I might be gone - for a while...

[rdamurphy]

As most of you know, I'm not exactly a supporter of the Democratic Party, and what with the convention being held in Denver, well, I might "disappear" (http://www.politicswest.com/26452/fbi_descend_denver_dem_event) for a while...

After all, you know how liberals feel about "dissent (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092)..." Well, by anyone but them.

Hold on a sec, somebody's knocking on the door. :eek:

Robert

[Paul1953]

how far is Boulder from Denver?

[rgarber]

40 miles I believe. Mork n Mindy fame!

[rdamurphy]

About that, but the suburbs pretty much fill up the empty space. Other than about a half a mile of open space, it's city all the way from Denver to Boulder. There's a half a dozen 'burbs between them.

The Boulder Turnpike (US 36) has the distinction of actually being a toll road that the tolls were removed when the road was paid for. It has the world's stupidest HOV lanes, they start halfway to Denver, and end abruptly, just before the US 36, I-76, I-270, I-25 intersections - needless to say, they dump you into the traffic mess right at the worst part...

Boulder: 64 square miles surrounded by reality...

Robert

[Andy J]

As most of you know, I'm not exactly a supporter of the Democratic Party, and what with the convention being held in Denver, well, I might "disappear" (http://www.politicswest.com/26452/fbi_descend_denver_dem_event) for a while...

After all, you know how liberals feel about "dissent (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092)..." Well, by anyone but them.

Hold on a sec, somebody's knocking on the door. :eek:

Robert


If you go downtown, PLEASE get photos and movies (if possible) of the dogs eating the protesters... Tell us, how far a fire hose will knock a PETA Vegetarian protester up in the air???

But don't get too close, I don't want them to set a hound on YOU by mistake. You know those dogs, get half crazed, and when they get "in the zone" they don't care who gets chewed on, as long as they got to chew...

And many Pinko protesters don't have much meat on their bones, so even after a good mauling, the DOG still, anit satisfied...and may look to sink his teeth in someone else, just to get that "O so satisfying sinking teeth into meaty flesh" feel that they like so much.

And if you hear "TASER TASER TASER!!!!" GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!

Some of those Pinko's have so many metal studs and such in their bodies, what when they get tasered, they shoot sparks for 100 yards.

[Shonner]

As most of you know, I'm not exactly a supporter of the Democratic Party, and what with the convention being held in Denver, well, I might "disappear" (http://www.politicswest.com/26452/fbi_descend_denver_dem_event) for a while...

I don't think there is anywhere left to go in the states that hasn't been overrun with liberals. I'm in California which is heavily ruled by liberals and whatever freedoms it has are being erased each day.

PM me if you find an America left somewhere.

[rpicardi1]

As part of the effort to make the 2008 national convention the greenest ever, the Democrats' catering guidelines include one that strikes at the heart of Southern cuisine: No fried food.
No fried chicken. No fried catfish. No fried green tomatoes. No fried okra. No fried anything.
The Democratic guidelines say every meal should be nutritious and include "at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, purple/blue and white."

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/26/democrats_no_fried_food.html?cxntnid=amn062708e



I wonder if that policy will include other unhealthy things such as smoking, major consumption of adult beverages, meat, junk food, and processed food or beverages containing large amounts of high fructose corn syrup.

[Hawk]

Now Ron, everyone knows a glass of wine with your meal will help in digestion, so - 30 glasses of wine can only help more in digestion. 4651

[rpicardi1]

Here is the hidden agenda, right from the head jackass's mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI

[caintrain]

The catfish wouldn't be any good anyway, it is only good in the South.

[rdamurphy]

Since Obama's going to be there, you know they're going to have waffles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503193.html) w/syrup (http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=3289)!

Flip-flops became the symbol of the Kerry Campaign in '04 (well, that and swift boats), the symbol of the Obama campaign will be waffles (http://powerballplace.blogspot.com/2008/06/supreme-court-backs-second-amendment.html) /syrup (http://prorev.com/2008/06/mccain-calls-for-45-more-nuclear-power.html)!

Hmmm, I think I'm beginning to see a theme here!

Robert

[Shonner]

More business for the local food joints then.

[mjs2101]

As part of the effort to make the 2008 national convention the greenest ever, the Democrats' catering guidelines include one that strikes at the heart of Southern cuisine: No fried food.[/FONT][/SIZE]


How is frying food any different from other means of preparing food? If they are interested in going green, just think, the oil they fry in can be used to create bio-diesel! So not only do you get great food to eat, but you also get something that can be used to make fuel. :)

Mykel

[rdamurphy]

It has nothing to do with the greenie part, it's the health hazards in fried foods that they fear.

Odd that they're not the least bit concerned about the health risks inherent in alchohol...

Robert

[Shonner]

Like at baseball games. Booze everywhere. Cursing everywhere. Breasts flashing. Guys licking on each other. Newborn babies being left in bathroom stalls. But if just one person lights a cig in the stadium, liberals go absolutely nuts. To them, that is the worst thing in the world.

[rdamurphy]

It's still pretty nice at Rockies Stadium, we don't really have any of those problems, very clean place. We're going for the Fourth of July game with the fireworks.

Robert

[Shonner]

Must be nice. In San Diego, you can't bring kids to the ball game. It's considered child abuse. Especially on gay days.

[rdamurphy]

Oddly enough, the local blood bank is asking for additional donations to "get ready for the Democrat National Convention."

Robert

[rpicardi1]

"Why is it, when Dems have a convention, they lock their own supporters up inside an area covered in chicken wire?" Day By Day cartoon.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/07/02/#004707

And, it gets more absurd;

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=94919&catid=339

As one poster commented, I hope that she gets invited to the DNC convention and pulls that same stunt there so all voters can see just what the DNC really stands for.

[Gixxer86g]

Shonner,the further away you get from the cities and the coasts,the less liberals you find.

[rdamurphy]

Actually... Between the Denver Metro area, (including Boulder) and out-of-State Billionaires, the Democrats bought the Legislature and the Governorship (although it looks more and more like he's going to be a one term Gov...), Colorado is being forced to the Left more and more. It's almost like Kansas: Kansas City and the rest of the State.

Robert

[Kenny1234]

I don't think there is anywhere left to go in the states that hasn't been overrun with liberals. I'm in California which is heavily ruled by liberals and whatever freedoms it has are being erased each day.

PM me if you find an America left somewhere.


Cry in your beer if you want, just remember conservatives had their shot for the past 8 years and instead they became the biggest infringer on the privacy and rights of citizens "all for our own good" and spent more than liberals of the 1970s.

So lets blame liberals rather than yourselves. Deflect that personal responsibility like a liberal.

[Andy J]

Cry in your beer if you want, just remember conservatives had their shot for the past 8 years and instead they became the biggest infringer on the privacy and rights of citizens "all for our own good" and spent more than liberals of the 1970s.

So lets blame liberals rather than yourselves. Deflect that personal responsibility like a liberal.


Ahhh, GWB is alot of things, Conservative, he is NOT... GWB in all honesty is just a bit LEFT of center.

The past 8 years?? Heck the past few years, the congress and senate has been Democratic controlled.

What is their excuse??

[Gixxer86g]

Robert,I'm sure you're aware of this BS;the "Black National Anthem".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html
I guess instead of leaving the stage,Councilman Charlie Brown said "good grief!"

[Hawk]

Ahhh, GWB is alot of things, Conservative, he is NOT... GWB in all honesty is just a bit LEFT of center.

The past 8 years?? Heck the past few years, the congress and senate has been Democratic controlled.

What is their excuse??
Here! Here! 4678

[rdamurphy]

Cry in your beer if you want, just remember conservatives had their shot for the past 8 years and instead they became the biggest infringer on the privacy and rights of citizens "all for our own good" and spent more than liberals of the 1970s.

So lets blame liberals rather than yourselves. Deflect that personal responsibility like a liberal.

Well, I suppose I could ask you ONCE AGAIN for examples of any privacy or rights any citizens lost in the past 8 years, and you'd YET AGAIN ignore the question! But, what can one expect from a typical liberal quote from the liberal playbook?

So, any examples? Real ones this time?

Robert

[jtr1962]

Ahhh, GWB is alot of things, Conservative, he is NOT... GWB in all honesty is just a bit LEFT of center.

The past 8 years?? Heck the past few years, the congress and senate has been Democratic controlled.

What is their excuse??
GWB is only left of center by US standards. By world standards even the Democrats are pretty far right. GWB is probably close to radical right going by what is typically left and right in the rest of the world.

[Shonner]

Cry in your beer if you want, just remember conservatives had their shot for the past 8 years and instead they became the biggest infringer on the privacy and rights of citizens "all for our own good" and spent more than liberals of the 1970s.

So lets blame liberals rather than yourselves. Deflect that personal responsibility like a liberal.

What conservatives are you talking about? I've seen maybe only 1 in the entire congress of that 8 years. And what privacy rights were infringed on exactly? You heard it from a fellow liberal so you should still remember it.

[Shonner]

GWB is only left of center by US standards. By world standards even the Democrats are pretty far right. GWB is probably close to radical right going by what is typically left and right in the rest of the world.

What is radical right? What does one have to do to be labeled as radical right?

Reagan was right. Bush isn't right. So who is radical right?

[Vince]

What is radical right? What does one have to do to be labeled as radical right?
Reagan was right. Bush isn't right. So who is radical right?

Dick Cheney?
A VP shooting someone in the face is somewhat radical . . . to me anyway. :rolleyes:

Good first name too. . . fits perfectly. :D

[chucksc]

Dick Cheney?
A VP shooting someone in the face is somewhat radical . . . to me anyway. :rolleyes:

Good first name too. . . fits perfectly. :D
Can't win an argument on the intellectual merits, so again with the ad hominem attacks...

Sheesh Vince I thought much better of you and your reasoning ability....

P.S. I'll see your Dick Cheney and raise you an Al Bore... or maybe even a Walter Mondale....

:)

[jtr1962]

What is radical right? What does one have to do to be labeled as radical right?

Reagan was right. Bush isn't right. So who is radical right?
Radical right = far right. The term is actually in fairly common usage, especially in the media.

Left or right really depends upon your point of view. By the standards of most of the EU, even someone like Al Sharpton would at best be a centrist. Bush would certainly be fairly far right, Reagan even more so. By US standards right-wing EU politicians still seem pretty leftist.

[Shonner]

Dick Cheney?
A VP shooting someone in the face is somewhat radical . . . to me anyway. :rolleyes:

Good first name too. . . fits perfectly. :D

You didn't answer the question.

[Shonner]

Radical right = far right. The term is actually in fairly common usage, especially in the media.

Left or right really depends upon your point of view. By the standards of most of the EU, even someone like Al Sharpton would at best be a centrist. Bush would certainly be fairly far right, Reagan even more so. By US standards right-wing EU politicians still seem pretty leftist.

The EU again.

Ok. Forget about the US for now then. Who is far right in the EU? And are they right or left of Churchill or Thatcher?

[jtr1962]

The EU again.

Ok. Forget about the US for now then. Who is far right in the EU? And are they right or left of Churchill or Thatcher?
Blair? I don't know. I really don't follow EU politics to any great extent. I just know that in general they're pretty far left of the US. No politician there would even think of eliminating government health care, for example.

[Shonner]

Radical right = far right. The term is actually in fairly common usage, especially in the media.

The media is left and far left except for a few talk radio shows. So who exactly is the media referring to when they say far right? You said you don't know who is far right in the EU. So in the US then, who exactly is far right? You said yourself the term is in farly common use by the media.

[rdamurphy]

Dick Cheney?
A VP shooting someone in the face is somewhat radical . . . to me anyway. :rolleyes:

Good first name too. . . fits perfectly. :D

I suppose it seems radical only if you've never gone bird-hunting (http://www.answers.com/topic/hunting) in your entire life! Heck, happens all the time, even the guy he shot admitted he was in the wrong place. Ever been to a skeet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting) range? All those tiny holes in the Trap Tower (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.oneontasportsmensclub.net/oneonta_web008003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.oneontasportsmensclub.net/oneonta_web_008.htm&h=332&w=593&sz=64&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=m6Ijm3V0bryi8M:&tbnh=76&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskeet%2Btower%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa fe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN) aren't from termites!

I guess those that don't participate in the manly sports would consider a minor hunting accident as "radical..." :rolleyes:

:) Have a nice day!

Robert

[Paul1953]

Hey Robert, where'd you find your Mini-me?

(Shonner)

[Shonner]

I guess those that don't participate in the manly sports would consider a minor hunting accident as "radical..."

Or smoking.

[Shonner]

Hey Robert, where'd you find your Mini-me?

(Shonner)

Ah. A baby-boomer in Canada. Nothing good can come from that combo.

[Paul1953]

would it matter if it did?

[Shonner]

Sure. The Earth would be a better place.

[rdamurphy]

Smoking (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html) is bad for you? Perish the thought!

Go ahead, click on the link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html), believe me, it's worth it!

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/obama%20smoking.png

Robert

[Shonner]

What's the big deal? All communist leaders smoke.

[Paul1953]

Sure. The Earth would be a better place.

oh boy, 1936 all over again..

[rgarber]

Smoking (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html) is bad for you? Perish the thought!

Go ahead, click on the link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html), believe me, it's worth it!

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/images/obama%20smoking.png

Robert

hey, it's the guy from 24!! Palmer, or what's his name!

[Kenny1234]

Well, I suppose I could ask you ONCE AGAIN for examples of any privacy or rights any citizens lost in the past 8 years, and you'd YET AGAIN ignore the question!


Why would Telcos need immunity if they didnt do anything wrong?

[Kenny1234]

The past 8 years?? Heck the past few years, the congress and senate has been Democratic controlled.

What is their excuse??


For two years, its been 51-49. Not enough to steamroll over the other side legislatively.

For the 14 years before that, it was in the area of 45-55, where the Republicans did have enough of a majority to get most of their agenda through.

There is a difference between derailing from bad policy as a result of sufficient votes, and derailing from stalemate from not enough votes.

[Kenny1234]

What conservatives are you talking about? I've seen maybe only 1 in the entire congress of that 8 years.


Then blame yourselves for voting for conservatives who werent conservatives rather than bashing liberals.

Conservatives voting in non-conservatives is not the fault of liberals. Its YOUR fault. Deal with it. Quietly. And without passing blame.

[Kenny1234]

Hey Robert, where'd you find your Mini-me?

(Shonner)


Mini-me stepped up to the plate once Robert said he might be going away for a few weeks. That way, we still can have Robert without Robert.

I looked at Mini-me's profile and low and behold he has Robert as a Train-Sim community 'friend'. Thats so cute. Bosom buddies and all. :D They're not afraid to show their admiration publicly using the forum's corny software features.

[Shonner]

Then blame yourselves for voting for conservatives who werent conservatives rather than bashing liberals.

Conservatives voting in non-conservatives is not the fault of liberals. Its YOUR fault. Deal with it. Quietly. And without passing blame.

You mentioned conservatives. That's why I asked which ones. Now you're saying they aren't conservatives. Do you know what a conservative is?

[Hawk]

You're getting desperate Kenny. :D

[chucksc]

did you note that he said the Republicans controlled congress for 14 years prior to the last election and got their agenda through...

Guess that means the Clinton years were really Newt years, eh? :)

I love it when they do that - I'll bet Kenny still doesn't realize what he said! ROFL

[Shonner]

Why would Telcos need immunity if they didnt do anything wrong?

Which Telcos are asking for immunity?

[Shonner]

oh boy, 1936 all over again..

You're right.

[rdamurphy]

Why would Telcos need immunity if they didnt do anything wrong?

Not immunity from prosecution, but immunity from lawsuits. Big difference, and neither one involves privacy or civil rights.

SOOOO... Once again - you sidestepped the question!

I'll try again:

What privacy "rights" or civil rights did anyone lose during the Bush Administration?

BTW, the whole NSA wiretap thing was based on an Executive Order by no other than Bill Clinton!

So. You gonna answer the question or just keep up with the ad homenems?

Robert

[trainrover]

I might be gone - for a while...
Might you remember your mind upon your return this time around?

[rdamurphy]

Ah, another ad hominem from the liberal side of the house! Wow, you guys really are bad at this whole debate thing... Kind of reminds me of Albore's performance at the first debate with Dubya. Lots of sighing and eye-rolling - but no ideas of his own...

So, what, 2nd or 3rd day with no answer from Kenny: What civil rights have we lost under Bush? Or is this going to be another one of those Liberal Myths that explodes in your faces? Or we'll just continue with the snide remarks and personal attacks but never answer the question?

Robert

[trainrover]

^^ Nope! (just as I anticipated)

[Vince]

So, what, 2nd or 3rd day with no answer from Kenny: What civil rights have we lost under Bush? Or is this going to be another one of those Liberal Myths that explodes in your faces?
Robert

The above quote was snipped of the ad hominem rant to save bandwidth.

How about warrentless wire tapping and warrentless searches for a start?
Those are both civil rights. They are currently bypassed by the Bush Monarchy.
Ergo, you and all of us HAVE lost at least two civil rights. Yes?

Before you jump and froth at the mouth that this is necessary for the WarOnTerror (bad dreams included, no xtra cost :eek:) , let me remind you that there is a FISA court to exclusivly deal with such matters.

The excuse that 'In an emergency the court proceedings would take too much time and the bad guys would get away' argument wont work either.

The FISA court has ruled that in an unspecified emergency it is okay to wiretap FIRST and THEN go to the court and the court would then rule after the fact on the merits.

So the intelligence information would not be lost. It would just be quite inconvienient for the real reasons for a wiretap to be checked over by the Judicial Branch of the United States Government as stated in the Consitution.

I believe and support the Constitution of The United States of America.
If you disagree with even the most miniscule part of said Constitution, then you are unfit to call yourself an American.

And Robert, hint, hint: In the Constitution, Illegal search and Seizure is prohibited.

So, Robert, if you would so kindly answer clearly as this is a very basic question;

Where exactly do you stand with respect to the Constituional clause against Illegal search and Seizure with regards to warrentless searches and wire tapping?

[chucksc]

Vince let me answer for Robert here,

I would guess the same place as Bill Clinton did when he debauched his way through the FBI and IRS files on senior republicans - FWIW that really was an illegal act!

BTW What warrantless searches and wiretaps of US citizens are you talking about?
I hear all this noise and have not seen one single successfull prosecution...

Remember "Innocent until proven guilty"?

:)

BTW - I for one fully support the constitutional prohibition on ILLEGAL search and Seizure! So let's go prosecute FDR who hired J Edgar Hoover and raised it to a fine art, shall we?

[Vince]

Vince let me answer for Robert here,
I would guess the same place as Bill Clinton did when he debauched his way through the FBI and IRS files on senior republicans - FWIW that really was an illegal act!
BTW What warrantless searches and wiretaps of US citizens are you talking about?
I hear all this noise and have not seen one single successfull prosecution...
Remember "Innocent until proven guilty"?
:)

BTW - I for one fully support the constitutional prohibition on ILLEGAL search and Seizure! So let's go prosecute FDR who hired J Edgar Hoover and raised it to a fine art, shall we?

Re Clinton; Agreed! He was (is?) a dirtbag but at least he left office with a surplus in the US Treasury.

Re: Warrantless Searches; Well, umm, the ones that King Bush told the NSC it's okay to do? And they for sure aint talkin' about it. (not that I would expect them to.)

Re I for one fully support the constitutional prohibition on ILLEGAL search and Seizure!;

Okay Admiral,...umm SIR! I'll buy that for a dollar! So you ARE against searches and seizures done without a warrant. Good man and a credit to the star you wear!
I was only a lowly SP4 but I'm just as proud of those chevrons on my sleeves as you are of your scrambled eggs....Sir!

Oh and BTW, there is no caviat in the Constitution that says this only applies to US Citizens, so it means everybody is protected as long as they are on US soverign territory.

Unfortunitly, this means terrorists also. Me, I'd just love to put a few .45's or double 00's in them but I will step back and do it the right way, in a court of law. A way that has always put us (all US citizens) above the rest of the slime in the world.
If we stoop to their level we become them and that is just not right.

You forgot to mention McCarthy and his crowd. :eek:
Our history is full of well meaning folks attempting subornation of the Constitution to make their goals.
However lofty their ideals are it MUST remain within established laws otherwise anarchy results.
Just look at the USSR from 1945 to 1990 for a good example.

Enjoy your celebration of the birth of our Great Nation. July 4, 2008

[Andy J]

Re Clinton; Agreed! He was (is?) a dirtbag but at least he left office with a surplus in the US Treasury.



That means they took TOO much money from the taxpayers, at the very best, governments should "break even"



Unfortunitly, this means terrorists also. Me, I'd just love to put a few .45's or double 00's in them but I will step back and do it the right way, in a court of law.


Problem with the court of law, is that they tend to only act, after a crime has been committed. That is kind of like locking the barn door, after the horse got out.

I would rather put the buckshot in them BEFORE hand.

[rdamurphy]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to get through to Vince, since he doesn't actually read anything. The "warrantless" wiretaps weren't wiretaps. They were simply looking at who was calling whom, not actually listening to the calls. Secondly, they applied to calls originating and going to overseas exchanges from foreigners living in the US. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens, it's pretty clear on that.

So, strike one, no "civil rights" violation.

Next?

[Paul1953]

"...not actually listening to the calls"

right, ever heard of Elint?

[rdamurphy]

Of course I have, but that isn't the program that we're talking about. They were looking for patterns, not listening to calls, and all of the calls were international. The only reason it became a "domestic wiretapping" program is because the Democratic Propoganda Machine is overwhelmingly good.

Robert

[Vince]

That means they took TOO much money from the taxpayers, at the very best, governments should "break even"

Problem with the court of law, is that they tend to only act, after a crime has been committed. That is kind of like locking the barn door, after the horse got out.

I would rather put the buckshot in them BEFORE hand.

We had a couple million surplus which is not too bad when compared to multi trillions of dollars in the red. At least give the previous adminstrations credit for getting it almost right.

Re: Implanting some double-O: Yeah, me too! But thats called taking the law into your own hands. That's just not what being an AMerican is about. You, me, all of us. We're better than that and hold a higher standard.
Is not that what we are supposed to be dying for in Iraq? You remember dont you, Democracy wasn't that what Bush said? ;)

[Shonner]

Ah, another ad hominem from the liberal side of the house! Wow, you guys really are bad at this whole debate thing... Kind of reminds me of Albore's performance at the first debate with Dubya. Lots of sighing and eye-rolling - but no ideas of his own...

So, what, 2nd or 3rd day with no answer from Kenny: What civil rights have we lost under Bush? Or is this going to be another one of those Liberal Myths that explodes in your faces? Or we'll just continue with the snide remarks and personal attacks but never answer the question?

Robert

Liberals can't accomplish anything. They're not builders of civilization. They only tear down. The only use for an Outer Party liberal is to vote for an Inner Party Democrat. The following 2, 4, and 6, years for them is spent on continued brainwashing for their next vote.

So no critical thinking or solutions of any kind (not even common sense) can come from a liberal.

[Shonner]

How about warrentless wire tapping and warrentless searches for a start?
Those are both civil rights. They are currently bypassed by the Bush Monarchy.
Ergo, you and all of us HAVE lost at least two civil rights. Yes?

So who has had their phone tapped or house searched without a warrant?

[Paul1953]

Wow! and I thought Robert was the only one who could make such huge leaps of logic.

Are you gonna stand there and tell us that conservatives built civilisation?

There may have been some along the way, but I doubt you and Mr Murphy could count yourselves as members of that group.

[Shonner]

Wow! and I thought Robert was the only one who could make such huge leaps of logic.

Well, they're only huge to you. Common sense defies liberals.


Are you gonna stand there and tell us that conservatives built civilisation?

Yes. Name one thing accomplished by a liberal? Even one that helped civilization?

[Paul1953]

Oh no you don't. Do your own damn research.

And seeing as you keep missing everything going on here, you might want to be a little more careful about who you are trying to tar as this, that, or the other thing. As your bum buddy found out, there are no real liberals here. Just because the majority here isnt far right, doesnt make them liberals or socialist or communist or any other slag you care to name.

Think before you write anything, and before you actually do write anything, think again.

[Shonner]

The first problem, Paul, is that you need to understand what a liberal and a conservative are. Conservatives understand all to well what a liberal is. But liberals have no clue what a conservative is. Half the time they don't even know what a liberal is.

So of course a liberal doesn't know the right answer. A liberal doesn't know history. Once you know history, and the difference between a liberal and a conservative, you'll no longer want to have anything to do with being a liberal. At your age though it may not be possible. You have to admit, it is far too easy to hate the right than to accept what's true.

Conservatives don't hate liberals. They just don't want them in charge. Liberals, however, hate conservatives with every core of their being. So already, a liberal's mind is clouded by hate. They are incapacitated when it comes to critical thought and seeking for facts and truths. Hate is a very strong and misleading emotion. Yet it is of great value to the powerful liberals for keeping their voters in sync.

[Paul1953]

At my age? If you know anything at all then you'll know what I say to that, to you, and the horse you rode in on.

Go ahead and try to convince us your 'idealology' has the answer to each and every conundrum in the world.

You've yet to understand that what you espouse as conservatism is an embarassment to the real conservatives here. You've also made the same fundamental mistake that Robert made, in assuming that your opinions are so morally superior to the rest of us, that you cant make the same distinctions you presume to lecture me about. Just because most of us are to the left of your far right, does not make us out as the pariahs you might suggest.

One Reggie in the sandbox is more than enough, thank you.

[Shonner]

No sweat. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to answer the question. As a conservative, I still have hope that one day a liberal will help us save the world. Liberals don't want to be saved though.

[rgarber]

And seeing as you keep missing everything going on here, you might want to be a little more careful about who you are trying to tar as this, that, or the other thing. .... Think before you write anything, and before you actually do write anything, think again.

Awfully harsh words Paul, especially in lieu of what you wrote in the Heller thread...

"He has as much right ,and privilege, to say what he wants, at any time he wants, as anyone else here."

Post #68.

You wrote that in defense of Vince, who has his own brand of loudness, yet I have yet to hear you complain about his volume or the manner in how expresses his volume.

I think you also miss the point about conservatism and liberal. One doesn't have to be a liberal idealogue to espouse liberal views. There are so many people who will espouse a liberal agenda if for no other reason, to appear "mainstream." You have to start somewhere.

Anyway, if there are no true liberals here as you say you do, then there's no reason to be upset with the conservatives that attack them, right?

[Vince]

So who has had their phone tapped or house searched without a warrent?

How would you know? Really! You do realize of course that if the government decided to tap YOUR phone, you'd never know.

But from your position Shawn, I see that you think it's perfectly okay for governments to listen in on your private conversations.
Have I at least got that part right?
And do remember that a 'yes' answer to the above question also means you DO NOT support the US Constitution.
Is that part also Correct?

I however, think that amounts to licence to run illegal (under the US Constitution) searches, yes, on suspected bad guys, but also on YOU Sir!
Sorry, but I think thats wrong. :rolleyes:

Help me understand this, that you approve that it's okay for the Government to listen in on your phone conversations in violation of the US Constitution.

Is that truly how you feel? The Government inspecting your private life so to speak. :eek: Not a good thing at all!

Sorry, but I find this despicable! :mad:

Bottom Line:
I've got NO problem if it's done under court order. If YOU dont obey the law then by definition, you are a lawbreaker.

[Shonner]

Awfully harsh words Paul, especially in lieu of what you wrote in the Heller thread...

"He has as much right ,and privilege, to say what he wants, at any time he wants, as anyone else here."

Post #68.

You wrote that in defense of Vince, who has his own brand of loudness, yet I have yet to hear you complain about his volume or the manner in how expresses his volume.

Censorship only applies to conservatives according to liberals.

[Shonner]

How would you know? Really! You do realize of course that if the government decided to tap YOUR phone, you'd never know.

I wouldn't care either. But I'm not on my phone chatting with terrorists. Maybe you have something to worry about if the government listens to your conversations? Anyway, you're trying to answer a question with a question which is your way of avoiding answering. Which means you don't have an answer.

I work with the government. So I deal with enough phones and searches for illegal computer files with a warrant as it is to begin worrying about non-warrant searches. There isn't the manpower available to sit around and listen to everyone's phone calls or hack into piles of confiscated computers and servers for evidence.

[Vince]

I wouldn't care either. But I'm not on my phone chatting with terrorists. Maybe you have something to worry about if the government listens to your conversations? Anyway, you're trying to answer a question with a question which is your way of avoiding answering. Which means you don't have an answer.

I work with the government. So I deal with enough phones and searches for illegal computer files with a warrant as it is to begin worrying about non-warrant searches. There isn't the manpower available to sit around and listen to everyone's phone calls or hack into piles of confiscated computers and servers for evidence.

Read again carefully, not a direct question; A statement really:
How would you know? Really! You do realize of course that if the government decided to tap YOUR phone, you'd never know.

>>>"....... Maybe you have something to worry about if the government listens to your conversations?............."<<<<
And maybe you're a Communist Agitator or a deep cover spy, working on weakening from within, Americas resolve in winning the War on Terror? Positioned perfectly inside the Government are 'ya?

Lets see: It's already obvious you DO NOT SUPPORT the US Constitution with your approval of warrantless searches.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in this rather simple observation that anyone with an 8th grade education can figure out. ie; If you approve warrantless searches then you do not (and cannot) support the US Constitution

[Shonner]

Please correct me if I'm wrong in this rather simple observation that anyone with an 8th grade education can figure out. ie; If you approve warrantless searches then you do not (and cannot) support the US Constitution

It's a lot easier and a lot less hassle for later to get a warrant and listen to your phone calls than to listen to them without a warrant in the first place. Often times, part of the conversation is recorded already from microphones.

By the way, one can listen to people on their phones just by sitting next to them. People will blab about anything on their phones, sitting at a mall where they are being recorded by security cameras with mics. People should stay inside their cars while on their phones if they don't want their privacy invaded.

[Paul1953]

Awfully harsh words Paul, especially in lieu of what you wrote in the Heller thread...

"He has as much right ,and privilege, to say what he wants, at any time he wants, as anyone else here."

Post #68.

You wrote that in defense of Vince, who has his own brand of loudness, yet I have yet to hear you complain about his volume or the manner in how expresses his volume.

I think you also miss the point about conservatism and liberal. One doesn't have to be a liberal idealogue to espouse liberal views. There are so many people who will espouse a liberal agenda if for no other reason, to appear "mainstream." You have to start somewhere.

Anyway, if there are no true liberals here as you say you do, then there's no reason to be upset with the conservatives that attack them, right?

Touche` True and valid points all.

I wouldnt say upset.

[rdamurphy]

The problem here, as I see it, is that a perfectly reasonable question has been asked: What civil rights have been taken away during the Bush Administration. Vince, not wanting to abandon his lost cause of trying to claim illegal wiretaps when none occured, has resorted to just screaming it louder, hoping that volume will make people believe something that isn't true. Besides the fact that a wiretap doesn't need a warrant to be legal in the first place, if it involves an international phone call.

Not to mention the fact that the 6th US Circuit Court has ruled that the program can continue. Not that I expect Vince to actually read anything that doesn't have pictures, but here (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf) is the decision in it's entirety.

So, in spite of all the chest pounding, name calling, jumping up and down, accusing me of being the worst thing that has ever happened to forumdom, the simple question remains, to Kenny, who hasn't visited us lately:

What civil rights have Americans lost since Bush became President?

The NSA Surveillience Program is out: Strike one.

This reminds me of the six months or so I kept on asking what the Democrats' plan was for Iraq and terror, and now, two years later, I still haven't gotten an answer! Even from the Democrats!

So, cut the BS. Answer the question. That's reasonable, isn't it? Kenny made a statement, now, back it up. It's put up or shut up time.

Robert

[moose49]

Robert,
solutions, logic, and answers totally elude the liberal-socialist mind.:)

[rgarber]

So, cut the BS. Answer the question. That's reasonable, isn't it? Kenny made a statement, now, back it up. It's put up or shut up time.

Robert

You're missing the big picture. Your point is "very clear (said in Darth Vadar tone), my master," (back to regular voice) to us conservatives. (A Vince moment there) Facts are facts; absolutes, if you will. And if your point is clear then how come it isn't persuasive?

To make this point let me play devil's adovate for our "not that liberal" (as Paul wants us to believe :p ) companions of our beloved train hobby.

"Dear Conservatives, (from the liberal mindset translated aka conservative)

First of all, you can keep your facts. Facts have no bearing on any argument at all. The fact is we who oppose your idealistic conservative rhetoric do so because of two reasons. First, we don't really care about Bush wire tapping or anything. This is just a feeling issue where we get all indignant on issues we know to be true simply because we feel it is true. Second, our true agenda based on ends justifies the means philosophy, is we will continue to attack attack and I daresay, attack some more, until we find the hole that breaks the dike and the liberal agenda is mainstream. We are unhappy people, because people like you conservatives stand in our way of achieving what we know is the right way to do everything. Everybody, including bad guys, must have an equal chance at everything. Why is this so hard for any of you to see? Don't you understand that as feeling bretheren, we can all feel good about ourselves and the world if we just sell out each other until the objective is achieved? Now don't be so cocky. You may have one this round but you haven't changed my mind. Er-uhm, I mean... feelings. Bush is bad. He's a very bad man. Nobody I know likes him. He's not liked by Rather, Couric, Brokaw or any of my favorite tv celebrities. So deal with it man. And if it isn't Bush, it'll be somebody else because we like nobody who doesn't whole heartedly sell-out for our causes. Our causes are right, YOU and your kind are wrong. No facts. Just feeling. Do you finally get it?"

That's a liberal. The religion of discontent. Until you become persuasive and tug at their heartstrings, their feelings, you can cite encylopedia's worth of information and not move them an inch.

You're never going to get a satisifactory answer to any issue. And neither will you change hearts with facts. We argue that it should, but look at the contradictions that take place all the time. For instance, we just had a picture and a story of Obama smoking a cigerette. He's lighting up more now than ever they say. He's admitted to falling off the bandwagon. In a comments section after the story put up by the AP, you never seen so many people come to his defense, Obama's smoking that is. Yes, the very same people who are outlawing cigerette smoking anywhere they can. Liberals are not stupid people so you have to ask yourself why. It's simple. They make the rules up as they go along, of course. There's no compunction whatsoever in doing so. The cause is mightier than the individual. And hence, no individual is above the cause. But what is the cause? It isn't wiretapping, it isn't Bush, it isn't smoking... the cause is their right to be as displeased with life til they come full circle and embrace all the things they hated to start with because they got what they wanted. Liberalism is an attitude of the heart where it embraces feeling as their logic. Unfortunately it takes moments like 9-11 for a Liberal to understand that everyone playing by their rules are in more jeapordy than if they played along with conservative rules.

[rdamurphy]

Except that they've totally forgotten about 911, because, for Liberals, history began yesterday! I wholeheartedly agree with you, my "crime" against Liberals is to hold their feet to the fire, and attempt to get them to admit what they KNOW is true!

Here's (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/04/15/how_liberals_lost_a_liberal) a good article that backs up your point nicely.

Another contradiction, I'll use my wife's ultra-lib uncle as an example: Every single argument he has about anything is nothing more than ridicule against anything he doesn't agree with, no matter how ridiculous that ridicule is! When I mentioned that here in Colorado, Coors sends wasted beer to a distillery, the alcohol is distillled out, and is used in a certain name-brand's gasoline, he rolled his eyes, did the "liberal laugh" thing, and smirked in my face. The fact that I drove a tanker, hauled beer from Coors to the distillery, hauled the alcohol to the tankyard, and actually pumped it into the tanks, and then loaded gasoline and delivered it out of the same tanks had absolutely nothing to do with his "argument."

But. Never. Ever. Absolutely not. Don't. Ridicule a Liberal, it makes you "offensive and demeaning." I was actually banned from a forum once for taking a Liberal's post, copying and pasting it, and replacing my screen name with his... Of course, his post was perfectly all right.

Take Vince's shreiking "you don't agree with the Constitution" screeds. It's pretty obvious he not only doesn't know what's in it, but doesn't care to understand it (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html). Liberals believe anything at all as long as "they" believe it! And you're right, for some of them, there's no chance they ever will. In Liberal-speak: "It saddens me." (A phrase that is used to justify just about anything if it "saddens" a Liberal!)

Robert

[rpicardi1]

If a Republican changes his position, it is called a flip flop. Should that be a Democrat changing his position, it is now called refining his position.

McCain will be doing the usual flip flops as he defines his campaign position to attract the conservatives.

You will see a lot of refining being done by Obama in order to pull the wool over the voter's eyes so he can attract enough votes to win this fall.

An example of Obama "refining" his position. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/obama_might_refine_iraq_timeli.html

[Shonner]

Unfortunately it takes moments like 9-11 for a Liberal to understand that everyone playing by their rules are in more jeapordy than if they played along with conservative rules.

That feeling lasts for about a week before their hate takes over again.

[Shonner]

But. Never. Ever. Absolutely not. Don't. Ridicule a Liberal, it makes you "offensive and demeaning."

The worst thing one can do to a conservative is kill his whole family in front of him.

The worst thing one can do to a muslim is humiliate them.

The worst thing one can do to a liberal is make them feel uncomfortable.

The ACLU will do nothing for the conservative, but will fall over itself to defend the muslim and liberal.

[rgarber]

The worst thing one can do to a conservative is kill his whole family in front of him.

The worst thing one can do to a liberal is make them feel uncomfortable.


????????

This bit makes no sense at all. The worst thing you can do to a conservative is kill his family in front of him??? And then what? Retribution?? And you think a liberal would do anything less?

If you really think that then you don't understand what an American is. This liberal-conservative thing only goes so far. Your post comes off like a conservative is some kinda super human killing machine and a liberal ain't nothing but a weeny.

Have you forgotten who continually after being beaten up in the elections and arguments still continues to wage a fierce war for their idealogy? Don't be mistaken in underestimating their willingness to fight. We haven't licked 'em yet.

But even more so, don't underestimate Americans. There was no more stomach for ww2 amongst Americans and it took a draft to keep the level of fighting men up. That meant conservatives, republicans, democrats and liberals to make that happen. You look at our distinction in winning two wars with Iraq and you'll find enough servicemen with leftist ideas as those with rightwing ideas in the ranks. It's not conservatives that win wars, it's Americans.

That's what makes us so different than the rest of the world. In a country with thousands of miles separating many of us, we come together across boundaries to collectively take on our enemies. There's always been infighting in this country of one sort or another. Take note that it took a long time and plenty of concessions for the Declaration to be signed. Forefathers of opposing ideas compromised with the ultimate goal, a united set of colonies. What makes this country so tough is there will be times we look past our differences and unite.

9-11 only united us temporarily because this administration chose to use an appearance of business as usual. I personally think that was a mistake. And considering the number of missteps this administration has done, I just might be right.

In the end, people are people. There's no one group that is perfect. To look down your nose at liberals says no more for you as a conservative than the liberal who does the same.

When I was in the Navy, politics didn't matter. Not to us it didn't. It was knowing the guys knew their job was all that was important. Patton didn't single out the conservatives in his 2nd and 3rd armies to fight the battles. He took with him Americans. We're all Americans. Granted some talk louder than others and some with some very screwy ideas, but in the end, the only thing you will care about is if the guy beside you knows his duty or not.

I don't disagree there aren't those that would sell out this country at any costs. They're pretenders. Neither Liberal or Conservative, to me they are traitors. None of us who love this country, liberal or conservative, can abide these folks.

They talked about our young like you just talked about liberals. They said they couldn't get it done. They couldn't fight. Gulf War 1 and 2 proved the naysayers wrong. The naysayers are always proved wrong. Liberals and Conservatives will always put up a good fight, because we're Americans. And like Patton said, Americans don't like to lose. So don't underestimate your foe.

[Shonner]

This bit makes no sense at all. The worst thing you can do to a conservative is kill his family in front of him??? And then what? Retribution?? And you think a liberal would do anything less?

I didn't say what any of them would do about it. I only said what the worst thing one could do to them is.

About the US military, though. Conservatives are the ones paying the ultimate sacrifice so that liberals can continue to bad-mouth them.

[rgarber]

About the US military, though. Conservatives are the ones paying the ultimate sacrifice so that liberals can continue to bad-mouth them.

If you got a military census that breaks down the the military by political persuasion, I'd like to see that. It makes good opinion but I don't know that what you wrote is fact. I won't even begin to say I disagree with you on it either but I don't know how we could know this.

I do think that on our forum there is a tendency in thought to think everybody else spends as much time on politics as the we do, but I don't think that's the case for most people. Only here and another forum I sometimes look in on do I see people spending so much energy re-igniting the civil war (conservative vs. liberal) and with different uniforms. Most people seem smart enough to just stay on the topic of the weather. Now those are the smart people.

[rdamurphy]

You know I'm always there for you Rick!

A poll conducted late last year by the Military Times found that 57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats. Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic. Nearly 30 percent of those surveyed by the Military Times declined to answer the questions or said they were independent. Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/).

I kind of look at it this way,it helps to differentiate clearly:

A Conservative looks at the glass as being half full, and if they work hard enough, and Government doesn't stand in their way, they can fill it.

A Liberal looks at the glass as being half empty, pouts a lot, and lobbies Congress to fill everybody's glass by taking things out of peoples' glasses that are full! The fact that it doesn't make any sense (Robin Hood Economics) somehow escapes them.

Robert

[Shonner]

I do think that on our forum there is a tendency in thought to think everybody else spends as much time on politics as the we do, but I don't think that's the case for most people. Only here and another forum I sometimes look in on do I see people spending so much energy re-igniting the civil war (conservative vs. liberal) and with different uniforms. Most people seem smart enough to just stay on the topic of the weather. Now those are the smart people.

I was surprised that The Yard section of http://forums.flightsim.com even allowed political talk without closing threads at every turn, since most forum moderators are liberal and most forum members are liberal.

[rdamurphy]

Well, honestly, we've just made an art form out of keeping it civil, and keeping it restricted to in "here" and not letting it bleed onto other forums. You'd be surprised at how many of us have actually worked together on other forums to help others and each other...

Yeah, I know, it's kind of strange, but heh, it's America, right?

Robert

[Shonner]

And freedom of speech for a change.

[rgarber]

I was surprised that The Yard section of http://forums.flightsim.com even allowed political talk without closing threads at every turn, since most forum moderators are liberal and most forum members are liberal.

I think you find here that most of our members is a mixture of both. The prevailing distinction between us and other forums is trains. And I think that has to be paramount to a person's involvement here. We have had some come into this venue who only wanted to argue politics and would have nothing to do with trains. To me, those people don't belong. You gotta be here for the trains first. People coming in just to talk about politics have no vested interest in the harmony of our hobby. And sometimes I swear they come into here with an attitude like because we play with trains we gotta be stupid or something. I think we have one of the neatest collection of people you can find in any hobby.

For instance, we got bus drivers, architects, judges, whatever it is that Kevin does that he takes good Navy ship pictures, Vp's, truckers, engineers. We got a pretty good mix of white collar/blue collar. I just learned this year that one of the fellas who has worked with me on my projects was also part of the Apollo 13 recovery team. We run the gamut from very very old people like Paul W ;) to the many kids amongst us.

Just like model railroading the hobbies within this hobby are numerous. This is a hobby that needs more developers per man than probably any other hobby except model railroading. And in that regard I see the two as very much like. Like any hobby this one needs to mature and even more so, needs a steady platform we can express our interests better. We've survived 7+ years now without the help of anybody except Nels who allows us to make a home here.

And for the most part it's a self-policing community. There are many who watch out for behavior anomalies and the mods crack down on them. We've all had to learn to mature within this kind of exposure. Most of us probably didn't even participate in forum talk until this hobby. I for one never participated in anything like this before. We learned. I think any time you blend the old with the young you get a rubbing off which is an important ingredient to get along.

So we get along. The days of forum brawls have long passed. That's not to say a thread won't irk you every now and then, but we learned to let it go. If we focus on the hobby, and not on politics, we'll be okay. But it's a great mixture of folks that makes it work I think.

[Andy J]

I think part of the reason "The Yard" stays so civil, is because, most of us, have been around T-S a very long time, the yard, is a "relatively" recent addition to the forum.

Thus, most people here, already had a friendly "Working relationship' when it came to MSTS, well before politics, and other potentially divisive topics came up.

The trouble makers tend to be those with brand new accounts :p (no offense intended)

[trainrover]

I think part of the reason "The Yard" stays so civil
Inflexible philistine ign'ance leads to anything, eh?

[Andy J]

Inflexible philistine ign'ance leads to anything, eh?


Thanks for proving my point... ;)

The trouble makers tend to be those with brand new accounts

[mjs2101]

since most forum moderators are liberal and most forum members are liberal.


Really? You have actually gone through and done a questionnaire with all forum members to find their political stand? I am sure you would find most people probably don't care about political ideology in this forum. They come here, as Rich said, in regards to trains and most probably leave the silly political labels outside, away from trains. Tis the reason for having a hobby in the first place, to get away from the "real world". I believe it would be the minority who actually put any weight into political labels here.

Mykel

[USRailFan]

The EU again.

Ok. Forget about the US for now then. Who is far right in the EU? And are they right or left of Churchill or Thatcher?

Silvio Berlusconi. And yes, he is right of both Churchill and Thatcher.

[trainrover]

Thanks for proving my point... ;)
Ain't, coz yer so missing mine...you do realize that the USA ain't western in the slightest, right?

Something about yours and others' behaviour around your dump of a yard here reminds me of those middle-easterners' crazed rallye antics hailing from the 1970s . . . cobwebs 'n' all...

[cp5513]

Silvio Berlusconi. And yes, he is right of both Churchill and Thatcher.

While in Italy, you can't not mention Mussolini's grand daughter Alessandra, she's a current member of the European parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini

[jtr1962]

I think part of the reason "The Yard" stays so civil, is because, most of us, have been around T-S a very long time, the yard, is a "relatively" recent addition to the forum.

Thus, most people here, already had a friendly "Working relationship' when it came to MSTS, well before politics, and other potentially divisive topics came up.

Quite true. Political discussions can be a diversion but here they generally stay civil as you may well be working on a project next week with the same person you're disagreeing with in a political thread. Also, when push comes to shove, the trains are really more important than the politics. That's really what binds us all together here.

[Shonner]

I think any time you blend the old with the young you get a rubbing off which is an important ingredient to get along.


That seems to be the difference with this fourm from most others that I've seen. A much greater age range. And model trains is one of the oldest hobbies around that younger/new people can learn from.

[Shonner]

I am sure you would find most people probably don't care about political ideology in this forum.

You're right. They are still either liberal or conservative, though.

[Shonner]

Silvio Berlusconi. And yes, he is right of both Churchill and Thatcher.

His speeches are in Italian, so I don't know what he's saying. Maybe I can find the text and use a translator. I'm assuming he's for lowering taxes and allowing for small businesses to start up. And getting rid of unions to allow for competition. I'm guessing he's pro-marriage and pro-family and pro-military and against Sharia law.

I don't think manufacturing will make a comeback other than cars, since china makes everything now.

[trainrover]

they generally stay civil
My! this board has a mighty long journey ahead of it. Hmmmm, must be some udder Circle Line.

People stay civil, not the discussions themselves, mastah preachah...