Alright, Lady Love, we get it.
Obama is evil
can you stop posting a new "obama is evil" news article every 20 minutes?
she'll quit when the "walker is the devil" and "republicans are nazis" and "tea party is racist" nonsense stops.
Lol! I'm a girl on a mission converting liberals to the conservative way! I'm like the Mother Teresa of politics! Lol
Love it when Republicans are called "Nazis." Especially since Nazis were members of the National Socialist Party (way to the left of where the actual Republican usually sits). Insults, accusations, assumptions are simply hurled willy-nilly at anyone and everyone. Maybe actually trying to wrap our heads around what someone believes would get us a little further ahead in the debate. But that would require listening, a skill so few of us have actually mastered.
Just a thought.
"Insults, accusations, assumptions are simply hurled willy-nilly at anyone and everyone."
That's kind of ironic coming from someone who just claimed Nazis were socialists. In fact, one of the very first thing they did on attaining power was to throw socialists in concentration camps, years before doing the same to the Jews.
Um, I said that Nazis were members of the National Socialist party. That was meant to be neither an insult nor an accusation. It was just a statement of fact, not a claim. Whether Nazis were socialists or not isn't what I was getting at. I was simply pointing out that "Nazi" was originally a slang term coined by Germans to describe members of the National Socialist PARTY. Neither did I give an opinion of socialists OR republicans, or any indication whatsoever about my own personal beliefs.
But thank you for your response. I think it very accurately illustrates the point I was trying to make.
Enjoy the debate.
Fair enough, but you also claimed that Nazis were "way to the left of where the actual Republican usually sits," which is simply not true. Fascism is a right wing authoritarian ideology taken to extremes; Stalinism is the left wing equivalent.
Actually, I admit that was worded poorly - and perhaps I should have stated my understanding that socialists are further left than where the actual republican usually sits. It is quite possible that I do not understand socialism correctly. That said, I once again apologize for having offended anyone by poorly wording the comment. But I reiterate that I did not say that Nazis were socialists.
Let me RESTATE my parenthetical aside simply for purposes of clarification so that others may not be offended:
(and from what I understand, socialism is way to the left of where the actual republican usually sits)
As to the Fascism/Stalinism thing, thank you. I understand that quite clearly. Which I why I always find it amusing that Republicans who are extremists are described as Nazis, when in actually they should be called Fascists. Maybe I should have just said that in the first place instead of encouraging a productive dialog (the kind where BOTH parties listen) among folks of unlike mind.
Seems like that might have been more along the lines of what the forum posters were looking for.
It's generally a good idea to stay away from the Nazi comparisons in general. First of all, it violates Godwin's Law, which will get you immediately dismissed as a noob on a lot of forums, and secondly, people get awfully prickly about it. As you just discovered.
These days liberals and progressives actually get called Nazis much more than conservatives, partly because of the "National Socialist" thing and partly because the far right likes to sling around accusations and insinuations with little or no basis in fact. Think of Limbaugh's characterization of feminists as "feminazis," for example, despite the fact that the Nazi party was very clear in its preference that women (good Aryan women, anyway) stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
"I admit that was worded poorly"
It was, and whether you yourself are liberal or conservative, it's a good idea to watch that in here. There's a troll with multiple sock puppets who hangs around and specializes in grabbing things out of context and twisting them into something that sounds evil. He mostly directs it against liberals, but he's happy to take it out on our resident libertarian-anarchist and anyone else he happens to disagree with as well. Plus, it leads to misunderstandings even among people with good intentions.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fig if someone immediately dismisses me as a noob in any forum (here or elsewhere). I'm not looking for accolades, assent to my point of view, or anything really. More or less, I'm thinking out loud. Choose to acknowledge or dismiss it. I leave that to the reader.
As to watching how I word things - I'm not a huge fan of being politically correct. I certainly do NOT want to offend someone, and if I do so, I will almost always apologize for having done so.
As to reiterating that it was poorly worded, thank you for that. I must not have been clear in making the statement myself. It most definitely needed to be repeated and rubbed in.
Wow, that was fun. Once again, a painfully learned lesson about why it's best to simply peruse the forums and not actively participate in them.
I'd say the lesson to take from the experience should be just the opposite. Over time you'll learn who you can have serious discussions with (few and far between) and who you can just b**** slap daily for fun.
You know, I appreciate your point of view. After some thought on it, I have changed my mind. You are absolutely correct. I do not, however, have any intention of slapping anyone...hahahaha I really do believe in not only turning the other cheek whenever possible, but also in not raising my hand if it can be avoided.
But seriously, thanks for the take. Quite insightful, and again, much appreciated.
"Which I why I always find it amusing that Republicans who are extremists are described as Nazis, when in actually they should be called Fascists."
The Nazis were Fascist.
"I'm not a huge fan of being politically correct." Are you a fan of being factually correct? Because in spite of the fact that "Nazi" is an abbreviation of National Socialist Party, they were about as socialist as the German Democratic Republic (East Germany, that is) was democratic. The Nazi party embraced a Fascist ideology. They were right-wing, and not socialist in their policies or practices by any stretch of the imagination.
But of course, thanks to conservative talk radio, we're going to get a bunch of people who think "Gee-golly, they must have been socialists, 'cuz it says "Socialist" right on the label!" and thinking that liberal = Socialist = Nazi.
Good post on the chart.
But the problem is that this chart only really measures 2 variables, whereas each politician has hundreds of variables.
Thus: Don't rely on votes, vote with dollars. embrace anarchy.
That's funny as heck, Evan.
because it's accurate? or because you disagree?
Because it's accurate and it immediately evoked the image for me.
I am not the sort to make fun of someone. If I say it's funny, I mean I actually found it amusing.
Does the "invisible hand" push this for you?
Nazi = Dictatorship = Tyranny = Pure Unadulterated Communism(everything controlled by those in power).
Which, when you really think about it- pretty much describes almost all government entities.
Here, before you make a fool of yourself by claiming that because Hitler took over a party called National Socialists he was a socialist read this;-
I'd rather not, but thank you for the offer.
I did not say that Hitler was a socialist. Actually didn't mention Hitler at all, and didn't plan to. I SAID that Nazis were members of a PARTY that called itself - for good or ill - the National Socialist party. Please read the comment again. Even when I read it as quoted in your post, I do not see a statement that Hitler or the Nazis WERE socialists - again, only that they belonged to a party that had the word socialist in its title.
Thank you for the warning about making myself look foolish. I'll certainly take it to heart.
LOL there should be at least a sign of balance. For a hundred or so libs singing praise to Obama, there is a handful of conservatives who do the opposite.
I just scanned the first page of the forums and found 2 threads started by people with a liberal slant and 2 started by people with a conservative slant. On the Politics and Social Issues forum it was much different. Of the 27 topics on the first page that were started with a clear political bias, 18 of them were conservative and 9 were liberal.
Oh, don't go throwing facts into the mix; you'll freak people out and they'll start calling you a liberal shill.
So an unscientific methodology by a biased and subjective individual is somehow transformed into "facts" by the liberal brain? Now I understand where the facts on the left come from!
Yeah, I see how you might consider techniques like "gathering data" and "counting" to be unscientific, especially when they give results that disagree with your narrative. Luckily, DB told us how he got his results, so anyone can go and verify his data. That's how science works.
If you disagree with his conclusions, go and count for yourself.
If it were just counting Jeff I'd agree but first he had to qualify that a post was biased then he had to make a judgement as to which way so there are two opportunities for error now the sample size the first page was also arbitrary and could easily have been skewed. You know for an intelectual elite you sure have a talent for missing the obvious... gee maybe the left really isn't brilliant?
Well, it's common knowledge the right isn't much better.
"first he had to qualify that a post was biased then he had to make a judgement as to which way so there are two opportunities for error"
Not error but subjectivity.
There's a difference.
To stand up to real peer review, he'd have to list the threads, list the people who started them, and declare whether each one was liberal or conservative.
That way we can look at each thread and see if most of us agree that the threads were liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning. If most of us agree, then his assessment is pretty good. If most of us don't, either he's a bad judge of what it means to be liberal and conservative, or he deliberately miscast posts to be conservative when they aren't. Those questions are merely hypothetical, though, because nobody has bothered to do an actual peer review; they've just complained about his efforts without doing anything themselves.
"now the sample size the first page was also arbitrary..."
Yes, he didn't cherry-pick. He just took a random sample.
He could have taken the second page only. Or the first five pages. Or every other page from one to ten. Either way, he shared his methodology with us and we can duplicate his observations with our own.
"...and could easily have been skewed."
Could be. But here's the thing: Misha made a (completely) unsubstantiated claim that there were tons of people "singing praises to Obama" and "only a handful of conservatives" to counter them. BD went and gathered some data, sharing with us his methodology, and showed, based on the data gathered, that Misha was utterly wrong. That's what happened. You don't have to like it, but it still happened.
If you think BD's methodology is unscientific, do what peer reviewers do:
1) duplicate his experiment using his methodology and see what your results are, and compare them to his. If they match, explain why. If they don't, explain why.
2) Create a better experiment and go do it. Remember to share your methodology and results so that we can duplicate your findings independently.
Of course, based on your posts, you don't seem to value actual data unless you can either spin it to support your worldview. You seem to prefer fake data (whether you invent it yourself or someone else did) that supports your narrative. That's cool, but don't be surprised when someone with real data comes along, exposes your fake data, and makes you looks silly.
Of course, all this is probably futile effort on my part, but perhaps there's a lurker or two reading this who will gain a better understanding of how to gather data and draw conclusions therefrom.
To you all data is fake if it doesn't come from the left. Here you esentially agree db methods are flawed but acceptable... go figure!
"Here you esentially agree db methods are flawed but acceptable..."
Now that's the only thing you've said right in the past few days.
Yes, DB's methods, as stated, are flawed. That is, they aren't perfect. If he was doing a statistical analysis for a newspaper, for example, he'd have to do a lot more work for those results to hold much weight. But for our informal discussion here, they're "close enough car parts," as some of the engineers at Delphi used to say. But we're none of us getting paid to post on the forums (though now I think about it, maybe some are...), and some of us have other stuff to do.
You want to dispute his results? Then either go duplicate his experiment and debunk it, or create your own better experiment and share the methodology and results with us. You could've done that in the time you've spent throwing rocks at someone else's work.
But science can be hard work, and it might give you results that disagree with your predictions. So my prediction is that you either
1) won't go count threads yourself and will keep pretending that there are more liberal posters than conservative ones
2) Will go count threads, but will stop when you discover that there seem to be more conservative ones than liberal ones
3) Will go count threads, see that the trend is showing more conservative ones than liberal ones, stop counting, fabricate some data, and come back here with a cock-and-bull story about a left-wing conspiracy.
I suppose it's possible that you'll
4) construct a more scientific experiment, follow through on the actual counting and number crunching, and share your methodology and results here, whatever those results might be, and ask others to duplicate your experiment to validate the results thereof.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I'll admit there is no clear cut way to determine if a post has a political bias, but I told you exactly where I got the data. I excluded threads that were started with ambiguous posts, such as when someone posts a link to news about Libya asks "what does everyone think of this". The rest is open to interpretation, but I invite you or anyone else to do your own count, and then we can see where we differ.
Lady Love, Your ad hominem argument is weak considering I told you exactly where I collected my data, thus giving you the opportunity to refute it. Instead you just dismissed it because I was the one who collected it. Your ilk might consider your logic to be sound, but I think it's clear to anyone else that it's flawed.
I didn't dismiss it I merely pointed out the methodology was flawed. 10 people reproducing what you did would have 10 different findings... in addition you provided no methodology or criteria for determining bias or determining right or left. In the end all this study does is provide us insight into your bias... that's nice to know but doesn't prove what you set out to prove.
Go do your own count and report back. I double dog dare you.
I actually started to do that when I ran into the problems I raised. Its not enough to look at the subject line and make a determination you have to read the initial posts.. if I had the time and interest id do so but I don't.
In the interest of science, then, which prediction of mine was true, 1, 2, or 3?
"10 people reproducing what you did would have 10 different findings"
... and yet I can't get just one to actually attempt this herself. I'm not saying we'd come up with the exact same numbers. In fact, that would be unlikely since the stories on the first page are always changing. I do think, however, that if you look at a more stagnant forum like Politics and Social Issues you'll find a similar ratio as the one I found (2 conservative : 1 liberal). I'm certain you'll find there is more than a "handful of conservatives" criticizing Obama for every few hundred liberals praising him.
What about all the praise heaped upon Obama as rebuttal in those threads that attack him? Is it fair to just discount them? Why not take this one thread and count how many attacked me vs how many supported me? I don't see the point in doing an exercise that serves no useful purpose.
"I don't see the point in doing an exercise that serves no useful purpose."
Translation: If I do the experiment as stated, I'll find data that prove me wrong, so I'll just move the goalposts and hope people won't notice.
LOL I went on and re-checked your count. I looked at thread original posters.
On a front page - parity 2-2
On Politics page
Conservatives - 19
Liberals - 13
Lady Love - 9
If you exclude her posts, the balance will shift towards liberals, so she is a valuable asset in conservatives camp.
But how much is the liberal slant prompted by Lady Love's postings?
No fair moving the goalposts, John. Besides, it really doesn't matter in the scope of this little informal experiment.
Hey, someone went and counted! Good for you, Sir! I mean that sincerely.
Here's a question for you: is LaLo's count a subset of the conservative count, or is it in addition to the other conservative posts? Serious question, 'cos if you remove the posts of any one conservative poster, the balance will shift toward the liberals either a little or a lot. If you remove LaLo's posts, does the balance shift toward the liberal side or does it tip the balance all the way over to the liberal side?
As for your assessment that LaLo is a valuable asset in the conservative camp, I would remind you that quality and quantity have a complex relationship...
Awww the anarchist is upset! Maybe you should form a government to outlaw free speech since it never occured to you not to bother reading my posts. Oh and it might serve you better if you didn't exagerate how many posts I make.
She'll never quit now. Today 8 justices ruled that speech like hers is protected under the 1st amendment.
Yeah, the moderators should just start a thread called "Reasons Obama is Evil" or something and merge every one of her threads in there.
Is that what happened when Bush was President?
Did any one person post 5-10 threads a day bashing him for almost identical reasons in every thread?
You forgot the quotation marks around the word "reasons."
No, they didn't. And if they did, they were called anti-American traitors.
Excuse me, I wasn't asking you. I was asking kerryg. Thank you.
Public discussion sometimes involve the public. I know, crazy, right?
Yeah! Let's all take a cruise on the SS Sockpuppet.
But you are right lovemyvchris. They were called anti-american terrorits.
Speaking as someone who's been here roughly twice as long as you and LMC combined, the answer is no, not that I remember.
Most hubbers - liberal and conservative - have the self-control to refrain from starting new threads on the same topic more than once a day.
If you say so, ok. So, if I put "Bush" into the search field I won't come up with dozens if not hundreds of threads bashing the former president?
Of course you will. That's not the point.
Maybe you have bad eyesight, so just in case, I've highlighted the relevant parts of my earlier comments to help you out:
Did any one person POST 5-10 THREADS A DAY bashing him for almost identical reasons in every thread?
Most hubbers - liberal and conservative - have the self-control to refrain from starting new threads on the same topic MORE THAN ONCE A DAY.
I'm willing to take your word on it, given your experience. Just to be clear, you are saying that no one - When Bush was President or after - ever started more than one thread per day on a very similar topic for the purposes of criticizing him?
Ordinarily I'd qualify my answer, but I'm rather interested to see what you turn up to prove me wrong, so off with you, little doggie. Go find me someone who started 5-10 threads per day bashing Bush.
Dude, seriously. What she said was that most hubbers have the self control to limit themselves to starting only one thread on a given topic on a given day. Not that nobody did.
Probably some liberal nutjob spammed the forums just like LaLo is doing lately. But that hypothetical nutjob is (or would have been) unusual, just as LaLo is unusual.
Actually, just going back and eyeballing the oldest pages of this forum (3 years back), the most frequent posters appear to have been Sparkling Jewel, College Politico, and Prophecy Teacher, who are all conservative leaning.
fishskinfreak was spammy like LL, but tended to post a weird mix of liberal and conservative leaning topics.
Again, just based on a quick eyeballing and not an actual count, it looks like Ralph was probably the top liberal poster, but with 3 or 4 per 50 topics, not LL's 8-12.
If somebody wants to do an actual count, they're welcome to.
They won't. The count won't agree with their narrative, and then they'd have to make an uncomfortable choice: lie about their count, or admit that they were wrong.
Excuse me again, but I was talking to kerryg. Thank you.
Funny thing about posting to a public forum; sometimes random people say stuff. Thank you.
It's really not so funny that sometimes random people rudely interrupt where they have not been requested.
Once again: Public. Forum.
Everyone is invited.
You want to have a private conversation, use the message feature.
Clearly the least bit of common courtesy is too much to ask of some.
That's certainly true. Some people, for example, would exclude others from a public discussion in a public forum.
Time for more flawed methodology! So I am spanning the forums lately??? What constitutes spam???
Lol!! I love it!! All the lefties upset that America knows the truth about their mesiah!! They can't stand to be shown they made a horrible choice... they elected a radical socialist narcissist liar to lead the country and all he's doing us destroying her and everything we all hold dear like our liberty... the whole world thinks he's a joke... he's weak and they ignore everything he says! Like Quaidafy is going to step down because Obama told him to??? Lol What's he going to do if he doesn't, apologize vigorously? Lol
Even pointless, rambling rants should be checked for proper grammar, word usage, and spelling. No wonder Republicans hate teachers.
Lol if that's all you can find fault with then my work is done and the truth is out there!
Your work is done. Good job. Now go take a nice long vacation in the land of reality.
So, is this how it works around here? The like-minded pile on anyone who has a different point of view? Gang up for personal snipes and petty insults? That's not the basis of a serious discussion.
Lol!! That's what the left always does when they gave no defense of the truth!
To be fair, this thread doesn't pretend to be anything but a dog pile.
Sometimes I read your childish remarks and obsessive need to believe that you are correct and and wonder, does she know how entertaining she is? This is why we respond. It's fun.
Different points of view are great. I rarely agree with Evan Rogers ideas about what US policy should be, for example.
But Evan and I both understand the difference between fantasy and reality.
When Evan and I disagree, it's not because he's making stuff up. It's because he looks at the same facts and comes to a different conclusion.
Different opinions are cool; everyone is entitled to their own. Different facts, however, are symptoms of a loss of touch with reality, and that sort of thing is at best merely unhelpful noise.
If you got "yes" out of my answer to your question, perhaps you should look into a remedial reading class.
More personal insults? What can you possibly get out of such immature behavior? It doesn't advance any discussion and can only cause ill-will that further alienates people. Why?
Arrogance is a trait of the left.. they just feel they are intellectually superior to those that disagree with their beliefs that they know what's best for mankind and should therefore be in charge of sheparding society into Utopia... and all we have to do is turn over our treasure and our liberty!
"More personal insults?"
Nope. Merely a clinical assessment and friendly advice. If you really, genuinely, completely misunderstood my post, you therefore cannot comprehend written English--not necessarily your fault, and the deficiency can be corrected with education and practice.
If, on the other hand, you really did understand what I wrote, and you're merely being deliberately disingenuous, well, that is your fault, and it leads one to certain other conclusions.
As for you, LaLo, you're mistaking one thing for another. There's a difference between disdain for someone you merely disagree with (and I agree that this is bad) and disdain for someone who chooses to invent "facts" and refuses to acknowledge reality.
Actually I don't hate anyone... not even Obama! But I do hate what he and the socialist democrats are doing to America and me!
I cannot see why you insist on carrying on with these childish personal insults. At least let me know what you think you can get out of it.
LaLo, I never said you hated anybody.
ShortStory, I haven't insulted anybody.
As for what I get out of posting here, well, there's the sense of having tried to raise the level of discourse above fake "facts," even if said efforts prove futile.
And then there's the hope that maybe someone will learn something about things like how the English language works, the difference between differences of opinion and differences in perception of reality, what one needs to do to gather data, things like that.
To post insult after insult and coyly demur that "no, I haven't done that!" is just childish and pointless. It is very unfortunate that discussions have to be marred by such empty trolling.
All right, let me ask you this:
Did you really think my answer to your question means "Yes?"
Or were you deliberately misunderstanding?
Your answer sure as heck looked like an indirect (why you were afraid to speak plainly is your issue) way of saying that your feel it is ok to insult, ridicule, and pile on someone if you and at least one other like-minded person determine that their point of view is sufficiently different from your own. So YES, that looked like a somewhat passive-aggressive YES to my question. It also looked like a timid, shoot a spitball when they're not looking, defense of petty, spiteful, arrogant dismissal of those who are 'guilty' of being too far removed from your own point of view.
From what I've seen of your posts so far, a large percentage of them are nothing but insults. A rational adult doesn't expect to hold a reasonable, productive discussion that way.
"From what I've seen of your posts so far, a large percentage of them are nothing but insults."
Really? Show me.
"So YES, that looked like a somewhat passive-aggressive YES to my question."
Let me try again, then.
No, it's not okay to pile on anyone who has a different point of view and ridicule them merely for having a different point of view. Different points of view are awesome. (I believe I said that explicitly...)
What is not awesome is someone who makes up "facts" to support their point of view. (I also said that explicitly.)
Let me try an analogy.
Assuming we're in the same town, If you say, "It's cloudy today, it might rain," and I say, "It's cloudy, yes, but I don't think it's going to rain," that's two people who see the same thing and have different ideas about what it means. If you say, "It's cloudy today, it might rain," and I say, "What are you, nuts? There's not a cloud in the sky!" one of us is making stuff up.
And when one party is making stuff up, there's can be no expectation of a rational discussion.
I fully support differences of opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But people are not entitled to their own facts. When someone makes up a bunch of crazy stuff and pretends it's true, you bet I'll condemn it.
There's a difference between condemning a mere difference of opinion and condemning the use of fabricated fake "facts" to support that different opinion. The difference is pretty big.
Actually, the whole world love him! He is popular in all the major developed nation simply because he is not an extremist on foreign policy so is not making problems for Americas allies.
He has also been "guilty" of dragging selfish Americans in to the 21st century joining countries like Australia who have had fantastic free health for more than 40 years.
Couldn't agree with you more Earnest.
Many countries breathed a sigh of relief with the possibilty of finally a U.S President that wasnt trigger happy.
In fact LL outrageous remarks that Pres.Obama is not liked International is a pure fabrication.
On the contrary I read that the reason George Bush doesnt travel too much is because he's worried he will be arrested for being a war criminal
Maybe LL gets paid per click
If thats the case George is not happy!
Lol I'd love to get paid for this but it's satisfaction enough just driving you libs crazy! Lol
Im not American,but if I were Id probably vote for Charlie Sheen
Hes the one getting all the attention and all the big bucks for what ...sitting on his ..asssssk ya mother for 6pence to see the big giraffe with whiskers on his hind legs and whiskers on his asssss..k ya mother for 6pence...
skips out humming a lil ditty
I don't think it drives libs crazy....doesn't bother me. I already know Republicans are gifted at "spin" and are hypocrites. Doesn't bother me much anymore. It's just a fact of life I have learned to live with.
Keep on posting, lady. He's a train wreck and there are new examples of his ineptitude every day.
Let's not move along.
You notice how Obama supporters never actually support Obama?
They just attack those who don't support him.
Lol! I know!! And it makes me laugh when they all come at me!! It's like circus clowns in a chinese fire drill ... they keep misdirecting changing the subject posting lies anything so ling as they don't have to face the truth! Lol
Same thing all over the internet. Same thing with the professional journalists.
Bankrupt ideology. They've got nothing to play but hate and the race card.
Deflection at its finest.
Glad you feel flattered. How do you feel about this smile?
Oh, you mean like saying Obama grew up in Kenya and didn't play baseball and wasn't a boy-scout huh?
Trying to make him "The Other".....
We're on to you!!!!!
Specially since we know where Ole Huckabee played.....you will find out soon enough if he keeps on with his talking points.
He is NOT a nice man.
She really got you, Jim. Better drink your koolaid like a good boy now.
Oh he does. That's why we're on to him, get it??
Same with you.
Is that the royal "we" you are referring to or is it all the little people in your head?
Ummm, I'd say it's the 90% of America that is sick of the right-wing agenda....
Oh, and we're not "little people", OK Leona?
"Ummm, I'd say it's the 90% of America that is sick of the right-wing agenda...."
That is exactly what you would say.
And you would be wrong...again
Do you really think 90% of the country is as extreme left-wing as you appear to be?
It would be more accurate to say that at least 80% of the country does not share your rather extreme outlook.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010- … erals.aspx
I said that 90% of America is sick of the extreme right-wing agenda.
And I am not extreme im the least.
I want all my countrymen/women/children to be well taken care of.
I do not want to continue this horror of poverty for some. It is un-neccessary, and inhumane.
As it stands, these pols (R's) want to take from the poor to give to the rich. THAT is extreme!
You consider those who don't agree with your political views as "not American" and you don't think your position is extreme?
Everything I've seen you post about political issues so far has been extreme, or at the very least not moderate if you prefer.
Only 20% of the country identifies as liberal or very liberal, so that leaves you certainly with something less than 20% who might possibly share your extreme outlook. That's not healthy.
I would say the top 20% that own 85% of this country definitley do not agree as those right wingers are the one's protecting THEIR money. So we def. do not get their vote.
Excuse me, where have you been?
BTW---how does that compute with someone (Misha), who said that there are far more Obama loving threads than LL's hating ones?
You just want it all ways, don't you?
"Arrogance is a trait of the left" <--- Lady of unLove
Arrogance isn't a human characteristic that transcends political affiliation/identity?
It is this type of minescule, lazy, arrogant, and foolhardy way of thinking that is trying to convince people of what is "right" and "wrong"?
Lady...enjoy your stay atop the hubpages forum poster listings....you work so hard for it....at least your fingers do...
Keep those blinders on tight, and don't let the validated arguments of those you oppose sink in.... It is your own arrogance, Lady, that betrays you...
Oh wait! Isn't this where you inject Cheney and Halliburton and how Regan deregulated trucking causing Mexicans to work in warehouses for minimum wages while there wivesand daughters were forced into prostitution by rich CA tourists seeking pot in tijuana?? Lol
I guess the ironic part is people are complaining about each side of the argument but many fail to realize it is ALL politicians that spout off distortion and misinformation.
"Oh wait! Isn't this where you inject Cheney and Halliburton and how Regan deregulated trucking causing Mexicans to work in warehouses for minimum wages while there wivesand daughters were forced into prostitution by rich CA tourists seeking pot in tijuana?? Lol"<---Lady
Wow....you laugh at reality... You, again, betray your own arrogance, animosity for others and prejudice towards those you don't like.
The President is talking with Mexico's President about opening the borders to Mexican drivers...
Lady, you mock the deregulated trucking industry....but this already weakened jobline is about to get worse....
And yet you forget, or you never actually knew, that it is our logistics network that makes us so valuable...and it was those jobs, goods movement, along with our manufacturing that formed the bedrock of the Baby Boomer middle class....
Lazy Loveless I think you should be renamed...
Perhaps you should have your life transported to Tijuana....or to Juarez....and maybe your daughters, if you have any, should be working in the maquilas....and God forbid she, or they, should end up like so many other brutally raped, murdered, and dismembered girls in that city....look it up Lady...minimum government at its best...Ciudad Juarez....
And your hypocrisy is topped off with your rants against Obama...your calls for him to be charges with a crime or to be removed from office....but you still think that the far worse....the actual criminal activity of politicians is some kind of "water under the bridge" joke....
Why not make an example out of those we actually know committed wrongful acts, and who benefitted through obvious ocnflict of interest....who sent young Americans to die in places they never should have been....
No Lady, you are right.......real cronies should get a pass, and then, like Cheney, be able to speak at Tea Party conventions to chants of "We Want Dick!" for president....this man can become a "face of conservatism" today...and his deranged daughter can be given the "conservative" benefit of a doubt as well....
Again Lady, your own arrogance and hypocrisy knows no bounds....
What about if we don't count OPs with the word "Obama" in the title? I bet we get a very, very different outcome
Looking at the first two pages of posts on the Politics forum, l come up with an even dozen posts from LaO with Obama in the title.
BTW she has neglected to do an Obama post today with this title:
"Obama adds 220,000 jobs in Feb - Unemployment under 9%"
Oh gad!!! I'll come to lady's aid right away!!
Um... the rate is dropping because the universe of unemployed is shrinking... the don't count people that have given up or whose benefits ran out... so the headline rate is a lie and Obama is manipulating the numbers as he ramps up for reekection... but let's not let facts get in the way.
by PrettyPanther2 weeks ago
I'm sorry, but I cannot abide this man as president. He sounds like a demented 10-year-old. How anyone can believe he is fit is beyond my comprehension. He speaks less eloquently than my elderly mother...
by EncephaloiDead4 years ago
We know that freedom of speech often allows hate speech and we know that more reasonable and rational speech combats hate speech. Should freedom of religion provide protection for religious hate speech in the same way?
by Holle Abee7 years ago
The SCOTUS just decided not to ban the making and selling of dog fighting videos!I don't understand this at all. Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states! It's illegal to sell hunting videos and hunting magazines in...
by Joelle Burnette8 years ago
What do you think about the Wisconsin man (an Iraq war veteran) who flew the American flag upside down outside his business in protest of the local government not granting him a liquor license after spending $200,000 to...
by Jezzzz8 years ago
Should Joe Wilson be punished for his remarks yesterday during the presidents speech? I don't care if you don't like the health care debate their should not be an outburst of this sort towards the President of the...
by Tony Lawrence6 years ago
I am not in favor of restricting freedom of religion, but it bothers me greatly that some extremely religious groups actively teach hatred.I suppose we have to put up with it, but why is there so much fear to show...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.