centerish, you're getting close to the "troll of the month" award.
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Gee, loco, could you tell me what part facts would play in the Republican decisions to shut down the government, to default on payments, to do nothing for the country in order to make one person look bad. I could go on and on about dealing in facts but I will leave that to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Cruz. They seem to speak eloquently for the Republican side as to the lack of facts in their decisions. But, You continue on your way with the Glenn Beck line of factual presentations.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sorry, angeR, but some libs would say that conservatives don't have hearts to break.
See, with your broken heart, you've dispelled a fond liberal myth.
I like this purpose you've served, as doing away with liberal mythology is a high calling.
Now I'm with ya! :-)
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"I believe that facts contribute far more to liberal thinking than it does to Republicans."
This is rather a revealing statement, centerish. It implies that you have "faith" that libs have more facts contributing to their thinking than do Republicans (eww--that dirty word again--I prefer conservatives).
And I'll declare I don't have "faith" that libs have more facts in their thinking than do Republicans.
"I was wondering: do libs always operate on feelings alone?" It's a fair question, as conservatives are always characterized as cold and analytical anyway." I always thought the term was "cold and calculating"? I believe that facts contribute far more to liberal thinking than it does to Republicans. With the skewing of information put forth by the republican media machine, I suspect "calculating" more correctly describes the right wing. All though I do see the term, "twisting the facts, if they have any" as a description of Right wing behaviors.
Bluff and Blunder? Geez Garr! Get some new material. Even your insults are talking points.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"That because anger has nothing but wing ding talking points. He's all bluff and blunder with nothing to back up his assertions."
Nothing to back it up? How about every single word that came out of his mouth since he hit the campaign trail. Excuse me for not posting them all here. I'm kind of lazy like that.
" angeR, was there ever an "us" except in Veritas' mind? "
LOCO! How could you say that? I'm heartbroken.
angeR, was there ever an "us" except in Veritas' mind?
Placing others into pigeon-holes makes it easier to lob the "one size fits all" bombs.
I at least asked if "all libs" feel the same about things. I didn't assume.
This time. :-)
"Must drive you nuts that no one is arguing, justifying or defending anything except those "Rooting for Failure" bunch..."
That would be sad indeed if those opposed to the President's policies and their implementation were the only ones analyzing what's happening.
I was wondering: do libs always operate on feelings alone?
It's a fair question, as conservatives are always characterized as cold and analytical anyway.
Might as well get the essentials taken care of...
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"but you'll have to explain why specifically Obama is a marxist..."
No. I don't. I believe I've covered subject in more than one post. Sometimes I repeat myself, but I won't do it on demand.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Long suspected the track for locomotive ran right thru angeR's front door and this shift working duo just can't get enough Baskin Robbins"
Wow, Loco. He's on to us. Or would that be he's on to me? I'm not sure if the implication is that we're colluding or that I'm masquerading. Care to clarify, Veritas?
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Veritas, I'll do the definition thingy again for you (once is not enough for some people)...
"A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution."
I've talked before about "avid administration apologists" but no, they are not "apologizing" for anything the President does or says.
What they are doing is arguing in defense of, or trying to justify, the President, his policies and his decisions.
Yikes, Veritas. Have some Baskins-Robbins already.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
Time for another definition...
The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
NT4M often talks disparagingly about "capitalists"--is he interested in Marxism?
Pres. Obama today: "It’s not enough anymore to just say we should get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of it, for our experience tells is that’s just not true...I’ve never believed that government can solve every problem, or should, and neither have you. We know that ultimately, our strength is grounded in our people, individuals out there striving, working, making things happen...But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts, because government is us. It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments
C'mon, now. Once the fashionistas get in on this boot thingy, it'll all go downhill in a hurry...
I debated the merits and drawbacks of marxism while wearing my faux fur-lined ankle high pink leather bootlets. Well, I looked fabulous anyway.
Gosh, anger, you sure don't have much for debate skills. I went back to your last nine posts and found only one item that has some basis of fact. The rest of the posts were just evasive jibberish during which you pranced and danced around any solid subject material so that you could try to make fun of the blogger. That is always the best you righty's have. Nothing. All you can do is listen to the right wing media, repeat their jibberish, and bloviate on your non-factual based opinions. Do you even know who get most of the snap program assistance? That answer is obvious, no. It is not even a little bit of a challenge to debate you on any subject because you are so unprepared. Are you so lazy you won't even look things up? Typical right wing follower.
"Go ahead with your bowing to a knee whenever you hear Koch brothers and I'll stick with saluting the President... "
Do you ever have anything new to offer? Loco's got one thing right. You've definitely perfected the art of bootlicking.
2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
But Miss Information, you have proven over and over again, when questions like these come up - the ones that force you out of your comfort zone - you are either unwilling or unable to conceptualize them or grant them any consideration. So I ask again, why should I bother do anything other than bloviate? I suspect that if I were to raise them to you, you would largely ignore them as you have repeatedly done in the past. You're very skilled at getting the last word in any debate - the problem is that it is usually hollow and meaningless.
The second question might be "why are the SNAP benefits being reduced (if they are being reduced at all)? Could it possibly have something to do with the explosion in the number of people that currently receive food stamps? And why has that number exploded? Could the reduction in the amount of benefits per person have something to do with the fact that SNAP benefits were temporarily boosted in a 2009 Obama 'spending bill', and that temporary increase in benefits expired in November?" Then, just maybe, a thinking person might ask him or herself "why is the Federal government engaged in such a program in the first place? What is the proper role of the federal government, given the LIMITED powers assigned to it in the constitution? If government must assume such a role, wouldn't the people be better served if such programs were handled by states individually in order to keep debates concerning costs and benefits closer to home?"
"Obviously, anger, you know that you cannot refute the statements so just make fun of them."
So let's get this straight. Ther could be up to an estimated 1.5 million veterans that live in households that need to be supplemented with SNAP benefits, and your sense of outrage is that some of their SNAP benefits may be reduced? This is the problem with debating brainwashed liberal drones. You are completely unequipped to think beyond narrow liberal talking points. For example, a thinking person might ask him or herself, "if there are that many veterans subsisting on food stamps, might that not be part of a larger issue? Why are we not taking care of our Veterans?"
Obviously, anger, you know that you cannot refute the statements so just make fun of them. Yes, anger, you wingers are all the same. Run and hide when the facts are there. Oh, and the veterans losing out on some of the food cuts. Now, that is a fact and you can easily go to the net and find out. Oh, that is right, rightys don't do that, they just bloviate.
"Maybe that is because it is factual, it is only a part of the material to present, and since you are not refuting the information, it probably is because it is hard for you to challenge."
Why Miss Information, I'm wondering, which part(s) should I bother refuting? You've identified it as fact. It seems so... rock solid. If I can't trust your word on it, then what does that say about me? Even if your "facts" appear to be poorly reasoned opinion based on faulty assumptions heaped upon wild speculation, you are not going to bait me into saying that. I refuse to refute any of it. Not a single stupid word. Not even the part about taking food away from veterans. Veterans? Oh my God!
" 'we've'...Is this referring to the ' I Root for Failure' crowd "
Take it as you see it, Veritas. I'll wear that badge proudly. But it's a little bit late for that now. Obama's been quite the successful little marxist. It just so happens, his achievements are killing what's left of an exceptional nation.
BTW, didn't I say "thank goodness that diplomacy thingy worked?"
That's not "rooting for failure" in spite of what Veritas spake.
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900