Ronald Reagan

[bushwacked]

I like reading your posts McBoog . .seriously. But when you state about how impossible it is to put you in a box" and then speak out people that YOU have decided to . . . put in a "box" and label them, that doesnt exactly lend support to your self described pragmatic nature.

 

Yea, that is his long running MO. On the bright side, you may have found a substitute to yer Perch fix.

[McBoog]

I like reading your posts McBoog . .seriously. But when you state about how impossible it is to put you in a box" and then speak out people that YOU have decided to . . . put in a "box" and label them, that doesnt exactly lend support to your self described pragmatic nature.

 

I really do enjoy your posts, as they are more eloquent and thoughtful than many others here that jump into the political debates.

 

Thanx BP. Nice compliment.

 

All you have to do is look at what the two posts before this and see what was omitted from YOUR post to see what the problem is. Highlight the negative, ignore that which is inconvenient. "They" are unable to step through the threshold and expose themselves intellectually. Too much risk. It is easier (see lazy) to take a pot shot and move on. It is tired and old, not "fresh" and "now". I have seen the same exact, mundane, predictable strategy used for 30 years. Hasn't changed at all. I used to do it myself when I was going through my "rebellious" stage. I didn't have anything to really say, I just wanted "them" to shut up.

 

You know. You are right in a way. For example, I think it is unfair to lump Ursa (for example) into the self-described bunch with Bushwacked and Evil GOP. etc. When Ursa wants to say something, he has good points backed with information that makes you think twice, back off and redirect. Ursa is generally a big supporter of Law Enforcement and I appreciate that. We both have both defended some of the same "controversial" actions taken by some officers and criticized some of the overstepping, bonehead BS that some officers do as well. He gets sucked into the juvenile BS too quick too often and that bums me out because I have had some good discussion with him in the past (just as I do with you and detlef). I do my best to ignore and move on with the positive people on the boards. It is fun to "mix it up" at times, but if I feel myself losing my civility, I just disengage.

 

Many of the "libs" here on the boards are self-described and it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. In a way, they label themselves with their obsessive loyalty to each other. When the same few recite the daily talking points with nothing of substance to add, it is hard to not think of them as "the same". When the same few "label" me and put me in along with the other "evil_GOP_liars" (how politically obsessed do you have to be to identify yourself like that on the internet???), it is hard not to see them labelling/identifying themselves and attempting to keep it as simple as us/them. Even take the word "labelling". Rather than denying that they actually do it, they ridicule the fact that I point it out. If "labelling" isn't good enough, maybe we can call it, "describing", "identifying" or "categorizing"? However you look at it, "liberals" are much more comfortable roaming in like minded packs and feeling comfort in numbers. I don't see this as being very "free" OR "liberal".

 

Unfortunately, the modern "liberal" is the least liberal of thinkers. The modern liberal has a code and a mantra they must all follow, lest they be eaten by their own for straying off the path. To fall off the "tax the rich/fair share/evil corporations" and permit a discussion of the validity of a totally reformed tax code where everyone shares at least some burden, the discussion would quickly degrade to one of insult, moral accusation ("you want to starve old people and eat babies") and elitist brow-beating without any substantive reply or discussion. This is why, I think, so many of the conservatives degrade to the same cheap shots that are too common here on these boards (not that they don't take their first shots either). Why try if this is what it will eventually become? This is part of the reason I can only take a week or so of this at a time once or twice a year. Generally boring and predictable with no real challange or sharing of opposing ideas (sort of like Congress ).

 

To articulate a point and not get backed off with the textbook shriek of indignation, puts them in a panic. Usually the "talking points" haven't taken them much past the point where most conservatives "give up" because conservatives get convinced that they are guilty of "something", even when not. Usually, if libs do have to take it one step further, it is the "Moral Equivalence" counter attack with cries of hypocrisy toward the violator (see earlier in this thread). Just like my children, I don't let "them" get away with it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

The last "tool" is pretending that they are right from the beginning and smarter than everyone else, which smugly and arrogantly explains away bad behaviour as either acceptable creativity, or some rationalization why it is OK for a liberal to do "that" because "that" is what liberals do and it is OK.

 

Conservatives are at a disadvantage in so many of these discussions because they are presumed, by themselves and by others, to be the uptight, boring, clean and above reproach members of society. Since there is further to "fall", it is easier to find fault. A "liberal" caught in a drugged out, wild a$$, cocoa butter, orgy extravaganza, will be cheered and even envied by their brethren (now that is what I call temptation ). A conservative will be chastised as a hypocrite by the left and a scumbag by his own (why do Republicans "leave" their positions so much faster than Democrats, often for less egregious behaviour, when caught?).

 

Since I am neither of these, it is an unknown. It is like catching a Mantis Shrimp and not understanding why you just lost half a finger when trying to get it off the hook. I realize that I am a sinner, and that I am not perfect. I don't have to hold myself to the manufactured standards of the daily talking points. I have to do my best to hold myself to a higher standard and understand that I will fall. In this, I have no fear of what other "men" feel about me.

 

I can think freely and discuss openly. As long as I am honest in my thoughts (though it may not always be right) and I do not speak in a vicious manner, I feel good about what I say or post. I love irony, duplicity, sarcasm. Often when I use it, it may come off as harsh. Hopefully it makes a point without having to call someone a "Ginsuing tool". If anyone allows what happens in this faceless world of internet discussion boards piss them off... then it is time to leave.

[gbpfan1231]

Thanx BP. Nice compliment.

 

All you have to do is look at what the two posts before this and see what was omitted from YOUR post to see what the problem is. Highlight the negative, ignore that which is inconvenient. "They" are unable to step through the threshold and expose themselves intellectually. Too much risk. It is easier (see lazy) to take a pot shot and move on. It is tired and old, not "fresh" and "now". I have seen the same exact, mundane, predictable strategy used for 30 years. Hasn't changed at all. I used to do it myself when I was going through my "rebellious" stage. I didn't have anything to really say, I just wanted "them" to shut up.

 

You know. You are right in a way. For example, I think it is unfair to lump Ursa (for example) into the self-described bunch with Bushwacked and Evil GOP. etc. When Ursa wants to say something, he has good points backed with information that makes you think twice, back off and redirect. Ursa is generally a big supporter of Law Enforcement and I appreciate that. We both have both defended some of the same "controversial" actions taken by some officers and criticized some of the overstepping, bonehead BS that some officers do as well. He gets sucked into the juvenile BS too quick too often and that bums me out because I have had some good discussion with him in the past (just as I do with you and detlef). I do my best to ignore and move on with the positive people on the boards. It is fun to "mix it up" at times, but if I feel myself losing my civility, I just disengage.

 

Many of the "libs" here on the boards are self-described and it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. In a way, they label themselves with their obsessive loyalty to each other. When the same few recite the daily talking points with nothing of substance to add, it is hard to not think of them as "the same". When the same few "label" me and put me in along with the other "evil_GOP_liars" (how politically obsessed do you have to be to identify yourself like that on the internet???), it is hard not to see them labelling/identifying themselves and attempting to keep it as simple as us/them. Even take the word "labelling". Rather than denying that they actually do it, they ridicule the fact that I point it out. If "labelling" isn't good enough, maybe we can call it, "describing", "identifying" or "categorizing"? However you look at it, "liberals" are much more comfortable roaming in like minded packs and feeling comfort in numbers. I don't see this as being very "free" OR "liberal".

 

Unfortunately, the modern "liberal" is the least liberal of thinkers. The modern liberal has a code and a mantra they must all follow, lest they be eaten by their own for straying off the path. To fall off the "tax the rich/fair share/evil corporations" and permit a discussion of the validity of a totally reformed tax code where everyone shares at least some burden, the discussion would quickly degrade to one of insult, moral accusation ("you want to starve old people and eat babies") and elitist brow-beating without any substantive reply or discussion. This is why, I think, so many of the conservatives degrade to the same cheap shots that are too common here on these boards (not that they don't take their first shots either). Why try if this is what it will eventually become? This is part of the reason I can only take a week or so of this at a time once or twice a year. Generally boring and predictable with no real challange or sharing of opposing ideas (sort of like Congress ).

 

To articulate a point and not get backed off with the textbook shriek of indignation, puts them in a panic. Usually the "talking points" haven't taken them much past the point where most conservatives "give up" because conservatives get convinced that they are guilty of "something", even when not. Usually, if libs do have to take it one step further, it is the "Moral Equivalence" counter attack with cries of hypocrisy toward the violator (see earlier in this thread). Just like my children, I don't let "them" get away with it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

The last "tool" is pretending that they are right from the beginning and smarter than everyone else, which smugly and arrogantly explains away bad behaviour as either acceptable creativity, or some rationalization why it is OK for a liberal to do "that" because "that" is what liberals do and it is OK.

 

Conservatives are at a disadvantage in so many of these discussions because they are presumed, by themselves and by others, to be the uptight, boring, clean and above reproach members of society. Since there is further to "fall", it is easier to find fault. A "liberal" caught in a drugged out, wild a$$, cocoa butter, orgy extravaganza, will be cheered and even envied by their brethren (now that is what I call temptation ). A conservative will be chastised as a hypocrite by the left and a scumbag by his own (why do Republicans "leave" their positions so much faster than Democrats, often for less egregious behaviour, when caught?).

 

Since I am neither of these, it is an unknown. It is like catching a Mantis Shrimp and not understanding why you just lost half a finger when trying to get it off the hook. I realize that I am a sinner, and that I am not perfect. I don't have to hold myself to the manufactured standards of the daily talking points. I have to do my best to hold myself to a higher standard and understand that I will fall. In this, I have no fear of what other "men" feel about me.

 

I can think freely and discuss openly. As long as I am honest in my thoughts (though it may not always be right) and I do not speak in a vicious manner, I feel good about what I say or post. I love irony, duplicity, sarcasm. Often when I use it, it may come off as harsh. Hopefully it makes a point without having to call someone a "Ginsuing tool". If anyone allows what happens in this faceless world of internet discussion boards piss them off... then it is time to leave.

That pretty much says it all.

[Square]

Unfortunately, the modern "liberal" is the least liberal of thinkers. The modern liberal has a code and a mantra they must all follow, lest they be eaten by their own for straying off the path. To fall off the "tax the rich/fair share/evil corporations" and permit a discussion of the validity of a totally reformed tax code where everyone shares at least some burden, the discussion would quickly degrade to one of insult, moral accusation ("you want to starve old people and eat babies") and elitist brow-beating without any substantive reply or discussion.

I've mainly voted republican most of my life, but I had to stop reading at this point. Conservatives are far more of a homogenous group. They have a firmer set of core beliefs and get chewed up and spit out as soon as someone steps out of the smaller government, less taxes, non-universal healthcare, or anti-abortion arena. Watch what happens to Mitt Romney as soon as people bring up his state healthcare plan. "Liberals" are actually all over the board on several issues. Typically they'd rather spend money on human needs, but that doesn't mean they all agree what those are or how to go about that. There is bat chit crazy in both camps but I find you very off on your analysis of "liberal" vs. "conservative".

[tazinib1]

When the Gubment sends you a monthly check for nothing, why?

 

Nothing? Are you talking unemployment? Cause if you are, then you apparently don't see that "nothing" coming out of your check every 2 weeks.

 

And if not, carry on. Beam me up Scotty!!!

[bpwallace49]

Thanx BP. Nice compliment.

 

All you have to do is look at what the two posts before this and see what was omitted from YOUR post to see what the problem is. Highlight the negative, ignore that which is inconvenient. "They" are unable to step through the threshold and expose themselves intellectually. Too much risk. It is easier (see lazy) to take a pot shot and move on. It is tired and old, not "fresh" and "now". I have seen the same exact, mundane, predictable strategy used for 30 years. Hasn't changed at all. I used to do it myself when I was going through my "rebellious" stage. I didn't have anything to really say, I just wanted "them" to shut up.

 

You know. You are right in a way. For example, I think it is unfair to lump Ursa (for example) into the self-described bunch with Bushwacked and Evil GOP. etc. When Ursa wants to say something, he has good points backed with information that makes you think twice, back off and redirect. Ursa is generally a big supporter of Law Enforcement and I appreciate that. We both have both defended some of the same "controversial" actions taken by some officers and criticized some of the overstepping, bonehead BS that some officers do as well. He gets sucked into the juvenile BS too quick too often and that bums me out because I have had some good discussion with him in the past (just as I do with you and detlef). I do my best to ignore and move on with the positive people on the boards. It is fun to "mix it up" at times, but if I feel myself losing my civility, I just disengage.

 

Many of the "libs" here on the boards are self-described and it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. In a way, they label themselves with their obsessive loyalty to each other. When the same few recite the daily talking points with nothing of substance to add, it is hard to not think of them as "the same". When the same few "label" me and put me in along with the other "evil_GOP_liars" (how politically obsessed do you have to be to identify yourself like that on the internet???), it is hard not to see them labelling/identifying themselves and attempting to keep it as simple as us/them. Even take the word "labelling". Rather than denying that they actually do it, they ridicule the fact that I point it out. If "labelling" isn't good enough, maybe we can call it, "describing", "identifying" or "categorizing"? However you look at it, "liberals" are much more comfortable roaming in like minded packs and feeling comfort in numbers. I don't see this as being very "free" OR "liberal".

 

Unfortunately, the modern "liberal" is the least liberal of thinkers. The modern liberal has a code and a mantra they must all follow, lest they be eaten by their own for straying off the path. To fall off the "tax the rich/fair share/evil corporations" and permit a discussion of the validity of a totally reformed tax code where everyone shares at least some burden, the discussion would quickly degrade to one of insult, moral accusation ("you want to starve old people and eat babies") and elitist brow-beating without any substantive reply or discussion. This is why, I think, so many of the conservatives degrade to the same cheap shots that are too common here on these boards (not that they don't take their first shots either). Why try if this is what it will eventually become? This is part of the reason I can only take a week or so of this at a time once or twice a year. Generally boring and predictable with no real challange or sharing of opposing ideas (sort of like Congress ).

 

To articulate a point and not get backed off with the textbook shriek of indignation, puts them in a panic. Usually the "talking points" haven't taken them much past the point where most conservatives "give up" because conservatives get convinced that they are guilty of "something", even when not. Usually, if libs do have to take it one step further, it is the "Moral Equivalence" counter attack with cries of hypocrisy toward the violator (see earlier in this thread). Just like my children, I don't let "them" get away with it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

The last "tool" is pretending that they are right from the beginning and smarter than everyone else, which smugly and arrogantly explains away bad behaviour as either acceptable creativity, or some rationalization why it is OK for a liberal to do "that" because "that" is what liberals do and it is OK.

 

Conservatives are at a disadvantage in so many of these discussions because they are presumed, by themselves and by others, to be the uptight, boring, clean and above reproach members of society. Since there is further to "fall", it is easier to find fault. A "liberal" caught in a drugged out, wild a$$, cocoa butter, orgy extravaganza, will be cheered and even envied by their brethren (now that is what I call temptation ). A conservative will be chastised as a hypocrite by the left and a scumbag by his own (why do Republicans "leave" their positions so much faster than Democrats, often for less egregious behaviour, when caught?).

 

Since I am neither of these, it is an unknown. It is like catching a Mantis Shrimp and not understanding why you just lost half a finger when trying to get it off the hook. I realize that I am a sinner, and that I am not perfect. I don't have to hold myself to the manufactured standards of the daily talking points. I have to do my best to hold myself to a higher standard and understand that I will fall. In this, I have no fear of what other "men" feel about me.

 

I can think freely and discuss openly. As long as I am honest in my thoughts (though it may not always be right) and I do not speak in a vicious manner, I feel good about what I say or post. I love irony, duplicity, sarcasm. Often when I use it, it may come off as harsh. Hopefully it makes a point without having to call someone a "Ginsuing tool". If anyone allows what happens in this faceless world of internet discussion boards piss them off... then it is time to leave.

 

Mcboog, here is where you go off the reservation. You very conveniently defend conservatives (while highliughting the BEST attributes) and disparage liberals (while highlighing their worst attributes).

 

If you take your LABELING our of your last post, and instead focus on the intellectually lazy that only repeat rote talking points, then you would be on the right track. Tossberg and gbpfan are acolytes of right wing propoaganda. Not engaging in conversation, and impossible to have conversations with that involve any objectivity. They are heart and soul, creatures of the right. They do not deviate from party line, and if you challenge that party line, you are derided as being partisan.

 

You have your own definition of what a "liberal" should be, down to describing what YOU think should be attributes. That could easily be turned around to describe a conservative as a drooling syncopant of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh that cannot think for themselves unless a talking point is shoveled at them. They are happy in thinking they are superior to others by remaining in a state of fear perpetrated by the GOP. Fear of the poor, fear of taking their guns away, fear of the terrorists, fear of not supportin the troops, fear of ghey marriage, fear of other religions,fear of being somehow victimized fear of evil gubmnet, fear of not living up to the standards of Ayn Rand etc. Fear is a powerful motivator, and has been used forever in politics to control the masses, and we have been searching for a new source of fear since the cold war ended with Russia and the "evil empire". One was found in the "axis of evil". But just like your description of what is "liberal", that definition of "conservative" is both narrow minded and incorrect.

 

I am sure that there are people that fall into both those bucket descriptions. But those are the fringe elements of society. Those are people that cannot accept anything positive from the other viewpoint, and has to make out the other party as an "enemy" rather than an opposing viewpoint that will either challenge you to defend and rethink your political beliefs based upon facts or have to challenge your own parties stance if it doesnt make sense. The best of politics challenge each other to result in what civic duty SHOULD be, what is best for the electorate and the country they represent.

 

A school of thought in politics is that no matter what, 40% will vote republican in any election, even if the nominee is Adolph Hitler if they spew the right talking points. 40% will vote democrat in any electionm even if the nominee is Joseph Stalin if they say the right talking points.

 

The 20% that are left represent who WINS each election, and represent the true independents and free thinkers in the US. People that can swing from issue to issue based on its own merits, and do not obey party dogma. I think there are more of the 20% than the 80% here, There are exceptions if you wanted to say that evil gop liars and bushwacked are locked into the left, then perch, tossberg and gbpfan are locked into the right. I think there are more open minded people here than you think, and that while you describe the remarkable brave conservatives while slamming what you have labeled as a liberal, then you paint yourself in the 80% of acolytes, rather than the 20% of open minded people. I really give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are in the 20% but you look like a charlatan by creating your own labels, and then boast that you "cannot be labeled" while you rant about the left and place yourself firmly in the GOP wing without compromise.

 

I really hope you are a "Mantis Shrimp". But McBoog, . . . seriously . . . . you look more like an elephant with these kind of posts.

 

PS- Nothing but mad stoopid ridiculous crazy sick props. I do look forward to our chats!

[bushwacked]

That pretty much says it all.

 

I would sure hope so.

Edited August 3, 2011 by bushwacked

[Ursa Majoris]

I've mainly voted republican most of my life, but I had to stop reading at this point. Conservatives are far more of a homogenous group. They have a firmer set of core beliefs and get chewed up and spit out as soon as someone steps out of the smaller government, less taxes, non-universal healthcare, or anti-abortion arena. Watch what happens to Mitt Romney as soon as people bring up his state healthcare plan. "Liberals" are actually all over the board on several issues. Typically they'd rather spend money on human needs, but that doesn't mean they all agree what those are or how to go about that. There is bat chit crazy in both camps but I find you very off on your analysis of "liberal" vs. "conservative".

I was going to reply to McB earlier but work intervened. I must say I found it ironic that his major complaint is that "we" try to box him up all neatly, then he goes on to very neatly box "us" up with the next breath.

 

FWIW, it seems very clear that the GOP is far more disciplined than the bunch of cats masquerading as the Democrats.

[BeeR]

mcboog, just a general round of applause your way. Again well said all around; refreshing as hell. You've sliced and diced the kiddies to the point of being about as quiet as one could ever expect them to be (even if only temporarily), and that's cause enough for props.

[WaterMan]

Busting a blood vessel on a football message board about conservatives vs liberalism deserves applaud. No opinions were changed, just a few brain cells lost.

[bushwacked]

mcboog, just a general round of applause your way. Again well said all around; refreshing as hell. You've sliced and diced the kiddies to the point of being about as quiet as one could ever expect them to be (even if only temporarily), and that's cause enough for props.

 

You've been reported to the mods.

[gbpfan1231]

Mcboog, here is where you go off the reservation. You very conveniently defend conservatives (while highliughting the BEST attributes) and disparage liberals (while highlighing their worst attributes).

 

If you take your LABELING our of your last post, and instead focus on the intellectually lazy that only repeat rote talking points, then you would be on the right track. Tossberg and gbpfan are acolytes of right wing propoaganda. Not engaging in conversation, and impossible to have conversations with that involve any objectivity. They are heart and soul, creatures of the right. They do not deviate from party line, and if you challenge that party line, you are derided as being partisan.

 

You have your own definition of what a "liberal" should be, down to describing what YOU think should be attributes. That could easily be turned around to describe a conservative as a drooling syncopant of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh that cannot think for themselves unless a talking point is shoveled at them. They are happy in thinking they are superior to others by remaining in a state of fear perpetrated by the GOP. Fear of the poor, fear of taking their guns away, fear of the terrorists, fear of not supportin the troops, fear of ghey marriage, fear of other religions,fear of being somehow victimized fear of evil gubmnet, fear of not living up to the standards of Ayn Rand etc. Fear is a powerful motivator, and has been used forever in politics to control the masses, and we have been searching for a new source of fear since the cold war ended with Russia and the "evil empire". One was found in the "axis of evil". But just like your description of what is "liberal", that definition of "conservative" is both narrow minded and incorrect.

 

I am sure that there are people that fall into both those bucket descriptions. But those are the fringe elements of society. Those are people that cannot accept anything positive from the other viewpoint, and has to make out the other party as an "enemy" rather than an opposing viewpoint that will either challenge you to defend and rethink your political beliefs based upon facts or have to challenge your own parties stance if it doesnt make sense. The best of politics challenge each other to result in what civic duty SHOULD be, what is best for the electorate and the country they represent.

 

A school of thought in politics is that no matter what, 40% will vote republican in any election, even if the nominee is Adolph Hitler if they spew the right talking points. 40% will vote democrat in any electionm even if the nominee is Joseph Stalin if they say the right talking points.

 

The 20% that are left represent who WINS each election, and represent the true independents and free thinkers in the US. People that can swing from issue to issue based on its own merits, and do not obey party dogma. I think there are more of the 20% than the 80% here, There are exceptions if you wanted to say that evil gop liars and bushwacked are locked into the left, then perch, tossberg and gbpfan are locked into the right. I think there are more open minded people here than you think, and that while you describe the remarkable brave conservatives while slamming what you have labeled as a liberal, then you paint yourself in the 80% of acolytes, rather than the 20% of open minded people. I really give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are in the 20% but you look like a charlatan by creating your own labels, and then boast that you "cannot be labeled" while you rant about the left and place yourself firmly in the GOP wing without compromise.

 

I really hope you are a "Mantis Shrimp". But McBoog, . . . seriously . . . . you look more like an elephant with these kind of posts.

 

PS- Nothing but mad stoopid ridiculous crazy sick props. I do look forward to our chats!

Disagree with ya big guy. You are hell bent on labeling people and constantly bring out Limbaugh and Sykes and Belling whenever anyone brings up a topic. I have said over and over I have never listened to Limbaugh and have never listened to Sykes and I will also throw out that I have never watched or listened to Beck or Hannity. I admit I do listen to Belling and do watch O'Reilly.

 

You have put words into my mouth on occasion and to label me as lazy and only spewing right wing propaganda is wrong - I wear my emotions on my sleeves and yes I admit that this crap gets me worked up and that is what I spew on this site. Do I understand that welfare fraud is not the biggest money waster out there and will not solve all of our problems - YES but does that mean that it does not piss me off - HELL NO.

 

I do tend to agree with most things conservative - I do not want govt interfering - I want smaller govt - I do not want to tax rich people more because they can afford it - I hate public unions - I do not like entitlements - if believing in those things make me lazy then so be it. I have worked my rear end off and made the right decisions so far in life and get upset when I see what this world is coming to and how people seem to think they are entitled or deserve things for nothing.

 

You get on McBoog for labeling and you flat out do the same thing. Do I label people? Yes and I admit it. You label and actually degrade people in a condescending tone and I don't think even realize it.

 

To say I did not engage in conversation on the Wisconsin topics is asinine - you had your talking points of Selling properties for pennies (which have yet to happen) and union busting but rip on others if they have talking points that don't match what you want or believe. You sir are no different than the people you mention in your post. I guess that is a bit wrong - I actually do enjoy reading your posts along with Ursa and Swammi and Yukon (mostly) so I won't lump you in with Bushwacked and GOP.

[bpwallace49]

Disagree with ya big guy. You are hell bent on labeling people and constantly bring out Limbaugh and Sykes and Belling whenever anyone brings up a topic. I have said over and over I have never listened to Limbaugh and have never listened to Sykes and I will also throw out that I have never watched or listened to Beck or Hannity. I admit I do listen to Belling and do watch O'Reilly.

 

You have put words into my mouth on occasion and to label me as lazy and only spewing right wing propaganda is wrong - I wear my emotions on my sleeves and yes I admit that this crap gets me worked up and that is what I spew on this site. Do I understand that welfare fraud is not the biggest money waster out there and will not solve all of our problems - YES but does that mean that it does not piss me off - HELL NO.

 

I do tend to agree with most things conservative - I do not want govt interfering - I want smaller govt - I do not want to tax rich people more because they can afford it - I hate public unions - I do not like entitlements - if believing in those things make me lazy then so be it. I have worked my rear end off and made the right decisions so far in life and get upset when I see what this world is coming to and how people seem to think they are entitled or deserve things for nothing.

 

You get on McBoog for labeling and you flat out do the same thing. Do I label people? Yes and I admit it. You label and actually degrade people in a condescending tone and I don't think even realize it.

 

To say I did not engage in conversation on the Wisconsin topics is asinine - you had your talking points of Selling properties for pennies (which have yet to happen) and union busting but rip on others if they have talking points that don't match what you want or believe. You sir are no different than the people you mention in your post. I guess that is a bit wrong - I actually do enjoy reading your posts along with Ursa and Swammi and Yukon (mostly) so I won't lump you in with Bushwacked and GOP.

 

All this summed up . . . in your very own words.

 

I admit I am partisan when it comes to republicans

 

That really, really says it all. If you self admittedly cannot look at your particular party of choice with any objectivity, then why pretend otherwise? There is nothing wrong with that at all, just you preference. Embrace your dedication man! Dont hide it like you are embarrassed of it!

[gbpfan1231]

All this summed up . . . in your very own words.

 

 

 

That really, really says it all. If you self admittedly cannot look at your particular party of choice with any objectivity, then why pretend otherwise? There is nothing wrong with that at all, just you preference. Embrace your dedication man! Dont hide it like you are embarrassed of it!

Gotcha big guy.

[evil_gop_liars]

I would sure hope so.

 

After that I think his "box" is right next to Michelle Bachman.

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one that thinks of this guy when reading McBoogs posts?

[tazinib1]

Am I the only one that thinks of this guy when reading McBoogs posts?

 

 

Not sure thats a bad thing.

[tosberg34]

Am I the only one that thinks of this guy when reading McBoogs posts?

 

Wow. You've actually validated McBoogs post and didn't even realize it.

[evil_gop_liars]

Not sure thats a bad thing.

 

 

Wow. You've actually validated McBoogs post and didn't even realize it.

 

I didn't mean it to be a bad thing. I like Stan.

 

 

 

Per Wiki

Stan is often portrayed as oblivious, selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate and short-tempered. He holds right-wing views.

Stan is a Republican as well as highly xenophobic, Christian, and masculine (possibly showing signs of right-wing authoritarianism).

 

[bushwacked]

So it appears we all can agree he's a cartoon.

[McBoog]

I didn't mean it to be a bad thing. I like Stan.

 

Yes you did. Be honest. Stan is about as much a personification of everything you dislike and ridicule as any other symbol you could find. You have a well established track record of this and look very petty trying to rationalize this and ingenuous, " I like Stan". Grow a pair man.

 

As for Stan...

 

"oblivious, selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate and short-tempered. He holds right-wing views." You think I'm oblivious because I'm not smart enough to cave to your superior intellect on every topic for there is no way you are ever wrong about anything. Not selfish as I am known for my charity (do you tide, or just pay taxes to justify "giving back to the needy" and let the government take care of the "charity" for you?) and consideration of others, at least that is what people tell me. I was once told by a supervisor that I would never be a good manager because "you are too nice to people". Arrogant may fit (God I hope not) if that is what you perceive, but I am turned off by arrogance greatly. I have never been accused of this until now. I'm also known for my calm and patient approach to the world around me, and many who know me are "surprised" at my "right wing" leanings. These I attribute to a fervent belief in self-reliance and personal responsibility.

 

"Stan is a Republican as well as highly xenophobic, Christian, and masculine (possibly showing signs of right-wing authoritarianism)." I am a member of the Constitution Party, my mom and wife are both foreign and I am travelling overseas for two weeks starting tomorrow so neither am I xenophobic. I am proudly Christiian, love God, love Jesus and even love you. Masculine fits, but definitely NOT macho. The right-wing authoritarianism???? Whatever.

 

You are way off, and clearly allow your ideology to paint all opposing viewpoints into an extreme perspective. I actually kind of feel sorry for you. It must be a frustrating to be you in a world of so many messed up people.

 

Peace bro. I'll pay for you.

[Big John]

Peace bro. I'll pay for you.

Is he now a slave?

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Is he now a slave?

 

 

you did not go for a rift on the tide/tithe thing.

 

There may also be the possibility of working a slave/ salve thing out from your post but I'll be damned if I can co so now salivating as I am after slathering a salve of salvia on my slave.

[Ursa Majoris]

Is he now a slave?

EGOPL has taken up hooking

[McBoog]

Mcboog, here is ... are a "Mantis Shrimp". But McBoog, . . . seriously . . . . you look more like an elephant with these kind of posts.

 

PS- Nothing but mad stoopid ridiculous crazy sick props. I do look forward to our chats!

 

Once again. I actually agree with most of what you post. I don't know where you get me "defending republicans" as much as commenting on my perception of the modern American liberal. I point out that they too are too quick to dissolve into the "madness". I don't think you see me "calling out" any of the conservatives because they generally don't see me as a threat and therefore do not go into the shrill attack mode. I don't pay much attention to any of the negative posts by either "side" unless I am the one getting called out, neither do I keep score of who is saying what to whom. I know that Spain, H8, Perch, Darin and Savage have all jumped my sh!t at various times over the years and I have "defended" myself then as well. But it never rises to the level of stalking that it does here by the lefties, so I am more aware of it and point out its foibles more.

 

As people, we obviously need to categorize almost everything in our lives. It is the very nature of taxonomy and we all apply our own form of taxonomy to the world around us. I do it just as much as the next guy. It is what helps us keep everything straight in our heads. My son at two was taking his plastic animals and putting them in groups that made sense to him. He put penguins with the sharks because they both eat fish. It is the depth and variety of this personal taxonomy and how we look at the world around us that either widens or narrows our perception of the people and things around us. This labeling is not necessarily a bad thing, but is often applied too rigidly, especially when it stomps on ideology.

 

I am not so much opposed to being "labelled" as I am opposed to being inaccurately identified (hence my response to the Stan post). Someone that has a broader view on the world is going to be more capable of identifying where a person is "coming from" and better communicate with others. People like Bush and GOP have very narrow views of the world around them and go straight to the us/them classification because their full-buy-in-ideology will not allow them to see outside of those two boxes.

 

My point of calling it out when I'm labelled is to show that, 1) yes, I do not agree with you, and 2) but not for the reasons you say. SO when I say I'm a mantis shrimp, I am not saying that I am deadly or anything special, I am saying that I am something other than what they believe me to be, something that not many can get their head's around. On the surface they can tell that they don't like me, but their deeper reasons don't apply and it makes them uncomfortable (hence goofy proclamations like "I like Stan" ). The harder they try to use their standard tactics, the sillier and more petty they look. This puts "them" at a disadvantage because they try to deal with the person and the topic in completely non-productive ways and usually end up looking even more silly and petty.

 

As for fearmongering, neither side has a monopoly on that. This is a direct result of not being able to be pragmatic, allowing political ideology to stop us from fixing our collective problems. Politics does not allow us to really be honest about anything any more. The whole debt ceiling vs. spending cuts bullcrap we just went through is the perfect example. I wanted to "shoot" both sides because neither was willing to tell the real truth.

 

Look. IMO, Hannity is just as shrill and ideologically trapped as any wacko from the left. I don't watch him and he irritates the heck out of me. He is just as quick to try to insult or shout someone down as the worst that the other side has to offer. You want arrogant? Michael Savage is just as full of himself as Obama. Both of them drive me away and I find it hard to listen to either of them.

 

Nor do I consider myself a centrist. I am "conservative" in a broad sense. Though Christian, I am not one to compel another to believe as I do and fault them if they don't, but I also feel that the founders did not intend freedom from religion. Socially, I don't hold others to the same moral code I TRY to follow and realize that I am not perfect in my quest. Though I don't agree with "gay marriage" I also have no problem with civil unions where a committed pair can share the benefits that straight couples enjoy from a legal sense. I believe that to be truly free, we must be willing to allow people, in their own domains, to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt me, my family or innocent children physically or financially. I believe that I can "change the channel" on things I don't want me or my kids exposed to rather than trying to control that it exists. I also believe that it is rude for a group of rude people to cuss and carry on in offensive behaviour in a public place that I share with others and will let them know that "children and ladies are present".

 

It is not that hard to mind your own business and stand up for yourself at the same time. It is one of the dualities we talked about earlier. When we can be honest and pragmatic about real problems and issues while maintaining our compassion and empathy for one and other, the world is not that hard to deal with. Sometimes we do have to choose sides, but when that means calling Tea Party members "terrorists" and justifying their use of the term when the administration refuses to use the word "terrorist" to describe actual "terrorists", I think we have gotten to the point where we are choosing the wrong sides. There are too many real and dangerous external threats for us as a nation to deal with than to be tearing each other down with this stupid rhetoric... On both sides. (This is NOT to defend the Tea Party but to make a larger point).

 

BTW: Maybe we can agree to call me an Elephant Shrimp (mutually exclusive terms and a very cool "duality") or a Mantiphant (pure taxonomy in motion).

 

Off to Mexico in the morning to get my family back after a month by myself. See y'all in a few weeks.

 

Stay safe, stay civil and God bless you all!

[McBoog]

Is he now a slave?

 

No, that was an invite.

 

See? I told you I was cherrytable.