pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I point out one of many examples of political vitriol from nearly 200 years ago that makes today's stuff look minor and I'm a dick? No your a dick you instantly start to call someone a lazy bastard because you read about Andrew Jackson and politics back 200 years ago. Just because people acted a certain way 200 years ago, doesn't mean it should be acceptable in today's society.
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) No your a dick you instantly start to call someone a lazy bastard because you read about Andrew Jackson and politics back 200 years ago. Just because people acted a certain way 200 years ago, doesn't mean it should be acceptable in today's society. I'm not the one saying tone it down remember. I said I didn't really care about it remember. The reason I brought up something from 200 years ago was to demonstrate that what you're complaining about as being a recent trend is not recent. You may not be lazy bastard I got that wrong. You're a dumb bastard. Nice vitriol from the "reduce the vitriol" campaigner. Edited January 12, 2011 by Chef Jim
Bronc24 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) There are Canadian Republicans? You bet...though they don't wear the little white hoods like their cousins from the American south. Edited January 12, 2011 by Marauder24
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm not the one saying tone it down remember. I said I didn't really care about it remember. The reason I brought up something from 200 years ago was to demonstrate that what you're complaining about as being a recent trend is not recent. You may not be lazy bastard I got that wrong. You're a dumb bastard. I know that it's not a recent trend. Fact of the matter is that the strategies change every few years or in some cases every year. All depends on data and other information presented to the campaign. Now I am a dumb bastard? Ok, your experience is reading a book. My experience comes from actually working in campaigns. Your so ridiculous it's funny. It cracks me up, when someone disagrees with you.. they are lazy, dumb, etc., etc. You are a shining example of what is wrong with America. That being said, just because politics was a certain way 200 years ago or 4 years ago doesn't mean that it's right. AND it should be toned down. There is nothing wrong with doing that.
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I know that it's not a recent trend. Fact of the matter is that the strategies change every few years or in some cases every year. All depends on data and other information presented to the campaign. Now I am a dumb bastard? Ok, your experience is reading a book. My experience comes from actually working in campaigns. Your so ridiculous it's funny. It cracks me up, when someone disagrees with you.. they are lazy, dumb, etc., etc. You are a shining example of what is wrong with America. That being said, just because politics was a certain way 200 years ago or 4 years ago doesn't mean that it's right. AND it should be toned down. There is nothing wrong with doing that. You've said it so many times I am now tone deaf. Are your t,o,n,e keys on your keyboard a little worn?
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You've said it so many times I am now tone deaf. Are your t,o,n,e keys on your keyboard a little worn? Nope. Thank you for the concern though.
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I know that it's not a recent trend. Fact of the matter is that the strategies change every few years or in some cases every year. All depends on data and other information presented to the campaign. Now I am a dumb bastard? Ok, your experience is reading a book. My experience comes from actually working in campaigns. Your so ridiculous it's funny. It cracks me up, when someone disagrees with you.. they are lazy, dumb, etc., etc. You are a shining example of what is wrong with America. That being said, just because politics was a certain way 200 years ago or 4 years ago doesn't mean that it's right. AND it should be toned down. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Sorry man, go through all my posts. I rarely call people names. It's typically beneath me. But you've dug yourself so deep here you deserved it. You give me hell for calliing you dumb and lazy but you call me a dick.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sorry man, go through all my posts. I rarely call people names. It's typically beneath me. But you've dug yourself so deep here you deserved it. You give me hell for calliing you dumb and lazy but you call me a dick. Rarely. HAHAHAHA!!! You are a dick. I have dug myself in deep by stating that politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc. should strive for civil discourse? They should be smarter about the statements they release? Wow, I can't believe someone should want that? OH MY LORD, I have dug myself in deep now. HAHAHA!!!
jjamie12 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Never mind. I don't really care that much. Edited January 12, 2011 by jjamie12
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Nah. You're wrong as usual. Removing that piece of excrement from the planet would only make the world a better place. When his God Hates Fags people are out protesting that 9 year old's funeral, I'd like someone to grab him (and as many of his followers as want to join in) and drive him out of earshot of the funeral, and conserve his (their) oxygen. It's people like Fred Phelps who make me genuinely want to believe that there is a hell, and that you're forced to spend eternity there being tortured by ghouls who represent all that made you end up there.
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It's people like Fred Phelps who make me genuinely want to believe that there is a hell, and that you're forced to spend eternity there being tortured by ghouls who represent all that made you end up there. Can't wait 'til Fred dies and meets God... "But I belong in heaven! I was doing the Lord's Work!" "The !@#$ you were doing my work, !@#$! You think I created gays just so you could be a dickhead to your fellow men? !@#$ you, douche rocket. Gabriel, ship this ****head to Lucifer, express."
GG Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 That being said, just because politics was a certain way 200 years ago or 4 years ago doesn't mean that it's right. AND it should be toned down. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Uhm, no. That's not the issue. The issue is that you said that politics has reached a new low, to which people provided evidence that it was worse 200 years ago. How hard is it for you to stick on topic? And then you wonder why people bash on you.
boyst Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You mean Fred Phelps is "just crazy" and there is nothing you can do about people like that? How come Loughner isnt "just crazy"? 'splain There is a little bit of difference in their "crazies." Fred hasn't picked up a gun just a sign and Loughner just doesn't know how to work it like Fred does; for that Fred is just crazy but like a fox, while Loughner is crazy like a !%#$ing lunatic. Either way, the sad thing about crazy is you can never get rid of them, the next guy might not be named Jared Loughner, Tim McVeigh, Lee Malvo, or Eric Rudolph, but he will be one in the same. They are domestic terrorists and that doesn't mean much any more because all we ever hear about is "terror," and "terrorists." The world we live in today is a breeding ground to create another lunatic every day. The irony is that it will take a Andrew Stack or Jared Loughner to finally take down Fred Phelps and after his death we will be no better for it because it will give Phelps death more purpose that he was the victim. Regardless of how disturbing his behavior we do not need to make Fred Phelps a victim. He'll go away just like Cindy Sheehan.
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You mean Fred Phelps is "just crazy" and there is nothing you can do about people like that? How come Loughner isnt "just crazy"? 'splain Crazy comes in different types. Freddie's more of a "Hitler" crazy - off his gourd, but coherent. Loughner, on the other hand, is more the flavor of "dump a plate of spaghetti over your head" crazy. But with guns.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Uhm, no. That's not the issue. The issue is that you said that politics has reached a new low, to which people provided evidence that it was worse 200 years ago. How hard is it for you to stick on topic? And then you wonder why people bash on you. Sorry. I never said it "reached a new low". I have always said that it needed to be toned down... that people (politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc) need to think and be smarter about the statements they release. Should I bash you for getting that wrong?
GG Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sorry. I never said it "reached a new low". I have always said that it needed to be toned down... that people (politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc) need to think and be smarter about the statements they release. Should I bash you for getting that wrong? Your response is that it has gotten out of control, despite evidence that it was worse over the past 200 years. So what exactly is out of control political discourse in your mind? A bunch of empty suits screaming at each other on TV, or people assassinating political opponents? I can make an argument that the situation is worse now because apparently there's a population that seems to be mesmerized by a bunch of talking heads on TV and takes their word at face value. And you're leading that parade.
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Rarely. HAHAHAHA!!! You are a dick. I have dug myself in deep by stating that politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc. should strive for civil discourse? They should be smarter about the statements they release? Wow, I can't believe someone should want that? OH MY LORD, I have dug myself in deep now. HAHAHA!!! Ok pay attention now. I have not once said you were wrong saying that people should strive for civil discourse. You're wrong in saying it's gotten worse. And yes I rarely call people names. Good job in demonstrating the the hypocrisy of the left by asking for civil discourse and calling me a dick....three times.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Your response is that it has gotten out of control, despite evidence that it was worse over the past 200 years. So what exactly is out of control political discourse in your mind? A bunch of empty suits screaming at each other on TV, or people assassinating political opponents? I can make an argument that the situation is worse now because apparently there's a population that seems to be mesmerized by a bunch of talking heads on TV and takes their word at face value. And you're leading that parade. And response to that... as stated before who cares what they did 200 years ago? How is the relevant to how our society should act today? What I bolded above I agree with 110%. Unlike many people in this country, I can process the statements that are released and in no way do I hang on every word spoken by the talking heads on TV. I do not watch those programs. In the future, you should refrain from making statements like "you're leading that parade" or "you said that politics...". It makes it hard to take you seriously when you state things that aren't true. Ok pay attention now. I have not once said you were wrong saying that people should strive for civil discourse. You're wrong in saying it's gotten worse. And yes I rarely call people names. Good job in demonstrating the the hypocrisy of the left by asking for civil discourse and calling me a dick....three times. As compared to what people did 200 years ago it may not be worse. As compared to 20, 10, 8 years ago... it is worse. I do believe in civil discourse, however I also believe when someone verbally attacks... you shouldn't sit back and take it. So don't act like your innocent with the "I rarely say..." garbage.
Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 As compared to what people did 200 years ago it may not be worse. As compared to 20, 10, 8 years ago... it is worse. I do believe in civil discourse, however I also believe when someone verbally attacks... you shouldn't sit back and take it. So don't act like your innocent with the "I rarely say..." garbage. Wrong. Remember the Harvey Milk assassination, the two assassination attempts on Gerald Ford, the assassination attempt on Reagan, the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic national convention, the assassination of RFK, the assassination of JFK, the assassination of MLK. Comparably speaking this is child's play. Now speaking of children....run along.
Captain Caveman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 There is a little bit of difference in their "crazies." Fred hasn't picked up a gun just a sign and Loughner just doesn't know how to work it like Fred does; for that Fred is just crazy but like a fox, while Loughner is crazy like a !%#$ing lunatic. Either way, the sad thing about crazy is you can never get rid of them, the next guy might not be named Jared Loughner, Tim McVeigh, Lee Malvo, or Eric Rudolph, but he will be one in the same. They are domestic terrorists and that doesn't mean much any more because all we ever hear about is "terror," and "terrorists." The world we live in today is a breeding ground to create another lunatic every day. The irony is that it will take a Andrew Stack or Jared Loughner to finally take down Fred Phelps and after his death we will be no better for it because it will give Phelps death more purpose that he was the victim. Regardless of how disturbing his behavior we do not need to make Fred Phelps a victim. He'll go away just like Cindy Sheehan. Did you really just compare Phelps to Cindy Sheehan?
Recommended Posts