Apparently Wolf Blitzer, in an interview with Howard Dean, asked about Abramoff contributions to Democrats. I know most were to Republicans, but in the interview, Dean stated outright that NO Democrats recieved contributions from Abramoff. Here is the transcript:


[color:"red"] There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true. [/color]

I have friends who are hard core liberals. And while I have not checked every story out there, can one of you guys share with me exactly which Democrats received Abramoff money, and how much they received? I am not interested in money that came directly from the Indian Nations or from people that did business with Abramoff who also did business with a Democrat, but only money that can be traced specifically through Abramoff's hands.

Can you help me out with this? So far, I haven't found any......but I would like to provide proof positive...which means Ann Coulter or O'Reilly or other "talking heads" probably won't count unless they are specific and can cite primary sources.

Thanks in advance.

If you are looking for someone here,to
back you up on,your "clean as the wind driven snow"
Democraps. It won't happen. Take your [bleep] over to AR.
It ain't welcome here. This is free advice.
Bart

Bart, I think you are misreadng goodpasture. He says he is looking for evidence that Dean is wrong. That's a fair enough question. I'd guess everybody connected with Abramhof money can spin it so that he didn't get it directly from the lobbiest but from the guy's clients.

And while I have not checked every story out there, can one of you guys share with me exactly which Democrats received Abramoff money, and how much they received? I am not interested in money that came directly from the Indian Nations or from people that did business with Abramoff who also did business with a Democrat, but only money that can be traced specifically through Abramoff's hands.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reckon if it was so easy to provide proof, the Dems would likely be indicted as well. Why don't you just ask for info on who really killed Kennedy? Easy as cake.



Mac

I think that Goodpasture giving Howard Dean ANY sort of credit
or platform to spread his [bleep] here,on this campfire...
Says enough!
Bart

Bart, I don't know who put the bug up your ass, but peddle it somewhere else. If you don't know, then shut the he11 up and leave it to the grownups who know how to discuss intelligently.

IF you had bothered to read my post, I said I was trying to find out exactly who received illegal contributions and who didn't. I don't give flying f*** what party you are in or what party you support or whose lips you get your information from. As far as I am concerned, EVERY elected official should be one termers......every one of the lying bast*ards should get fired at every opportunity........so take your conservative rants to someone who gives a dam n about your opinion.

What I am interested in is which Democrats were on the take. I think Abramoff bought and sold both sides of the aisle....he was an equal opportunity criminal. But so far I cannot find which Democrat took the money directly from him.

And please, Bart, let the grown ups talk and stay the he11 out of it.

When Abramoff pleaded guilty and was plea bargaining his case, there was a list of names shown by Fox news... As I recall, most of the House names listed were Republicans, but all of the Senate names were Democrats. I can't name names, but this is not something that is limited to one party. My guess is that there is less wrong doing than one would be initially be lead to believe. It is pretty hard to link a contribution to a specific vote..... Not saying that is a good thing, it is just reality.

Listen dickhead!!!
I think that you are the [bleep],that is pushing your left-leaning
point of view...Do you think that I just pop in here every now and and then to see whats going on? I've been reading your rambling's for awhile now and my opinion of you is,to say the least,LOW!!!
Let the grown ups talk eh? How bout this gramps...[bleep]-you!!!!
Anything else that you want to say to me can be handled in a PM...No?
Bart

No, you inconsiderate jerk.

You started this in public, finish it in public you gutless wonder.

I am, however, out of consideration for the owners of this website and out of simple courtesy towards the other members here, suspend any further discussion with a childish moron until I get a response from the owners or the moderator.

until then ahole, es

Thay make a pill for that.

Thanks, that is the way I thought it happened....but have been all over the FOX website and cannot find it.....thought maybe someone else knew where to look.

Apparently Bart is the unofficial moderator here, so I don't expect much help from anyone else.......but thanks a bunch for what help you have offered.

I don't know..."They"might.
Bart

You are as smart as I thought you were...gramps...
Bart

Goodpasture you appear to be a fairly intelligent fellow. I'm guessing you are going to understand what I mean when I say that entitling this thread, "I need some help" and then posting what you did is passive aggressive trolling.

BTW, I don't expect you're going to get much sympathy from the owner or the moderator.

Hey Bart, I read your post concerning Vince Young (thread) and my reaction is that you need to just relax a bit. Politics is interesting, but college sports is king!! Any of you guys watch the Tennessee Lady Vols play UConn.... that was a great game!

One of the Seattle newspapers (Post Inteligencer?) carried a story about a week ago with names of politicians and amounts they had received from this guy. Several were Democrats. I think Senator Patty Murray was on the list. A congressman named Ney I think, not sure which party. I'm not going to do the search because I'm not interested enough but it is a place to start looking. Google up news stories, though I don't trust the news at all in such things.

Abrhamof was the kind of lobbyist who would bill clients for having lunch with someone when they merely were in the same room. Since it would be on a billing record, then the news would speculate about what happened at this nefarious lunch meeting.

I guess we can see what is what. If I am wrong in asking the way I did then they can let me know.

I don't know much about what is "passive aggressive." I write like I think, I try to provide the source of what it is I am talking about so folks can read for themselves what I am trying to talk about, and I try to be as succinct as possible in my questions. If that isn't "politically correct" enough for this board then I guess it's time I found out now before I annoy any other self appointed moderators.

Quite a statement. Did you ever think some of might not answer because we just don't happen to know the answer right off the top of our heads?

Or rather are we just supposed to drop whatever we happen to be doing and rush into research mode because you asked.

I don�t watch Fox. I refuse to waste what few brain cells I have left on watching any TV. I don�t care who bribed who. I like you think most elected officials are crooked. I just no longer care.

Both of you relax, you might live a little longer.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Just reread the first post. Looks like Dean was doing his usual self immolation and taking the Dems with him. When your opponent is digging himself into a hole, don't interupt him or distract attention from him. Sometimes I wonder if Dean is a secret agent for the Republicans, whose job is to make himself and Democrats look stupid.

That's funny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Like I said above, I would LOVE to see a wholesale removal of all incumbents. But I was under the impression that there were several Democrat senators that were being investigated.....I can't find a list of any (except for Delay) that is under investigation.....Repubs or Democrats.....nor any list that "tells all" that Abramoff is supposed to provide as part of his plea deal.

And NO.....I do not expect anyone to drop what they are doing to accommodate me. I do, however, expect basic civility. And when a popular moron starts something like Bart is trying to start, I have found, on most forums, that the "regulars" tend to fall in line......so based on one gutless idiots response, I now expect that every post I make from here on out will be met with insults and derision. And why? because the bigoted sycophant has "read" what I have written on other threads and he equates disagreement with his own narrow perspective as being "liberal."

I'm as relax'd as my old def pug dog.
My deal is that I don't like people that
stir up [bleep] just because...Especially LIBERALS!!!
There,I said it...LIBERALS SUCK!!! Their philosophy and
history in this country cost all of us alot of money that shouldn't have ever been spent...
I'm gonna stand by everything that I've said tonight...And I feel good saying it!
Bart

I'm speechless.............................................................
Bart

Passive-aggressive behavior
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Passive-aggressive)
Jump to: navigation, search

Passive-aggressive behavior refers to passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. Sometimes a method of dealing with stress or frustration, it results in the person attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways. It can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or intentional failure at doing requested tasks. For example, someone who is passive-aggressive might take so long to get ready for a party they don't wish to attend that the party is nearly over by the time they arrive.

Someone who is passive-aggressive will typically not confront others directly about problems, but instead will attempt to undermine their confidence or their success through comments and actions which, if challenged, can be explained away innocently so as not to place blame on the passive-aggressive person.

Some passive-aggressive behavior may result from society's conditioning of individuals; direct confrontation can lead to harmful consequences. For example, confronting one's manager may lead to the loss of opportunities, such as being passed over for a promotion or even losing one's job.

Often passive-aggressive behavior manifests itself in individuals who view themselves as "peaceful". These individuals feel that expressing their anger through passive-aggressive behavior is morally favorable to direct confrontation.

The lack of repercussions resulting from passive-aggressive behavior can lead to an unchecked continual attack, albeit passive, on one's acquaintances.





The above is the long version. Below is the part of it I was thinking of:

"attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways."

If I'm wrong I'm sorry. If my hunch is correct others here will pick up on it FAST! Please prove me wrong. Really, I hope I am.
Past my bedtime. Good night all.

From what I've seen from you in this thread, that represents a huge improvement

Good, now if you would stay that way, your popularity would increase, as would peoples respect for you................ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Sorry, but I don't recognize any of those symptoms in me at this time. Usually when people want me to do something that I don't want to do I simply tell them to FO. And part of the definition seems to be where if you deny it, you are guilty of it.....sort of a Catch 22 situation, isn't it? So, I don't know quite how to respond.

However, I do know how to respond to people that try to troll elsewhere. First, I give people the benefit of the doubt. If they ask a question that I know the answer to I answer. If I don't I don't. One thing I do not do is start making absurd accusations without some basis for it........and making assumptions is not much of a basis.

And those would be based on what....20 or 30 posts? Mostly dealing with what I consider a violation of the constitution by the administration and the fact that I believe that if a President engages in criminal behavior he should be impeached and then tried as the criminal he has become. One or two on an absurd letter to europe.....mostly because it was simplistic and rhetorical nonsense. And a couple or more elsewhere when the thread quoted some talking head and I commented about it.........I did, however, until now, address ideas and not people. I would have addressed Bart's ideas except he doesn't have any.....and as HE chose to lump me in with "liberals" and make out to be some sort of bad guy, I responded in kind to his idiocy.

For the record, yes, there are issues in which I am pretty liberal. There are even more in which I am very conservative. There are quite a few that are centrist. The majority, however are not found within labels such as that.

I suggested lawyers should not be legislators or judges. Is that liberal or conservative? I think it is pragmatic as I find it a conflict of interest. A person should not be trained in a field, given the responsibility to create the rules of that field, then be allowed to interpret those rules.....and to do so with total disregard to community standards or input.

I think education should be free to all, for as long as you can pass the course. Failing a course should entail a financial cost to the student. Further, if education is free, then there is no reason to not have a job.....ever......so if you are caught stealing more than two times ( give a guy a second chance) then rather than putting them in prison, they should be executed......is that liberal or conservative? Again, it is pragmatic. Prisons are bankrupting state budgets. We need to empty them.....either let them go or shoot them.....just don't put a man in a cage and call it humane.

Every politician should serve only one term. His salary should be the median for his district. His assets should be put into a trust where they are NOT invested, but provided 10% growth per year while he is in office. He should be audited at the end of his term and if he cannot account for all the money in his account, it should be forfeited.

ANY politician, charged with a crime, should be suspended from office at the date of the filing of the charge, should go to trial within 60 days, at which time he is reinstated or removed. Is this conservative? liberal?

ALL drugs should be legal for those over 21 years old. Committing a crime while high (including drunk) should be a capital offense. Providing drugs to a minor should be a capital offense. Selling drugs without a permit should be a mandatory capital offense. You are grown up...it is not my job to tell you how to treat your body. I can and will demand you treat others with respect and that if you imperil a child you will die.

So do NOT put me in your childish "boxes." I am NOT liberal. I am NOT conservative. And if I don't phrase things in your politically correct way (and I have seen, on this forum, politically correct is to recite the mantra of the conservative shepherds) then go sc*** yourself.....don't read what I write, don't respond when I ask a question.....if you think I am trolling, then don't hit my bait. Obviously, if a troll gets no response he will go somewhere where he CAN get a response.....just like fishing...no strikes at one spot you find another one to fish.

So am I trolling? am I being passive aggressive or whatever that is? Respond in an intelligent manner or not at all.....see if I hang out.............and see if I am afraid of confrontation.........unlike pi**ants like Bart, I have hard beliefs and if I post, it is not to assault the poster, but to examine his views......and if the post is a regurgitation of the latest talking point from a talk show host, I may tell you about how simplistic it is.

Todays problems are not simplistic. You cannot pass a law and make it better. but intelligent people, discussing issues, can and will make a difference...but respect must be the rule.......and gutless wimps like Bart do not warrant respect.

WOW!!!
Is this it?...Wasted keyboard time...gramps...
2ndwind pegged you...
Want some more?
Keep talk'n
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.
Bart

Bart
I am having trouble figuring out where you got the idea Goodpasture was extolling Dean's virtues... The outright hostile attack is something that just seems very out of line for what was posted.

I do not have a visual on the politics of Goodpasture that would support such a blanket statement about him. I did not look for support for your attack on other threads, but here I did not see it.
art

Do you ever make sense? Do you have any form of personal beliefs or do you simply repeat what you heard on talk radio today?

I think you mised Bart's point? Most of us do not wish
to engage in conversation with a LIBERAL!

You guys are so screwed up in the head, and you aren''t going to change your minds anyway. So why screw up a good forum?

Take the LIBERAL CRAP elsewhere! Only liberals and
compromisers, which are really closet liberals anyway, want to hear the liberal point of view......so much for dialog! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

We simply don't want hear anything from your side of the isle. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> You guys are like women pushing their way into
an all male, men's club!

[bleep]!!!

This is just stupid.

Goodpasture asked for info on which Dems got money, so as to satisfy for his own mind that Dean is full of it again.

And THIS results? WTF!!!

Okay, so Bart and 280Don don't want to converse with anyone they perceive as a liberal. Fine, then don't. I've converse with both of you fellas before, but this just has me baffled...

VA,

I guess you haven't been listening close enough. I've
repeatedly said I view LIBERALS as the ENEMY. even more so
than someone in the Chinese army!


What part about ENEMY don't you understand? I've repeatedly
said I don't consider them to be misguided americans. Hell,
I don't see them as americans at all?

They are my ENEMIES! And that, is not a figure of speech. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> I'm not a philosopher, nor a diplomat,
so I'd rather engage liberals on a bloody battlefield!

280, my friend;

Define "liberal", please. You know that I wouldn't ask this as a trap, only as a sincere question.

I know what you are saying, and where your heart lies, but I disagree, in part, with your focus.

My definition of LIBERAL is quite simple. I ask myself one
simple question......"Is this democratic or socialistic?"

I believe the constitution to be very simple in it's intent.
A free man can do whatever he wants whenever he wants as
long as it does not destroy the rights of a fellow american.

The basic tenet of the war of independence was to afford free men the right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and not
have it taken away by a king (or government). Does anyone
remember why they held the "Boston Tea Party"?

When I hear things like, social contract, entitlement programs,
foreign aid, itc., I see justification for CIVIL WAR!

My personal view is based on a continuing FACT. Only 6%
of the people in america fought to make us free from king
George. The other 94% were leeches and hangers on. I
believe the numbers have not changed much, If it
came right down to it only 6% would fight to keep our country
ameican, the rest are leeches upon the freedom tree!

In short, my america is dead. And I no longer care if the
present PC one survives or not! I view our governmental
bodies as king George, and 94% of americans as collaboraters!

Is that plain enough? I'm patiently waiting for the "second" shot heard around the world, but alas, I don't think americans
have the intestinal fortitude for freedom anymore!

Dialog my azz, break out the dueling pistols!

280;

Then you, rightly, object not only to liberals, but also to socialists, fascists, communists, and essentially anything that is not classically libertarian (small "l", not large "L"). Which is exactly what I thought you'd say.

You and I, as well as many others, object to any that would undermine the Constitution, in any form or fashion, whether it be to create a communist/socialist "liberal" state, or a totalitarian/fascist "neo-conservative" state. I call these "enemies" (to borrow your term) of the Constitution and America by different, and varied, terms. You just term them all "liberals".

Am I correct?

Yes sir,

Hammer right smack on the nail head! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Consequently,
I don't fit in many places! I really don't think I fit in here
at the campfire either?

I have read Bart's posts over the years and I like to read them and he is a local friend here.

You are the new guy and you have posted some stuff I disagreed with.

Nonetheless I think your original question has merit and the attack was unwarranted. Nonetheless I like Bart.

I like discussion of facts. If liberals, or conservatives or independents provide accurate facts or request accurate facts then I like those debates.

I also like to interact with people who do not agree with me because then I larn something.

I don't trust the dem's or the repub's either, and you would be hard pressed to put many a conservative into a defined conservative pigeon hole these days... especially the current pres, and many a rep and senator.

Oh well...

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Interesting idea about drugs and cleaning out prisons!

I hope I never get framed twice for pilfering when you are sheriff!

280;

I thought so.

Check your PMs.

Good to know you. I like people who can stand up for a friend and be honest at the same time. That is what I call being a man with all the respect that brings with it. Unfortuantely I don't have your history with the bigot, so I can only respond to what he presents here and now. So far, it isn't a very flattering portrait.


You should get me going on a soap box sometime..........

I have always thought that it was stupid to have little kids learn dodgeball in school, like I did. I would much rather see elementary kids learn kickboxing in elementary school and small arms in middle and high school. If every adult walking down the street was a blackbelt and carried, how much street crime would there be? And with that kind of background, how many would be that obese? Seems to me that that simple change in education orientation would do more to wipe out major crime problems as well as major health issues than all the government and private enterprise efforts since WWII.

Dixie,

I think I know where you are coming from? But, a new guy?

OK, Bart has 300 more posts than me? And I think you might
have my views mistaken for some one else. I don't have
a clue what you mean about "drugs" and "cleaning out prisons"?

You know, I too don't like republicans. But most of the 6%
I respect here at the campfire can't decide whether to
befriend, debate, or how to view liberals, let alone seem
ready to discuss fascists!

I'm not a complex guy at all. I take the view that women
like to "talk" everything to death, and men "do" what they
really believe.

A wise Jew once said, "He who is not for me is against me".
Since I'm so new, then I'll make it plain for everyone.

Briscoe, BCBrian, Goodpasture = liberals (There are many more!) SteveNO = fascist (There are many more)

Barak = right on! With one exception. He is highly
intellegent and prone to debate. I, on the other hand am
relatively ignorant, and thus more prone to combat than debate!

Most of the rest are either collaboraters or "Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine". (Easily swayed by stupid azz
arguements, and don't really know what they believe.)

These guys have nothing I want to learn. I rather engage them in a duel than a debate!

In what will be a total waste of time, I hereby stage a minor rebellion against the twisted semantics of our day. Then I will quietly accept the new definitions of terms and go my way.

I consider myself an historic liberal, which usually puts me in the camp labeled conservative in current US categories. The US Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in world history, and we should be grateful. It was a radically liberal notion to give power to the people. It still is. In 1776, King George and crew were the conservatives, holding on to (conserving) power and the status quo, and the US patriots were the liberals of their day. Men like Washington and Jefferson broke free from authoritarian rule and were liberal enough to entrust real power to citizens, and restrict the power of government.

By any historic definition of the word, what is liberal about modern US political liberals? Nothing. They are libertine fascists, draconian conservatives hording power to the government, coercive socialists, but not liberal. What is liberal and generous about taking money from people and giving it to others by force of law? What is liberal about taking or restricting property rights of citizens, whether the property is land or guns? A truly liberal firearms law would allow any citizen to own full auto machine guns and anything else he wanted.

A parenthetical note on gun law: The first shot of the American Revolution was over gun control. The king wanted to conserve his power and not let anyone but his paid army to own guns. That was a conservative position. It�s over simplifying but the Americans wanted to liberalize his gun laws to include broader gun ownership

Liberal is(was) a beautiful word, connoting generous, tolerant, open in one�s dealings with fellow men, allowing individuals great freedom, a frightening word to kings and despots. Modern US political liberals have stolen a fine word and use it to cover policies opposite to its historic meaning. Tell me one thing that is liberal about Teddy Kennedy by any historic definition. He is about government control, taking power from the people and giving it to a government elite, retaining power for his inside group (Democratic party) and silencing any opposition. Modern American political �liberals� are totally intolerant of any view or free speech that does not agree with them and do all that they can to suppress it by law. In Canada they have succeeded by passing �hate speech� laws. What is hate speech? Anything the government does not like at the moment.

I believe Patrick Henry gave us the famous quote, �I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.� Now that is a truly liberal statement in a historic sense.

Yes, I am able to read a newspaper and understand what nearly everyone means by terms and epithets like liberal. I have only voiced my amused perspective on the 180 degree reversal of definitions on one other private occasion. This isn�t a hobby horse. I do not expect to reverse history and common usage. Just as I have resigned myself that it is now correct to use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent, that gay is no longer a bright and cheerful word, I can concede here. I feel myself letting go the hand of this fine old word, and letting liberal flow into the maw of the sewage drain. It is sad. You may fire at will.

My lack of proper communication Mr 280!

My post was a direct reply to Goodpasture. He is the new guy, (I think)

Sorry for the confusion, my post did come directly after yours so perhaps you thought it was directed directly to you, which it weren't! LOL

Even though Barak is smart, I get the distinct impression he can take a punch! You should see his face! LOL, and taking a punch is half the fight, so maybe Barak would be a great ally in a brawl!

In answer to the question I know that Harry Reid took money but refuses to give any back since he doesn't want to. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So did Kennedy and most of the demo leadership. None that I am aware of are giving their back shince this is a republican scandal per them. I'm sure they are still chaffing after having to give back the 300K the Red Chinese intell gave them for nuclear secrets. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My mistake, Dixie! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> And I do consider Barak an ally! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okanagan,

An excellent post, sir. Excellent.

Sen Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor both dems from arkansas have recieved contributions. Harry Reid sen minority leader and is refusing to give it back. Nancy Pelosi and Charley Wrangle, Sen Max Baucus, Bryan Dorgan all dems. Patrick Kennedy also. Both patry's equally accepted political donations.

Okanagan,

"Historic" liberalism I cannot disagree with. I too would
probably fit that category?

My problem is when one of those good ole liberals become that coercive socialist of which you speak and tries(or accomplishes) making his own views law, and thus binding upon the rest of us.

From what I can see, I disagree with little of your post.
Semantics, well....I kinda like to cut through the verbal
crap, and don't always display my more "tolerant" side
nowadays.

When I was 17, your quote from Patrick Henry was a favorite
of mine. I loved this country and what it stood for. But,
now, at the age of 61, I no longer suscribe to his statement
of defending that with which I disagree.

I lost childhood friends in Viet Nam, and have a genuine WWII
hero for an uncle. (He died on Iwo Jima - two silver stars, one bronze star, nominated for the Medal of Honor, etc.)

When I see that these brave men fought and died for freedom
and then those who have anti-american ideas and voices have
made them into law, resulting in a PC america I no longer love
or respect....In my mind they died for NOTHING! The 6% fight
for and some must die for freedom and the other 94% make hay, and unconstitutional laws!

So I don't believe in Patrick Henry's statement anymore!
My only regret is that it is illegal to engage these people in
the same manner we engage other enemies on the battlefield!

Fire at you, sir? No, I salute you instead! There are many
"liberal" ideals I espouse myself, but I believe my actions
in these areas were intended to be voluntary and from my compassionate heart, not cold and coerced, and intended to
cultivate political favor with those who receive.

So, sir, it is not necessarily the agenda I always disagree
with, but the manner in which it is applied! Coercision is
unamerican at the very least!

What shall we call these anti-freedom people regardless of from which side of the aisle they speak? We cannot seem to get by the term "liberal", let alone begin to address the FASCISTS! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> And how do we relate to the 94%
who benefit from what the 6% fight and die for, yet resemble
more a collaborater than a fellow soldier?

What am I to do? My form of patriotism allows nothing but
disgust and disdain for 94% of the population. It's not
because I'm intolerant. It's because these people have proven they cannot be trusted with MY FREEDOM! They
are either coercive socialists, or support them, or they are
fascists which seem to be getting a free ride while we debate
what is actually liberalism.

From what I can see, present day politics is a misuse of an
old syaing. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". This
is an incorrect view. What it does is take good meaning people who have a disdain for "social coercion" (democrats)
and push them into the camps of the FASCISTS! (republicans)

This is always a lose, lose situation, is it not? To take this
present theory to its' logical conclusion would make muslim
terrorists our friends? WOW! Isn't that a revolting thought?
I think the post WWII cold war proved the error of that
policy?

Whenever I can avoid it, I no longer fight the political fight.
My concern is more spiritual. The good book says, "Because
iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold". I
have taken this as my personal mantra. You see, I was
not outraged by the attack on NEW YORK CITY. My only regret was that they didn't level the whole damn LIBERAL place! If coercive solcialists and fascists are the enemy,
how many Americans did we actually lose that day?

But I consider that view a personal spiritual problem rather
than a political one!

So, good sir, your time is not wasted. You have spoken my mind much better than my inferior intellect could ever do! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
I need your prayers that I regain my true liberal compassion,
more than I need intellectual instruction on semantics! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Surprise, surprise! If it were possible to judge with absolutely no bias, do you think ANY politician would be found to be
honest, moral and ethical?

The terms, honest politician, ethical politician, moral politician
or fair judge, etc. are like the term "Military intellegence".

An oxymoron! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Wow .... finally you said something I can agree with <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If you agree with that, Dutchess, I doubt we would disagree
on little else....we are probably separated by little more than
SEMANTCS as another poster has suggested! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Goodpasture,
I too am a newbie here, although I have been lurking for some time. I could not agree more with these views, and I would not be quick to call you a liberal sir. I think this philosophy falls under the libertarian point of view, but I don't like that label either, at least as it's being used nowdays.

SitkaDeer,
Me too! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

VAnimrod,
You sir, I emphatically agree with.
We need more people in this once great nation to take of their blinders and see the reality of the situation we find ourselvs in. NONE OF THESE SO CALLED "LIBERALS" OR "CONSERVATIVES" CURRENTLY "SERVING" IN WASHINGTON IS OUR FREINDS. For one thing they are Socialists and fascists if some label absolutely must be applied. These would be the most accurate IMHO. The problem with any labels, and esspecially "Liberal" and "Conservative" Is that they only really fit the far ends of the spectrum as applied today. The vast majority of Americans lie in between, are not being represented at all, and need to take a look around. When the novacaine wears off, we are all going to find ourselves with some mighty sore A$$holes otherwise. Just my two cents.

I just changed my handle, it used to be sdm. If one does a search of my posts, under either name, you will see why and where I am coming from. I read these forums far more than I post, as that is the best way to learn from the many knowledgable people here. I am glad to be included and value any intelligent debate which involves facts and reasoned opinions. I abhor regurgitation of party rhetoric or the talking heads on T.V.(which I am also coming to abhor in some ways).

This does not mean that I disagree with everything every politician or talkshow host has to say, only that when I see or hear positions which strictly adhere to some rigid party driven doctrine, I believe I am seeing or hearing the position of a sycophant, a corrupt individual, a spinmeister, or a naive, easily lead individual who is not really sure what they believe. None of these are going to contribute to the continued liberty of Americans, but "passive aggressively" detract from it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Two of them have libertarian aspects, but it's not a standard libertarian slate, no--not by any means.


Taking away people's freedom to elect whomever they want is not libertarian. (Of course, democracy itself is not overly libertarian either; but on that point you have to keep in mind that you're reading an anarchist libertarian, not a minarchist one.)


More limitations on electoral choice. Not libertarian.


Socialist, not libertarian. Or perhaps in less extreme terms, liberal.


If he's talking about his own politician, then it's just business, not political. If he's talking about telling everyone else what they have to do with their politicians, then it's decidedly not libertarian.


That much is a move in the libertarian direction. All the bloodthirsty "capital offense" stuff, though, is not. Libertarians do not advocate governments killing larger numbers of their subjects.


To the extent that this promotes self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, it's libertarian; to the extent that it has overtones of government schools and government mandates, it's not.

Barak, your objective lens has a far finer focus than mine. You are very correct. I agree with much of what Goodpasture said on the basic principal that these issues need a good shaking up so that people will stop looking at them through a toilet paper tube, and seeing the fact that there are other points of view which are just as valid as their own. These things affect all of us in one way or another, so we need to stop taking the word of others and informing ourselves, and our opinions. That is the value of debate. Having someone with a different perspective than your own show you things in a different light is always an eye opening experience. As long as the point of view is an informed one. I wasn't blanketly applying the libertarian label, but seeing some shades of that philosophy and making an inquiry at the same time.
Shaun

Goodpasture,
I thought about what I was gonna see here,on the Campfire, when
I got home from work. I figger'd I'd get piled on for my fowl language.I also thought that maybe, I should apologize for
presuming that Goodpasture was trolling(remember,I have been at this fire before,I have read Goodpasture's posts).Well,things have really changed on this thread...Some of the BEST posts' on our country and politics that I've seen since I joined this fire.Well done!!!
I want to apologize to all here for my fowl language,it was uncalled for...
I DO think thay Goodpasture posted Howard Dean quotes to get a particular response,and he got exactily what he wanted and expected.
Goodpasture,I gave you the opportunity to PM me about this thread and you insulted me,called me names and declined.
If you would have PM'd me,maybe you would have found out that I am not a "BIGOT". You would have found out that I will give someone a chance before I dislike them...You had your chance...
I'll not forget this thread Goodpasture...You made an impression that probably won't go away!
Bart

Bart, you are wrong now and you were wrong then. It is not trolling when a person presents a question, and opens a discussion. It only appears to be when someone like yourself choses to get offensive when it is totaly unnecessary.

And while I appreciate you "giving me a chance" before you dislike me, all I can say, is that you had your chance to be a civil and mature man of integrity. As far as I am concerned you failed miserably all the way around. Your childish tantrums and whinings convinced me that you have nothing worth listening to, and, as of now, nothing worth responding to.

So you are not going to forget this thread? How very mature of you. So I made an impression that probably won't go away? That is such a horrible fate, I don't think I can stand it. Again, you level of maturity is coming across loud and clear.

I suppose now I should be scared that you might throw a tantrum. Would like some brie to go with that whine? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Goodpasture,
Click on my username...
On my profile page,choose the tab that says"Ignore this user"
Click that tab...Please click it!!!!
Remember, I didn't take back anything that I said to you...I mean every word...You are a pathetic troll...Bye Bye...

Bart

Blessed are the peace makers...

Hey Bart, you off your medication or what?

I guess you haven't been listening close enough. I've
repeatedly said I view LIBERALS as the ENEMY. even more so
than someone in the Chinese army!
----------------------------------------------------------

Man, that puts me in a jackpot because my mother is a liberal; and where she can drive me crazy sometimes I never though of her as a Chi-Com. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

My granddad had the same feelings. Only instead of liberals he hated blacks (he didn't call them that, though).....not for anything except for what they were........and Jews were pretty high on his list of things to hate as well. He seemed to think that Marlin Luther King Jr got what he deserved and that Hitler should have finished the job..............but then most the folks he hung with at his Klub agreed with him.

I bet the folks you hang with at your Klub agree with you, don't they?

I agree with the shaking-up part; but the answer is not going to come from one person or one group of people being placed by a stroke of either luck or genius in some position of power where they can make sudden and sweeping changes. A people always has the government that it deserves, regardless of its form. Right now, the US is chiefly peopled with what I have historically referred to as Livestock. Livestock need a strong, supportive (read big and intrusive) government to survive, because they are no more capable of surviving on their own than dairy cattle would be turned out into wolf country. If through some political masterstroke you succeed in taking that government away from them, they will instantly start screaming to get it back--and somebody will give it to them, whether you like it or not. Livestock will always be slaves, regardless of their situation.

Free Men are not people who have arranged some sort of political understanding with their government regarding the balance of power and liberty; they're the sort of folks that you would never even consider trying to capture and rule, regardless of the number of armed men you command, lest you wake up the next morning with the cage torn to shreds and your own throat slashed from ear to ear. You might kill a Free Man, but you will never govern him. Free Men will always be free, regardless of their situation.

As far as I can see, the options facing people who wish to advocate liberty in this country today are two:

Become a Free Man. You can do it today, right where you sit, with a simple (or in some ways not so simple) mental adjustment of attitude. But you have to be prepared to pay the cost, which may be very high indeed (much higher than your own life, if there are people you love who are vulnerable to the forces that would like to enslave you), and you can't ever make anybody else a Free Man--only yourself.

If after careful consideration you decide that the current price of freedom is higher than you want to pay--and there is no shame in that, it's a simple business decision--then you can work to lower that price, by striving to convert the people around you from Livestock to Free Men. The price of freedom falls as it's amortized over more and more people. That's a much more difficult, frustrating, and discouraging option, but it comes with a cheaper price tag, and you could argue that it has wider benefits than simply becoming a Free Man yourself, although that isn't clear.

But pushing for this or that government reform or candidate--I can't call that advocating liberty. For one thing, it's actually advocating more comfortable slavery, which is the way to increase slavery, not reduce it; and for another, you must always remember that a people has the government it deserves. If you somehow manage to give people a government they don't deserve--in whatever direction--they will quickly adjust it to fit them once again. Changing the government won't do you a lick of good; it's the people who have to change. Then you can use that maxim to your benefit: once they change far enough that the government no longer fits, they will take care of adjusting it; you won't have to do a thing.

No Va you are not right. Don HATES any one that dissagrees with him in any way shape or form. I sincerely ask you what could be more UN-American that that? Don has posted he was pleased that 9-11 took place and dissapointed that the whole of NY wasn't leveled. I know exactly what your response will be as your a level headed guy who can debate in articulate fashion, But between you and I, I dont think it was just sarcasm. Don seems fixated on 6% which is likely sum of people that might agree with his extreme political views world wide. But then I think he tends to exagerate a bit. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Stetson,

I've communicated with Don on numerous occasions, and know that if I needed help, he'd do what he could. And I would reciprocate if needed on his end. Don may be a lot of things, but un-American is not one of them. Hurt, because of the loss of the America that he loves? Yes. Angry, because of that same loss? Yes. But, un-American? No; never.

Don's a good man, I know and believe this, regardless of whether he and I see eye-to-eye all the time.

I completely dissagree. Do you to feel joy about 9-11? You may think he's a good guy but then there are those who would say the same thing about Hitler, Stalin and even <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Bill clinton. Tell me he has the congessional medal of honor and four purple hearts and I'll understand but still dissagree. Right now all I see is hate. Intolerance of EVERYTHING is simply Vile and that to me is as UN-AMERICAN as it gets. If people like Don represent a majority of those against the liberals then we are all in bad shape. I think there are just people who love to hate and are anti-social on every level. What can you honestly say about a guy that seems to grandstand on civel war? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Of course thats just my 2 cents.

Well, I can honestly say that if you're that easily offended, then for your own health (avoidance of high blood pressure, apoplexy, stroke, forehead laceration and minor concussion, etc.) it'd probably be best for you to click on my username and put me on Ignore before you do anything else. 280don and I probably have our differences (I'm assuming--it's true of most people), but if expressing politically incorrect, outside-the-herd opinions is un-American, then we're both pretty un-American. If that steams you all up, then hey, brother, I'm just lookin' out for ya here.

Nope not offended at all. Pretty damned shocked that someone who can look in the mirror or preach some BS about what America is or is not takes joy in 9-11. Stunned, chilled, sickened. But offended or need to hide from it? LMAO you must be joking right? It is your right to express your opinion, without being hated or degraded. So I'm not offended by Don and after thinking on it a might I'm sure he is probably not even un-american. Psychotic, maybe. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />