Hoh resignation

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is what you're worried about? Honestly? I thought there was more to it than that.

It's just your usual grumbling about how, despite sending 30,000 more troops, and likely sending even more than that, Obama isn't living up to his campaign rhetoric that this is a fight worth fighting? And your evidence for this is ...stuff that you make up in your head that hasn't happened yet, and some that will never happen. And over-simplification. But what else is new?

Of course, some (or even most) of that campaign rhetoric was directed at the Bush administration for diverting resources away from the fight against the people who actually attacked us, and that's just true. Are you suggesting he can't point that out? That moving military and intelligence resources away from the fight in Afghanistan in 2002-2003 was a bad idea? Is that against your made up rules of conduct?

But don't worry - you can keep pretending you've got a point here. It allows you to continue with your theme: you're a clear-eyed realist, and I just can't be honest about the empty suit - all while you agree with what you think his decision will be, but find a way to hate him for it anyway. How's that for bringing yourself to be honest about the guy?

Kill me now.

[Westside Steve]

It's just your usual grumbling about how, despite sending 30,000 more troops, and likely sending even more than that, Obama isn't living up to his campaign rhetoric that this is a fight worth fighting? And your evidence for this is ...stuff that you make up in your head that hasn't happened yet, and some that will never happen. And over-simplification. But what else is new?

Certainly not your ususal argument:

"Whatever Obama chooses to do is the right thing."

But your plan for Afghanbistan?

You said before no more troops right?

But you support stepping up the drones as I recall.

OK

So Obama appointed the wrong general.

Oops.

Now if Obama sends the troops and things aren't better is he a cowboy?

How about when the drones kill more civilians? A war criminal?

And finally as you demended to know once"

How do YOU define success?"

WSS

(Maybe he oughta wait til after the 2010 elections.)

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, this kind of stuff interests me little. I've already written two posts in this thread that show where I might disagree with Obama on this, and have in the past as well. Doesn't matter to you. You're still going to go with the tired quip about how I worship everything he does no matter what. It's so boring. Not to mention submental.

Everyone sane left for another board. It's quite nice over there. Perhaps I should leave you with T and Cal and you guys can talk about empty suits and Mao and swine flu conspiracies all you like.

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Steve, this kind of stuff interests me little. I've already written two posts in this thread that show where I might disagree with Obama on this, and have in the past as well. Doesn't matter to you. You're still going to go with the tired quip about how I worship everything he does no matter what. It's so boring. Not to mention submental.

Just as you reply with the same shit.

Are you really oblivious to that?

C'mon. Really?

Everyone sane left for another board. It's quite nice over there. Perhaps I should leave you with T and Cal and you guys can talk about empty suits and Mao and swine flu conspiracies all you like.

As you wish Heck.

I've seen the "I hate Lumbergh" board.

It's just great.

90% "aren't we cool?"

I imagine the political part where you and Shep and the others try to out do each other in repeating the party line is truly fascinating.

But I imagine you go pretty much unchallenged over there and that's the idea isn't it?

Hey Am I on the "enemies list?"

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

We haven't talked politics over there once. It's not a political board. But hey, you got one more "party line" line in!

And Steve, it's not that I don't like talking to people who disagree. I do that all the time. It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.

[calfoxwc]

Heck - your judgement of "disagreeing well" means leaving you with nice opens for researched responses

and that don't give you serious backing into a corner.

Your blase' ego building here must be frustrating... you're like DA trying to be a qb...

Say, did you ever answer the question about whether or not you, mz the pussy, Shep and Al

met each other somewhere else, like maybe a Hollywood socialist griping forum or something?

All four of you seem like ANTI family values/God/Republicans/dissent against dumb liberalism/capitalism/military/common sense...

and you three never had much of any kind of sense of humor.

Though, mz the pussy was funny a few times.

....

seems to me, a common thread there.

I don't know if you ever said how you are a Browns fan. Or if mz the pussy ever did. Or Al.

Just a lot of distant observations from you three critical of everything you are anti about...

and say, how's that supporting Van Jones goin for ya?

Props to Shep - he IS a Browns fan, legimately.

[calfoxwc]

BTW, for the record, Heck, - go back and look - I wasn't in this thread before.

Until today, I never posted in this thread.

So, you just had to try to demonize T and I, to do the same to Steve,

because that's all you have ?

Wait, when do you complain that I interrupted your misguided banter to Steve?

Just so I don't miss it - it's the bye week, you know...

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

We haven't talked politics over there once. It's not a political board.

So why pimp it here?

I barely post on TBB these days.

What's the topic I'm missign?

Quinn DA?

Bernie Vinnie?

But hey, you got one more "party line" line in!

Yeah Heck.

<<but find a way to hate him for it anyway. >>

<< I should leave you with T and Cal >>

Repetition's terrible ain't it.

And Steve, it's not that I don't like talking to people who disagree. I do that all the time. It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.

Oh, uh, well.

Then bring more to the table than Cal and T barbs.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yep, that's all I ever do. In four years of posting. Cal and T barbs. If only I'd ever write about real issues.

[calfoxwc]

If only I'd ever write about real issues (without being a sold out liberal suckup). Fixed for Heck

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Yep, that's all I ever do. In four years of posting. Cal and T barbs. If only I'd ever write about real issues.

If you were honest you'd admit it happens at least as often (if not more) than my mention of Kool Aid or an empty suit.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And the two are analogous how?

[calfoxwc]

Liberal password

During a recent password audit, it was found that a liberal was using the following password:

MickeyMinnieDonaldGoofyPlutoHueyDeweyLouie

When asked why such a big password, the liberal said that it had to be at least eight characters long.

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

And the two are analogous how?

Just the fact you asked this is the answer.

You spend a lot of posts bellyaching that I repeat the fact that I think you are so enamored with the president that it clouds your rationale.

You gripe that I have repeated my opinion that the guy is a lightweight par with most political hacks.

You grouse if I repeat the same counters to what I consider to be mistaken points about the benefits of cap and trade V global warming.

So if repetition bothers you I point out the many times you toss out the same old same old.

One of your greatest hits is bitching about Cal or T whether or not they've even commented on a thread.

Or whine about Drudge or any radio host.

(Ironic since this post itself is from the Huff)

I don't expect completely different responses from identical claims but you're the one complaining.

Is that more clear?

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.

lol. Yea you're the best.

[heckofajobbrownie]

First of all, you could tally up all the times I've bothered responding to Cal or T and it wouldn't even be 1/10th of the times you've trotted out your lines. But that's not the point. This isn't about repetition. I don't mind if you repeat something if it's valid. The problem is, it rarely is. It's almost always over-simplified nonsense, or completely off point - especially your global warming gripes. And the "Kool Aid" line, and all of its relatives, are lazy ad hominem attacks, oft-repeated, even if you don't understand how they are. (And you must not, seeing as how you repeat it all the time.)

I thought that was the difference, and why the two aren't analogous at all.

Sorry if I laugh at Cal and T's posts when I'm not ignoring them. Is there something else you'd like me to do with them?

[calfoxwc]

You hardly laugh. You don't have that much a sense of humor.

And, you miss the point.

Steve's point was about how, even when T and I are not in a thread, you fall back on

trying to bring us up, seemingly as a threat to diss Steve if he doesn't quit disagreeing with you.

I enjoy it when you "ignore" our threads.

Yet, when you can find fault with one, you are immediately replying.

IOW, a lot of our posts, as well as others' are exactly on the money.

You can't handle the truth about some things.

Truth is, you are all wet in Egypt, in a huge way.

But, I care. I hope you get a hair dryer for Christmas.

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

First of all, you could tally up all the times I've bothered responding to Cal or T and it wouldn't even be 1/10th of the times you've trotted out your lines. But that's not the point. This isn't about repetition. I don't mind if you repeat something if it's valid. The problem is, it rarely is. It's almost always over-simplified nonsense, or completely off point - especially your global warming gripes. And the "Kool Aid" line, and all of its relatives, are lazy ad hominem attacks, oft-repeated, even if you don't understand how they are. (And you must not, seeing as how you repeat it all the time.)

I thought that was the difference, and why the two aren't analogous at all.

Sorry if I laugh at Cal and T's posts when I'm not ignoring them. Is there something else you'd like me to do with them?

Actually (though I'm sure you know) that's a misrepresentation.

See I bet you've griped about me calling Obama an empty suit almost as many times as I have done it.

Same with the blind allegiance refs.

But I wish I had nexis lexis to show all the refs you make to Cal or T (or Drudge or Beck or Limbaugh) when addressing me.

And I fully understand you ignore them for the most part.

As to your "global warming" woes, none of my reoeated points are false.

And you don't even try to say they are.

You just bitch I repeat them.

I'd list 'em again but you've yet to respond rationally.

But hey if it pissed you off that W acted like a cowboy you oughta be at least as angry with Obama.

(Hey don't we have strike through anymore?)

WSS

WSS[/b]