State of Obama's Economy

[Jauronimo]

Now you're just playing the race card; that's pathetic.

 

I've disagreed with just about everyone in here. I've had some decidedly uncivil debates with OCinBuffalo and others. Heck, I've even bullshitted and joked with you about racial stereotypes.

 

Where were the claims of bigotry?

 

Can anyone find any, ever? *Patiently Waiting*

 

Exactly. You can't, because I haven't.

 

You're playing the race card...unabashedly.

 

And in fact, I never called LABillzfan a "bigot." You can play around with the innuendo, but shouldn't that be equally applicable. Hmmmm..... Give it some thought, you'll get there.

 

At the end of the day though, LABillzfan is a despicable and reprehensible creature. He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. You must not have caught it. Ok, that's fine; but don't defend the indefensible on grounds that you're not fully cognizant of.

 

This is not about a simple disagreement or difference of opinion. I wish it were. If it were, I wouldn't feel compelled to spit in LABillzfan's face in the presence of his family. I wouldn't do that, of course, because I like to think that I have, at least, a modicum of class. However that represents my level of contempt for him. And trust me, it's very well founded.

 

Of course words on a forum can be edited, and meaning adjusted, but I read what I read. And we'll leave it that.

 

I just hope that you don't continue trying to carry his water.

The only thing I saw was your unabashed insinuation that he attends klan rallies and suggestion that LA read the Turner Diaries.

 

But again it was I who played the race card, just like I led the conversation off topic. And please continue on the distinction between suggesting a board member is a member of the KKK while not making any claims of bigotry. Its these types of minute distinctions which seem to be at the heart of most your arguments.

[Juror#8]

[/b]

 

 

So, are you saying LA wrote something contemptable and then edited it out? Was it in this thread? Did you quote him and respond? Do you know that he can't edit anything out that you have quoted in a post? I've seen a lot of LA's posts and find your accusation hard to believe. Your innuendo is unbecoming. Get this out in the open by openly accusing him of something specific or show proof by posting what he wrote. Leaving things the way you are doing is a low blow.

 

I'm not accusing him of anything.

 

Repeat: I'm not accusing him of anything. An "accusation" suggests a "wrong." He is a grown man and he can say what he pleases when he pleases. He can feel what he wants about whomever. I'm all kinds of 1st Amendment on that. I just informed him that I wouldn't respond to him (for reasons that I know he knows).

 

He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. If you don't believe that he wrote something odious, I'm fine with that. But there is really nothing to believe or disbelieve - considering the subjectivity of this moment.

 

My dissatisfaction for what he wrote is the reason that I won't communicate with him. Look at my post history. My debates with folks have been intense and have contained more than a few strong and piquant insults. But there are a few things that I find personally and fundamentally unacceptable. He crossed a line with me. So you do the math.

 

I'm not Tim Graham'n here. Cause I'm not going anywhere. But there are certain people, who have certain belief systems, for whatever reason, and those beliefs are in such diametric opposition that there is absolutely no point in communicating.

 

That's where I'm at with LA. He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

He is a respected member of this community though and I'm not - much of that has to do with senority, much of it has to do with ideology.

 

I'm not here to call him out and put him on the spot. I mentioned to him that I would not communicate with him. Bitches "ignore-button"; I tell people straight out. Big deal. At least people know where they stand with me. Everyone else is making it into a spectacle.

 

I'm just trying to get to "Rob's House's" post.

[erynthered]

 

That's where I'm at with LA. He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

 

 

LA's been here for about 10 years, me going on 9. You? You've been here about 5 months.

You're way out of line when it comes to LA.

 

Take a breath, step back from your computer.............and !@#$ off.

 

How's that?

[Juror#8]

The only thing I saw was your unabashed insinuation that he attends klan rallies and suggestion that LA read the Turner Diaries.

 

But again it was I who played the race card, just like I led the conversation off topic. And please continue on the distinction between suggesting a board member is a member of the KKK while not making any claims of bigotry. Its these types of minute distinctions which seem to be at the heart of most your arguments.

 

1. I dont know where you're getting "klan rallies" from.

 

2. Yes, I mentioned the "Turner Diaries" with respect to LA. That is between him and me.

 

3. The conversation got off topic when people began referencing my personal politics. Go back and read the first 20 posts yourself and make your own assessment.

 

Did I have to dignify those posts with responses? No. Did my responses to their posts take the conversation further off-topic? Yes. But did I initiate those lines of discussions? No.

 

But keep denying the obvious and carrying LA's water. You play good B word too.

 

Out of the three points above, tell me exactly, with support, where I'm wrong. And don't forget the bolded point.

[3rdnlng]

I'm not accusing him of anything.

 

Repeat: I'm not accusing him of anything. An "accusation" suggests a "wrong." He is a grown man and he can say what he pleases when he pleases. He can feel what he wants about whomever. I'm all kinds of 1st Amendment on that. I just informed him that I wouldn't respond to him (for reasons that I know he knows).

 

He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. If you don't believe that he wrote something odious, I'm fine with that. But there is really nothing to believe or disbelieve - considering the subjectivity of this moment.

 

My dissatisfaction for what he wrote is the reason that I won't communicate with him. Look at my post history. My debates with folks have been intense and have contained more than a few strong and piquant insults. But there are a few things that I find personally and fundamentally unacceptable. He crossed a line with me. So you do the math.

 

I'm not Tim Graham'n here. Cause I'm not going anywhere. But there are certain people, who have certain belief systems, for whatever reason, and those beliefs are in such diametric opposition that there is absolutely no point in communicating.

 

That's where I'm at with LA. He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

He is a respected member of this community though and I'm not - much of that has to do with senority, much of it has to do with ideology.

 

I'm not here to call him out and put him on the spot. I mentioned to him that I would not communicate with him. Bitches "ignore-button"; I tell people straight out. Big deal. At least people know where they stand with me. Everyone else is making it into a spectacle.

 

I'm just trying to get to "Rob's House's" post.

 

 

That doesn't do it. You are accusing him of saying something odious. It's a real cheap shot in the way you are doing it too. Yes, LA is a respected member of this board but not because of seniority. It's because of his volume of good posts which he wouldn't have without seniority. So far you have gotten into fights with a lot of conservative members of this board while claiming to be a moderate conservative. Frankly speaking, something doesn't smell right.

[GG]

I'm not accusing him of anything.

 

Repeat: I'm not accusing him of anything. An "accusation" suggests a "wrong." He is a grown man and he can say what he pleases when he pleases. He can feel what he wants about whomever. I'm all kinds of 1st Amendment on that. I just informed him that I wouldn't respond to him (for reasons that I know he knows).

 

He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. If you don't believe that he wrote something odious, I'm fine with that. But there is really nothing to believe or disbelieve - considering the subjectivity of this moment.

 

My dissatisfaction for what he wrote is the reason that I won't communicate with him. Look at my post history. My debates with folks have been intense and have contained more than a few strong and piquant insults. But there are a few things that I find personally and fundamentally unacceptable. He crossed a line with me. So you do the math.

 

I'm not Tim Graham'n here. Cause I'm not going anywhere. But there are certain people, who have certain belief systems, for whatever reason, and those beliefs are in such diametric opposition that there is absolutely no point in communicating.

 

That's where I'm at with LA. He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

He is a respected member of this community though and I'm not - much of that has to do with senority, much of it has to do with ideology.

 

I'm not here to call him out and put him on the spot. I mentioned to him that I would not communicate with him. Bitches "ignore-button"; I tell people straight out. Big deal. At least people know where they stand with me. Everyone else is making it into a spectacle.

 

I'm just trying to get to "Rob's House's" post.

 

The intense debates have only been in your mind.

 

The threads are usually people mocking your nonsensical posts and in response you spend half a page describing Potomac water levels in November.

[Juror#8]

LA's been here for about 10 years, me going on 9. You? You've been here about 5 months.

You're way out of line when it comes to LA.

 

Take a breath, step back from your computer.............and !@#$ off.

 

How's that?

 

Do you think I give a !@#$ about your tenure? More importantly, do you think I give a !@#$ about his tenure?

 

Why, pray tell, am I "out of line when it comes to LA"?

 

Ok, is this where you discuss with me his distinguished TSW history or how you've agreed with him in posts before?

 

You can learn a lot about a person in the 45 minutes that you spend a day posting on message boards.

 

I know he appreciates you going to bat for him....being as though y'all go back so far.

 

The intense debates have only been in your mind.

 

The threads are usually people mocking your nonsensical posts and in response you spend half a page describing Potomac water levels in November.

 

That's deep. Thanks for your contribution.

[erynthered]

 

Why, pray tell, am I "out of line when it comes to LA"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point like 3rd's, was that he's been here awhile and his posts for that length of time have never been anything near what your accusing him of. Always good quality posts.

 

Since he has a long history of quality posts, and you quite frankly dont, thats why I think and I believe a few others here would agree, you're out of line when it comes to LA.

 

Thats all. Too deep for you?

[GG]

That's deep. Thanks for your contribution.

 

First smart thing you've said since joining.

 

And for kicks, I just went through the thread and a bit curious which of LA's posts offended you? Are you a popcorn ceiling installer and he just degraded your profession?

[Jauronimo]

1. I dont know where you're getting "klan rallies" from.

 

2. Yes, I mentioned the "Turner Diaries" with respect to LA. That is between him and me.

 

3. The conversation got off topic when people began referencing my personal politics. Go back and read the first 20 posts yourself and make your own assessment.

 

Did I have to dignify those posts with responses? No. Did my responses to their posts take the conversation further off-topic? Yes. But did I initiate those lines of discussions? No.

 

But keep denying the obvious and carrying LA's water. You play good B word too.

 

Out of the three points above, tell me exactly, with support, where I'm wrong. And don't forget the bolded point.

1. How should your remark directed at LA concerning

"groups" that you frequent, at night, and illuminated by the moon

be construed other than a Klan rally? When followed up with a quip about the Turner Diaries, the innuendo was rather obvious.

 

2. Yes you did.

 

3. I'd say you initiated that topic of discussion in post #1, where you included your own, self-described complicated, political views, as if they were at all relevant to what you intended to discuss. Why bother qualifying your opinion with which way you vote?

 

And we are in total agreement that you continued to lead your own thread in the "wrong" direction by responding to comments regarding your politics with posts which would make Proust blush, before of course you accused me of hijacking your thread.

 

What exactly am I denying? Is Hooked on Phonics, a product for slow children, a racial epithet now? That was an insult I recall tossing around liberally in middle school. If it now has racial undertones then I've never seen it, and if thats not what you're referring to, then I have no idea.

[3rdnlng]

First smart thing you've said since joining.

 

And for kicks, I just went through the thread and a bit curious which of LA's posts offended you? Are you a popcorn ceiling installer and he just degraded your profession?

 

He insinuated that LA posted something and then deleted it. My objection to that is that it is like a drive-by shooting. The innuendo is out there and J8 won't state what was said.

[Juror#8]

That doesn't do it. You are accusing him of saying something odious. It's a real cheap shot in the way you are doing it too.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's not cheap, because I know that he knows what he wrote. I'm not asking anyone to side with me and I don't want any one to change their opinion of him. If he was a good guy before then he should remain a good guy now.I have my opinion of him and it's predicated on something conspicuous. I'm saying this respectfully 3rdnlng, but I don't owe anyone here anything since I'm sure that he knows.

 

Everything else is just salaciousness.

 

 

Yes, LA is a respected member of this board but not because of seniority. It's because of his volume of good posts which he wouldn't have without seniority. So far you have gotten into fights with a lot of conservative members of this board while claiming to be a moderate conservative. Frankly speaking, something doesn't smell right.

 

It's unfortunate that you feel that way. It appears that people here don't like divergent opinions. Some folks here don't like to be challenged. I'm not going to be a monolith.

 

Sometimes you think that welfare is ok but that the stimulus sucked. Sometimes you feel that a flat tax is a great idea for everyone else but those making under a basic subsistence income level. They can use the help. Sometimes your opinions just can't be broadly categorized into an "ism," but the candidate that you most identify with when everything is out of the table has an "R" behind their name.

 

That's me.

 

Here, it's seemingly the case that conservatives must follow this path, everyone else is marginalized as something else. Any discussions around the perimeter are seen as liberal propaganda.

 

I very much respect you and your posts 3rdnlng so I'm not going to go further than that. I'll leave it there and hope that there is enough common ground to maintain a healthy dialog going forward with you.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Juror#8

[Magox]

Wow!

[Juror#8]

1. How should your remark directed at LA concerning be construed other than a Klan rally? When followed up with a quip about the Turner Diaries, the innuendo was rather obvious.

 

2. Yes you did.

 

3. I'd say you initiated that topic of discussion in post #1, where you included your own, self-described complicated, political views, as if they were at all relevant to what you intended to discuss. Why bother qualifying your opinion with which way you vote?

 

And we are in total agreement that you continued to lead your own thread in the "wrong" direction by responding to comments regarding your politics with posts which would make Proust blush, before of course you accused me of hijacking your thread.

 

What exactly am I denying? Is Hooked on Phonics, a product for slow children, a racial epithet now? That was an insult I recall tossing around liberally in middle school. If it now has racial undertones then I've never seen it, and if thats not what you're referring to, then I have no idea.

 

1. So if you were proved wrong, what would you do? You'd ignore it. Or better, you'd continue denying.

 

That comment was related to my on-going joke about Grundy, VA moonshiners that I've referenced in other posts. They're a bunch of "hill billys" and in an episode of the show on A&E, they discuss having to operate at night, with only the moon to see. I was making the point that LA is an unsophisticated hill billy.

 

I've referenced Grundy, VA moonshiners and "potato moonshine" as insults to other folks as well (as recently as yesterday).

 

So let me guess, now you'll ignore the explanation or express disbelief. Gotcha.

 

3. So I took my post off-topic by mentioning (in the first post) that I'd like to hear from the opinions of others who don't share the same political beliefs as me? People could have just accepted my statement and not turned the post into a referendum on my political views.

 

But that's ok. Gotcha.

 

You're clutching at straws because you DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT THAT I DIDN'T INITIATE THE OFF-TOPIC CONVERSATION.

 

Seriously man, let go of the protectionism and just read the first few posts in a natural and objective way. The off-topic conversation didn't begin with me. If you can look at this entirely fairly, and not go into this with an established conclusion, and try to make facts fit the conclusion, you'll see it too.

 

Wow!

 

Now imagine the view from within the shitstorm.

 

My point like 3rd's, was that he's been here awhile and his posts for that length of time have never been anything near what your accusing him of. Always good quality posts.

 

Since he has a long history of quality posts, and you quite frankly dont, thats why I think and I believe a few others here would agree, you're out of line when it comes to LA.

 

Thats all. Too deep for you?

 

What did I accuse him of?

 

That makes no sense but that is not without reason.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Juror#8

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not accusing him of anything.

You are the Barack Obama of posters. You imply, and when others infer, you stand around saying, "What? That's not what I said. You must have misunderstood me. I can't help it if I wasn't clear enough to hurl the fences of your stupidity. When I said 'Change you can believe in,' I didn't mean change would come tomorrow...or next month. You just misunderstood me because you're stupid. When I said you should go read the "Turner Diaries," I was just suggesting you go read a book. If you took that as me calling you a racist, well, that's not what I implied, it's just what you inferred. Wait, was the point of my thread again?"

 

On the upside, it's good to see you're not responding to me. I'd hate to get some of that spit on my face.

[Adam]

Zzzzzz

[erynthered]

 

 

 

What did I accuse him of?

 

For starters...............Being a........

 

He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

Maybe you've been sequestered with conner and Dave_in_ Norfolk to long.

[Juror#8]

 

3. I'd say you initiated that topic of discussion in post #1, where you included your own, self-described complicated, political views, as if they were at all relevant to what you intended to discuss. Why bother qualifying your opinion with which way you vote?

 

And we are in total agreement that you continued to lead your own thread in the "wrong" direction by responding to comments regarding your politics with posts which would make Proust blush, before of course you accused me of hijacking your thread.

 

What exactly am I denying? Is Hooked on Phonics, a product for slow children, a racial epithet now? That was an insult I recall tossing around liberally in middle school. If it now has racial undertones then I've never seen it, and if thats not what you're referring to, then I have no idea.

 

Posts #6,10,11. Again, read them in a natural, obejective way. If you still feel that I initiated the off-topic conversation, then ok.

 

I really wouldn't understand how, but I'll accept your opinion.

 

For starters...............Being a........

 

He is a repugnant and reprehensible piece of ****.

 

Maybe you've been sequestered with conner and Dave_in_ Norfolk to long.

 

I'm not accusing him of anything. That is my opinion of him.

 

When someone earlier said that I was "anal retentive," they weren't making an accusation. He stated an opinion. And he was even saying it pejoratively.

 

Y'all are desperate to close ranks around this guy.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Juror#8

[erynthered]

.

 

 

 

I'm not accusing him of anything. That is my opinion of him.

 

When someone earlier said that I was "anal retentive," they weren't making an accusation. He stated an opinion. And he was even saying it pejoratively.

 

 

So what was the opinion that caused you to say what you said then? Post it.

 

........and you agreed with me that you were being anel retentive. Catch up.

[Juror#8]

So what was the opinion that caused you to say what you said then? Post it.

 

He knows what he wrote, I know what he wrote. Notice the conspicuous silence on that point too...well at least until now when I'm sure this will be addressed because I'm calling attention to it.

 

I'm just asking you to remember it going forward.

 

........and you agreed with me that you were being anel retentive. Catch up.

 

Huh? What does this have to do with what I wrote? I guess you're on the tapeworm thing too. Seriously, make your point and move on. You're not getting style points.

 

I have no beef with you. Let's keep it that way.