KIT, OH LAWDY MAASA, I's thanks you sooooo much for "allowing" me to continue to post. OH TANKEEE, THANKEEE massa, you so goooood to me. I SWEARS I won't get all uppity agin and get the foolsome idea I gots a right to speak my mind. I'll jus' ask you beforehand what's right & proper for the likes of me to be thinking and saying.
On Jul 12, 2:32 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Fred? > > WTF??? > > What is it that you believe this thread is about? What is the major point > of this thread? What is it it that you are in disagreement with Bruce > about? Somewhere, I got lost in the shuffle. > > If you go down (or up) from this thread, you will see my point about Holly. > Some ignorant statement about Ronald Reagan not being a Libertarian, but > rather a Republican. > > Yes, we will remain civil on this board. Its one thing to attack an > individual's political philosophy or ideas, and its quite another to just > sling nasty personal attacks at one another. That goes for Bruce, me, every > other member on this board, it matters not what your political philosophy > is. Nevertheless, the mudslinging and nasty barbs are unbecoming from > you....Just as they are from Bruce. That crap stops now. > > We will continue to allow for Holly to "shine the light" on inconsequential > matters that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or that are being > discussed in any particular thread. > > Again, you have lost me in whatever point that it is you are attempting to > make. > > I clearly said that Bruce and I don't see eye to eye on Immigration, he > holds Libertarian Party tenets, as opposed to a Libertarian Ideology, and > again, this is just but one example, of why I ask Holly to read the posts > several times before he responds. I could not have made it any clearer > above. > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Well Keith, that was a complete load and you know it. Although I like > > the "Oh gee, I haven't had a chance to read the thread" attempt at a > > complete dodge, the conclusion is inescapable. Bruce was just slinging > > his usual bs and you were siding with Bruce only because of the > > personalities and obviously not because of the points being made. It's > > cool Keith, at least you have a bit of class. > > So again obviously this was not some abstract conversation about the > > rights of governments in general. Bruce's cop out when he realizes his > > bullshit is being walked all over is to wax poetic and then act as if > > others are somehow, just not on his level (of complete bullshit). I > > even anticipated this because it's so predictibel from him and I > > wrote: > > "I guess you could go with a cop out like, this was some deep, > > esoteric bullshit but really, Bruce was just being Bruce: babbling > > crap..." Which he was nice enough to prove with his very next post ;-) > > This was a very specific topic about the rights of illegal aliens and > > the obligation (or in Bruce's replies "rights") of our government to > > enforce immigration laws. The Reader's Digest version so you won't cop > > out to the ""Gee, i didn't have time to read it all" thing again: > > 1. In reply to Holly's suggestion that both the illegals and the > > companies should be punished for breaking our immigration laws, Bruce > > wrote: > > "People should be free to work and live where they like " and then > > "States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they can > > travel. If someone invites them to visit they should be able to" > > > Now if you somehow interpret that to mean "People should NOT be free > > to work and live where they like - if it's here and illegal; and > > states DO have a right to tell ANYONE not to come to our country > > illegally", then what you say has absolutely no credibility at all. > > > As far as it even being "legal" for us to have immigration laws at > > all, Bruce wrote: > > > "You believe that what governments say is important and has something > > to do with what is wrong or right . You believe they are the source > > of > > rights. You are wrong." > > > So do you believe our government has no right to enforce immigration > > laws? Or for that matter, any laws or rights? That they are or are > > not > > "the source of" immigration rights? > > > So Keith, it's cool. You seem to be a more civil version of Bruce. You > > will agree with whatever BS he slings, as long as it's in opposition > > to Holly or anyone you consider a bit too "left" for your taste. It's > > not about the point, it's about just blindly agreeing with those who > > subscribe to similar ideology. > > If nothing else, you display more class than Bruce - which is about as > > tough as being shorter than Yao Ming ;-) > > > On Jul 12, 8:10 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Good Morning Fred, (And Bruce!!) > > > > I haven't got down to the end of this thread, to even read what all > > Bruce's > > > response was, but I wanted to respond to Fred's post regarding my post > > last > > > night, and being in defense of Bruce and Zeb, as opposed to Holly. > > > > I am a Libertarian, in the same vain and ideologies that the Cato > > Institute, > > > Neal Boortz, Ronald Reagan, and most conservatives are Libertarian. To > > some > > > degree, I believe in most of the same tenets that M.A. Johnson, (Michael > > > Johnson, a member of our group who I also give a lot of grief too!! LOL!) > > > holds dear, and subscribes to. > > > > Based on many of the posts that Bruce has posted, and my several > > > conversations with Bruce, I believe Bruce to hold more of a "Libertarian > > > Party" ideology. At one point in time, when I became so disgusted with > > the > > > Republican Party, (and they with me! I was literally kicked out of the > > > Republican Party in Charlotte North Carolina some 18 years ago!!) I > > joined > > > the Libertarian Party, wherein I learned the true definition of > > > "clusterfuck". > > > > I have a number of issues that I disagree with the Libertarian Party's > > > platform, (as I do with the Republicans and the Democrats, each to > > varying > > > degrees) one of which, is the Libertarian Party's belief in open > > borders. > > > I fundamentally disagree with this issue, especially after what > > transpired > > > on September 11, 2001. > > > > In that sense, yes, Bruce and I do not see eye to eye, and I find it hard > > to > > > believe that Bruce was advocating that plank of the Libertarian Party. > > > Bruce did go on to say, that he believed those that had entered this > > Nation > > > illegally should be arrested and prosecuted, (my words not his) which > > brings > > > me to Holly. > > > > With all due respect, (and I sincerely, genuinely like Holly) there are > > > times when Holly writes stuff here, that has absolutely nothing to do > > with > > > the main premise of the conversation. Holly rarely stands for anything, > > and > > > usually attempts to sling bullets at any conservative ideal, issue, or > > > proposition, yet never criticizes or berates far left liberal, socialist > > > causes or "cause celebre').....Many times, Holly is off on some little > > side > > > show, that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. > > Last > > > night, after perusing the thread, it was my opinion that this was where > > > Holly was attempting to go, especially with Zeb. > > > > Condescending?? I like "biting" as an adjective much better!!! > > > > Have a great Sunday Fred!! > > > > Keith In Tamp > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Keith, I'm reading through this and it seems obvious you have a strong > > > > bias toward anything Bruce and Zeb says (which surprisingly, for much > > > > of the thread seemed to defend the illegal aliens) and against > > > > anything Holly says - not to mention the condescending crap about > > > > thinking carefully before responding to a Conservative. I mean, I was > > > > blown away for a couple replies there because it was pretty obvious > > > > Bruce was defending the illegals, just to be contentious. What exactly > > > > do you think ANYONE (who wasn't totally in Bruce's camp, of course) > > > > would interpret thse sentences to mean? > > > > 1. In reply to Holly's suggestion that both the illegals and the > > > > companies should be punished for breaking our immigration laws, Bruce > > > > wrote: > > > > "People should be free to work and live where they like " abd then > > > > "States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they can > > > > travel. > > > > If someone invites them to visit they should be able to" > > > > > Now if you somehow interpret that to mean "People should NOT be free > > > > to work and live where they like - if it's here and illegal; and > > > > states DO have a right to tell ANYONE not to come to our country > > > > illegally", then what you say has absolutely no credibility at all. > > > > > As far as it even being "legal" for us to have immigration laws at > > > > all, Bruce wrote: > > > > "You believe that what governments say is important and has something > > > > to do > > > > with what is wrong or right . You believe they are the source of > > > > rights. You are wrong." > > > > > So do you believe our government has no right to enforce immigration > > > > laws? Or for that matter, any laws or rights? That they are or are not > > > > "the source of" immigration rights? Bruce seems to have some pretty > > > > strong opinions about whether something Obama is doing, is in > > > > accordance with what our government says is right or wrong - and > > > > defines as a right (therefore, being the "source") and whether or not > > > > he has the "rights" to do them. But I guess in his opinion, the rights > > > > of governments are valid only when convenient to him and never when a > > > > "liberal" condones them. > > > > > I guess you could go with a cop out like, this was some deep, esoteric > > > > bullshit but really, Bruce was just being Bruce: babbling crap that > > > > even he doesn't believe applies in this case, just so he could > > > > disagree with someone further left than himself (i.e. not actually > > > > wearing a swastika on his arm). > > > > Whereas, I thought you to be a bit more insightful and objective. > > > > Perhaps I > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
