Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I know, the left was so kind to "General Betrayus". God, you are an annoying little twerp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 God, you are an annoying little twerp. Yes...but in this case he's not without a point, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You mean her disregard for protocol and calling him out on the floor? You mean her voting for Obamacare which will get its cost savings out of gutting Medicare and then turning around and accusing West of taking Medicare away from the impoverished Broward County grandmas? How is any self-sustaining adult supposed to take the left seriously when the head of the DNC never had a job in the real world in her life? GG, sometimes I think you are better than this...then other times...jeesh... Did you listen to what she said? The two have a disagreement over policy. She didn't make any personal attack on him, only saying that voting against the health form reform was not in the best interest of his consitutants. They disagree on a policy...how does this make her "vile", or "not a lady"? You can hate here all you want, but his comments were over the top. If you can't see that, you are not objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 God, you are an annoying little twerp. What makes you think I'm so little, Butflex? If I'm annoying the likes of you I'm probably saying something that actually has some merit. BTW, what do you think of Obama's little real estate scam in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Yes...but in this case he's not without a point, either. What is his point? That only lefties say stupid things? Or, are we just making some broad generalization that anyone in the military is beyond reproach, for anything? In case you forgot, Barack Obama is commander in chief...how many names has he been called here, or other places? What makes you think I'm so little, Butflex? If I'm annoying the likes of you I'm probably saying something that actually has some merit. BTW, what do you think of Obama's little real estate scam in Chicago? You come off very small...like a little kid constantly craving attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 GG, sometimes I think you are better than this...then other times...jeesh... Did you listen to what she said? The two have a disagreement over policy. She didn't make any personal attack on him, only saying that voting against the health form reform was not in the best interest of his consitutants. They disagree on a policy...how does this make her "vile", or "not a lady"? You can hate here all you want, but his comments were over the top. If you can't see that, you are not objective. Because she went against protocol, and given their previous history he went off the handle. Frankly, I would do the same if I was him, because she's being duplicious (using kind words) in accusing him of voting against his constituents, when she voted for Obamacare, which is supposed to take money away from Medicare. That's the whole point of this and nobody wants to hold these idiots accountable and that's why you have a growing army of angry white men, to borrow your Tea Party stereotype, who are saying, "Enough of this bullcrap demagougery. You are talking crap, and the more crap you say, the more we are going to call you out on it, especially if you are going to stick us with the bill." West's words were a bit extreme, but his take on Wasserman is 100% spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I would just like to point out that while Wasserman-Schultz may have never had a job and be a far left whack job, West evidently think the movie 300 was a documentary. But when you understood what made the Spartan men strong, it was the Spartan women. Because the Spartan women at the age of nine gave up their male sons. And their male sons went into a training that was called the Agoge and they stayed in that training for the next eleven to twelve years. And when they were finally qualified, when they were finally ready to join the ranks for the Spartan army, it was not their father who gave them their cloak and shield. It was their mother who gave them their shield. And when the Spartan mother gave that young Spartan warrior his shield, she gave him this basic commandment: “Spartan, here is your shield. Come back bearing this shield or being borne upon it!” When Queen Gorgo, wife of King Leonidas, was questioned by the Persian emissary and she somewhat spoke out of turn to this Persian emissary, he tried to rebuke her. And she looked at him and said “Persian, beware, for it is Spartan women who raise Spartan men.” IMDB trivia Queen Gorgo had, indeed, said the line, "Because only Spartan women give birth to real men" but not to the Persian messenger. According to the Greek historian Plutarch (in book III of his Moralia, called "Sayings of the Spartans") she said this phrase to an Athenian lady who asked her, "Why can Spartan women speak amongst men?". And you could make a lot of bad jokes about him advocating pedophilia (which wouldn't be very fair as the Spartans didn't consummate the umm relationships). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 What is his point? That only lefties say stupid things? Or, are we just making some broad generalization that anyone in the military is beyond reproach, for anything? In case you forgot, Barack Obama is commander in chief...how many names has he been called here, or other places? You come off very small...like a little kid constantly craving attention. Everyone has their own opinion I guess. I'm sure there are people on this board that think you are a weasly, slimy little leftard that lives in his Momma's basement when you aren't greeting people at Walmart and they are entitled to that opinion. Me, on the other hand, don't think you have a job. BTW, what do you think of Obama's Chicago real estate scam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Because she went against protocol, and given their previous history he went off the handle. Frankly, I would do the same if I was him, because she's being duplicious (using kind words) in accusing him of voting against his constituents, when she voted for Obamacare, which is supposed to take money away from Medicare. That's the whole point of this and nobody wants to hold these idiots accountable and that's why you have a growing army of angry white men, to borrow your Tea Party stereotype, who are saying, "Enough of this bullcrap demagougery. You are talking crap, and the more crap you say, the more we are going to call you out on it, especially if you are going to stick us with the bill." West's words were a bit extreme, but his take on Wasserman is 100% spot on. That is just it, you (and West apparently) interpre things one way, she another. It is a political disagreement. As far as the proticol thing goes, I will take your word on that...but it seems like everytime these issues come up, right wingers seem to want to condem the left for some infraction, and applaud themselves for doing the same thing...is that the way to raise the bar of political discourse? We are all hypocrits, you, me, West, Schultz-Wasserman...LA Bills, Robs' House, ...lillybob, etc etc (except 3rning, just a twerp), so why does this surprise anyone at this point. The issue here, is Wests' rather inappropriate response to political speak which goes on every day...if West is that thin skinned, you really have to wonder about him, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 That is just it, you (and West apparently) interpre things one way, she another. It is a political disagreement. As far as the proticol thing goes, I will take your word on that...but it seems like everytime these issues come up, right wingers seem to want to condem the left for some infraction, and applaud themselves for doing the same thing...is that the way to raise the bar of political discourse? We are all hypocrits, you, me, West, Schultz-Wasserman...LA Bills, Robs' House, ...lillybob, etc etc (except 3rning, just a twerp), so why does this surprise anyone at this point. The issue here, is Wests' rather inappropriate response to political speak which goes on every day...if West is that thin skinned, you really have to wonder about him, in my opinion. Thanks for recognizing that I'm not a hypocrite, and again if I'm pissing you off I must be doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Everyone has their own opinion I guess. I'm sure there are people on this board that think you are a weasly, slimy little leftard that lives in his Momma's basement when you aren't greeting people at Walmart and they are entitled to that opinion. Me, on the other hand, don't think you have a job. BTW, what do you think of Obama's Chicago real estate scam? I am not going to answer, so you can keep posting "why don't you answer my (completely unrelated to anything) question"? Thanks for recognizing that I'm not a hypocrite, and again if I'm pissing you off I must be doing something right. Yes, being annoying is a highly valued trait. btw- being a twerp is not the worst thing you can be called! Edited July 22, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) It was blatent home-state politicking on the floor of the House, in a non-election year, behind his back. There's usually a mostly collegial manner of discourse (you know, besides that time a dude actually beat a guy to the point of death with his cane) on the floor. There were a LOT of people in support of the bill. She singled him out. Why? That was a political shot across the bow, given the givens. And, as GG pointed out, with logic from Bizarro-world. They're there to work on a budget deal, not to start an overt campaign. Make no mistake, she was taking a potshot at his seat, hoping that busy people will remember it, rather than a display of the facts come election time. Time and place, Debbie! Edited July 22, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I am not going to answer, so you can keep posting "why don't you answer my (completely unrelated to anything) question"? Yes, being annoying is a highly valued trait.btw- being a twerp is not the worst thing you can be called! Depends on who you are annoying I guess, assmudgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Jeez, how everyone lines up rank and file... Here's the objective skinny, she definitely was being more than just "political" in her speeches she had in Florida and on the floor, and there definitely was a hint of vileness in her speech, and it would of been completely appropriate for West to come out swinging, but in the fashion that he did was definitely unbecoming of him, and I'm sure if he could of taken it back, he would of. But he's too knee deep in it now for him to take it back publicly and I would characterize him as a thin-skinned individual. In other words, she was vile in a more "acceptable" political sense, and he went way over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Jeez, how everyone lines up rank and file... Here's the objective skinny, she definitely was being more than just "political" in her speeches she had in Florida and on the floor, and there definitely was a hint of vileness in her speech, and it would of been completely appropriate for West to come out swinging, but in the fashion that he did was definitely unbecoming of him, and I'm sure if he could of taken it back, he would of. But he's too knee deep in it now for him to take it back publicly and I would characterize him as a thin-skinned individual. In other words, she was vile in a more "acceptable" political sense, and he went way over the top. Magox, I would hazard to guess that you're the most rational regular poster here on PPP. I just wanted to say that because this was a pretty depressing thread to read before you chimed in. Two politicians acting like children, but they both get simultaneously anointed and bashed along party lines. Pretty good snapshot of American politics today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Magox, I would hazard to guess that you're the most rational regular poster here on PPP. I just wanted to say that because this was a pretty depressing thread to read before you chimed in. Two politicians acting like children, but they both get simultaneously anointed and bashed along party lines. Pretty good snapshot of American politics today. I wasn't annointing Wasserman-Schultz, only pointing out that Wests' reaction was way over the top, and speaks more about his character than anything she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) I wasn't annointing Wasserman-Schultz, only pointing out that Wests' reaction was way over the top, and speaks more about his character than anything she did. My bad if that came across wrong. Frankly, I don't agree with some of what you said in this thread because I think both parties are equally to blame for the conflict, but nothing you said approached the stupidity of the poster who wanted to nominate West for POTUS. Edited July 22, 2011 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I wasn't annointing Wasserman-Schultz, only pointing out that Wests' reaction was way over the top, and speaks more about his character than anything she did. No, you only framed the context as the boorish ex-military guy picking on a sweet innocent woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 My bad if that came across wrong. Frankly, I don't agree with some of what you said in this thread because I think both parties are equally to blame for the conflict, but nothing you said approached the stupidity of the poster who wanted to nominate West for POTUS. Why does West have to share any of the blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Why does West have to share any of the blame? For his overreaction, unbefitting any man in a public office. And for failing to not act like a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts