hogwash.

Fore example, participating in discussions and considering issues doesn’t mean that I’m for increased spending, taxation or government to attempt solutions. That’s just leaping to another conclusion.

Hell, consider this guy selling these stupid devices, maybe he’s still a conservative and he’s thinking, screw it, I’ll pretend I’m independent and make this device, and I’ll sell millions of them to stupid liberals. I’ll retire wealthy in a year.

Wow, that’s smart. I don’t care what political stripe the guy is. If he can make that happen, he’s just taken advantage of sentiment in a major way, taken the steps necessary to be newsworthy and pulled off a marketing coup.

Some people really are that smart. Here we are, like idiots, arguing about whether the guy is liberal or not. We are doing this in a thread bashing liberals. Do you really think that is what the story is about, liberals being idiots who will do anything?

More hogwash.

There’s not really a story here – all we are doing is playing in a thread which is a great example of how ones own biases shape how one perceives things.

[vroom]

Gee hedo, let me ask you a question…

Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no only please!

Some questions are not simply questions y’know.