Hamas legitimate?

[Gunny]

You know you did. And FYI, you CAN, in fact, triple stamp a double stamp.

It's not my fault. Really. Ummm ..... just hold on while I try to figure out who to blame here ...... FJ. He's ALWAYS guilty. It was him. True story.

[Gunny]

Just a big ol' teddy bear.


With claws and sharp teeth.

You're not helping my cause here at all.

[shattered]

You're not helping my cause here at all.

Really? SHE isnt helping your cause? Wanna think that one thru a bit more, toots?

[Gunny]

Really? SHE isnt helping your cause? Wanna think that one thru a bit more, toots?

Yes, dear. Whatever. Dammit. :bow3:

[fj1200]

It's not my fault. Really. Ummm ..... just hold on while I try to figure out who to blame here ...... FJ. He's ALWAYS guilty. It was him. True story.

Truer words...

[Drummond]

FJ, we both know that, if I allowed it, you'd argue me into the ground (or try to) for weeks, or months .. and you wouldn't care what thread you used for the purpose. As I have in the past, I've no intention of letting this carry on 'indefinitely' .. much though you'd prefer it.

But I'll reply to you this time.

If this thread is about me then is squarely your fault.

Ego getting the better of you ? Where did I say that the thread was 'about you' .. ???

You always cover your lack of an intelligible argument with my "leftie-ism."

I know. Ignoring your Leftieism, FJ, certainly WOULD make for a better quality of posting !!

That's why you're failing to prove me a leftie again.

Ridiculous. Further on I shall be illustrating your true Leftieism yet again !

You know you love trolls which is why your always enabling 'at' and his trolling comments against me. It's why you're a hypocrite. Nevertheless pointing out your stupidity is not trolling, it's calling out TRUTH.

'AT' very rightly posts against you. I don't care that you don't like what he says about you. You call it 'trolling'. I call it highly perceptive posting.

If you don't like what you get, don't earn it.

Oh brother. It's a strong indictment of those who live in hate.

If you were any measure of Conservative, you'd understand the considerable resentment, not to mention outrage, that Conservatives have against Leftie wrecking. But of course, you've no idea about it ... have you ?

I may argue against the occasional conservative

OCCASIONAL Conservative ?? You've got them queuing up to be critical of you !!

.. but I don't argue against conservatism.

When you argue pro-Leftie points, you DO argue against Conservatism !!

Your blather aside I've "defended" BO against stupid charges,

... a case in point !

it's called TRUTH you know,

I call it preference. Because, truthfully, it's exactly that.

and I probably will state that impeaching him is an incredibly stupid political decision.

Oh, really ? What a great surprise !!

He may have certainly committed high crimes and misdemeanors but that's a different question.

Well ... TELL ME WHAT BETTER REASON THERE COULD BE FOR IMPEACHMENT !!!

Are you trying to sabotage your own argument ?!?

Now since you don't think I hate what BO's incompetence has done to the country go ahead and try to find a post where I've praised what he's "foisted" on America. I challenge you to fail at this one too.

Considering your admission that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' ISN'T ENOUGH - in YOUR view - for impeachment !!!!! -- surely, you must be so biased in Obama's favour that you must very much want him to continue on as he has !

It goes with your Leftieism, after all.

Considering all this, I've no need to meet your challenge, since you're working to meet it yourself ! I trust you to do a better job of it than I can !!

That's an amazing way to announce your failure. Hack move dude.

I asked you .. 'Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?'. This is your cop-out reply.

Name one anti-conservative stance.

When I've just finished illustrating one ? Support of Obama does qualify as an anti-Conservative stance.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who derailed it. Yup, you did. Post #32.

Seriously ? Track back further. Try post #5, where you tried to discuss Nazi legitimacy.

Or your semi-troll post #14, which prompted Jim to ask you what your point was. Jim came back to you in post #18, with ...

.. But what you haven't done is answer any of the questions and actually try to make a go of this thread. And in case you haven't noticed, only 3 of us posted here thus far. Ya might give it some time before ending it prematurely ..

And you claim that I derailed the thread ???

OMG, what a flipping waste of time. Your just attempting to avoid your failure by attempting to rehash a thread that you chose to abandon.

Rehashed ? Nope. But I have used it to remind you of your past Leftie supportiveness ... in that case, to make a false argument, unsupported by evolving truth, all of it characterised by your support of a position closely matching that of our Socialists' approach to our economy.

Your total opposition to Conservative policy is there for anyone to see.

If you have a point to make you can make it over there.

No need. I've already said all I need to.

What point is there in discussing something with someone who is so stupid as to not understand a projection. Dude, your smoking your leftie weed from back in the day.

The insults are back (again). FJ, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ...

Only two options exist when you are of a simple mind. A simple mind that doesn't understand anything more than left and right.

Or, the only two options there are ?

Let me give you another challenge to duck, FJ. Tell me what your 'third' option was. Go on ...

As I said I support growth oriented tax cuts, "beer and bingo" cuts are not growth oriented.

Fine, so you admit what you rejected before ... your criticism of a tax cut.

But 'feelgood' measures boost morale, enough to encourage people to see light at the end of the tunnel. They prepare people to stick with the medicine they need to take.

And we now see the upturn from austerity measures, which YOU refused to agree was likely.

What's it like, FJ, to be wrong as often as you manage to be ?

Yup, your government-centric view is never too far away is it?

Challenge for you, then (eminently 'duckable' ..) - nominate for me the British private Company who you think should take over the governing of the UK economy, if the British Government SHOULDN'T ..

[fj1200]

It's nice how you build yourself an out to cover your shame. That's what big government hacks like you do. My only preference is that you're able to debate honestly and check your imagination at the door.

FJ, we both know that, if I allowed it, you'd argue me into the ground (or try to) for weeks, or months .. and you wouldn't care what thread you used for the purpose. As I have in the past, I've no intention of letting this carry on 'indefinitely' .. much though you'd prefer it.

But I'll reply to you this time.

I already argue you into the ground in every thread because you repeatedly prove yourself to be dumb as F' and a hypocrite to boot. But thank you for replying although I expect more of the same trash from you, parsing every half sentence in a futile attempt to try and "get me."

Ego getting the better of you ? Where did I say that the thread was 'about you' .. ???

You've made it about me apparently because you're miles off topic and arguing in this thread since you took a beating in the other thread(s).

I know. Ignoring your Leftieism, FJ, certainly WOULD make for a better quality of posting !!

You know you cover "your lack of an intelligible argument"??? Something we can agree on.

Ridiculous. Further on I shall be illustrating your true Leftieism yet again !

Dream on. You've never done it before and you won't do it again.

'AT' very rightly posts against you. I don't care that you don't like what he says about you. You call it 'trolling'. I call it highly perceptive posting.

If you don't like what you get, don't earn it.

Classic example of why you're a hypocrite. You accuse me of trolling and, well, we know the kind of trash that your sock posts around here. You'll be sure and let me know if he ever posts anything that indicates intelligence won't you?

If you were any measure of Conservative, you'd understand the considerable resentment, not to mention outrage, that Conservatives have against Leftie wrecking. But of course, you've no idea about it ... have you ?

Strawman. Between me and you I can actually discuss conservatism whereas you just scream, "aack, lefties. "

OCCASIONAL Conservative ?? You've got them queuing up to be critical of you !!

Got some names?

When you argue pro-Leftie points, you DO argue against Conservatism !!

Got an example?

... a case in point !

As I said, FLOTUS trips are not a high crime nor a misdemeanor.

I call it preference. Because, truthfully, it's exactly that.

Because it is a bad political decision Dumb F'. Personally I like the chance to win elections and not charge at windmills.

Oh, really ? What a great surprise !!

Only because you're an idiot.

Well ... TELL ME WHAT BETTER REASON THERE COULD BE FOR IMPEACHMENT !!!

Are you trying to sabotage your own argument ?!?

That is the Constitutional basis for impeachment. You do know that don't you?

Considering your admission that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' ISN'T ENOUGH - in YOUR view - for impeachment !!!!! -- surely, you must be so biased in Obama's favour that you must very much want him to continue on as he has !

It goes with your Leftieism, after all.

Considering all this, I've no need to meet your challenge, since you're working to meet it yourself ! I trust you to do a better job of it than I can !!

You don't even know how to read I've gotten so far into your head, I'm quite amazed that with the downright stupidity that has taken over your brain that you even have the ability to type. It's quite mind boggling.

I asked you .. 'Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?'. This is your cop-out reply.

Again you're trying to make your downright, utter failure to prove something my fault. You should be ashamed to show your face around here. Thank goodness the internet allows such stupidity as yours to remain anonymous.

When I've just finished illustrating one ? Support of Obama does qualify as an anti-Conservative stance.

Gotta link? And I'm pretty sure it's impossible to link to your imagination.

Seriously ? Track back further. Try post #5, where you tried to discuss Nazi legitimacy.

Or your semi-troll post #14, which prompted Jim to ask you what your point was. Jim came back to you in post #18, with ...

Semi-troll post. You're a hack dude.

And you claim that I derailed the thread ???

No claim. I proved it.

Rehashed ? Nope. But I have used it to remind you of your past Leftie supportiveness ... in that case, to make a false argument, unsupported by evolving truth, all of it characterised by your support of a position closely matching that of our Socialists' approach to our economy.

Your total opposition to Conservative policy is there for anyone to see.

And you won't even resurrect the thread. Your shame would be laid bare for all to see.

No need. I've imagined all I need to.

The insults are back (again). FJ, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ...

It's hard not to discuss things with someone so stupid as yourself without "insulting" you.

Or, the only two options there are ?

Let me give you another challenge to duck, FJ. Tell me what your 'third' option was. Go on ...

I repeated my third option multiple times but you were so blind with hate that you couldn't see it. Restrain spending growth and institute growth oriented tax cuts. You do remember when they did that don't you? I posted a link to where they enacted cuts that I suggested. Awesome good timing for me how it preceded economic growth and all.

Fine, so you admit what you rejected before ... your criticism of a tax cut.

But 'feelgood' measures boost morale, enough to encourage people to see light at the end of the tunnel. They prepare people to stick with the medicine they need to take.

And we now see the upturn from austerity measures, which YOU refused to agree was likely.

What's it like, FJ, to be wrong as often as you manage to be ?

Laughable. Morale doesn't equal economic growth. Your argument is almost Keynesian in its ignorance.

Challenge for you, then (eminently 'duckable' ..) - nominate for me the British private Company who you think should take over the governing of the UK economy, if the British Government SHOULDN'T ..

Your big-government hack roots are showing that you think an economy needs to "managed" by someone, let alone by government. Actual conservatives believe that government involvement should be limited to things like ensuring transparency, dispute resolution, etc. The only government "management" of an economy I think are necessary are limited to monetary policy. Then I'll begrudgingly acknowledge that a central bank is a necessary evil.

I also didn't miss that you completely deleted where I pointed out that you apparently think Ronald Reagan is a leftie. Nice move you disingenuous fool.

[Gunny]

It's nice how you build yourself an out to cover your shame. That's what big government hacks like you do. My only preference is that you're able to debate honestly and check your imagination at the door.



I already argue you into the ground in every thread because you repeatedly prove yourself to be dumb as F' and a hypocrite to boot. But thank you for replying although I expect more of the same trash from you, parsing every half sentence in a futile attempt to try and "get me."



You've made it about me apparently because you're miles off topic and arguing in this thread since you took a beating in the other thread(s).



You know you cover "your lack of an intelligible argument"??? Something we can agree on.



Dream on. You've never done it before and you won't do it again.



Classic example of why you're a hypocrite. You accuse me of trolling and, well, we know the kind of trash that your sock posts around here. You'll be sure and let me know if he ever posts anything that indicates intelligence won't you?



Strawman. Between me and you I can actually discuss conservatism whereas you just scream, "aack, lefties. "



Got some names?



Got an example?



As I said, FLOTUS trips are not a high crime nor a misdemeanor.



Because it is a bad political decision Dumb F'. Personally I like the chance to win elections and not charge at windmills.



Only because you're an idiot.



That is the Constitutional basis for impeachment. You do know that don't you?



You don't even know how to read I've gotten so far into your head, I'm quite amazed that with the downright stupidity that has taken over your brain that you even have the ability to type. It's quite mind boggling.



Again you're trying to make your downright, utter failure to prove something my fault. You should be ashamed to show your face around here. Thank goodness the internet allows such stupidity as yours to remain anonymous.



Gotta link? And I'm pretty sure it's impossible to link to your imagination.



Semi-troll post. You're a hack dude.



No claim. I proved it.



And you won't even resurrect the thread. Your shame would be laid bare for all to see.







It's hard not to discuss things with someone so stupid as yourself without "insulting" you.



I repeated my third option multiple times but you were so blind with hate that you couldn't see it. Restrain spending growth and institute growth oriented tax cuts. You do remember when they did that don't you? I posted a link to where they enacted cuts that I suggested. Awesome good timing for me how it preceded economic growth and all.



Laughable. Morale doesn't equal economic growth. Your argument is almost Keynesian in its ignorance.



Your big-government hack roots are showing that you think an economy needs to "managed" by someone, let alone by government. Actual conservatives believe that government involvement should be limited to things like ensuring transparency, dispute resolution, etc. The only government "management" of an economy I think are necessary are limited to monetary policy. Then I'll begrudgingly acknowledge that a central bank is a necessary evil.

I also didn't miss that you completely deleted where I pointed out that you apparently think Ronald Reagan is a leftie. Nice move you disingenuous fool.

First, you're addressing a Brit. His understanding of conservative and liberal are different than ours. No matter what he reads, it's not the same as living here.

Nothing disingenuous calling Reagan a "lefty". Reagan was very much a Democrat. So was I. What you aren't mentioning is the paradigm shift. The left moved left and a lot of Dems got the f- out. Reagan was one of them. Even my grandfather, a staunch union man and Roosevelt Dem voted against McGovern.

In that paradigm shit and the absorption of former "liberals", the GOP had no choice but shift left as well. He was in fact what a lot of former so-called "liberals" were ... a moderate. We weren't going that far left. We still believe in things besides being stupid and unrealistic.

[jimnyc]

I tried to clean this thread up a bit. I moved what I saw as fighting/negative to its own thread in the cage. I understand there is more OT in this thread, but that's normal. If anyone is interested this thread can continue.

[Drummond]

I tried to clean this thread up a bit. I moved what I saw as fighting/negative to its own thread in the cage. I understand there is more OT in this thread, but that's normal. If anyone is interested this thread can continue.

Thanks, Jim.

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

[jimnyc]

Thanks, Jim.

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

I've found over the years that sometimes a member can seem to be insulting, and at other times good debating. Chalk it up to subject matter, bad days, time of year... Sometimes when ya feel that way it may be time to move onto a new subject. And sometimes I can reply to insults in a polite manner, and sometimes I give it back ten fold.

But honestly, where would we be if we didn't post with people we vehemently disagree with? I can speak for myself, my largest "posting binges" over the years were debating with people I was angry with, or seriously disagreed - when you're passionate about something! Generally speaking, we don't get those feelings when we post with others we disagree with. So of course we want 'some' animosity, but of course we also hope that things don't devolve into chaos and solely flaming.

And 2 times in 2 days where a couple of members may want to use an automatic rifle on me - I like FJ. I think he's quite intelligent. Of course there are times I wanted to stick an ice pick into his ear, but I want to do that to family members on occasion! This doesn't mean I don't think he can insult others, he does, but so do I at times. Differences aside, I think he's good people.

[fj1200]

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.

[fj1200]

First, you're addressing a Brit. His understanding of conservative and liberal are different than ours. No matter what he reads, it's not the same as living here.

Nothing disingenuous calling Reagan a "lefty". Reagan was very much a Democrat. So was I. What you aren't mentioning is the paradigm shift. The left moved left and a lot of Dems got the f- out. Reagan was one of them. Even my grandfather, a staunch union man and Roosevelt Dem voted against McGovern.

In that paradigm shit and the absorption of former "liberals", the GOP had no choice but shift left as well. He was in fact what a lot of former so-called "liberals" were ... a moderate. We weren't going that far left. We still believe in things besides being stupid and unrealistic.

Of course he's a Brit but we've been over those differences before. As far as my Reagan comment as I explained in the other thread that is constantly referenced is that when Reagan proposed tax cuts in '81 he didn't say that they needed to be "afforded" he explained how they were necessary to turn the economy around; and thank God he did. Of course on this side of the pond those who are explaining that tax cuts need to be "afforded" and "paid for" are those on the left side of the aisle.

But I agree, there was certainly a shift since before FDR, the Progressives in early 1900s?, and moved left until Reagan? moved it back to the right.

[Drummond]

You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.

No. I did not earn your insults.

With the best will in the world to Jim, what I've observed o you in this thread was expected, because it follows a familiar pattern. You'll argue reasonably, IF you think there's no great danger of you being bested in an argument. But when you are, so the incidence of insults increases from you.

I my debate with you in the future .. and I'm in no doubt I'll see this very same pattern repeated time and again.

The ball's in your court, so far as I'm concerned. Reasoned debate is welcome. If you resort to insults to cover for a lack of ability to counter my arguments, I don't actually CARE that you do, beyond observing that you place ego way above debating substance.

You could admit when you're losing an argument. THAT could gain you respect. But ... we both know, FJ, that this is one thing you will never, ever, do.

And its your loss. It truly is.

[fj1200]

No. I did not earn your insults.

With the best will in the world to Jim, what I've observed o you in this thread was expected, because it follows a familiar pattern. You'll argue reasonably, IF you think there's no great danger of you being bested in an argument. But when you are, so the incidence of insults increases from you.

I my debate with you in the future .. and I'm in no doubt I'll see this very same pattern repeated time and again.

The ball's in your court, so far as I'm concerned. Reasoned debate is welcome. If you resort to insults to cover for a lack of ability to counter my arguments, I don't actually CARE that you do, beyond observing that you place ego way above debating substance.

You could admit when you're losing an argument. THAT could gain you respect. But ... we both know, FJ, that this is one thing you will never, ever, do.

And its your loss. It truly is.

Blah, blah, blah. I'll post it again for you.

You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.