what a reasonable group of people

[Bern80]

He didn't call Bush a liberal? Gee, maybe I figured that out when I said "Lmao...Bush is NOT "a little right of center". Or do you interpret "little right of center" to mean liberal?

And really...make sure you've read something correctly before admonitioning me about reading comprehension. I am very good at it. You, not so much. So before you try to correct me, read it over again so I don't have to embarass you again. Not fun for you, and while its amusing for me, I would rather not waste my time.

You assume that anything that does not fit into traditional conservatism fits into liberalism.

Guess I just have to start reposting what you wrote until you get it, huh? The statement says you believe he did.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

I see you failed to read my entire post.

Let me put it to you this way: While WE may not be okay with people getting beaten and tortured, etc, etc for one thing, we ARE okay with them getting corporal and capital punishments for others. THEY may not be okay with what we believe are good reasons for inflicting physical pain on people for doing certain things. Vice versa!

Just because we have a different belief system than they do, doesnt make ours right and theirs wrong.

Look at it this way- maybe if WE hadnt committed sexual crimes against our prisoners (their soldiers and informants) then maybe our soldiers wouldnt have been beheaded, and executed in other ways. WE might think that taking naked pictures of men while we force them to bend over each other doggy style is NO BIG DEAL, but they certainly DO, and WE need to fucking respect that, man. WE may think that its a huge deal that our men were killed for "no reason", but thats not how it is.

For US, murder is the bigger issue. For THEM, sexual/ biblical deviancy is the biggest issue. When we respect theim, they will most likely respect us.
We have to respect that in different parts of the world, people are DIFFERENT. (OMG!)

But…but….every American child knows that the Wholly Babble says that those religiously different from “true believers” (Merkins only) must die!

Indeed, it says their excruciatingly agonizing death must drag out forever. Presumably while God strops himself off in perpetuity to this pornographic scene of mass slaughter, which is his Teutonic Final Solution to the sinner problem he himself created.

Meanwhile the now neutered decent God felching folk look on gloatingly, like gore adoring spectators at the Roman Coliseum.

And if you don’t believe all this, then you too are destined for the Final Solution!

 

[Larkinn]

Yes yes, all us inferiors will now bow and scrape before the towering intellect of You Larkinn. Please bless us with more words of wisdom and intelligence so that our days will be a little brighter just knowing you have stooped so low as to cast pearls before swine.

We should all say a prayer that you continue stooping to our low level of intelligence and continue to provide guidance and words of wit and wisdom for us misguided ignorant hicks and fools.

Ohh and thanks for taking time out of your busy day and trying to improve our lot in life. I hope you aren't late to your class that none of us are smart enough to even attend. Thank you, Thank you.

Talking about yourself in the plural again? Get help son(s).

 

[Larkinn]

Guess I just have to start reposting what you wrote until you get it, huh? The statement says you believe he did.

No, it doesn't.

As I said before make sure you've read something correctly.

Is Bush a thing? No? Then tell me what are things. Chairs, printers, beliefs...so because some THING (a.k.a. a belief) does not fit into Conservatism does not mean it fits into Liberalism....are you claiming Bush is a liberal? no...are you claiming some of his beliefs are?...yes. Hence, the distinction. Not very subtle, pretty obvious, but apparently you just love this game of making me explain simple concepts to you. Bush is not a "true" conservative, but do not assume that when his positions are not conservative they are then liberal...that is folly. And no, "spending money" is not a liberal belief...spending money on social programs is a liberal belief, which Bush has not done.

 

[Bern80]

No, it doesn't.

As I said before make sure you've read something correctly.

Is Bush a thing? No? Then tell me what are things. Chairs, printers, beliefs...so because some THING (a.k.a. a belief) does not fit into Conservatism does not mean it fits into Liberalism....are you claiming Bush is a liberal? no...are you claiming some of his beliefs are?...yes. Hence, the distinction. Not very subtle, pretty obvious, but apparently you just love this game of making me explain simple concepts to you. Bush is not a "true" conservative, but do not assume that when his positions are not conservative they are then liberal...that is folly. And no, "spending money" is not a liberal belief...spending money on social programs is a liberal belief, which Bush has not done.

You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with Bush.

It has to do with you claiming that RGS said he was liberal, which you did, despite RGS saying he is right of center. Your implication from the sentence I reposted is that because RGS thinks he's right of center, RGS thinks he's liberal. It was meant to point out how you over exaggerate or just plain falsify the statements of pretty much everyone you disagree with.

 

[Bern80]

No, it doesn't.

As I said before make sure you've read something correctly.

Is Bush a thing? No? Then tell me what are things. Chairs, printers, beliefs...so because some THING (a.k.a. a belief) does not fit into Conservatism does not mean it fits into Liberalism....are you claiming Bush is a liberal? no...are you claiming some of his beliefs are?...yes. Hence, the distinction. Not very subtle, pretty obvious, but apparently you just love this game of making me explain simple concepts to you. Bush is not a "true" conservative, but do not assume that when his positions are not conservative they are then liberal...that is folly. And no, "spending money" is not a liberal belief...spending money on social programs is a liberal belief, which Bush has not done.

You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with Bush.

It has to do with you claiming that RGS said he was liberal, which you did, despite RGS saying he is right of center. Your implication from the above sentence is that because RGS thinks he's right of center, RGS thinks he's liberal. It was meant to point out how you over exaggerate or just plain falicify the statements of pretty much everyone you disagree with. Just like somehow to you someone putting their hand down your pants is the same thing as touching their foot.

It is further proof of your arrogance and unobjectivity.

 

[Larkinn]

You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with Bush.

If it has to do with you claiming that RGS said he was liberal, which you did,

It has nothing to do with Bush....then who is the "he" that RGS "said was liberal"?

And no, I did NOT say that. Learn to fucking read. Is Bush a thing? NO. Hence, I was NOT referring to Bush when I said "You assume that anything that does not fit into traditional conservatism fits into liberalism." How do you know this? Because Bush is not someTHING he is someONE. I was talking, obviously, about his ideas, not him.

despite RGS saying he is right of center. Your implication from the sentence I reposted is that because RGS thinks he's right of center, RGS thinks he's liberal.

No, thats not the implication. Unless you think that Bush is a thing, that is obviously not what I meant.

It was meant to point out how you over exaggerate or just plain falsify the statements of pretty much everyone you disagree with.

Which isn't true. But if you are going to attempt to prove the point, then focus on when I actually do exaggerate as opposed to blatantly lying and claiming I said something I obviously never said. I explained it to you. Its really quite simple.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It has nothing to do with Bush....then who is the "he" that RGS "said was liberal"?

And no, I did NOT say that. Learn to fucking read. Is Bush a thing? NO. Hence, I was NOT referring to Bush when I said "You assume that anything that does not fit into traditional conservatism fits into liberalism." How do you know this? Because Bush is not someTHING he is someONE. I was talking, obviously, about his ideas, not him.



No, thats not the implication. Unless you think that Bush is a thing, that is obviously not what I meant.



Which isn't true. But if you are going to attempt to prove the point, then focus on when I actually do exaggerate as opposed to blatantly lying and claiming I said something I obviously never said. I explained it to you. Its really quite simple.

Just like you quoted me saying republicans take action against their own and then claimed I called for the Senator to be expelled or resign. Ohh wait, you explained that too, you quoted me but you meant a global right wing attack.

 

[Larkinn]

Just like you quoted me saying republicans take action against their own and then claimed I called for the Senator to be expelled or resign. Ohh wait, you explained that too, you quoted me but you meant a global right wing attack.

I was talking to Bern, not you. Know your place, boy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was talking to Bern, not you. Know your place, boy.

Ignorant moron.

 

[maineman]

Ignorant moron.

this, from the nutless coward.

 

[Bern80]

It has nothing to do with Bush....then who is the "he" that RGS "said was liberal"?

It has to do with exaclty what I said it does. I'm not debating where Bush shoudl fall on the political spectrum.

And no, I did NOT say that. Learn to fucking read. Is Bush a thing? NO. Hence, I was NOT referring to Bush when I said "You assume that anything that does not fit into traditional conservatism fits into liberalism." How do you know this? Because Bush is not someTHING he is someONE. I was talking, obviously, about his ideas, not him.

Then what was the 'thing' you were referring to? The only thing it could be in context of the sentence before it, is Bush's politcal behavior, which RGS said was right of center. You stated it was far right. Then you made the following statement.

"You assume that anything that does not fit into traditional conservatism fits into liberalism."

RGS mentioned nothing about Bush being liberal. Yet you chose to contrue as though he did.



No, thats not the implication. Unless you think that Bush is a thing, that is obviously not what I meant.

Which isn't true. But if you are going to attempt to prove the point, then focus on when I actually do exaggerate as opposed to blatantly lying and claiming I said something I obviously never said. I explained it to you. Its really quite simple.

Those on the left such as yourself and MM get very good at not using specific words to say things so they can do exactley what you're doing which is claim the never said what is quite clearly implied in the language you oh so carefully chose.

 

[maineman]

Those on the left such as yourself and MM get very good at not using specific words to say things so they can do exactley what you're doing which is claim the never said what is quite clearly implied in the language you oh so carefully chose.

be serious. I am very good at using the english language with both nuance and precision. You should try it sometime.

 

[Larkinn]

Ignorant moron.

Do you really want to go up against me again, boy? You get your ass kicked every time it happens. Just leave now and I won't embarass you too badly. Jesus...what are you, a fucking masochist? Sorry little bitch, but I don't have time to beat you today...here's $5.00, go hire a dominatrix to verbally abuse you.

 

[Larkinn]

It has to do with exaclty what I said it does. I'm not debating where Bush shoudl fall on the political spectrum.

Thats nice.

Then what was the 'thing' you were referring to? The only thing it could be in context of the sentence before it, is Bush's politcal behavior, which RGS said was right of center. You stated it was far right. Then you made the following statement.

Yes...its his political behavior...which is made up of MANY different pieces...SOME of which he (and you) have claimed are liberal.

RGS mentioned nothing about Bush being liberal. Yet you chose to contrue as though he did.

Incorrect, yet again. I was making an assertion about why he thinks Bush is only slightly to the right.

No, thats not the implication. Unless you think that Bush is a thing, that is obviously not what I meant.

Of course its obviously not what you meant. However, its what you must think if you are to continue the idiotic belief that I was saying Bush is liberal.

Those on the left such as yourself and MM get very good at not using specific words to say things so they can do exactley what you're doing which is claim the never said what is quite clearly implied in the language you oh so carefully chose.

Dude...It took me less than 2 minutes to write out this entire post...you ever noticed the time stamps on my posts?...nights when I am up and responding to two or three different people at the same time? I don't spend much time on very many people here, and I certainly don't spend much time "carefully choosing" my language with you. You misinterpreted me. Why? Because of some failing within yourself, NOT because I chose my language in some careful way to trick you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you really want to go up against me again, boy? You get your ass kicked every time it happens. Just leave now and I won't embarass you too badly. Jesus...what are you, a fucking masochist? Sorry little bitch, but I don't have time to beat you today...here's $5.00, go hire a dominatrix to verbally abuse you.

You couldn't beat a 5 year old in a debate. All you have is word games.

 

[manu1959]

Lmao...Bush is NOT "a little right of center". He is far right.

far right is...the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious extremists, fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis....

you may claim he is that but he is not.....if he was you would be dead already....

are hillary and obama are far left which would be....socialist

 

[jillian]

far right is...the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious extremists, fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis....

you may claim he is that but he is not.....if he was you would be dead already....

are hillary and obama are far left which would be....socialist

You don't have to be all of those things at once to be far right. One can be one of them or any combination. You also left out rabid neo-con

I'm also curious as to what you consider a religious extremist, short of a belly-bomber, of course, since I think we can all agree on that one.

 

[manu1959]

You don't have to be all of those things at once to be far right. One can be one of them or any combination. You also left out rabid neo-con

I'm also curious as to what you consider a religious extremist, short of a belly-bomber, of course, since I think we can all agree on that one.

i was giving examples of far right....but you knew that....

religious extremest would be the leaders of a nation that uses a religious text to guide the laws of the country....and there is an official religion of the country and only that religion can be practiced.....two examples merry old england, france sapin etc... iran now....soviet union in the there is no religion except communism days....

like that .....

 

[Diuretic]

i was giving examples of far right....but you knew that....

religious extremest would be the leaders of a nation that uses a religious text to guide the laws of the country....and there is an official religion of the country and only that religion can be practiced.....two examples merry old england, france sapin etc... iran now....soviet union in the there is no religion except communism days....

like that .....

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it authoritarian or totalitarian? I agree with your examples, for what it's worth. In the religious examples it was a convenient little meshing of the interests of the religion with the interests of the state, especially when the Divine Right of Kings was in vogue. The Soviets didn't even bother with religion of course, they simply invoked the divine right of those who controlled the military.