Also, when MoJo says that the football board was 2-1 libs, what he means is that there are many posters there who voted for Reagan, Bush the elder, and hold conservative ideals. But they haven't voted for a Republican since 2000. Since they think the modern GOP is a shell of itself, they must be libs. For instance, on this board I'm a moderate. On Texans Talk I am Mao ZeDong.
I did not see either of those comments, no. I do not know exactly why either you or Dread voted for Obama. But in addition to being black, I know both of you are hard left, just like Barack Obama, so I suspect that also had something to do with your choice. As far as your job, I know what you do, and I do not regard it as menial. Whoever said that to you is an a-hole. This person should have been corrected on the TexansTalk board for making remarks directed at you personally that were intended to be personally insulting. But Texantalk still has more liberal posters that conservative ones in the political forum even now. I will spare you a list of similar liberal outrages on Texanstalk. Many of you would probably think it was all really neat stuff that you want to be sure and try anyway, so why even bother. Some people just do not seem to know how to act anymore.
because he isn't trying to expand the program, its a legal defense, why do you have a hard time understanding that. I'm not upset with you. it is stupid to complain that he hasn't closed this immediately. i know one promise obama made, not to make stupid decisions without weighing all consequenses like the previous admin, if it takes time to close gitmo, I'm fine, because he is closing it. how am i attacking you, because someone disputes you doesn't mean you're being attacked. YOU STOP BEING DEFENSIVE. you criticized him for backing his promise on Afghanistan after winning the prize. That's just silly so since you have admited you have no evidence of one of your outlandish claims, can you stop calling me defensive for calling you out on your misinfo. TIA link can they have more than one year in office before b****ing about not coming through on promises? see above
Aren't you the guy that said Dick ("go **** yourself") Cheney was the best VP in the nation's history? What is your obsession with civility? Whether we talk about health care, global warming or gay rights, we are arguing life and death stuff here. Whether or not somebody calls somebody else an idiot seems pretty tame by comparison. If you really wanted to be civil, you would respect the rules of any decent debate and answer your opponents' arguments. Instead you proclaim yourself to be above such things and then whine that you're being picked on. That is the worst kind of "debater."
Just because you aren't a Republican does not make you a liberal MoJo. And the comment was reported. Silver Oak's still chirping away over there.
You could parse that statement though to mean "No Dick Cheney and George Bush warrantless wiretaps." [rquoter]For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.) [/rquoter] That said good find and it supports your argument that candidate Obama did initially promise to end that practice. Although he still may end it at some future date.
I am a conservative. I do not go around trying to pretend I am a liberal or a moderate, as I believe you know quite well. I am glad it was reported. Hopefully, it will not happen again.
My point is that there is such a thing as a moderate. You claim that one board is 2-1 liberal and this one is closer to 10-1. You seem to have left out the moderates in your analysis and just lumped them in with the liberals..
MoJo you and I have had many interesting and well conducted debates. I am not attacking you personally. I do appreciate your attempts to explain yourself in a reasonable and non inflammatory manner. Just like any of us, you do have a tendency to exaggerate from time to time, but I can deal with that. The problem is that most people there no longer seem interested in a sensible discussion of the issues. Bomb throwing begets bomb throwing. By the way I have explained many times why I voted for Obama. I felt that we needed to focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq, I think health care is the most important issue we face today as a nation, and I think that the GOP needs some time in the wilderness to get themselves right. The more I see, however, the more I am starting to think that the GOP will pull another Dem trick from 1984. The Democrats won 27 seats in the House and 1 in the Senate in the off year election following Reagan's first inauguration. Reagan entered the 1984 campaign with a 45% approval rating. Democratic leaders decided that this meant the country had rejected conservatives and wanted a true liberal. They thought that in 1980 the country rejected Carter, not liberalism. So they nominated Walter Mondale. Thy proceeded to lose 49 states. Another example -- at the game two Sundays ago there was a candidate running for Congress in the 18th (my district) against Sheila Jackson Lee. The candidate's bumper sticker consisted of nothing but Lee's initials with a "no smoking" style circle/slash drawn through them. No platform. No policies. He didn't even bother to put his name on his own sticker. I am not a fan of SJL and will not be voting for her, but I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone whose entire campaign consists of "I'm not the black chick." The way the GOP is acting right now I have a sneaky feeling 2012 is going to be a long year for you.
Shades of Reagan/Iran Contra I bet the conservatives think nobody did anything wrong there, either. source [rquoter] Cheney FBI Interview: 72 Times of Can't Recall Cheney's FBI interview featured 72 times in which he said he could not recall By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON November 2, 2009 (AP) Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald famously declared in the Valerie Plame affair that "there is a cloud over the vice president." Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation underscores why Fitzgerald felt that way. On 72 occasions, according to the 28-page FBI summary, Cheney equivocated to the FBI during his lengthy May 2004 interview, saying he could not be certain in his answers to questions about matters large and small in the Plame controversy. The Cheney interview reflects a team of prosecutors and FBI agents trying to find out whether the leaks of Plame's CIA identity were orchestrated at the highest level of the White House and carried out by, among others, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Among the most basic questions for Cheney in the Plame probe: How did Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA? Libby's own handwritten notes suggest Libby found out from Cheney. When Libby discovered Cheney's reference to Plame and the CIA in his notes — notes that Libby knew he would soon have to turn over to the FBI — the chief of staff went to the vice president, probably in late September or early October 2003. Sharing the information with Cheney was in itself an unusual step at the outset of a criminal investigation in which potential White House witnesses were being ordered by their superiors not to talk to each other about the Plame matter. In the FBI interview of Cheney on May 8, 2004, investigators specifically asked the vice president and his lawyers not to talk to other witnesses in the probe. It was important to ensure that everything be done to keep the recollections of other witnesses from being influenced, Fitzgerald told Cheney, according to the FBI interview summary. Cheney lawyer Terrence O'Donnell replied that he could not make a binding commitment to refrain from discussing the interview with people who may need to help O'Donnell properly represent his client, the FBI summary stated. ight months earlier, Libby had gone to Cheney, telling the vice president that "I have a note saying that I had heard about" Plame's CIA identity "from you," according to Libby's grand jury testimony. And what did Cheney say in response? Fitzgerald asked Libby. "He didn't say much," Libby testified. "You know, he said something about 'From me?' something like that, and tilted his head, something he does commonly, and that was that." Cheney's version of the conversation, as related in the FBI interview summary? Cheney "cannot recall Scooter Libby telling him how he first heard of Valerie Wilson. It is possible Libby may have learned about Valerie Wilson's employment from the vice president ... but the vice president has no specific recollection of such a conversation." On another basic point, Cheney simply refused to answer. Fitzgerald had gathered evidence that Cheney apparently persuaded President George W. Bush to hurriedly declassify portions of a prewar National Intelligence Estimate on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The declassification was followed by Libby providing the information to a New York Times reporter while simultaneously talking to reporters about Plame's CIA identity. As Fitzgerald pressed the issue in the FBI interview, Cheney refused to confirm any discussion with Bush, saying that he must refrain from commenting about any private or privileged conversations he may have had with the president. It was an instance of Libby, who had testified two months earlier to a federal grand jury, being more forthcoming than Cheney. Prosecutors obtained information about the leaking of the declassified NIE from Cheney's chief of staff, who testified that he had talked to New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the National Intelligence Estimate following the "president's approval relayed to me through the vice president." It was that point that investigators wanted to pin down with Cheney, who refused to say whether he had ever advised Libby that the president had decided to declassify the NIE. Cheney's FBI interview is a study in contrasts. Expressing uncertainty on many areas he was being questioned about and refusing to discuss another area altogether, Cheney was emphatic on at least one basic point. According to the FBI summary, Cheney said there was no discussion of using Plame's employment with the CIA to counter her husband's criticism that the Bush administration had manipulated prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. There was no discussion, Cheney insisted, of "pushing back" on Joseph Wilson's credibility by raising the issue of nepotism, the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, the same agency that dispatched him to the African nation of Niger to run down the report of an agreement to supply uranium "yellowcake" to Iraq. It was one example of Cheney being categorical and Libby seeming uncertain. "In a prior FBI interview, you indicated it was possible that you may have talked to the Vice President on Air Force Two ... about whether you should share the information with the press about Wilson's wife?" the prosecutor asked Libby in his grand jury testimony. "It's possible that would have been one of the times I could have talked to him about what I had learned," Libby replied. "As you sit here today, do you recall whether you had such a conversation with the vice president on Air Force Two?" the prosecutor asked. "No, sir. My, my best recollection of that conversation was what I had on my note card which we have produced which doesn't reflect anything about that," Libby replied. Libby was indicted, tried and convicted for perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI. The president commuted his 30-month prison sentence, but rejected Cheney's pleas in the last days of the administration to pardon the vice president's former chief of staff. The Cheney interview summary was released Friday to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued to get the material under the Freedom of Information Act. [/rquoter]
There still are a few but it gets difficult at times. I've given up lecturing people about civility. The forum is what it is and whatever I say isn't going to change things, in some cases it seemed to be making things worse. I still like this forum and there are a lot of sharp posters of amost all political persuasion who will be willing to engage in meaningful discussion. We are debating controversial topics though so it shouldn't be surprising that people get heated every now then but if you can keep an even keel there is some interesting stuff discussed on here.
Lol. But see, this is just what I'm talking about: "___ is a Republican and therefore must looooooooooooove Glenn Beck. Tea Partiers can't possibly be just normal people. Nope. I refuse to believe that." The flip-side is "___is a liberal commie socialist who hates America, wants all my money, and wants to cancel Christmas." And then T_J (who was certainly outnumbered here in the smug/self-righteous dept.) would fire back with something equally ridiculous. This is all in part of why I posted what I did: the sky is blue and it is blue because of light refraction. Both parties were right. I could have just as easily posted something silly where both parties were wrong. I don't come into the D&D very often because I usually just get pissed off. Everyone is simply opposite sides of the same coin. And nothing is ever going to change. Some issues are, to me, very cut and dry. But not so much so that I can easily align myself with one party or another. They're all a bunch of damn liars and how anyone can knob-slob one guy or the other is simply amazing to me. Welcome to the machine.
The part you don't seem to get, Lynus, is that I have only seen one "side" actually making s*** up and treating inaccurate statements as gospel. I do recognize that there are plenty of ideologues on the left that are bats*** crazy (hell, my father is one of them), but even the most leftist of those don't tend to just lie through their teeth like the folks at the communication arm of the GOP. If you are a republican and dislike Glenn Beck, I commend you. Most of the people that I dismiss as pure partisans willing to lie through their teeth for the GOP are Faux "News" personalities. I posted what I did for a reason as well. Yes, the left will argue with the right just because they are the right, but generally the people doing the lying are on the right and most of the liars are somehow connected to Faux "News."
Things have evened up quite bit at Texanstalk from the election last year. However, under no circumstances are there more conservatives there than either liberals or moderates. I would not think that anyone should feel threatened by a more equal and representative balance of opinions on Texanstalk. But it appears that some people on the left do feel that way. As far as this board, look at the reactions I have received since I have been here. Good grief. The truth is, there is no kind of representative balance in this forum at all. When even one measly conservative (me) came into this forum and started to speak his mind, a number of the local posters immediately proceeded to wet themselves out of shock and alarm. And they continue to do it to this day.
I'm not saying that this place is a somber serious place. I also don't agree with mst of the reactions to your presence. The instant accusations of being a spoof are very telling IMO. What I am saying is that a huge percentage of those you define as liberal are deemed as such solely because they don't like the GOP. Me, for instance. I pointed out on another thread that Roosevelt was the first Prez to push for national health care. Was he a lib? I think you are more than a little off about your estimates. I remember a thread they ran on the NSZ a few months back asking everyone to define themselves. Something like 2 people said they were liberal. More claimed to be conservative. The majority IIRC claimed to be moderate. The same poll here would produce a much different result. If the board is so infested with liberals, why won't they call themselves such? Why does it take Fox News to point out that no matter what they believe, no matter how they vote, no matter what they call themselves, they are liberals?
your style reminded many of another conservative poster who would make constant personal insults about people's jobs, race, intelligence, personal lives (he went searching for dirt on people in real life to try and embarass them on this board), etc. i think people orginally were convinced you were him, but i think that's been solidly proven to not be the case. i hope you stick around even if i vehemently disagree with you on most things. i wish refman and weslinder (two conservatives who, afaik, haven't had any huge blowups with any liberals, and two of my favorite posters on this site) would post more. if you want to have real debate, quit playing the victim card and responding to what you perceive as personal insults. you're new here. if you don't like the tone, either quit responding to those insults or leave. just whining about it isn't going to endear you to anyone.
The term liberal is a source of embarrassment and shame for most people in this country. They do not want to be associated with it. That is why the left has been trying to introduce a new, untainted term to replace it. As you are well aware, the new term is "progressive". Especially when it comes to liberalism, people's selection of a moniker is not really indicative of what they believe. The term "moderate" is very popular right now. But if someone embraces liberal principles over 90% of the time, but calls themselves a moderate, then what are they? That person would still be, for all practical purposes, a liberal. The substance of a person's beliefs outweighs any inconsistent representations to the contrary. So, now someone is going to jump in with the "we should abandon the use of all labels" meme. Of course what this really means is that we should abandon the use of the term "liberal". However, these kinds of terms are handy abbreviations for a grouping of ideas and principles that would require a rather lengthy explanation to describe in full. Rather than type out 10 paragraphs detailing such a description, which almost no one would want to read, it makes a lot of sense to use a word that people readily understand to briefly convey the general idea.
