Politics
Out of context: Reply #9059
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ********0
Well if that is what u think. So be it. I try to condense my messages as much as possible, and as quickly as possible. And try to fit them into the comments section, so as there will be more posting room available per page. We rarely go back more then 2 pages to reread/respond too things. There are typos, but the typos do not make the message unreadable, perhaps sometimes i condense too much, thinking you would have the intelligence to fill in the gaps based on what is being talked about. I can see that would be trouble for certain minds. If so i blame myself. However I do also see the behavior traits amongst a lot of you that shows when faced with truths you would rather not recognize, you turn to insults, and mob mentality. So taking that into account it is hard to place value and time into proper explanation when you know it will be followed up with "troll" or some other misplaced random insult. Which i now fully expect on this post for saying such a thing. My motives for still doing such a thing, even though i know the probable results, are of concern only to me.
Now for a few things. Bon seff. I am curious about your post "Franken reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department". The use of the video is clearly favoring Franken calling out how the roving wiretaps are unconstitutional. So i took the understanding that you are against such policies in the patriot act. An act passed under the Bush administration but supported in the current administration, which also was supported by the current president. If u support the patriot act, or a majority of its part i apologize and was mistaken, but if you don't I'm asking how you feel about the current presidents support for such policies, and if you have questioned the particular motives, ones said and ones not said? Especially the ones not said. And then taking that into consideration wouldn't that make u question other policies of this administration because the motives would likely be the same as the last administration, which were heavily scrutinized. I came to the conclusions of power and control. Those are mine I'm not sure if those are yours. But that is why we have questions. And if we are on the same page then I must ask, if a person who seeks such things in one policy would that not be there goal in another?
sequoia
Left or Right wing, it really doesn't matter. Good ideas don't follow "party lines", they just exist. The true sign of political ignorance comes in the form of a "us against them" mentality.
comments:
I would say if anyone's guilty of cultivating this mentality, it's Obama.Never heard Obama once say, If you're not with us, you're against us. SIncerely, George W.
Bonseff correctly guessed my reference
So now instead of comment space I'll respond properly. First thing is what you said goes without saying. And from that it jumped to partisan jabs. Designbot said Obama cultivates that mentality, which I'm unsure if it meant cultivates the bipartisanship, or partisanship. So then on to bonseff's which was elevating the left over the right, based on some sort of bush statement which i don't know about. Which shows the partisanship even when the point is non partisanship. It may be fact but was clearly intended to promote one over the other. And was followed up with sequoia saying "Bonseff correctly guessed my reference". And if thats the case I find the whole non partisanship idea had nothing to do with non-partisanship, but simply a setup, to promote the left over the right. And short responses gave no room for the counter point that Obama has said the same thing, just not implicitly. He says it in many others ways, such as this healthcare will be passed. The message is the same. And many other ways he says the same thing without saying a word. Body language, a sigh, or a representative. The fact is party politics = party politics. And i was only calling out such a fake handshake across the isle BS to push ones own partisan agenda.
And you DrBombay. I can see your motivation is primarily being recognized. You get so upset when no one engages in your insults. But i'll humor you. I do remember you wanted to know who I was so you would know if i was a troll or not. A troll is a person who has no fixed belief system, and engages in heated discussions against a popular majority in order to receive attention regardless of insult or compliment. I haven't switched my views. And I try to abstain from engaging in mindless insults. I know what I am saying is right, and im not throwing any change-ups. I may be on the minority side here, and thats just a coincidence. Or a common occurrence since through history the "right" decision is usually the harder one which makes it the least popular. But those statistics are not of importance and in no way am i trying to justify an unpopular belief by a historical context. Just base it on your capability to think. So hopefully that clears that up. Now i question why so earnestly don't like anonymity. Would my name change my words in any context? Doesn't anonymity help keep bias out of such arguments? I can't see any benefit in telling u my name or everything about me. I expect that u would try to use it as some sort of character assassination, or you may think that i am in a position of importance and are concerned about my opinion of you. In which case... what did u say.... you'd be a punk bitch and change your beliefs. So i see absolutely no reason in saying my name since u have no way to verify anything. So let me protect you from you from yourself. Also I'd say your actions fit the definition of a troll pretty well, especially since your favorite engagement is of some childish name calling.
There ya go. Likely too much for you to read or wrap your minds around. And is primarily a waste of time for me, and I'm not in the habit of wasting time, but on the chance you truly did not understand , and clarification was not asked for which says so so much, I owe it solely to myself to clarify such things, and the ease of mind that i did what i could do.
- lacklustre, pedestrian, middle of the road bourgeois intellectual stance********
- thanks for defining "toll" for us. and overlooking the catch all politics of us political parties while dismissing them as narrowly partisan********
- narrowly partisan, without seeing the historical continuity between administrations regardless of party********
- can u give examples? pretty indirect and i can only assume your taking the post farther********
- then it wasnt meant to be taken.********
- oh and it wasnt meant as luster, but it is a middle of the road simple statement. seemed the need for clarification was needed on mundane things********
- needed on mundane things. no intention of wowness or some sort of pedestal. just clarification.********
- lacklustre, pedestrian, middle of the road bourgeois intellectual stance