Centrists

[sealybobo]

We want nothing to do with your gay ass... PERIOD. You keep your twisted devient sexual cravings to yourself and off the kids and we could not care less.
'

Oh but you do care. If you didn't care what gays were doing in bed, you would be able to see that you are discriminating against them for unfair reason.

Take the gay sex out of it and you have no reason why they shouldn't be able to get married. It is the homosexual acts you mind. Admit it. So why are you going there? I think you deep down are gay and that makes you very very angry.

Why can't gays get married so they can:

Take advantage of the tax breaks that straights couples get?

Make life decisions for each other in the hospital?

When one dies, the other one gets all their stuff. Right now, the family of the one that died have legal claim to all that stuff.

Share health insurance.

You can't marry a sheep because that is illegal.
You can't marry your sister because that is illegal.
Marrying a minor is against the law.
It isn't against the law to be gay.

 

[sealybobo]

Political posturing by playing a semantics game is the political game we play here in America, I'll readily admit that.

They are BOTH insiders now, far as I can tell.

If this bail out has any value to us at all (and given what it's going to cost I surely hope it does) then the value of it, is to show some of us that the the REAL GAME IN TOWN is not left v right but US v Them.

For those of you keeping score, THEM is winning, FYI

I should stop defending Obama because it remains to be seen if he is going to work for us or them.

Stay tuned.

My bet is that the next $350 billion WILL go to help struggling home owners. Banks will be held accountable for the next $350 bill and the economy will get better for the middle class because of democratic policies.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Centrists are people who have the ability to take both sides of an issue into account, and not be judgmental about it if it doesn't concern them. It's a concept far and away beyond anything you could possibly grasp.

Well then I MUST be a Centrists... as I always take both sides into account.

I have to disagree with ya here Guns... While I agree that Centrists take both sides into account, they're often incapable of recognizing the flaws in the reasoning, thus they're prone to baseless emotional tugs such as the oft' sited: Audacity of hope...

Centrists gave us the almost all of the tyrannical regimes in modern times... voting in power-thirsty leftists on the 'hope' of establishing equity with the ethereal cultural monsters causing their problems... Jews, Business, "the Rich" (all pretty much the same vaporous bunch). Without the mindless 'consideration for both sides' those disasters could have been readily avoided.

There is no good point EVER being advanced by the left... and I stand ready to discuss any ideological candidates (by way of would-be 'good leftist ideas) if you so desire.

Point being that Centrists love to trot out their open mind, when the context of the given issues do not present an opportunity for an open mind to be an asset. For instance, there's two pre-teen kids, a pack of matches and a can of Gasoline... One option is to destroy the mathes, close the door to the fuel locker and walk away; the other is to take the matches and fuel and do so combustion experiments...

Where's the value of an open mind here?

The values 'pre-teen, gasoline and the viable ignition source' delete any potential value in any option other than destroying the ignition source and locking the fuel behind the door and walking away... as the other option is the certain path to disaster.

Change the values and we can consider the new equation... but an open mind on that farce only adds to the certainty of catastrophe.

With respect... Clearly, the point is made and frankly, it's incontrovertible...

Love,
PI

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are a wacko. It would take all day to explain why everything you said was wrong. I just erased it all because it was all garbage. But no doubt you really believe the lies/untruths you are saying. You are freakin or a or a combination of both.

How do you type with a straight jacket on?

Ahh... So you WANT to disagree, you just do not possess the intellectual means to express yourself... you 'feel' my position is erroneous, you just don't know why... which sets you squarely in the Moderate/Centrist to hard left category OKA: THE DUMBASS that has NO BUSINESS VOTING.

Congrats... you're certified!

 

[Caligirl]

Yes, I thought that too until I heard a long discussion about it. Now I see things a little differently. I'm open to changing my opinion. Are you? Seems like you are set in stone on everything. And you are always right. Ever change your mind? About what?

Anyways, the article I attached makes some very good points. For one, we don't need to meet the GOP in the middle. We're in power now. The country has spoken. We are a left of center country. So Obama should rule from the left of center.

And did you read Tom Delay's book? He admits this tactic is very successful in getting your way in Washington. If Obama starts at the center, then the GOP will no doubt try to pull him to the right.

And the left made Obama the president, so he should work for them. Just like Bush catered to the rich for their support.

You just don't want the country to move to the left. Sorry, nothing you can do about it.

You are determined to see the democrats fail.

Why you would cite DeLay who was indited etc etc and who is is thought of porly pretty far and wide is a mystery to me. Would you cite Nixon and encourage the dems to use his tactics? Those were successful for a good spell too.

 

[sealybobo]

Ahh... So you WANT to disagree, you just do not possess the intellectual means to express yourself... you 'feel' my position is erroneous, you just don't know why... which sets you squarely in the Moderate/Centrist to hard left category OKA: THE DUMBASS that has NO BUSINESS VOTING.

Congrats... you're certified!

I'm at work and you are wrong on so many levels that it would take a novel. And in the end, you won't get it anyways.

I just had to tell you your post was wack.

 

[editec]

I should stop defending Obama because it remains to be seen if he is going to work for us or them.

Stay tuned.

My bet is that the next $350 billion WILL go to help struggling home owners. Banks will be held accountable for the next $350 bill and the economy will get better for the middle class because of democratic policies.

That's what we're hearing from the Dems, Sealy.

So far, all we know is what they're NOT telling us.

Like what the money is being used for.

There is NO TRANSPARENCY in this process, far as I can tell.

The DEMS are, far as I am concerned, screwing this up.

The money should NOT be saving the bond holders or the banks.

They BOTH knew what they were doing, and AFAIC they can go down in flames.

Every forking cent they spend should be going to the PEOPLE, not to the INSIDERS who caused this mess.

We've had 40 years of trickle down, it's time to try trickle UP for a change.

 

[sealybobo]

You are determined to see the democrats fail.

Why you would cite DeLay who was indited etc etc and who is is thought of porly pretty far and wide is a mystery to me. Would you cite Nixon and encourage the dems to use his tactics? Those were successful for a good spell too.

I get what you are saying.

But we all know that Democrats are pussies and they need to stop that. They are all too willing to compromise with Republicans when Republicans never gave an inch.

Like giving the telecoms immunity. We should have said fuck that.

Like not holding impeachment hearings when the left wanted them.

Like not ending the war when that is why we elected them in 06.

So a lot of people feel disinfanchised and the Dems are making it easy for the right to say, "see, no change".

And like not holding investigations on all the illegal things the Bush team did when they were in office so it may never happen again. The GOP will scream that the dems are playing politics. And I hope the dems don't cower and cave.

 

[sealybobo]

That's what we're hearing from the Dems, Sealy.

So far, all we know is what they're NOT telling us.

Like what the money is being used for.

There is NO TRANSPARENCY in this process, far as I can tell.

The DEMS are, far as I am concerned, screwing this up.

The money should NOT be saving the bond holders or the banks.

They BOTH knew what they were doing, and AFAIC they can go down in flames.

Every forking cent they spend should be going to the PEOPLE, not to the INSIDERS who caused this mess.

We've had 40 years of trickle down, it's time to try trickle UP for a change.

Bush said there would be transparency. No there has not been any. The Dems were powerless. All they could do was give or not give Bush the money.

The dems are telling you that there has been no transparency.

They say there will be when Obama is in office. That won't be until 1-20-09.

You are bashing Obama for what Bush has done. Stay tuned to see what Obama does. You are premature.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I am also hoping that at this time Obama is keeping a low profile on what he intends to do with issue like the transparency and the possible prosecutions.

I don't think it will help if he telegraphs too much now and gets the right wing spin machine putting out its crap already.

If he does not live up to my expectations, I will admit it unlike some Bush hemorhoids who still cling to his anus like faithful little Dingle Berrys and Publius Putzes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh but you do care. If you didn't care what gays were doing in bed, you would be able to see that you are discriminating against them for unfair reason.

Take the gay sex out of it and you have no reason why they shouldn't be able to get married.

Who said queers aren't able to get married? Certainly not me? I believe anyone who wants to get married has a right to marry anyone that they can convince to marry them... this on the understanding that marriage is DEFINED AS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WO-MAN... Just as anyone that wants to be a Doctor has a right to become a Doctor, as LONG AS THEY MEET THE REQUIRED THRESHOLD WHICH DETERMINES WHO IS SUITABLE FOR THE POSITION.

Where I disagree with the queers is in there irrational desire to change the threshold of marriage...

I'd ask if you understand, but you're a Centrist/Moderate to stupified leftist, thus reason is off your scale.

It is the homosexual acts you mind. Admit it. So why are you going there? I think you deep down are gay and that makes you very very angry.

False... if two men want to engage in sexual intercourse, that is there business... Oh sure they're going straight to hell, but that's there call... I just do not want to hear about it, and I specifically do not want to hear they cries to normalize public acceptance of their deviency, just so they can feel better about themselves... They're queer... odd and unusual and changing the name, changing the cultural threshold is not going to change THAT.

Why can't gays get married

No one said they can't... you keep pretending that there is a law preventing queers from getting married... THERE IS NOT! They simply have to recognize that they're rights are the same as everyone elses and that means that to marry they must be joining with a person of the opposite gender.

What you people want are "SPECIAL RIGHTS" to give YOU the right to marry people of the same gender... But ya see, MARRIAGE is the union of a MAN AND A WOMAN... that goes for queers and non-queers alike and could not be MORE "FAIR"...

Take advantage of the tax breaks that straights couples get?

Make life decisions for each other in the hospital?

When one dies, the other one gets all their stuff. Right now, the family of the one that died have legal claim to all that stuff.

Share health insurance.

Sounds like you need to look into 'incorporation'... All those are a function of incorporating with many additional tax advantages... As to 'the same straight couples get...' You're NOT Straight... I know it's well beyond your intellectual means... but IF you want the advantages of being straight... perhaps you should consider BEING STRAIGHT!

You can't marry a sheep because that is illegal.
You can't marry your sister because that is illegal.
Marrying a minor is against the law.
It isn't against the law to be gay.

All true... But ya can't marry a sheep because that would be the joining of species... ton's of potential health and other risks to the culture there..

Ya can't marry your sibling because it creates health problems for the culture...

Ya can't marry a minor, because IT creates health problems for the culture and the same is true for QUEERDOM... the distinction being that MODERATES have succumbed to the fallacious emotional appeals of the queer-lobby (Special interests) and as a result have set the culture on the path where sexual inclination is a would-be basis for cultural accommodation, without regard for the catastrophic ramifications...

Yet another FIRST-CLASS example of the deleterious effect that moderates bring to whatever culture in which they impart their influence.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm at work and you are wrong on so many levels that it would take a novel. And in the end, you won't get it anyways.

I just had to tell you your post was wack.

Yes.. I hear that you 'feel' that I am wrong... just as I 'see' that you're wholly incapable of expressing a intellectually sound, logically valid argument establishing a reasoned basis for those 'feelings'... thus your feelings are baseless... possessing no discernible, reasoned rationale. You want to rationalize that the calculation is too complex to express, which is in and of itself your own expressed delusion that you KNOW the reason, ya just can't come to express it, due to the effort required to do so...

As noted above... you're a certified imbecile.

Congrats!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am also hoping that at this time Obama is keeping a low profile on what he intends to do with issue like the transparency and the possible prosecutions.

Oh I hope he gets right on that... Nothing will see a quicker end to his destructive potential if he just cranks out overt subversion right off the bat.

Here's HOPIN'!

 

[sealybobo]

I am also hoping that at this time Obama is keeping a low profile on what he intends to do with issue like the transparency and the possible prosecutions.

I don't think it will help if he telegraphs too much now and gets the right wing spin machine putting out its crap already.

If he does not live up to my expectations, I will admit it unlike some Bush hemorhoids who still cling to his anus like faithful little Dingle Berrys and Publius Putzes.

Exactly Ray. I'm not going to defend Obama if he fucks us over.

And I can't believe middle class Americans did that for the GOP. Why? Stubborness? Pride? Embarrassment? Who knows.

And I agree. Hell, the right wing spin is already flying and Obama hasn't even begun yet. Imagine when he does.

No honeymoon for Obama.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes.. I hear that you 'feel' that I am wrong... just as I 'see' that you're wholly incapable of expressing a intellectually sound, logically valid argument establishing a reasoned basis for those 'feelings'... thus your feelings are baseless... possessing no discernible, reasoned rationale. You want to rationalize that the calculation is too complex to express, which is in and of itself your own expressed delusion that you KNOW the reason, ya just can't come to express it, due to the effort required to do so...

As noted above... you're a certified imbecile.

Congrats!

I love it when simpletons try to write like they are one of the Crain boys on Frasier.

Not just incapable, but wholly

Not just a valid argument, but a intellectually sound, logically valid one.


discernible, reasoned rationale


calculation is too complex to express, which is in and of itself your own expressed delusion......

Whatever fagboy.

You aren't going to sucker me in.

 

[sealybobo]

Who said queers aren't able to get married? Certainly not me? I believe anyone who wants to get married has a right to marry anyone that they can convince to marry them... this on the understanding that marriage is DEFINED AS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WO-MAN... Just as anyone that wants to be a Doctor has a right to become a Doctor, as LONG AS THEY MEET THE REQUIRED THRESHOLD WHICH DETERMINES WHO IS SUITABLE FOR THE POSITION.

Where I disagree with the queers is in there irrational desire to change the threshold of marriage...

I'd ask if you understand, but you're a Centrist/Moderate to stupified leftist, thus reason is off your scale.





False... if two men want to engage in sexual intercourse, that is there business... Oh sure they're going straight to hell, but that's there call... I just do not want to hear about it, and I specifically do not want to hear they cries to normalize public acceptance of their deviency, just so they can feel better about themselves... They're queer... odd and unusual and changing the name, changing the cultural threshold is not going to change THAT.



No one said they can't... you keep pretending that there is a law preventing queers from getting married... THERE IS NOT! They simply have to recognize that they're rights are the same as everyone elses and that means that to marry they must be joining with a person of the opposite gender.

What you people want are "SPECIAL RIGHTS" to give YOU the right to marry people of the same gender... But ya see, MARRIAGE is the union of a MAN AND A WOMAN... that goes for queers and non-queers alike and could not be MORE "FAIR"...



Sounds like you need to look into 'incorporation'... All those are a function of incorporating with many additional tax advantages... As to 'the same straight couples get...' You're NOT Straight... I know it's well beyond your intellectual means... but IF you want the advantages of being straight... perhaps you should consider BEING STRAIGHT!



All true... But ya can't marry a sheep because that would be the joining of species... ton's of potential health and other risks to the culture there..

Ya can't marry your sibling because it creates health problems for the culture...

Ya can't marry a minor, because IT creates health problems for the culture and the same is true for QUEERDOM... the distinction being that MODERATES have succumbed to the fallacious emotional appeals of the queer-lobby (Special interests) and as a result have set the culture on the path where sexual inclination is a would-be basis for cultural accommodation, without regard for the catastrophic ramifications...

Yet another FIRST-CLASS example of the deleterious effect that moderates bring to whatever culture in which they impart their influence.

So instead of insisting that marriage is defined as between a woman and a man, lets change that so that same sex people can also get married.

You are brilliant!!!

PS. I didn't read your whole rant because you bore me, but what's up with this:

deleterious effect

Do you have a thesaurus in front of you or something?

No one talks the way you write. It is so obvious you are trying to sound/come off as smart. Not working.

 

[sealybobo]

That's what we're hearing from the Dems, Sealy.

So far, all we know is what they're NOT telling us.

Like what the money is being used for.

There is NO TRANSPARENCY in this process, far as I can tell.

The DEMS are, far as I am concerned, screwing this up.

The money should NOT be saving the bond holders or the banks.

They BOTH knew what they were doing, and AFAIC they can go down in flames.

Every forking cent they spend should be going to the PEOPLE, not to the INSIDERS who caused this mess.

We've had 40 years of trickle down, it's time to try trickle UP for a change.

Hey, I was just listening to Bernie Sanders on Thom Hartman's show. He said, "Obama is going to have a very difficult time dealing with the special interest in washington".

Special interests/big corporations have a lot of power. It is not going to be easy to take them on.

And Obama can't do it alone. Bernie said, "it's important to call your Congressmen & Senators to tell them what you want them to do. Because no doubt special interest/corporations are going to be in their face trying to get them to do what they want them to do".

So will Obama be able to take special interest on? No doubt it will not be easy.

But you seem to suggest he WON'T even try. That they already sunk their claws into him. I really hope that isn't the case.

Now you might be suggesting that he CAN'T take them on. That's different than won't.

I'm curious if any Republicans/Conservatives share your opinion? The reason I ask is that the last 8 years I have been telling them that special interest/corporations own their party and they denied it.

If they believe this is true with Obama, then they must have been yanking my chain the last 8 years defending Bush.

They were convinced that it would be a good thing if the president catered exclusively to the rich and corporations. They thought it would all trickle down.

So I don't want to hear any republicans crying that Obama is owned by the rich corporations, because that should make them very happy. They sure defended it and or denied it when Bush was in charge.

So I respect hearing this from you editec because you aren't a hypocrite.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I'd ask if you understand, but you're a Centrist/Moderate to stupified leftist, thus reason is off your scale.

I won't ask you to understand anyone who doesn't agree with you Pogo. I don't think you are capable of any kind of empathy with anyone that doesn't agree with you. I guess that might make you dupified?

What exactly is your IQ, if you know? I haven't run into someone so closed minded in quite a while and am just interested what the correlation might be between stupidity and intolerance?

As to going to hell for gay sex, what about hate? Isn't that one of the big ones also.

If I ask myself WWJD, it is probably the opposite of what Pogo would do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I love it when simpletons try to write like they are one of the Crain boys on Frasier.

Not just incapable, but wholly

Not just a valid argument, but a intellectually sound, logically valid one.


discernible, reasoned rationale


calculation is too complex to express, which is in and of itself your own expressed delusion......

Whatever fagboy. <<< LOL... Notice this example of the aformentioned tossing of the sacred queer cow from the leftist cart, through a thinly vieled denigration of queers.

You aren't going to sucker me in.

And STILL... you find opportunity and fail to take advantage; resting a new FASCINATION with the oppositions writing style in it's stead... fallaciously claiming that the assessment of your abject failure is some sort of 'trick.'

LOL... Leftists...

Again, your default concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So instead of insisting that marriage is defined as between a woman and a man, lets change that so that same sex people can also get married.

Well SURE... Let's just change cultural standards to normalize deviancy... perhaps we can change 'that' which says that money in the bank which is NOT in your account doesn't belong to you... that way people that need money can just walk in and get it, without the added hassle of shoving a gun in the face of the teller...

Perhaps we should change 'that' standard where pre-pubescent children are not able to determine who gets to touch what are present considered 'private-parts'... that way people that 'are born' with the sexual desire for touching such parts can do so without fear of legal prosecution... of course we should also change the 'that' which prevents the parents of children whose 'private-parts' were touched from shooting the toucher in their head... that way THEY won't have to worry about legal prosecution.

Now SOME might argue that such cultural standards rest upon sound, bedrock principle and adjusting them to accommodate the self image of the given deviant may not be wise, as such is certain to encourage more of that behavior which is in need of being discouraged, for any number of reasons.

You are brilliant!!!

LOL... Not really, I just appear to be brilliant when I'm in the same room with the likes of YOU.

PS. I didn't read your whole rant because you bore me, but what's up with this:

deleterious effect

No doubt that is true... from your perspective. You seem much more comfortable with clichés and advancing ethereal myth and ad populum drivel as fact. So that serves reason. As to your query, it's a rhetorical descriptive; a phrase used to describe, in this case, results predicated from the relevant circumstances described in the piece from which it's drawn; and yes... it's rather sad that you need to ask.

No one talks the way you write. It is so obvious you are trying to sound/come off as smart. Not working.

No one? Well that's clearly false, as I write exactly as I speak... But I suppose you're speaking to the abundance of ignorance to which you're exposed, as a result of chronic exposure to what stands for dialogue in your circles.