The echo chamber
-
Kosar, weren't you the one who posted that list of 25 things that prove global warming is a lie - the one that took me and Sev about 5 minutes to debunk?
If so, believe me, that was the same old shit.
-
You didn't debunk jack squoosh.
I don't get your arrogance in your opinions - and you can't back them up
with substance.
You posted a list of things about gw first - and they did nothing to prove your point at all.
Even when you try to get Steve's take on some issue, Heck - you don't respond to what he said,
you just quibble over semantics, you change the subject and hijack what he said, twist it into words
you can refute...
ah... whatever. It's gotten very boring and old.
The only people on this board who I haven't learned from...
are you, Shep, mzbeetlejuice, etc.
That looks like you three are the ones not contributing, just judging, name calling,
and throwing out partisan crap - you know, the throwing you despise unless it's you who does it.
Here's a hint: grow up, stop trying to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you, try being honest
about what you really believe, and I will be happy to avoid your conversations.
-
My take is that the board is saturated and I don't really have time or interest to read a thousand articles a day.
As far as the other side I'd rather read Truthout to keep up with what the lefties are on about but.....
If you have something to say Sev, post it by all means.
Just bitching that there are too many right wing posts doesn't help.
Plus I'd always rqther discuss somebody's take on any particular issue than read a thousand words from [enter right wing site here] or BarackObama.com....
But as far as name calling belittleing etc etc, come on guys, the first line of attacke is how everybody who doesn't love XXXXX is too stupid to understand.
It really does mirror the football pages.
WSS
-
Well, if John, T, myself and T quit posting new stuff ...
Sev and Mr. Jellybean rarely ever do.
There is no board.
Where was this outrage when they started so many
anti-Bush threads?
Actually, sometimes I think Mzbeetlejuice logs in under Heck's login,
they both rarely offered up any opinions, but just attacked the opinions and posts
by anybody they disagreed with.
-
IMO: A lot of liberals wont post stuff here is because they know that most of the programs that the progressives want are bogus and silly.
Why is it more and more Americans are tuning into Fox news? Maybe because they are tired of all of the propagated liberal media on the other channels. Just the other day I was reading that more and more Americans are leaning towards libertarian ideals. They were stating that most would move over to vote for republicans but they are waiting to see if the republicans will stand up and deliver.
Head or Gut? -
Honestly, I don't post new material because I already know what you're all going to say. Because it's said for you, then you repeat it. At least Steve has a base of knowledge where he can formulate a coherent (and grizzled) opinion on his own. Kosar seems to be interested in knowing more. Not everyone is versed in this stuff, nor should they be. They've got lives and jobs and families.
-
Steve is just right center enough, you think you can reach him someday.
You don't post stuff, because you would be sticking your neck out, instead of
attacking everybody else's posts.
Join in. You might be surprised. I can't agree with you if you never give me anything to
agree with.
I know what you'll say too. Why would that lead me to not post anything?
I just don't get progressives. They live in some other dimension and time.
-
Cal, really. You've displayed an absolute inability to discuss anything on an adult level, have done so for years. Your consistent comparisons of the president to the world's worst dictators, or even some of the world's communist thugs, is as ridiculous as it is offensive.
I prefer that you disagree with me. The further away I am from your beliefs, the better it is.
-
Honestly, I don't post new material because I already know what you're all going to say. Because it's said for you, then you repeat it. At least Steve has a base of knowledge where he can formulate a coherent (and grizzled) opinion on his own. Kosar seems to be interested in knowing more. Not everyone is versed in this stuff, nor should they be. They've got lives and jobs and families.
Honestly, I don't post new material because I already know what you're all going to say. Because it's said for you, then you repeat it. At least Steve has a base of knowledge where he can formulate a coherent (and grizzled) opinion on his own. Kosar seems to be interested in knowing more. Not everyone is versed in this stuff, nor should they be. They've got lives and jobs and families.
Excuses. I have a job and a family like most people on here do. But if you have something worth talking about, let it rip. And that does not mean to rip on other people, tell us your thoughts what is your ideal of utopia.
Otherwise you are just throwing a temper tantrum.
-
Because it's really hard to argue with people who already have a tenuous grasp on reality. When someone thinks Obama is a diehard marxist despite the massive concessions he's made to insurance companies and banks, or that the current HC bill somehow represents "government health care," it's hard for me to convince you of anything. Instead of wasting time, I'd rather just talk about the Browns, something everyone here has in common.
For the record, I think the HC bill is a piece of shit too, but for completely different reasons.
-
IMO: A lot of liberals wont post stuff here is because they know that most of the programs that the progressives want are bogus and silly.
Why is it more and more Americans are tuning into Fox news? Maybe because they are tired of all of the propagated liberal media on the other channels. Just the other day I was reading that more and more Americans are leaning towards libertarian ideals. They were stating that most would move over to vote for republicans but they are waiting to see if the republicans will stand up and deliver.
IMO: A lot of liberals wont post stuff here is because they know that most of the programs that the progressives want are bogus and silly.
I'd agree with this post mostly as well, surprisingly, although I'd replace "progressives" with "the Democratic Party." The Dems are pretty incompetent when it comes to sound policy making. The sad thing is that people end up conflating the idiocy of the Democrats with progressivism/liberalism in general, when it's more like crony capitalism-lite with lip service given to progressive social causes. There is no liberal/left party in the US, unfortunately.
-
But there are leftists/progressives in the Democratic party.
Well, probably a few here and there in the Rep party, for that matter.
And Heck,
I keep saying it - I am talking about trends.
Similarites.
You just have no explanation for Obama being outraged at Seleya's HONDURAS SUPREME COURT
ouster out of the country, because Seleya was working at a Chavez style "extended" presidency.
And Obama has SAID he thinks our Constitution is a "negative document".
How many similaries will you ignore, Heck?
I am SAYING the direction he is going in, and his statements, are an indication, that he is trending
toward the same kind of desire for power via dishonest manipulation, and It isn't just me or T.
There are millions of Americans who are concerned.
Change the "face" of America? Eh, he doesn't like our FACE or our CONSTITUTION, but
nobody should say he talks like a Seleya and a Chavez, he walks like a Seleya and Chavez,
and he flip flops on what he promised vs his actions like a Mexican jumping bean.
Hard core libs around here never say what they BELIEVE, they just attack other people's beliefs.
Older folks from Europe see it. They know history.
Never allowing us to know what you believe, because you don't like what I believe, Heck? HA.
Excuse making coward. Yellow Bellied Sapsmoocher.
-
Hysterical. That coup you're speaking of happened in the summer of 2009. You've never mentioned it before today, and I don't imagine you're really up on Central America affairs.
But Karl Rove did mention it last night in an attack on Obama, and that was picked up by the right-wing press. I wonder if that's why all of a sudden you're upset about it too. Could it be you're just reciting what someone told you to be upset about essentially word for word?
Congrats on taking orders.
And Obama never said the Constitution is a "negative document". Maybe people say that he said that, and you think that he said that, but he didn't. (And then from that falsehood, you infer that he's a danger to America!) What he said was that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, which it is. That's entirely different from what you just said he said, which he didn't. It's just that you don't read real news, or know anything about anything, so you're lost.
Once again, you're being told to believe something that isn't true, and you believe it because you don't know any better.
I don't know why I talk to you. But a simple acknowledgement that he didn't say the Constitution was a "negative document" would be a start.
-
So you post him talking about something entirely different, and remarkably uncontroversial, to prove what?
T, Cal said Obama said the Constitution was a "negative document". That was his quote. Obama didn't say that. He once spoke of the Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties."
Cal needs to prove that I'm wrong. Clearly I'm not wrong that Obama once spoke of "a charter of negative liberties", and you can Google that phrase and find a few hundred places that reported that quote. I can remember it off the top of my head because it became a topic of discussion during the Supreme Court hearings.
If Cal can find a news source that quotes Obama correctly as saying the Constitution is a "negative document" he's free to do so. Otherwise, he's got to admit he had that wrong.
And then he's got to go back and revisit his theory that Obama's dangerous and we're heading towards Nazi Germany (which Europeans understand because they know history!) because he thinks the Constitution is a negative document.
And why I just wasted another 6 minutes of my time talking to a lunatic is beyond me.
-
Yes, I'm sure the former Constitutional Law Professor could use a lecture on the Constitution from the likes of Cal and T.
-
#1 - you are very foolish to think it is the first time I've mentioned Selaya being ousted out
of Honduras by the Supreme Court. I've mentioned it many times. Ask anybody on the board who isn't
licking Obamao's toes. Seriously.
#2 - you are being dumb again - "negative document" refers to what the exact quote was
meaning. Say, can you show me where I said it was an EXACT QUOTE? don't think so.
-
Anybody can use the search function and look up the times I mentioned Seleya/Selaya ? and the supreme court.
back in Sept.
well before last night ... and if you just search on how many times I have referred to just HIM, it's several more times.
This is March.
You are a loser.
Is there ANYTHING you believe in Heck?
-
Obama constitution video
What do you think is wrong with what he's saying in this video? Just wondering.
Also, this may help clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
What do you think is wrong with what he's saying in this video? Just wondering.
Also, this may help clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
I really dont give wikipedia a whole lot of credit as a reference point, try handing in a paper in college with wikipedia as one of your sources. Even your profs will tell you that anyone can write whats in wiki. For all we know that was written by heckles.
And for Obama studying constitutional law, Im sure he took a class in it. Doesn't mean that he passed. (grades were never disclosed) I can remember how everyone was told that Obama was a constituinal lawyer and that is his belief, when on the other hand we here in the youtube video with his own words that he believes in a living constitution and that it is flawed because african-americans (hyphenated american again) were not made part of the process. Well I think he is a racist. And we shall see how he governs. I would say obama is a case study lawyer. meaning that we can change the law case by case.
Its not what he says he is, but what he does. The same as actions speak louder than words.
dyk: A jury can change laws, they can block the enforcement of any unjust laws. But does obama think that the constitution is an unjust piece of paper? Y or N?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login