Ebola Vs...

[Gunny]

I guess after reading all the trash on the board as of late ( and this is not just for you Gunny but all that have decided Obama is a rock star ) is anything Obama's fault ? No he didn't create this horrible virus but instead of playing Golf maybe he could of tried to keep it out of our borders, I mean I now see folks that use to post conservative are now making Gabby look like a right wing nut All because they are mad, seriously let the personal BS go and just be yourselves ( and again Gunny this is not aimed at you but I know you are strong enough not to take it personal )

You're missing the shot. Obama sucks. He's lied his ass off since day one. I'm all about accusing him of what's done. Rightwingnut idiots, no different than leftwingnut idiots, blame him for everything.

Ebola was around before Obama. Sorry.

And, if anyone chooses to come after me personally, and more importantly fuck with my GF because she doesn't fall into lockstep with the party, then you get to be my new best friend. She can hold her own until the biddy mob gangs up on her. I won't tolerate it. Period. And that IS personal.

Feel free to tell anyone you want to back the fuck the fuck off. Fact is, the intolerant a-holes here can't be told they're wrong, nor disagreed with. And not one of them has an educated opinion. Unless you call Hannity and Rush education. I call it propaganda.

And I know their game. This isn't the first board they've played locust on.

[Drummond]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but he's more conservative than a LOT of people on this board. "Conservative" does NOT = "Republicant." The Republicans here would have you believe they are conservative when they aren't anything close.

Why do think the party is splintered like it is?

On your last point .. I think you overstate the case. Note - I said 'OVERSTATE', not 'YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG'.

I accept that the GOP needs to do a lot of work to become viewable as fully and properly Conservative.

But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

But back to your first point .... which I don't accept for a second. 'He' hasn't even had the wit to try out the strategy I've just described. No, not a bit of it. Yes, he says he's a Conservative -- but does so in a way that doesn't stack up. The 'Thatcherite' claim is a nonsense, for a number of reasons, not least his lack of full understanding of her politics, of her wish and unhesitating choice to take on draconian, State powers when necessary, to tackle social evils .. this which he'd reject as a 'Big Government' position, despite still SAYING he was 'Thatcherite', yet proving otherwise.

Why claim you're 'Thatcherite' when you're NOT, unless the intention was / is to oversell a con ?

I can point to other things. All the troll rubbish, quite a giveaway all on its own. That he attacks CONSERVATIVES rather than LEFTIES on this board, reserving his strongest attacks for the most staunch Conservative amongst them (... for me, because I see right through him ...).

That, on the supposed basis of 'rationality', he'll oppose criticisms of Obama he sees (I recall an impeachment debate where a defence of Obama was advanced).

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

And this, from a CONSERVATIVE ?? REALLY .. ????

So, no. True Conservatism is not in evidence. Just the unconvincing pretence of it, at absolute best.

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

[Jeff]

You're missing the shot. Obama sucks. He's lied his ass off since day one. I'm all about accusing him of what's done. Rightwingnut idiots, no different than leftwingnut idiots, blame him for everything.

Ebola was around before Obama. Sorry.

And, if anyone chooses to come after me personally, and more importantly fuck with my GF because she doesn't fall into lockstep with the party, then you get to be my new best friend. She can hold her own until the biddy mob gangs up on her. I won't tolerate it. Period. And that IS personal.

Feel free to tell anyone you want to back the fuck the fuck off. Fact is, the intolerant a-holes here can't be told they're wrong, nor disagreed with. And not one of them has an educated opinion. Unless you call Hannity and Rush education. I call it propaganda.

And I know their game. This isn't the first board they've played locust on.

OK I hear ya, and no , no one should gang up on anyone, but Gunny I see it going both ways , personally I enjoy reading all the post that all of ya make but it is turning into a pissing match, where I use to learn a lot from everyone's post , now I see nothing but fighting, and again man this isn't towards you personally , I see all involved and ask all to just post the way y'all use to, I guess I bring it to you because we trashed around and had so much fun with Bull Shit post that I was actually having fun here, don't get me wrong I also enjoy when there was a good debate ( I honestly learned a lot ) but anymore many have changed there political stance just for the sake of being able to fight, and that don't seem right.

[fj1200]

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy.

[fj1200]

But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.
B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.
C. Jimmy AND Mags.
D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

[Drummond]

It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy.

Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense. You wanted me to renege on my belief that you weren't a Leftie, and in return, you'd remove references to Lady Thatcher from your avatar and signature ??

How would circumstantial evidence hinting that you WERE more Leftie than you'd admitted to being, show consistency with any claim of mine that you WEREN'T one ??

If I declare you not to be a Leftie, then, will your response be to finally prove that you ARE one ??

Besides: I'll do no deals in order to encourage you to find some honesty. If you truly were a Conservative, that wouldn't even be an issue - you'd just BE honest, and that would be an end of it.
Yet again, you've managed to shoot yourself in the foot ..

[Trigg]

UVC or a 5.25 solution of household bleach
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/r.../ebola-eng.php

Also, it spreads through direct contact with infected fluids, so basic hygiene and sanitation would go far.

it's transmitted in the same way the flu virus is, infected fluids can live on hard surfaces.

The only reason it's less dangerous/contagious than the flu is because the original source of this virus is from infected bush animals. Add that to the fact that most people who eat those animals live in small villages and you have a virus that is usually easily controlled.

This isn't a little virus that can be cured with "better hygiene", it's cured because the international community comes together and quaranteens everyone who comes in contact with the original person. If this was done with flu victims the infection rate would plummet.

But don't mistake that it isn't every bit as easily spread as the flu.

[Drummond]

A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.

Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.

B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.

Proof of your delusional mindset ?

C. Jimmy AND Mags.

Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm

On 19 October 1988 Tory Home Secretary Douglas Hurd announced that organisations in Northern Ireland believed to support terrorism would be banned from directly broadcasting on the airwaves.

The ban affected 11 loyalist and republican organisations but Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, was the main target.

It meant that instead of hearing Gerry Adams, viewers and listeners would hear an actor's voice reading a transcript of the Sinn Fein leader's words.

Former BBC director general Lord Birt said the order came "right out of the blue".

Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.

D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'. Still ... any comparison you make between myself and Mr Hannity cannot help but be complimentary to me.

For which .. I thank you.

[fj1200]

Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense.

It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism.

Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.

I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.

Proof of your delusional mindset ?

Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.

Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.

Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.

My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.

I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'.

Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

[Drummond]

It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism.


I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.


Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.


Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.


My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.


Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

We've now got to that 'meltdown' point where almost everything you post is abusive in some shape or form. I've seen it before, and since you refuse to learn, I'm sure I'll see it again.

When you get to such a stage, I've learned that it's because you lack useful substance in your posting - which reduces its worth to zero. This is something you'll never admit to, regardless of how obvious it is. Which is itself a weakness of yours.

Up to 'Liberty is a Natural Right' (a diversion from my 'free speech' point ?) ... almost pure abuse. I've no need to reply.

And IS your understanding of 'Mags', as you call her, JUST limited to her words ?? Do you know anything much about her actions ? Was my proof of the curbing of IRA freedom to directly speak in the British media unknown to you ?

Perhaps you're unaware that one of her greatest domestic successes came from her anti-Trade Union legislation ? The passing of laws restricting their freedoms to act ? The limitation placed on the permitted size of a picket line, for example ?

If you understand nothing else about the politician you CLAIM to support, know that she was as autocratic as she chose to be in fixing issues. She may have had Conservative instincts, but, she created and assumed whatever powers she had to, to get things done. And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Have you heard about the Poll Tax riots ?

I think you presume to know of Lady Thatcher, when in reality you have only a passing acquaintance with her nature of politics and leadership. Truth be told, she was a great pragmatist. Sure, she had strong principles. But practicality always predominated with her.

Go away and do some much-needed research.

[fj1200]

We've now got to that 'meltdown' point where almost everything you post is abusive in some shape or form. I've seen it before, and since you refuse to learn, I'm sure I'll see it again.

When you get to such a stage, I've learned that it's because you lack useful substance in your posting - which reduces its worth to zero. This is something you'll never admit to, regardless of how obvious it is. Which is itself a weakness of yours.

Up to 'Liberty is a Natural Right' (a diversion from my 'free speech' point ?) ... almost pure abuse. I've no need to reply.

And IS your understanding of 'Mags', as you call her, JUST limited to her words ?? Do you know anything much about her actions ? Was my proof of the curbing of IRA freedom to directly speak in the British media unknown to you ?

Perhaps you're unaware that one of her greatest domestic successes came from her anti-Trade Union legislation ? The passing of laws restricting their freedoms to act ? The limitation placed on the permitted size of a picket line, for example ?

If you understand nothing else about the politician you CLAIM to support, know that she was as autocratic as she chose to be in fixing issues. She may have had Conservative instincts, but, she created and assumed whatever powers she had to, to get things done. And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Have you heard about the Poll Tax riots ?

I think you presume to know of Lady Thatcher, when in reality you have only a passing acquaintance with her nature of politics and leadership. Truth be told, she was a great pragmatist. Sure, she had strong principles. But practicality always predominated with her.

Go away and do some much-needed research.

Meltdown presumes anger but all I have is laughter because this is about the time where you run away. I answered your question about the IRA; was that not leftie enough for you that you have to prattle off in a different direction?

Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist. You are after all a 'Thatcherite.'

At least I still think she was the Iron Lady, you think she's malleable. Does that mean I don't get her endorsement of torture?

Priceless.

[Drummond]

Meltdown presumes anger but all I have is laughter because this is about the time where you run away. I answered your question about the IRA; was that not leftie enough for you that you have to prattle off in a different direction?

Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist. You are after all a 'Thatcherite.'

At least I still think she was the Iron Lady, you think she's malleable. Does that mean I don't get her endorsement of torture?

Priceless.

I think Margaret Thatcher was 'malleable' ? What on earth are you talking about ?!?

Against the Unions, she was very far from malleable. Ditto the IRA. I have already said as much. So, again, what are you talking about ?

You say 'You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist.'

-- WHAT ??

You really haven't got a clue, have you ?

FJ, aren't you working to prove, yet again, not only the fact that you're no Conservative yourself, but that you have a very limited understanding of Conservatism.

The Left is about idealism, about propagandising in order to make their vision seem real to others, to convince others to buy into their cloud-cuckooland control-freakery, ROT. If you want to seek out the opposite to that, and be successful about it, you choose the far more pragmatic Conservative approach !!

That's not to say that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a visionary .. of sorts, certainly. But putting her ideas into action required a keen sense of pragmatism from her.

But don't take just my word for it ... see this, from David Cameron, our current, CONSERVATIVE, Prime Minister, talking about Lady Thatcher ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...greatness.html

But if Margaret Thatcher was a radical moderniser, she was also a pragmatist. She recognised that the Ted Heath approach to trade union reform - frontal assault followed by humiliating retreat - was no good.

Instead she played a long game, literally stockpiling coal so that the country could withstand a long miners' strike. She cut back union power piece by piece, ensuring the slow death of the hard left.

The same approach characterised all the great achievements we associate with Thatcherism. Privatisation was not the centre-piece of the 1979 manifesto: it evolved gradually from the first successful experiment with selling the government's shares in BP. Full-scale denationalisation followed as a response to the growing demand for market pluralism and public share ownership.

Today we know what Thatcherism meant for our country - victory in the Cold War, victory against unbridled trade union power, the sale of council houses, the liberation of the British economy. Yet all of this was achieved gradually, by a government that knew it had to take public opinion along with it if real and lasting change was to be made.

That change was made. Margaret Thatcher is a fitting recipient of the Morgan Stanley Great Britons award, when we judge greatness as it should be judged: the scale of the legacy. She made the landscape in which we live today.

But today's circumstances are different. We still have major economic challenges ahead, largely conditioned by a decade of debt, and the failure by Gordon Brown to keep the roof in repair while the sun shone.

But the most fundamental long-term challenge we face is not the broken economy inherited by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, but our broken society, the consequence of years of failed state planning and the denial of social responsibility. Britain has falling school standards, the worst rate of family breakdown in Europe and an endemic crime problem in our inner cities.

I draw inspiration from Margaret Thatcher's record as a great moderniser and a great pragmatist.

I suppose you're now going to tell me that David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister and a leader of the very same Party that Lady Thatcher herself led, cannot know what he's talking about, but that YOU DO ??

FJ ... really. GET SO MUCH AS A CLUE ON THIS !! You don't know your subject, you don't really know what you're talking about.

Until you do, stop wasting my time.

And if you finally want to come clean and admit you're no Conservative ... there's probably never been a better time for you to admit it.

[fj1200]

I think Margaret Thatcher was 'malleable' ? What on earth are you talking about ?!?

Against the Unions, she was very far from malleable. Ditto the IRA. I have already said as much. So, again, what are you talking about ?

You say 'You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist.'

-- WHAT ??

You really haven't got a clue, have you ?

FJ, aren't you working to prove, yet again, not only the fact that you're no Conservative yourself, but that you have a very limited understanding of Conservatism.

Your own words pwn you.

And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

If you're a pragmatist then you're not beholden to an ideology. Hence malleable.

The Left is about idealism, about propagandising in order to make their vision seem real to others, to convince others to buy into their cloud-cuckooland control-freakery, ROT. If you want to seek out the opposite to that, and be successful about it, you choose the far more pragmatic Conservative approach !!

That's not to say that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a visionary .. of sorts, certainly. But putting her ideas into action required a keen sense of pragmatism from her.

But don't take just my word for it ... see this, from David Cameron, our current, CONSERVATIVE, Prime Minister, talking about Lady Thatcher ....

I suppose you're now going to tell me that David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister and a leader of the very same Party that Lady Thatcher herself led, cannot know what he's talking about, but that YOU DO ??

What? That he agrees that she was pragmatist? I haven't disputed that. You're the one who claims she carried through "big government in nature" pragmatic solutions.

FJ ... really. GET SO MUCH AS A CLUE ON THIS !! You don't know your subject, you don't really know what you're talking about.

Until you do, stop wasting my time.

And if you finally want to come clean and admit you're no Conservative ... there's probably never been a better time for you to admit it.

Remember, you're my debate toy. Or you could let me know when I haven't proffered a conservative solution. And don't think I don't know what you're running away from.

[Drummond]

Your own words pwn you.


If you're a pragmatist then you're not beholden to an ideology. Hence malleable.


What? That he agrees that she was pragmatist? I haven't disputed that. You're the one who claims she carried through "big government in nature" pragmatic solutions.


Remember, you're my debate toy. Or you could let me know when I haven't proffered a conservative solution. And don't think I don't know what you're running away from.

Thank you .... this is just further proof that you're not a Conservative. You don't comprehend what one is !!

Conservatism is a distinct philosophy. What you're not getting, because you're NOT one ... is that pragmatism is a cornerstone of what Conservatism is all about. Conservatives live in the real word ... they relate to it in its own terms. Pragmatism is therefore necessary.

Margaret Thatcher, as I take it even YOU cannot dream of denying, was a Conservative. She functioned as one as Prime Minister, using pragmatism to strengthen that function. In the account I posted yesterday, one originating from David Cameron, he gave an account of how her pragmatic approach was applied !

And at no time has Mr Cameron claimed that Margaret, AS A PRAGMATIST, ever strayed from Conservatism.

As for 'claiming' that Margaret carried through 'big Government in nature' pragmatic solutions, I make no such 'claim'. A claim falls short of the truth, and it is the TRUTH that she applied that pragmatism in that way. If you wish to question this in any way, then you are at odds with history, and, for that matter, what Margaret was all about.

Here's the truth about you. You really cannot relate pragmatism to a philosophy, can you ? This, of course, would be very true of a LEFTIE mindset - obviously so. And, it's true of YOU.

You limitations betray the truth of you, showing your pretensions to be as bogus as they are.

I really have no need to add any more. You are not what you keep claiming to be, and you're so far removed from what you say you are, that you cannot see how obvious your mistakes are.

You continue to be a waste of my time.

Oh, and ... Margaret, 'malleable' .. ?? Hilarious. You haven't got a clue.

[fj1200]

Thank you .... this is just further proof that you're not a Conservative. You don't comprehend what one is !!

Conservatism is a distinct philosophy. What you're not getting, because you're NOT one ... is that pragmatism is a cornerstone of what Conservatism is all about. Conservatives live in the real word ... they relate to it in its own terms. Pragmatism is therefore necessary.

Margaret Thatcher, as I take it even YOU cannot dream of denying, was a Conservative. She functioned as one as Prime Minister, using pragmatism to strengthen that function. In the account I posted yesterday, one originating from David Cameron, he gave an account of how her pragmatic approach was applied !

And at no time has Mr Cameron claimed that Margaret, AS A PRAGMATIST, ever strayed from Conservatism.

As for 'claiming' that Margaret carried through 'big Government in nature' pragmatic solutions, I make no such 'claim'. A claim falls short of the truth, and it is the TRUTH that she applied that pragmatism in that way. If you wish to question this in any way, then you are at odds with history, and, for that matter, what Margaret was all about.

Here's the truth about you. You really cannot relate pragmatism to a philosophy, can you ? This, of course, would be very true of a LEFTIE mindset - obviously so. And, it's true of YOU.

You limitations betray the truth of you, showing your pretensions to be as bogus as they are.

I really have no need to add any more. You are not what you keep claiming to be, and you're so far removed from what you say you are, that you cannot see how obvious your mistakes are.

You continue to be a waste of my time.

Oh, and ... Margaret, 'malleable' .. ?? Hilarious. You haven't got a clue.

I understand conservatism and I understand pragmatism, those are two distinct and separate things. When the right says 2+2=4 and the left says 2+2=6 and a pragmatist, conservative or otherwise, agrees to 2+2=5 then no true conservative would that 2+2=5 is conservatism. The problem for you becomes your conflicting view points; On the one hand you claim to be a conservative but on the other you claim that you are "Proudly Thatcherite." Those are two distinct and separate things if you buy into the claim of pragmatism. Now I'm sure that Mags was squarely conservative and I'm sure she had to pragmatically get things done but to claim that everything she did was conservative because she did it is soundly false.

There is no way that you can honestly square those viewpoints. Oh, and as far you not making the 'claim..." I leave you your own words.

And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.