I will post the loyalty oath shortly and expect a pledge of absolute fealty...or else :behead:

Well, you know I'm all about my country. (Breaks into America the Beautiful)

(blah blah bitch bitch moan moan)

;)

Now you're sounding like Sarah Palin :eek::

We believe, we believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans: those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us

It is that kind of self-righteous divisive bullshit (Classic: Actually I am pro America. Thats where I split ways with many people...) that I find insufferable, if not laughable.

I care more about the party.




They booked UT's band, and I'm planning on sex, drugs and rock&roll.

[quote=Redux;616381]When I have I said I know what's best?[/qquote]Every time you post.

And that differs from what anyone else posts how?

I don't know and don't really care. But one could easily take many of your posts about the state of the nation and your responses to such as a statement of "care more about the country than those who disagree with me" in the tone of your posts as you try to contrast your position or that of your party against anyone who disagrees with your party line. You did it repeatedly in the discussion on Civil Rights, you have done it repeatedly in the Healthcare debate, and in numerous other posts. Now you act like you are someone without sin. I don't buy your bull shit.

One could say the same about you and your posts.

The difference is I have not told those who disagree with me to "fuck off" or called them "assholes" or repeatedly giving them a "failed" grade (well, it has been fun recently to throw that one back in your face).

Unlike you, when have I ever denied my partisanship? Or proclaimed that I am here to "represent the people"?

Who among our fellow dwellars were mentioned? None. I wasn't referring to anyone from here. I was referring to the extremists and/or blowhards in both parties. A few simple examples for you would be....Joe, Rush, Rachael, Sean, Glenn & Keith.

[quote=Redux;616404]Absolutely. It is the politics thread dude. That was my point.

Eh, so you don't like my delivery sometimes, fuck off. :D

Because someone is against the party in power, currently the Demoncrats since they gained the majority in Congress, does not mean one is in the "other" party. No matter how hard you have tried to box me into a Republickin mold. It would never work. I would never be accepted. Nice try though.:p

well some things never change :rolleyes:

Watch it, I'll pop an Acorn in your ass.

Right....posting more partisan opinions/articles than all others combined, then attacking as "partisan", anyone who might question the veracity of those partisan opinions/articles.

I guess you dont see the double standard from someone who is so anti-double standard.

Wait a minute: Gearge W Bush is a repubican!

Thought I'd preserve that for the spelling nazi.

You only call them partisan because they disagree with your parties position on the issues. That does not mean they implictly support the Repubs.

There is no double standard.

Who is Gearge?:p

Your mom.

:D

:lol:

:cool:

In non double standard speak that you can relate to:

FAILED!

What ever dude. You are predictable.

Oh No....not the teen, angst-ridden "what ever" comeback!

(emma....is that you hiding under than merc mask?)

:lol2:

Isn't it one word?

Who cares, Reflux has been exposed as a partisan hack.

Thats the difference between us.

Exposed? I've been honest and up-front about my partisanship right from the start...never hiding behind a self-painted facade of being a "real" American for the "people".

That, and the fact, that I havent had to consistently resort to childish name calling and character assassination to make a point. ;)

Of course, you and UG are known for your carefully thought out posts and the fact that you are ever so right that you don't even bother to check your sources. I'd check a few of UG's posts where he openly aspires to the return of the monarchy before I got too cuddly under the sheets with him myself. :eyebrow:

I will give you that. But don't try to box me into your bullshit box of "being a "real" American for the "people". I have never made such statements ever.

Total and utter bullshit. You have done the same thing you fucking idiot.

Bullshit is in the eye (or on the heel) of the beholder and you keep stepping in it....with your "no double standards"...or your "I'm not a partisan...I'm for the little guy" followed by your excessive number of partisan links....or your (and UGs) "Obama socialism"..or.....

I understand you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge any of the above.

No big deal... its business as usual around here. :)

And yes, I'll get in the gutter when I have to.....I just don't start in the gutter with personal attacks.

See, EvKL (as I'll now call him) had all world politics down to two simple systems. Both fascism and Communism are actually the same thing. The only way to get us out of this mess is red-blooded monarcy or EVKL (ever notice how if you add the missing "i's" to EVKL you get EVILKIL? That means something I'm sure.

Though I will say that Wolf seems quite capable of defending herself. You're flailing away in disgraceful ignorance. Not a problem I have.

Well, thank god for small mercies. I don't know what I'd do with an intellect the size of yours. Pick up trash along the side of the road perhaps?

Right, then the social ills started getting addressed , the noblemen of Europe began to decrease in power, and you call yourself a midde of the road American. Have you ever thought of writing comedy? Oh by the way, what are your thoughts on droit de seigneur?

Come on fellas, it's nearly Christmas.

They even called a truce at Gallipoli for Christmas. I'm sure your need to belittle each other isn't nearly as life threatening as a bullet in the brain.

What we're dismissive of is views that amount to active support of less-than-democracies, that don't amount to active support of liberal democracies and the capitalism whereby they flourish (though you yourself are less hostile to capitalism than some bad examples we could name presently strutting the national stage), and in your particular case, your steady effort at uncalling (to coin some Newspeak) a spade a spade in insisting that socialistic policies instituted by the present Democratic Congress and Administration are somehow not socialistic. We know what socialism looks like, and we know what it does too -- punkers were simply a quick visual manifestation of socialism-driven goofballery, with their damaged clothing and their somebody-tied-me-to-a-chair-to-give-me-these haircuts. No; I quite dislike ugly styles. Even worse are styles vying in their ugliness.

I think there's a disconnect between your raw intellectual powers and your political allegiance -- voting Dem is for dull-normals. People who live without values that can actually be valuable. That sort of suboptimality. There isn't, by contrast, a disconnect between my politics and my brainpower, nor is there for Merc or Classic.

We're not intolerant. We're just able to make value judgements and to live by them. Some ideas and ways are worth more than others, and we three, anyway, seek the ways that are worth more, forsaking the ways that are worth less -- with the space or without it. (And we're the loudest about it, which is why I noticed.) Now you, by contrast, inasmuch as you have so internalized white liberal guilt that you believe it to be a moral structure and a road to virtue, are left trying to imply that we'd better live life without values, as your posts suggest you do. We are what not paralyzed by white liberal guilt looks like and sounds like, and I guarantee that's a better road than what you've hitherto trod.

"Fellow citizen" -- how would that equal "wise?" I'll quote Heinlein (as seems inevitable :rolleyes:)
A lot of subtle and provocative tensions between those two suspension points. The question of how wise the million could be was brought home to me sharply in the Clinton and Obama elections, not so in Carter's.

We do not see that the "difference of opinion" adds up to being pro-democracy, pro-liberal social orders, pro-prosperity enough. Because of your liberal guilt, you're not enough of an apostle of democracy. Were you enough of one, you'd be ravening to cut Ba'athist throat, among those of other nondemocrats viciously opposing the democratizing and enriching effects of globalization. This would not necessarily make you a nice guy, don't get me wrong -- but it would be enough, aye, even a surplus. I think we three would only raven about it if we were in a particularly bad mood; we're not quite proof against the sable bird. Still, we cannot despise cutting totalitarian throats, and we have no reason to object to their passing from this world to another. It means they can't enslave our fellow creatures here. That is valuable.

Failing to destroy foreign tyrants, and domestic ones, is NOT "best for the country." Our troubles don't come from places of democracies. They come from places of tyranny, of undemocracy. So do not fail to destroy these things of villainy.

Thus we do; thus, you do not.

Thus, you could be doing. We wouldn't kick you out of the treehouse for trying.

Hey, how nice to be appreciated. Redux does cause me to think it out; Radar not so much.

Better do that checking, Sam; you will find I don't. I've remarked in a couple of posts that von Kühnelt-Leddihn visibly does, and even Russell Kirk sometimes wistfully looks that way.

Meantime, you should not make excuses for not reading EvKL. You should simply read the man and mull him over -- "helps to train and develop the brain/Except if you haven't got any." You were in effect asking to be allowed to remain stupid, to continue in ignorance. I always answer that goddamned question with a firm "No." It is not allowed.

Right away, you'll sputter, "Are you calling me stupid?!" I will always reply, "I am showing you an opportunity to become smarter." Wiser, or better informed may be used as needed. Dunno 'bout you, but I find being not bright to be very uncomfortable, hence I hand you some discomfort when I don't think you're following a way of wisdom. And what if EvKL's works make you smarter than I am? While you're not there now -- no smart man will ask to limit his intelligence or his knowledge -- wouldn't it be cool if you could?

Excuse me, but I'll remain stupid if I feel like it. I am currently reading the comix ilustrated editions of Collapse by Jared Diamond, Zen Buddhism. selected writings of d.t. suzki, and No Nature by Gary Snyder.

Here's a fav passage from No Nature:

In the first thirty years of my life
I roamed hundreds and thousands of miles.
Walked by rivers through deep grass
Entered cities of boiling red dust.
Tried drugs but couldn't make immortal.
Read books and wrote poems on history.
Today I'm back at Cold Mountain
I'll sleep by the creek and clarify my ears.

I'll will not lower my standards to include your so-called definition of intelligence. Try reading more poetry, especially Rilke. God might just jump out at you and give you the scare of your life (and if you need me to explain that I would be honored to do so.)



I couldn't care less if you call me stupid. Repeat it long and often. After all, even negative attention is better than none at all. I question your ability to "make" me smarter. I have to respect a person before I seriously consider his thought processes.

Then you will cut off your nose to spite your face, Sam. Can't say that does anything to improve your looks. I shall continue to throw smart-making things your way. "Here I stand; I can do no other."

Of course you question my ability. And so what?

Regarding stupidity, here's a little something I live by, which is why I told you I don't allow people around me to stay dumb:

Heinlein again.

From here. Hopefully, Entertainment Tonight isn't too biased.

Oh, typical Palin. She is SUCH a victim of the evil writers of Family Guy, but Limballs could call her a cunt and she'd be salivating. :rolleyes:

Ha! Yeah, a sign that she has no self-esteem, crawling around after him like she does. Apparently, she fits the "i love abuse" stereotype. Way to set the women's movement back 200 years, Sarah, ya dumbass. :p:

Dan Quayle had enough common sense to ignore the silliness. Where is Dan Quayle when we need him? Still sitting in that room waiting for the next "Project for a New American Century" meeting?

We got the New American Century we wanted - with Palin as its new spokesman.

So what if we start making fun of kids with Autism? Is that ok? or is it just because it is Palin that makes it ok to attack her family?

Its because of Palin's different responses. St. Limbaugh can call people retards and Palin's fine with it. Its like bass ackward political correctness. :headshake

My point is that is not correct in either contex. Limbaugh gets no pass from me. I think he is an idiot. Nothing excuses attacking a child of a political person you hate, even if it is Palin. We heard all this shit about Palin and how bad a mother she was during the election, abandoning her kids, etc. But no one batted an eye about that bitch Pelosi who is the terrible mother of 6. Right? No. It has nothing to do with it. And even though I believe Pelosi is a retard I don't make fun of her because of that.:)

On Fox News announcing that his son in running for Congress.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...for-congress/1

Palin/Qualye, 2012 ....

That sounds like a particularly troubling example of slash fiction.



[eta] *snicker* So..... Urbane, Mercenary and classicman: united against the world...one for all, and all for one! The Three Mouseketeers.

@ merc and classic: sorry. Couldn't resist. Bet you boys are thrilled to have Urbane represent you :P

Wrong order.

Classic, Urbane and Mercenary - The CUM Party
tagline: the manly freedom fighters!

Naval freedom fighters - they're all semen. :D

I agree
really?
He is
But what about this
All true
You just insult her by calling her a retard. OK. More insults, still no substance.

I was thinking about Chelsea Clinton. I have a feeling many of those currently crying FOUL were guilty of making jokes about Chelsea. Probably got a big yuk-yuk about it as they stood around their pick-ups adorned with mudflaps depicting an overly-endowed woman silhouette in shiny chrome.

How must that have felt to a pre-teen/teenage girl? Would you want someone to hurt your daughter like that? :headshake

A great man once called it "selective outrage." ;)

edit: no it's not right in any case. It happens. My point is the selective outrage. Just like Palin, it only upsets you if by yelling you seem righteous and good, and your feigned anger propels your agenda.

I have made no statements about Pelosi's mothering skills other than to point out the duplicity and short memory of the Lefty-wingnuts. I will always insult Pelosi the politician. :D

eh, those are groupings place by others. No biggie. Neither UG or Classic represent me. I represent me. :p:

ORLY?

From here.

As I stated, it was to point out the duplicity. I am glad you now see it.

:headshake:

Do you have yourself fooled?

The post you were responding to was about McCain, and said nothing about his parenting skills or whether he should have been a politician. So no, you were pointing out no duplicity or hypocracy.

Does anyone here really think Palin has or should have a shot in hell at ever getting elected? The best I can come up with is that the left would love to have her on the ticket, cuz then whoever is on the other side is a shoo-in.

ETA - and rightfully so. (no pun intended)

In fact, Palin excused Rush Limbaugh explaining that his use of "retard" was "satire."

And yet....

When a Fox TV show (Family Guy) - a hyper-satirical show - makes a cheap joke about someone with Down Syndrome, her response is:

The woman is a walking contradiction. And a partisan moron.

No. I and I don't know anyone who would vote for her either.

The funny part is, aside from Stewies' song about her, the show doesn't make fun of the girl with downs. It doesn't even make fun of Palin. it just says that the girls' mother used to be Governor of Alaska.
Other than that, it was about a main character falling in love with a girl with downs syndrome.

But Palin being Palin, that cunt is open for anything that will keep her name in the news and anger her tea baggers.

Come on dude.. :lol:

The episode (which, yes, I have actually seen) was actually an example of equal, non-discriminatory treatment in its purest form--just not the "warm and fuzzy" kind people like to see. The Down's Syndrome girl was portrayed as the opposite of the usual Down's stereotype, therefore showing that people of all kinds are unique beyond their "classification" and have their own personality and character.

I have tried, but I don't remember Palin being mentioned at all.