Republicans and Democrats

[Night Strike]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

[Timminz]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism.

I believe you are being very naive.

[Woodruff]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

I'm surprised you would think I consider ANYONE currently in Congress as belonging to the group of "intelligent conservatism", to be honest.

Within Congresscritters in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind offhand is J.C. Watts, who quit out of frustration at the crap that was going on with the rest of the conservative politicians. I'm tempted to include Ron Paul, but he's not really conservative policy-wise.

In these fora, I would point to keiths31, luns101, Doc_Brown, daddy1gringo, thegreekdog, Nobunaga, and rockfist. I have a lot of respect for each of them, because I do believe they're very intelligent in their outlook while holding onto fairly strongly conservative viewpoints.

[Woodruff]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism.

I believe you are being very naive.

I do tend toward idealism, it's true.

[muy_thaiguy]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

I'm surprised you would think I consider ANYONE currently in Congress as belonging to the group of "intelligent conservatism", to be honest.

Within Congresscritters in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind offhand is J.C. Watts, who quit out of frustration at the crap that was going on with the rest of the conservative politicians. I'm tempted to include Ron Paul, but he's not really conservative policy-wise.

In these fora, I would point to keiths31, luns101, Doc_Brown, daddy1gringo, thegreekdog, Nobunaga, and rockfist. I have a lot of respect for each of them, because I do believe they're very intelligent in their outlook while holding onto fairly strongly conservative viewpoints.

Well, I never did claim I was intelligent.

[Woodruff]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

I'm surprised you would think I consider ANYONE currently in Congress as belonging to the group of "intelligent conservatism", to be honest.

Within Congresscritters in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind offhand is J.C. Watts, who quit out of frustration at the crap that was going on with the rest of the conservative politicians. I'm tempted to include Ron Paul, but he's not really conservative policy-wise.

In these fora, I would point to keiths31, luns101, Doc_Brown, daddy1gringo, thegreekdog, Nobunaga, and rockfist. I have a lot of respect for each of them, because I do believe they're very intelligent in their outlook while holding onto fairly strongly conservative viewpoints.

Well, I never did claim I was intelligent.

In all honesty, I wasn't sure where you stand on the political spectrum, as you tend to avoid the political threads (or at least I don't see you in them very often).

[DangerBoy]

@ Woodruff - I was attempting to be somewhat facetious with my question.

He's just doing his job is ripping up every post from every conservative and Independent that ever posts. Calling names, besmirching, belittling, talking down to. It really can only be considered fecal matter.

While he does do it a lot, you have to admit DangerBoy has a history of adding little to nothing to the political discussions here.

Yes, because rds never ever issues warning or locks down threads in which that attempt is made. So why even bother?

I see that Woodruff has thrown out the 'coward' insult towards Night Strike. Will rds be the objective enforcer that he claims to be or will this be another exercise in hypocrisy? We await with bated breath.

[muy_thaiguy]

In all honesty, I wasn't sure where you stand on the political spectrum, as you tend to avoid the political threads (or at least I don't see you in them very often).

Really? Despite my saying on countless occassions that I consider myself a Conservative Republican that idealizes people like Ike Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt?

While I have been avoiding political threads for the most part, it's not like I've been keeping my poticial affliations secret.

[Woodruff]

@ Woodruff - I was attempting to be somewhat facetious with my question.

He's just doing his job is ripping up every post from every conservative and Independent that ever posts. Calling names, besmirching, belittling, talking down to. It really can only be considered fecal matter.

While he does do it a lot, you have to admit DangerBoy has a history of adding little to nothing to the political discussions here.

Yes, because rds never ever issues warning or locks down threads in which that attempt is made. So why even bother?

I see that Woodruff has thrown out the 'coward' insult towards Night Strike. Will rds be the objective enforcer that he claims to be or will this be another exercise in hypocrisy? We await with bated breath.

Here's another of your favorites, DangerBoy..."You need to learn how to read". Which you do. So go do it, instead of being drawn to trying to call me out like a boxelder bug is drawn to a maple tree. Your dumb ass wouldn't know "objectivity" if it bit you in the ass.

[Woodruff]

In all honesty, I wasn't sure where you stand on the political spectrum, as you tend to avoid the political threads (or at least I don't see you in them very often).

Really? Despite my saying on countless occassions that I consider myself a Conservative Republican that idealizes people like Ike Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt?

I don't recall that. Then again, I'm a pretty big fan of both of those men, as well...and according to some around here, I'm about as liberal as they get!

[muy_thaiguy]

In all honesty, I wasn't sure where you stand on the political spectrum, as you tend to avoid the political threads (or at least I don't see you in them very often).

Really? Despite my saying on countless occassions that I consider myself a Conservative Republican that idealizes people like Ike Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt?

I don't recall that. Then again, I'm a pretty big fan of both of those men, as well...and according to some around here, I'm about as liberal as they get!

I'd say some of your views certainly lean that way, but not overall.

[natty dread]

Yes, because rds never ever issues warning or locks down threads in which that attempt is made. So why even bother?

I see that Woodruff has thrown out the 'coward' insult towards Night Strike. Will rds be the objective enforcer that he claims to be or will this be another exercise in hypocrisy? We await with bated breath.

I guess that's why rds banned me for being mean to Night Strike. I mean, after all, it's a horrible thing to say to someone that his opinions are utterly imbecile. Surely deserving of a ban.

But hey, wait, aren't you one of those guys who thinks the world was made by a magical sky-man 6000 years ago? I mean, it seems like you don't have any objections to twisting the truth when it suits your purpose. After all, it's nice to have an excuse for not ever having anything worthwhile or intellectually honest to contribute.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yes, because rds never ever issues warning or locks down threads in which that attempt is made. So why even bother?

I see that Woodruff has thrown out the 'coward' insult towards Night Strike. Will rds be the objective enforcer that he claims to be or will this be another exercise in hypocrisy? We await with bated breath.

I guess that's why rds banned me for being mean to Night Strike. I mean, after all, it's a horrible thing to say to someone that his opinions are utterly imbecile. Surely deserving of a ban.

But hey, wait, aren't you one of those guys who thinks the world was made by a magical sky-man 6000 years ago? I mean, it seems like you don't have any objections to twisting the truth when it suits your purpose. After all, it's nice to have an excuse for not ever having anything worthwhile or intellectually honest to contribute.

Normally I don't like to get involved in these kinds of things, but you drag a person's religious beliefs into an argument that had nothing to do with it. Trying to change the topic to something irrelevent to the current subject is often the sign of either a troll, an idiot, or someone just trying to flame another's belief because you have nothing of actual substance to add. In any of those cases, your entire post can and should be dismissed as it was totally uncalled for.

[Woodruff]

In all honesty, I wasn't sure where you stand on the political spectrum, as you tend to avoid the political threads (or at least I don't see you in them very often).

Really? Despite my saying on countless occassions that I consider myself a Conservative Republican that idealizes people like Ike Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt?

I don't recall that. Then again, I'm a pretty big fan of both of those men, as well...and according to some around here, I'm about as liberal as they get!

I'd say some of your views certainly lean that way, but not overall.

I agree...I'd also say some of my views certainly lean that way. I try to look at each issue individually, rather than believing what my political masters tell me to believe, like some around here.

[Woodruff]

Yes, because rds never ever issues warning or locks down threads in which that attempt is made. So why even bother?

I see that Woodruff has thrown out the 'coward' insult towards Night Strike. Will rds be the objective enforcer that he claims to be or will this be another exercise in hypocrisy? We await with bated breath.

I guess that's why rds banned me for being mean to Night Strike. I mean, after all, it's a horrible thing to say to someone that his opinions are utterly imbecile. Surely deserving of a ban.

But hey, wait, aren't you one of those guys who thinks the world was made by a magical sky-man 6000 years ago? I mean, it seems like you don't have any objections to twisting the truth when it suits your purpose. After all, it's nice to have an excuse for not ever having anything worthwhile or intellectually honest to contribute.

Normally I don't like to get involved in these kinds of things, but you drag a person's religious beliefs into an argument that had nothing to do with it. Trying to change the topic to something irrelevent to the current subject is often the sign of either a troll, an idiot, or someone just trying to flame another's belief because you have nothing of actual substance to add. In any of those cases, your entire post can and should be dismissed as it was totally uncalled for.

But outright lying about me is acceptable?

[muy_thaiguy]

2 different topics for 2 different people woody.

[Woodruff]

2 different topics for 2 different people woody.

Ah, I see. Two different topics. Changing the subject is worthy of "calling out", but lying about someone is not.

[natty dread]

He just does the same thing john9bloo is famous for: whenever it's someone whose viewpoints he disagrees with, he's out there "calling them out" and crying foul... if it's someone he agrees with, anything goes...

[muy_thaiguy]

2 different topics for 2 different people woody.

Ah, I see. Two different topics. Changing the subject is worthy of "calling out", but lying about someone is not.

If you feel so insulted by someone who you will never meet except on an internet forum because they lied about you woody, then take it to another thread. I didn't see the "lied about woody post," but if I remember right, you've been bitching about it for awhile now. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep on about it, so it's best to drop it and move on with your life.

He just does the same thing john9bloo is famous for: whenever it's someone whose viewpoints he disagrees with, he's out there "calling them out" and crying foul... if it's someone he agrees with, anything goes...

Who's calling who out? First, you go on about how dangerboy doesn't defend his position, and in the same breath attack his religious beliefs for no reason other than you don't believe in God. Now, you come up with this?

[Woodruff]

2 different topics for 2 different people woody.

Ah, I see. Two different topics. Changing the subject is worthy of "calling out", but lying about someone is not.

If you feel so insulted by someone who you will never meet except on an internet forum because they lied about you woody, then take it to another thread.

Like you took it to another thread to jump on natty_dread? And I'm far less insulted by lies than I am by hypocricy.

I didn't see the "lied about woody post," but if I remember right, you've been bitching about it for awhile now. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep on about it, so it's best to drop it and move on with your life.

Bitching about it for quite a while? It happened about an hour and a half ago. It was quoted in the post you directly responded to...in fact, it's interesting that you wouldn't have seen it, given that you recognized that natty_dread was changing the subject.

[muy_thaiguy]

2 different topics for 2 different people woody.

Ah, I see. Two different topics. Changing the subject is worthy of "calling out", but lying about someone is not.

If you feel so insulted by someone who you will never meet except on an internet forum because they lied about you woody, then take it to another thread. I didn't see the "lied about woody post," but if I remember right, you've been bitching about it for awhile now. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep on about it, so it's best to drop it and move on with your life.

Bitching about it for quite a while? It happened earlier today...about an hour and a half ago. It was quoted in the post you directly responded to...in fact, it's interesting that you wouldn't have seen it, given that you recognized that natty_dread was changing the subject.

Not only changing the subject, but attacking DB's religious views for no reason, and in such a way that it is an attack on anyone's religious views. If YOU have a problem with DB lying about you, fine, but that is hardly a reason for someone else to attack his religious views. If you noticed, I wasn't telling natty off about his reponse to DB's lying, but to his religious attack. So feel free to ignore what I posted, but it doesn't do a damn thing for your position.

[Woodruff]

Bitching about it for quite a while? It happened earlier today...about an hour and a half ago. It was quoted in the post you directly responded to...in fact, it's interesting that you wouldn't have seen it, given that you recognized that natty_dread was changing the subject.

Not only changing the subject, but attacking DB's religious views for no reason, and in such a way that it is an attack on anyone's religious views. If YOU have a problem with DB lying about you, fine, but that is hardly a reason for someone else to attack his religious views. If you noticed, I wasn't telling natty off about his reponse to DB's lying, but to his religious attack. So feel free to ignore what I posted, but it doesn't do a damn thing for your position.

It seems natty_dread was right.

[muy_thaiguy]

Fucking hypocrites. I knew I left for a reason. So f*ck this shit. It's not worth it anymore.

[HapSmo19]

you left?

[jgordon1111]

again as in most forum topics.everyone wants to take a statement as being literal.woodruff did not state republicans were uninformed themselves just a vast majority of those they target to get the votes they need to put certain new members in office or to retain other current offices. democrats are using a different tactic whatever is popular is their weapon of choice now,now matter what the outcome may be. i voted for reagen,bush senior,bill clinton.knew better than to vote for junior.and yes now sadly in retrospect obama.who went so far off of his platform its wild.when we can get the politicians to come around to the point of view we put them in office to better this country and its people and not their own interests or the lobbyist with the most money's interests things will turn around.until then hang on for a rough ride everyone.you really want to do some good call your state reps and your govenors and tell them what you think and how you feel