Well Keith, nice to write but I don't believe you. Virtually every reply Bruce writes has his puerile little references to dicks, shit etc... Now suddenly you are concerned that anyone does it? You're lying and the proof will come as soon as Bruce writes his next few replies and lo what do you know - he remains in the group anyway because as the pigs put it "some are more equal than others". Look I don't care. I don't bother reading his replies etc... because it's all the same pattern: 1. Find something to criticize 2. Disagree with any point made by those have have kicked his ass in various discussions (poor little guy definitely holds onto anger ;). 3. When he starts getting his ass kicked again, act like he was talking on some larger, philosophical level that no one else can understand (a tactic used by both extremists and mental ward patients) 4. Make some insults. 5. Start new post or replies. 6. Repeat pattern. Just take a look at any thread and it's evident. I can provide a dozen examples that are laughably dead on to this.
There are people who are actually worth engaging in debates with - and then there is Bruce. And Zeb. And on the Left, Saint Bezaerk and Rebel. They all possess pretty much the same personal character. Their weakness and fragile egos are evidenced by their inability to ever acknowldge countering points. Instead, like any frightened small animal, they attack the moment they feel cornered. Pretty basic psych101 stuff and really, who cares? On the other side, I've actually reconsidered a few of my opinions on subejects because of (surprisingly) Dick, Hollywood (there's two ends of the spectrum for you!) and others who have the reason, maturity and class that actually persuades people to at least consider their insights. Legalizing pot, for example. That is worthwhile as opposed to interacting someone who is the equivalent of a computer-enabled homeless person who comes at you swearing and screaming, and wonders why no one takes them seriously. So okay, the personal attacks, swearing etc... is going to be stopped? We'll see. On Jul 12, 12:32 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
