If was President my first act would be

[JohnR! 5,495]

I do think I said that exact thing in the post you replied to

Ok.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Ok.

Ahh agrreance and peace. I love it

[JohnR! 5,495]

Ahh agrreance and peace. I love it

I believe we have far more in common than otherwise, but it we only talked about that on which we agree it wouldn't be much fun...

[unsmiley 111]

Here's a thought, why don't you answer to what you see people have written in their post without scrambling it up with preconceived ideas about what people on the "left" think? Every time you respond with "the trouble with lefties is..." you completely disconnect from responding to a person's specific take on a given issue and ascribe a left wing group think (with all the predjudices you hold against those who you perceive to be on your left ideologically ) to that post. That is not only intellectually dishonest but also disrespectful to the person you are responding to. Try a little intellectual respect and you might get some in return.

That is a simplistic point of view. If you do not think that those with particular political bents (either right or left) have a tendency to have certain beliefs you have your head in the sand. Not 100%, but of course there are acceptable generalizations (things that are more likely than not) to be made whether you like it or not.

And you are guilty of this type of group thinking - ie: everyone that doesn't support gay marriage, for example, must be a "homophobe." So it is do as I say, not as I do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thank you and here is my rub with you. You never seem to comment on a view point or join in any conversation I am having with a counter view point. You come in with some veiled insult that is right below the threshold of personal attack, or attack some little part of my post that has nothing to do with the post itself, then act so super offend when I don't embrace your greatness. Then you start talking about class and respect and politeness, and how we should all respect each other in this forum, when you yourself don't practice it .

You very often post off topic, then threaten me for doing it, and actually had the delusion of grandeur to"Warn Me". As for the Left screaming about this or the Right screaming about that. I suspect you are smart enough to understand that "screaming" is a metaphor/allegory meant to illustrate an almost unanimous viewpoint echoed in unison by a certain political ideology. It could be expressed equally by saying the Left or right clamors for, demands action, constantly protest for, etc etc ad nauesm . So if you want to pretend that you understand that analogy, as me literately accusing people of screaming. Then by all means go right ahead. I will continue to assert you have limited understanding, which I do not think is the case.

Lesson I learned early on in life. If you want respect you have to give it . I know several on here +1 everything you say , for some reason I have yet to fathom, other than I guess they don't get enough female attention at home.

If you wish to have civil discourse with me, then I will do the same in return.

What is screaming a metaphor/allegory for?

As far as I concerned it's just a hyperbolic statement. You do know what a metaphor is don't you?

If not, you might want to understand that before you tackle allegory.

[unsmiley 111]

"Attacking" your reading comprehension? Why so dramatic?

If you get so easily riled up about a forum post, maybe you should consider stepping away from the keyboard for a bit.

I proved a point in relation to a statement you posted. That's all it is.

The only thing you proved is that because you have nothing of substance to say, you rely on personal attacks.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point being that a lot of people here jump to spurious conclusions based on their own biases. People in the US are far more polarised about politics than they are in the UK, for example. At least going by what the media says.

Given that the US is generally more right wing anyway, a person can be pretty much a centrist on most issues and still be called a liberal.

Back when I joined the site in 2003/4 (others here during Bush years will probably remember as well) there were a fair few posters who referred to anyone who didn't agree with the president as a traitor.

People have short memories.

The only thing you proved is that because you have nothing of substance to say, you rely on personal attacks.

Not as much as you might want to believe. But I'm sure that sounds good to you.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That is a simplistic point of view. If you do not think that those with particular political bents (either right or left) have a tendency to have certain beliefs you have your head in the sand. Not 100%, but of course there are acceptable generalizations (things that are more likely than not) to be made whether you like it or not.

And you are guilty of this type of group thinking - ie: everyone that doesn't support gay marriage, for example, must be a "homophobe." So it is do as I say, not as I do.

Do you have an issue with gay people?

[mota bhai 2,675]

One stuck a finger up his butt once and he's been traumatized ever since.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not supporting gay marriage is absolutely about bigotry, since it can't be convincingly argued that it has any negative social impact whatsoever. There is simply no reason to for people to get bent out of shape about it.

[unsmiley 111]

The point being that a lot of people here jump to spurious conclusions based on their own biases. People in the US are far more polarised about politics than they are in the UK, for example. At least going by what the media says.

Given that the US is generally more right wing anyway, a person can be pretty much a centrist on most issues and still be called a liberal.

Back when I joined the site in 2003/4 (others here during Bush years will probably remember as well) there were a fair few posters who referred to anyone who didn't agree with the president as a traitor.

People have short memories.

Not as much as you might want to believe. But I'm sure that sounds good to you.

You still don't get it. Disagree with anything I (or anyone else) says. Insult politiicians or colleagues. Be polarizing. And you can be vehement about it. But don't resort to personal attacks.

You violated this rule. That is inappropriate and has no place in this forum.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You gon' spank 'im now, big boy?

[unsmiley 111]

Saying that you demonstrated an instance of poor reading comprehension isn't a personal attack, it's a fact.

What is wrong with you?

[Peikko 1,575]

That is a simplistic point of view. If you do not think that those with particular political bents (either right or left) have a tendency to have certain beliefs you have your head in the sand. Not 100%, but of course there are acceptable generalizations (things that are more likely than not) to be made whether you like it or not.

And you are guilty of this type of group thinking - ie: everyone that doesn't support gay marriage, for example, must be a "homophobe." So it is do as I say, not as I do.

No, it's the absolute opposite of simplistic. If you take the time to respond to what someone has posted, you are responding to their individual take on a subject and that is intellectually and actually far more complex than simply dismissing something as what people on the 'left of you' think. It is intellectually and actually lazy to respond to individuals as if they are a homogenous group. You may generalise ideological belief as either to the left or to the right but not a person's individual perspective as it pertains to a specific subject. If you do, you are simply being lazy and dare I say, simplistic. Cheers!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

One stuck a finger up his butt once and he's been traumatized ever since.

That's funny. I got a guy from my rural backwoods home town, that almost daily posts about God and Homosexuals on FB. It gets quite entertaining. I have wanted to ask him did a gay guy turn him down.