Can't tell you what the middle is exactly, because I'm not there.
A liberal that allegedly hunts is still a liberal.
The fact, as you admitted, that you are unable to make a decision as to you your political philosophy, indicates bipolar disorder, FAS, or just cognitive contradictions.
Calling yourself "the middle" doesn't make that any more true than you claiming to have spanked Stick re: 308 vs. 7-08.
So... it's "hilarious" that I would call myself in the middle, yet, you can't even define it? That's flat stupid.
Methinks you are shooting some blunt arrows there, Mikey.
"Allegedly" hunts? WTF are you implying? Please explain that one. If you are saying I'm lying about hunting then first, [bleep] you!! Second, [bleep] YOU!! and third, I can prove it (and have) so... [bleep] you.
I HAVE made a decision, long ago, as to my political philosophy. It's very simple. I don't subscribe fully to either side because neither holds a lock on the truth. To blindly follow either side is to blindly swallow numerous serious philosophical contradictions. I, and others here, have pointed out over and over and over how riddled with contradiction and outright deceit the modern American "conservative" position is. Yet, you fail to so much as acknowledge this, you and yours, instead bleating that those of us who won't accept this BS are somehow "muddled". I call BS. "Muddled" is to call yourself a freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, small government "conservative" and then, say, deny people personal freedoms. Violate the constitution. Espouse a HUGE government capable of not only meddling in OUR lives, but in meddling in the lives of people all around the world. And on and on.
As near as I can tell, my views break down about like this. I say "as near as I can tell" because, frankly, some things that modern "conservatives" want would better be described as liberal, and vice versa. So I have to attempt to categorize these based not on where they SHOULD be, but rather where they ARE in the modern spectrum. But anyway:
-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".
-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;
-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.
-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.
-State's rights.
LEFT
-pro-Choice;
-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;
-against imprisoning people for the simple use of intoxicants; if you don't own your own HEAD, what do you own? Besides, a bunch of drug users (alchohol) wrote those stupid laws.
-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans. What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.
-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms .
-pro-union. A necessary evil. This ties into the "free markets don't really exist anyway" comment, above.
So there you go Mikey. Tell me that's not a person in the middle. I dare ya.
In the end, though, what we have in America is NOT a political system that tears everything down and starts from scratch with each new leader, like happens with warlords and dictators and so on.
What we have is akin to a train going down a track. The new administration gets a train... on a track, going a direction, at a speed, with a certain cargo, a certain amount of coal to burn, and so on.
And so, the only rational thing to do is to look at where the train is at each "stop" (election) and look at who's available to take over the train and make a call as to who can best take the reins at that moment, for that train. And McCain/Palin, and more importantly the out-of-gas Republican Party, was NOT the right people to hand that train to in '08. Period. They'd run the damn thing out of coal, and were standing there like deer in the headlights wondering what happened, who to blame, and what to do.
And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice- given the choices. The train he inherited was in the very midst of a massive socialization of the economy- because of George Bush! And started by George Bush. To blame bank bailouts and stimulus packages and so on on Obama is partisan stupidity and frankly beneath most of you here; you are smarter than that!! (excluding Nemesis).
How can you believe in the 2nd amendment and vote for obama? Don't give us that bs about guns being off the table for now. The first thing the dems did in 09 was to write shiite like the blair holt act. Fortunately, some saw it was too soon to start grabbing guns. Taking the risk of giving the douche in chief a 2nd term is ignorance at it's best.
Small government? Electing an ultra liberal and expecting him to not spend is like giving your child to a child molester and expecting him to not molest your child.
"I Birn Quhil I Se" MacLeod of Lewis I Burn While I See Hold Fast MacLeod of Harris
"I'll say it till I'm blue in the face because it's true. The perverse obsession with Puritan social issues is POISON for the Republicans, in addition to being anti-freedom and unConstitutional. You want to win? Stop scaring off the crucial middle with harebrained attempts to put the Bible places it shouldn't be."
And you'll still be wrong. If anything the Bible is being pushed out of places more and more every day.
"I Birn Quhil I Se" MacLeod of Lewis I Burn While I See Hold Fast MacLeod of Harris
Can't tell you what the middle is exactly, because I'm not there.
A liberal that allegedly hunts is still a liberal.
The fact, as you admitted, that you are unable to make a decision as to you your political philosophy, indicates bipolar disorder, FAS, or just cognitive contradictions.
Calling yourself "the middle" doesn't make that any more true than you claiming to have spanked Stick re: 308 vs. 7-08.
So... it's "hilarious" that I would call myself in the middle, yet, you can't even define it? That's flat stupid.
Methinks you are shooting some blunt arrows there, Mikey.
"Allegedly" hunts? WTF are you implying? Please explain that one. If you are saying I'm lying about hunting then first, [bleep] you!! Second, [bleep] YOU!! and third, I can prove it (and have) so... [bleep] you.
I HAVE made a decision, long ago, as to my political philosophy. It's very simple. I don't subscribe fully to either side because neither holds a lock on the truth. To blindly follow either side is to blindly swallow numerous serious philosophical contradictions. I, and others here, have pointed out over and over and over how riddled with contradiction and outright deceit the modern American "conservative" position is. Yet, you fail to so much as acknowledge this, you and yours, instead bleating that those of us who won't accept this BS are somehow "muddled". I call BS. "Muddled" is to call yourself a freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, small government "conservative" and then, say, deny people personal freedoms. Violate the constitution. Espouse a HUGE government capable of not only meddling in OUR lives, but in meddling in the lives of people all around the world. And on and on.
As near as I can tell, my views break down about like this. I say "as near as I can tell" because, frankly, some things that modern "conservatives" want would better be described as liberal, and vice versa. So I have to attempt to categorize these based not on where they SHOULD be, but rather where they ARE in the modern spectrum. But anyway:
-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".
-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;
-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.
-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.
-State's rights.
LEFT
-pro-Choice;
-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;
-against imprisoning people for the simple use of intoxicants; if you don't own your own HEAD, what do you own? Besides, a bunch of drug users (alchohol) wrote those stupid laws.
-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans. What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.
-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms .
-pro-union. A necessary evil. This ties into the "free markets don't really exist anyway" comment, above.
So there you go Mikey. Tell me that's not a person in the middle. I dare ya.
In the end, though, what we have in America is NOT a political system that tears everything down and starts from scratch with each new leader, like happens with warlords and dictators and so on.
What we have is akin to a train going down a track. The new administration gets a train... on a track, going a direction, at a speed, with a certain cargo, a certain amount of coal to burn, and so on.
And so, the only rational thing to do is to look at where the train is at each "stop" (election) and look at who's available to take over the train and make a call as to who can best take the reins at that moment, for that train. And McCain/Palin, and more importantly the out-of-gas Republican Party, was NOT the right people to hand that train to in '08. Period. They'd run the damn thing out of coal, and were standing there like deer in the headlights wondering what happened, who to blame, and what to do.
And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice- given the choices. The train he inherited was in the very midst of a massive socialization of the economy- because of George Bush! And started by George Bush. To blame bank bailouts and stimulus packages and so on on Obama is partisan stupidity and frankly beneath most of you here; you are smarter than that!! (excluding Nemesis).
How can you believe in the 2nd amendment and vote for obama? Don't give us that bs about guns being off the table for now. The first thing the dems did in 09 was to write shiite like the blair holt act. Fortunately, some saw it was too soon to start grabbing guns. Taking the risk of giving the douche in chief a 2nd term is ignorance at it's best.
Small government? Electing an ultra liberal and expecting him to not spend is like giving your child to a child molester and expecting him to not molest your child.
First, anyone with a brain knows that guns are not in the political lexicon right now. This was clearly signalled by the Dems.
Second, who said anything about me voting for a second term?
Third, Bush spent like a drunken sailor. A HUGE part of Obama's deficit is simply an extension of Bush's. The Republican Party is NOT the party of small spending. It's not a reasonable criteria to differentiate the two parties by, any more.
"I'll say it till I'm blue in the face because it's true. The perverse obsession with Puritan social issues is POISON for the Republicans, in addition to being anti-freedom and unConstitutional. You want to win? Stop scaring off the crucial middle with harebrained attempts to put the Bible places it shouldn't be."
And you'll still be wrong. If anything the Bible is being pushed out of places more and more every day.
As it should be.
Religion is admirable to the extent that it uplifts the human spirit.
It's deplorable when it's pushed into places it doesn't belong, which is anywhere other than the home and church.
Further, it's all fantasy anyway. You don't want the Great Pumpkin in the schools, I don't want Jesus in the schools. Same damn thing.
SortingSpecialist, could you do me a favor and google up some Bush speech faux paus?
Glitching when the teleprompter glitches is understandable. Glitching the way Bush did, and Palin does, shows a scatterbrained mind.
A person who graduates from Harvard Law, and goes on to be a constitutional law professor, has demonstrated an ability to assimilate information, to mount and maintain a debate, and to play the game of politics. All important things.
But again, I didn't vote for the dude because he was admirable. I voted for him because the Republican Party had shown itself to SUCK ASS, and further, put forward a ridiculous ticket in '08.
"I'll say it till I'm blue in the face because it's true. The perverse obsession with Puritan social issues is POISON for the Republicans, in addition to being anti-freedom and unConstitutional. You want to win? Stop scaring off the crucial middle with harebrained attempts to put the Bible places it shouldn't be."
And you'll still be wrong. If anything the Bible is being pushed out of places more and more every day.
As it should be.
Religion is admirable to the extent that it uplifts the human spirit.
It's deplorable when it's pushed into places it doesn't belong, which is anywhere other than the home and church.
Further, it's all fantasy anyway. You don't want the Great Pumpkin in the schools, I don't want Jesus in the schools. Same damn thing.
Where is it being pushed into places it doesn't belong?
"I Birn Quhil I Se" MacLeod of Lewis I Burn While I See Hold Fast MacLeod of Harris
Man Beck is really nailing this woman down. Almost to the point where he's making her really qualify herself. I'm seeing a different and more sincere/polished Sarah Palin versus her campaign run. Good interview between Beck and Palin today.
Wow indeed. You are so utterly and completely completely wrong, yet so very sure of yourself. Perhaps your view makes sense in relation to your point of reference/ upbringing, because to tell the truth, you are passionate about it, and really seem intelligent.
The question (or I should say accusation)was that Jeff is not in the middle, well how would you define him. Do you think liberals would define him as a liberal with these stances?
-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".
-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;
-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.
-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.
Man Beck is really nailing this woman down. Almost to the point where he's making her really qualify herself. I'm seeing a different and more sincere/polished Sarah Palin versus her campaign run. Good interview between Beck and Palin today.
I gotta get a dvr!
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
f you want to talk about the "direction of the train", then a reasonable discussion of that begins with Bush II. The Obama administration began at the point at which the Bush administration ended. I think we all agree that things were FUBAR at that point.
Well things had just become FUBAR for reasons that were not really attributed to Bush in entirety.
The question then became who will lead us back, what philosophy and agenda will lead us back. In this case Obama has been a disaster, a wrong choice, a huge mistake.
Can't tell you what the middle is exactly, because I'm not there.
A liberal that allegedly hunts is still a liberal.
The fact, as you admitted, that you are unable to make a decision as to you your political philosophy, indicates bipolar disorder, FAS, or just cognitive contradictions.
Calling yourself "the middle" doesn't make that any more true than you claiming to have spanked Stick re: 308 vs. 7-08.
So... it's "hilarious" that I would call myself in the middle, yet, you can't even define it? That's flat stupid.
Methinks you are shooting some blunt arrows there, Mikey.
"Allegedly" hunts? WTF are you implying? Please explain that one. If you are saying I'm lying about hunting then first, [bleep] you!! Second, [bleep] YOU!! and third, I can prove it (and have) so... [bleep] you.
I HAVE made a decision, long ago, as to my political philosophy. It's very simple. I don't subscribe fully to either side because neither holds a lock on the truth. To blindly follow either side is to blindly swallow numerous serious philosophical contradictions. I, and others here, have pointed out over and over and over how riddled with contradiction and outright deceit the modern American "conservative" position is. Yet, you fail to so much as acknowledge this, you and yours, instead bleating that those of us who won't accept this BS are somehow "muddled". I call BS. "Muddled" is to call yourself a freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, small government "conservative" and then, say, deny people personal freedoms. Violate the constitution. Espouse a HUGE government capable of not only meddling in OUR lives, but in meddling in the lives of people all around the world. And on and on.
As near as I can tell, my views break down about like this. I say "as near as I can tell" because, frankly, some things that modern "conservatives" want would better be described as liberal, and vice versa. So I have to attempt to categorize these based not on where they SHOULD be, but rather where they ARE in the modern spectrum. But anyway:
-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".
-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;
-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.
-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.
-State's rights.
LEFT
-pro-Choice;
-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;
-against imprisoning people for the simple use of intoxicants; if you don't own your own HEAD, what do you own? Besides, a bunch of drug users (alchohol) wrote those stupid laws.
-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans. What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.
-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms .
-pro-union. A necessary evil. This ties into the "free markets don't really exist anyway" comment, above.
So there you go Mikey. Tell me that's not a person in the middle. I dare ya.
In the end, though, what we have in America is NOT a political system that tears everything down and starts from scratch with each new leader, like happens with warlords and dictators and so on.
What we have is akin to a train going down a track. The new administration gets a train... on a track, going a direction, at a speed, with a certain cargo, a certain amount of coal to burn, and so on.
And so, the only rational thing to do is to look at where the train is at each "stop" (election) and look at who's available to take over the train and make a call as to who can best take the reins at that moment, for that train. And McCain/Palin, and more importantly the out-of-gas Republican Party, was NOT the right people to hand that train to in '08. Period. They'd run the damn thing out of coal, and were standing there like deer in the headlights wondering what happened, who to blame, and what to do.
And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice- given the choices. The train he inherited was in the very midst of a massive socialization of the economy- because of George Bush! And started by George Bush. To blame bank bailouts and stimulus packages and so on on Obama is partisan stupidity and frankly beneath most of you here; you are smarter than that!! (excluding Nemesis).
How can you believe in the 2nd amendment and vote for obama? Don't give us that bs about guns being off the table for now. The first thing the dems did in 09 was to write shiite like the blair holt act. Fortunately, some saw it was too soon to start grabbing guns. Taking the risk of giving the douche in chief a 2nd term is ignorance at it's best.
Small government? Electing an ultra liberal and expecting him to not spend is like giving your child to a child molester and expecting him to not molest your child.
Second, who said anything about me voting for a second term?
Third, Bush spent like a drunken sailor. A HUGE part of Obama's deficit is simply an extension of Bush's. The Republican Party is NOT the party of small spending. It's not a reasonable criteria to differentiate the two parties by, any more.
"First, anyone with a brain knows that guns are not in the political lexicon right now. This was clearly signalled by the Dems."
You're delusional.
You weren't so sure of that when you started a thread asking if Dems would grab guns after the election.
All the BS gun grabbing that was introduced in early 09 shows it's not out of the picture and it never is. Giving them a foot in the door is stupid because it's so easy to oust an incumbent president.
After obama care and cap and trade what next? So much for limited government and spending. Those will Bush's fault too right?
"I Birn Quhil I Se" MacLeod of Lewis I Burn While I See Hold Fast MacLeod of Harris
A person who graduates from Harvard Law, and goes on to be a constitutional law professor, has demonstrated an ability to assimilate information, to mount and maintain a debate, and to play the game of politics. All important things.
Ahh, but like most 'coasters' who allow emotions to play into their ability to vote, you know little or payed little attention to the man himself.
Those in my state that don't allow emotions into their formation of opinions are a little bit more informed on this narcissist, and in reality, he is just another lawyer that failed to make it in the real world. Politics is where the failures turn. They never make partner, never represent large corporations or patents, etc. The average and below have to turn to opinionated teaching, community organizing and politics, since their real industry is over-saturated with 4-pointers.
Anyone's refusal to show an educational transcript means they have something to hide. What was it with Barry? Possession of controlled substance reported by the campus police and buried? A 'D' average (or worse)? Did he even graduate? There certainly is something being hidden here. Only the stupid wouldn't believe so.
Those that run on facts rather than emotion knew that he was pure trouble here in Illinois a very long time ago; back when he was a Kenyan running for senator against Ryan. Spending time in a racist church environment and sitting in Bill Ayers living room for a drink or two, and his associations with Emmanuel (a VERY dangerous man) is just more evidence of this narcissist's dubious intentions. The money, the plan, hes and his party's plan, already had the ball rolling. Those of us on the right can't battle Chicago, and with George Soros's money, you have your new president. He certainly isn't mine.
His campaign put the emotionalists into fairy land, and they all drank his kool-aid and ate his poison apples.
![[Linked Image]](http://infectedtube.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/palin-beck-2012-300x129.jpg)