Bruce has an identity crisis

[240 is Back]

You want me out of the republican party because I point out its flaws!  HA!!

Don't run from your flaws, run at them and fix them.  Id' be the loudest praising them if they started making good decisions.

[Camel Jockey]

You criticise the Republicans far more than the Democrats - why not vote for them?  You believe people within the Republican Party conspired to bring 9/11 upon us, yet they still have your vote regardless?  What do they have to do to alienate you?

Um, he is conservative by nature and so are a lot of "liberals" on this forum. It's just that the republican party isn't truly conservative anymore. They've swayed away from most of their libertarian stances.

Their fiscal policy is supposed conservative, but isn't. They're supposed to be for decreased role of government, but they're not. Infact, they pass legislation that allows the government to prosecute people without trail and makes torture legal. They lied to start the Iraq war and continue to lie about to this day..

If 240 sees these flaws then he's got every right to point them out.

[Hugo Chavez]

Um, he is conservative by nature and so are a lot of "liberals" on this forum. It's just that the republican party isn't truly conservative anymore. They've swayed away from most of their libertarian stances.

Their fiscal policy is supposed conservative, but isn't. They're supposed to be for decreased role of government, but they're not. Infact, they pass legislation that allows the government to prosecute people without trail and makes torture legal. They lied to start the Iraq war and continue to lie about to this day..

If 240 sees these flaws then he's got every right to point them out.

good post.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You have to admit it's amusing that Bruce is crying foul over this yet finds no fault in starting threads calling other people out. 

There's that double standard thing showing up again.

[Hugo Chavez]

You have to admit it's amusing that Bruce is crying foul over this yet finds no fault in starting threads calling other people out. 

There's that double standard thing showing up again.

my favorite part is where he calls it an "inaccurate personal attack "

[Dos Equis]

my favorite part is where he calls it an "inaccurate personal attack "

Berserker I agree that Bruce opened the door for this with his 240 post (even though all he did was quote 240, which caused 240 to start whining again), but he does have a point about you doing this as mod.  Not trying to stir the pot.  Just making an observation.

[Camel Jockey]

Berserker I agree that Bruce opened the door for this with his 240 post (even though all he did was quote 240, which caused 240 to start whining again), but he does have a point about you doing this as mod.  Not trying to stir the pot.  Just making an observation.

berserker is fighting fire with fire.

[ieffinhatecardio]

my favorite part is where he calls it an "inaccurate personal attack "

Yes, that was a good one. Was it an "inaccurate personal attack" when he started separate threads calling out ribo and 240?

[240 is Back]

When people start threads about "this member is wrong/ dumb/ hypocritical/ owned because", the place falls apart fast.

It stops becoming a political issue board.  Suddenly it becomes a piece of crap insult board.  Suddenly, people stop taking chances on issues for fear of losing face or their ranking among great minds here.  People who come here to find intelligent arguments with supports find people insulting each other's mothers or making fun of people because they rent, not buy (ahem.)

[Dos Equis]

berserker is fighting fire with fire.

Yes, although I question whether any mod (Ozmo, Berserker, etc.) should start threads like this.  I think the answer is probably "no," but different strokes.  And BTW, I don't have any major problems with the way any of the mods on this board (including Berserker) have run things.  I think starting the political board was a fabulous idea and it's probably the most entertaining board on this site IMO.  Besides, I always know that no matter how difficult my day, I can always come here and slap 240 around a little.   

[240 is Back]

Besides, I always know that no matter how difficult my day, I can always come here and slap 240 around a little.  

All I know is, in 2009 when 911 witnesses start coming fwd, i hope you're just as vocal as you are now

[Dos Equis]

All I know is, in 2009 when 911 witnesses start coming fwd, i hope you're just as vocal as you are now

Why would they wait till 2009?  I'll still be here.  But those poor witnesses will probably be dead.  Will it be the CIA or the FBI?

[240 is Back]

Why would they wait till 2009? 

Because if you sue in 2001-2008, it is gagged under the blanket of nat'l security.

Civil suits await Bush when he leaves in 2009, just as they would have been there in Jan 2005.  He and members of his admin all had their own lawyers should they lose the election for deeds done in office. 

If you want to doubt this, put some money down and i'll copy it.  Or, do your own reaserch, eh?

[Dos Equis]

Civil suits await Bush when he leaves in 2009, just as they would have been there in Jan 2005.  He and members of his admin all had their own lawyers should they lose the election for deeds done in office. 

I recall asking you a while ago for proof of this (and you have since changed the facts a little), but you never provided it. 

[240 is Back]

I recall asking you a while ago for proof of this (and you have since changed the facts a little), but you never provided it. 

It's in a book, one of them I have.  If i find, scan, and post it, will you make it worth my while?   walk my dog or something?

[Dos Equis]

It's in a book, one of them I have.  If i find, scan, and post it, will you make it worth my while?   walk my dog or something?

Depends on the book.  Tell me the title and author first.  I typically read anything someone asks me to read (link, book, magazine, etc.), unless it's a transparently unreliable source.  (Currently reading Helter Skelter, which a former employee recommended.  May take a while -- 500 some odd pages.) 

[240 is Back]

it's either webster tarpley or the marrs book.  whichever, its sourced with media reports as each guy chose a firm to represent his own interests. 

for real, bb.  I can't get a read on you.  you seem to lack a lot of background in some debates you enter.  Problem is, the time it takes to read thru 2 books, find, scan, edit jpeg, and paste, and you'll give an eye roll.  ya know?  It's like, if 1 or 2 of our getbig regulars said "240, that is weird that Bush and his top guys all chose diff defense firms in case they lost.  Tell us more".

With you, it's just trying to disprove your incorrect notion that I am wrong.  You say something isn't true so I'll spend 30 min posting it, then you'll ignore it.  you're set in your beliefs that Bush does no wrong.  That's fine for you, but dancing with you isn't worth the time.

[Hugo Chavez]

When people start threads about "this member is wrong/ dumb/ hypocritical/ owned because", the place falls apart fast.

It stops becoming a political issue board.  Suddenly it becomes a piece of crap insult board.  Suddenly, people stop taking chances on issues for fear of losing face or their ranking among great minds here.  People who come here to find intelligent arguments with supports find people insulting each other's mothers or making fun of people because they rent, not buy (ahem.)

I disagree if the "call out" is to dig into a specific political issue you have with someone... I personally encourage these callouts... I do not encourage pointless callouts, but if you're pointing out a fallacy of the person and want to have at it, hell yes, call them out.  I don't think it degrades anything as long as it's not just for a personal attack.  Like no calling out someone to tell them their mama is ugly unless you're frazing it as a joke.  Lighthearted stuff shouldn't be an issue...

[Dos Equis]

it's either webster tarpley or the marrs book.  whichever, its sourced with media reports as each guy chose a firm to represent his own interests. 

for real, bb.  I can't get a read on you.  you seem to lack a lot of background in some debates you enter.  Problem is, the time it takes to read thru 2 books, find, scan, edit jpeg, and paste, and you'll give an eye roll.  ya know?  It's like, if 1 or 2 of our getbig regulars said "240, that is weird that Bush and his top guys all chose diff defense firms in case they lost.  Tell us more".

With you, it's just trying to disprove your incorrect notion that I am wrong.  You say something isn't true so I'll spend 30 min posting it, then you'll ignore it.  you're set in your beliefs that Bush does no wrong.  That's fine for you, but dancing with you isn't worth the time.

On cue:     I asked you for the title of the book and the author and you cannot provide them?  Do you have the book or not?  Like I said, give me the author and title, I'll check into a little, and let you know if I'll read whatever you scan. 

I come into discussions knowing a lot, a little, or nothing at all, depending on the subject.  Here is a line I borrowed from one of my undergrad professors years ago:  "I know a lot about a few things and nothing about a lot of things."  (Feel free to borrow that line.)  I think it's true of most people.

What happens with you is this:  you make pretty wild comments and when pressed for factual support, you run away.  I suspect it's because the majority of your sources are akin to tabloid news.   

[BRUCE]

Okay, this is getting a little off the rails, so let me provide some assistance.

I don't have a problem with Beserker starting a thread about me, on the contrary, I promote people here posting about BRUCE.

However, Beserker was wrong - I showed him why, and asked the board if it was his job to start threads doing so.

This differs to my 240 and RN threads because I didn't start a thread and make anything I wanted up about these guys, and I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees.

So, are they the same things? No.

Do I have an issue with anyone starting a thread about me?  So long as you're accurate and not insulting (read: this thread), then go for it!

Carry on.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Okay, this is getting a little off the rails, so let me provide some assistance.

I don't have a problem with Beserker starting a thread about me, on the contrary, I promote people here posting about BRUCE.

However, Beserker was wrong - I showed him why, and asked the board if it was his job to start threads doing so.

This differs to my 240 and RN threads because I didn't start a thread and make anything I wanted up about these guys, and I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees.

So, are they the same things? No.

Do I have an issue with anyone starting a thread about me?  So long as you're accurate and not insulting (read: this thread), then go for it!

Carry on.

Wow, that's almost comical. 

[Dos Equis]

Okay, this is getting a little off the rails, so let me provide some assistance.

I don't have a problem with Beserker starting a thread about me, on the contrary, I promote people here posting about BRUCE.

However, Beserker was wrong - I showed him why, and asked the board if it was his job to start threads doing so.

This differs to my 240 and RN threads because I didn't start a thread and make anything I wanted up about these guys, and I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees.

So, are they the same things? No.

Do I have an issue with anyone starting a thread about me?  So long as you're accurate and not insulting (read: this thread), then go for it!

Carry on.

Bruce I agree, but I doubt the masses will agree.  I could see this thread coming a mile away after you started the 240 and Ribo threads.  Yes all you did was quote them, which caused 240 to run for his son's pacifier, but you're dealing with a sensitive lot.  Sort of like 240 crying because I quoted his "I'm a libertarian" comment when he is constantly screaming that he is a Republican (while constantly in bed with anything Democrat).  So, I guess if it were me I could continue to quote them, but not start threads devoted to them.      

[BRUCE]

Bruce I agree, but I doubt the masses will agree.  I could see this thread coming a mile away after you started the 240 and Ribo threads.  Yes all you did was quote them, which caused 240 to run for his son's pacifier, but you're dealing with a sensitive lot.  Sort of like 240 crying because I quoted his "I'm a libertarian" comment when he is constantly screaming that he is a Republican (while constantly in bed with anything Democrat).  So, I guess if it were me I could continue to quote them, but not start threads devoted to them.      

Yes, but as we have discussed here earlier, the majority of posters here are Leftists.  We also discussed that Leftists will continue to believe whatever they please, despite the evidence given to them.  It is their (and the far Right's) modus operandi.

So long as both you and I understand this, we will at least have made some progress (does that make us 'progressives'?).

[Deedee]

Yes, but as we have discussed here earlier, the majority of posters here are Leftists.  We also discussed that Leftists will continue to believe whatever they please, despite the evidence given to them.  It is their (and the far Right's) modus operandi.

So long as both you and I understand this, we will at least have made some progress (does that make us 'progressives'?).

Bruce, for the dull of mind among us...what exactly does the word "Leftist" mean? Thanks in advance.

So long as both you and I understand this, we will at least have made some progress (does that make us 'progressives'?).

I would say no... with much merriment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

[Dos Equis]

Yes, but as we have discussed here earlier, the majority of posters here are Leftists.  We also discussed that Leftists will continue to believe whatever they please, despite the evidence given to them.  It is their (and the far Right's) modus operandi.

So long as both you and I understand this, we will at least have made some progress (does that make us 'progressives'?).

I agree.