Lunatic Left: They Don't Support the Troops

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I would personally shoot every single one of these posters if put in front of a firing squad.??I would specifically ask that my rifle NOT have the blank cartridge in it.??I also wouldn't aim for the heart but the head.??The left is a disease and needs to be cut out of American society at all costs.??I'm a step away from advocating open warfare on these sheep fucking scum and the Representatives and Senators that claim to be their voice.

By Lisa De Pasquale ???07-20-2006 @ 09:49 PM

It was reported today that a deployed soldier's family was brutally murdered in a town outside Seattle, Washington. Army National Guard Sgt. Leonid Milkin's wife, their two children and his sister-in-law were stabbed multiple times before their house was set on fire to cover up the murders, authoriries believe. Sgt. Milkin has been granted emergency leave from duty in Iraq.

After reading about this tragedy, I clicked on the link for user comments. (http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=564399&func=3&channel=News) I wasn't not prepared for the disgusting comments from anti-war lunatics. Many on the Left purport to "support the troops" even though they disagree with the war. Here's what they say under the anonymity of the internet when the cameras aren't rolling:

Maybe he signed up for the wrong profession because who in their right mind would want to be a army man? He should have studied harder in school and found a real job instead of joining the army. Lmao , be all u can be? Don't patronize me ! People who join the army either have no education or come from small towns.. He should blame himself for his family dying due to his lack of education.

Too bad the paid assasin wasn't home also... Got what he deserved for serving an illegal government in an illegal war.

ANOTHER BUSH TRADJEDY [sic]... YIP FOLKS HERE ARE 5 [sic -- 4] MORE NOTCHES, BUSH CAN ADD TO HIS BELT.

The p***k bush has cut funds to lock away the lunatics, just to pay for his illegal war. May the same fate await the evil bushites.......they are evil and will be treated as such. They, the pig bushites, are truly the enemies of America!

Bush and republicans put them both in harms way..........If he had been home this would have never happened....instead he is risking his life for another republican lost cause....

MOre Deaths indirectly caused by Geroge W. BUSH!!!! If he didnt lie to start a war.....and the husband was at home, the people would all be alive. The was is for Halleburton, Exxon MObile, and all the other members of the Industrial military complex, who ar to benefit by this war. THANKS BUSH, hope you can sleep nights... But people without a conscious dont have trouble sleeping...I guess.
Link (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle/index.php?1=1&title=they_don_t_support_the_troops_part_xxxiv)

The Democrats are full of constituants with raging mental illness. What a bunch of sick fucking freaks you lefties now have to defend.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Chesswarsnow:


1. There was a time that slavery was alright.
2. Also some Masters were good folks.
3. That's the way it was, and could go back to some day I guess.
4. I myself think its not much different, except the slaves run free, and still depend on the Masters, in one way or another.
5. But now many just roam free, and don't amount to much.
6. Some would be better if they were some ones slaves.

free republic:

you idea on "apartheid" is typical of most who has never been to Africa. The majority of blacks were quite happy with seperate development, just like they are in America. South Africa was taken down because the system developed was working.....

You " respect " Mandela ? Do you also respect Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Trotsky, and Lenin ?....

(on Palestinians) "ethnic cleansing", "genocide" and "racist extermination", we can only hope....

And just pick a post at random from stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/)

or attend a meeting for the racist "Council of concerned citizens", of which the distinguished senator Lott has spoken for, and so have many republicans who were recently in power (Ashcroft, Helms etc.)


I demand you to condemn conservatives as hate filled racists!

Seriously, anyone can go out and pick their opponents wacko's and extremists, but it actually takes some intelligence to distinguish between various viewpoints within terms such as liberal and conservative.

You picked out a few wacko's on a far left website, bravo!

[BoogyMan]

I demand you to condemn conservatives as hate filled racists!

Seriously, anyone can go out and pick their opponents wacko's and extremists, but it actually takes some intelligence to distinguish between various viewpoints within terms such as liberal and conservative.

You picked out a few wacko's on a far left website, bravo!

There is a difference in the two groups Alonzo. When conservatives find something that is repulsive like that disgusting stormfront crap you posted, we condemn it an distance ourselves from it. The liberals stamp out any kind of inter-group dissention as far as I can tell.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Actually, I posted nothing from stormfront other than the link. The posts were from free republic, and only one of those received any condemnation, and the person who condemned them was attacked by the rest of the posters. Another post there (which I tried to dig up) involved an owner of another website. He ran a site dedicated to Rhodesia, and the former south african government, and the people who fought to uphold apartheid. He didn't get one condemnation in the first 20 or so posts at least, just support. People routinely call for mass expulsion and occasionally even genocide of random muslim areas (though palestine is the most common), yet they almost never recieve condemnation. Those who do condemn it are usually attacked by the rest of the board.

When the bush daughters tried to buy alcohol at a restaurant and a worker called the police, not only did they call the worker a traitor and such, they posted her phone # and address, and terrified the woman in the process with all the threats she recieved.

And here's the message board these posts are from:
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=564399&func=3&channel=News&nexttoken=_arrivalTime%3A10%3A1153481791_threadId% 3A16%3A1633874278941941&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false&on_page=2

It looks like there's over a thousand posts on that board, and kids seem to be AOL's largest clientele.

I'm not making any broad claims out of what some idiots on a message board post, but others are.

The liberals stamp out any kind of inter-group dissention as far as I can tell.

Which is it, we can't agree on a unified front (one of the reasons everyone says we can't win elections), or we all unify around the same position?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But a good percentage of blacks are still slaves to welfare.
2. Which is fact on the most part paid for by old evil whitey.
3. In the Greatest Country on Earth, with the Greatest Economy, they sit still behind their wrought iron doors, with their big screen tv's watching old whitey entertain them on tv.
4. This is as much as slavery as being out in the cotton fields for old whitey.
5. But at least picking cotton has a meaning for the soul.
6. And gives them a soulful purpose in life.
7. Look what those wide screens are doing to them.
8. They've become big huge bros, with rap music pumping on their tv's empty inside, most never go to church, or bother to get married, and raise a family.
9. In fact many slaves had far better lives, when America had real slaves.

Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

When the bush daughters tried to buy alcohol at a restaurant and a worker called the police, not only did they call the worker a traitor and such, they posted her phone # and address, and terrified the woman in the process with all the threats she recieved.

You must certainly not be from Texas. We spoke up loudly and in a unified fashion that the president's daughters were shaming their father.

Which is it, we can't agree on a unified front (one of the reasons everyone says we can't win elections), or we all unify around the same position?

The liberals I see daily march in lockstep behind whatever the DNC braindump for the day directs.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Okay, shout out your answer.

Which is greater as a percentage of political party makeup?

Hardcore racist Republicans?

Or harcore anti-American scum Democrats?

[AlonzoMourning23]

When conservatives find something that is repulsive like that disgusting stormfront crap you posted, we condemn it an distance ourselves from it.

Remember that? Well, I just saw someone a few posts up stating that some blacks are better off as slaves, yet no condemnation resulted. Is it because that viewpoint is so insane and, since you yourself have voiced no support, you do not believe it to be your duty to denounce it?

You must certainly not be from Texas. We spoke up loudly and in a unified fashion that the president's daughters were shaming their father.

But a whole bunch of your extremists didn't. That's my point. I'm not holding that against conservatives as a whole, in reality that only reflects upon the group that engaged in it.

The liberals I see daily march in lockstep behind whatever the DNC braindump for the day directs.

I could say the same with the republican party. The comments by party leaders more often reflect what they think the base wants to hear, and they speak accordingly. But, also, many liberals don't necessarily agree with everything the democrats do, but have adopted the "It's better I vote for a democrat than not vote" attitude. And who can blame them? Liberals boycotting election got us Nixon.??

Which is greater as a percentage of political party makeup?

Hardcore racist Republicans?

Or harcore anti-American scum Democrats?

Neither is essential to either viewpoint. And you're going to say anti-american, I'll say racists. By their very nature anti-american sentiment is going to be lower, because we're in America. Racist sentiments were once held by the overwhelming majority of the country, and today bigotry is still widespread, with over 50% of americans stating that they would not vote for a muslim president. Anti-Americanism will of course be low. Anti-government sentiment is about the farthest all but a few extreme nutcases go, and that's still very different than anti-Americanism. I'd say there are also more bigotted liberals than anti-american ones.

[bobbylien]

Come on, you can't condemn the left for a few comments made on the internet. With that logic, the left could condemn the right for the comments chesswars makes. Lets not play guilty by association again.

Those were nasty, ignorant posts by a few idiots.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my seemingly racist comments are just comments, not in fact reality.
2. I just express that in some situations, that some Blacks would be better served to be slaves.
3. Not that I would want them to return to it or anything like slavery, there is a difference.
4. I would say about 59.78% of all Blacks would be better served as slaves.
5. A modern slave would have much more of a purposeful life.
6. And standard of living would rise as well.
7. With a steady job, and not stealing welfare checks from old evil whitey.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[sbannon]

Come on, you can't condemn the left for a few comments made on the internet. With that logic, the left could condemn the right for the comments chesswars makes. Lets not play guilty by association again.

Those were nasty, ignorant posts by a few idiots.
Sure they can, and those on the left can condemn the entire right for Jerry Farwell's, and Pat Robertson's remarks that Americans caused and deserved the Sept. 11th attacks.

I like this approach and think it should be embraced. We should all encourage every candidate in the mid-terms this year to use it as well.

It's progress in motion.

/sarcasm

[ECW]

Okay, shout out your answer.

Which is greater as a percentage of political party makeup?

Hardcore racist Republicans?

Or harcore anti-American scum Democrats?




Hardcore racist Republicans. It's why the South is solid red in every presidential election. You lose.

Sorry bout that.

[bobbylien]

http://www.channel3000.com/news/9569582/detail.html
Yet another horrible thing caused by alcohol.

[ECW]

That's the same incident that started this thread.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Hardcore racist Republicans. It's why the South is solid red in every presidential election. You lose.

Sorry bout that.


Boy that's one of the most childish things I've ever seen you post ECW.

Surely you can come up with a better putdown than that?

You do remember that Reagan won 49 states.... right?

So, about those red states, they were racist then but aren't now?

[bobbylien]

That's the same incident that started this thread.

lol Duh.. :rolleyes:
I'm pointing out the guy who did it. These are just more innocent people killed by the affects of alcohol :( . I hope they hang this guy.

[ECW]

That's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. Most of those 49 states were not in the South. The reason that Southern states are "red" is that the Kloset Klansmen all hopped over to the GOP. Hell, Reagan even began his campaign in the town where the Klan was founded with a speech about states rights.

EDIT: Error on my part.??I deleted part of your thread by accident when I hit edit instead of quote, my sincere apologies.??I tried to restore it but it was already gone.

[bobbylien]

If you think republicans are the only side harboring racists, you are wrong. Almost all of the older democrats I know are racists. Its just something they grew up with. The idea that states rights is only something pushed for by racists isn't right. Many believe that the federal government has too much power over our lives and that much of that power belongs to local governments. The federal government shouldn't be responsible for health care or social security. Leave those things to local governments. The job of the federal government is to make sure our constitution is followed and take care of foreign policy issues, not to run every aspect of the country.
Your belief that all of the "racist" democrats switched parties is wrong. I know many more racist democrats than republicans. The problem of racism doesn't just belong to one political party, its everywhere.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I know many more racist democrats than republicans.

Well, the bulk of openly racist politicians did switch (the whole dixiecrat thing), and civil rights played a major reason in why democrats lost the south. Yes there are many other issues, and that does not mean the reason they lost the south is the reason they continue to lose the south (it's harder to reverse something than keep the status quo). And it does not mean that racism is necessarily dominated by conservatives, but may simply be more prominent in areas where they are dominant (look up the inter-racial marriage votes in the late 90's-2000 period in alabama and north carolina).

I can't say anything about what you know from personal experience. But I have to wonder something. I see a lot of people who claim not to be racist, yet have no problem making racist and hateful comments against arabs, muslims etc. as a whole. They do not seem to consider that racism due to the groups being targetted. Many seem to view racism almost entirely as a black/white thing.

Not counting arabs and muslims, I think what you said is reasonable among party moderates. But, upon the hard right and hard left groups, I think the hard right is clearly more racist.

The problem of racism doesn't just belong to one political party, its everywhere.

That I agree with.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. Most of those 49 states were not in the South. The reason that Southern states are "red" is that the Kloset Klansmen all hopped over to the GOP. Hell, Reagan even began his campaign in the town where the Klan was founded with a speech about states rights.

You said Republicans were racist, therefore red states were inherently racist.??Did you not?

Yes, you did.??

So, were 49 states racist when Reagan won 49 states?

Yes???Or no.

There is no in between.??Either all red states are racist all of the time or none of the time.

BTW.... you are also, in addition to being revisionist in your statements, wrong.??Reagan announced his candidacy at the New York Hilton. (http://www.4president.org/speeches/reagan1980announcement.htm) On November 13, 1979.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee (http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm) on December 24, 1865.

Now, how do you reconcile that little problem???Wrong city, wrong state???In addition to your massive geography issues as I go back and read that speech there's no mention of states rights.

You should really do some research before opening up your yap on topics you know nothing about.??

[ECW]

That's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. Most of those 49 states were not in the South. The reason that Southern states are "red" is that the Kloset Klansmen all hopped over to the GOP. Hell, Reagan even began his campaign in the town where the Klan was founded with a speech about states rights.

You are so dumb, so far beyond belief DUMB it's not even funny.

Before I respond to your post, let's deal with this first.

Either you are going to discuss the issues and do so in an intelligent fashion OR you are going to shoot off insults.

Which is it going to be?

If you want to discuss this issue, fine. I'll post my answer.

If you are going to shoot off insults, fine. I got a million insults for rightwingers and I'll be happy to dump a couple hundred thousand of them on you if that's how you want to play this game. I won't really spend a lot of time discussing issues but I will throw in my two cents to make it look legit after you wade through all the shots.

You will kindly notice that nowhere did I insult you or call you any names. You failed to offer the same respect to me that I offered to you. We had a difference of opinion and you right away took it upon yourself to throw an insult my way. I just left a board where the rightwingers could not offer up opinions without insults or cheap shots. Is it because you lack the common courtesy to have a discourse without them? Is it because you cannot counter an argument without denegrating your opponent in order to score points in a game that doesn't really matter? In short, what is your problem?

An apology is called for and expected.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Either you are going to discuss the issues and do so in an intelligent fashion OR you are going to shoot off insults.

Which is it going to be?


I think his history speaks for itself.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. Most of those 49 states were not in the South. The reason that Southern states are "red" is that the Kloset Klansmen all hopped over to the GOP. Hell, Reagan even began his campaign in the town where the Klan was founded with a speech about states rights.

You are so dumb, so far beyond belief DUMB it's not even funny.

Before I respond to your post, let's deal with this first.

Either you are going to discuss the issues and do so in an intelligent fashion OR you are going to shoot off insults.

Which is it going to be?

If you want to discuss this issue, fine. I'll post my answer.

If you are going to shoot off insults, fine. I got a million insults for rightwingers and I'll be happy to dump a couple hundred thousand of them on you if that's how you want to play this game. I won't really spend a lot of time discussing issues but I will throw in my two cents to make it look legit after you wade through all the shots.

You will kindly notice that nowhere did I insult you or call you any names. You failed to offer the same respect to me that I offered to you. We had a difference of opinion and you right away took it upon yourself to throw an insult my way. I just left a board where the rightwingers could not offer up opinions without insults or cheap shots. Is it because you lack the common courtesy to have a discourse without them? Is it because you cannot counter an argument without denegrating your opponent in order to score points in a game that doesn't really matter? In short, what is your problem?

An apology is called for and expected.


Why should I apologize?

Seriously, everything you said claimed you were wrong about.

Everything.

1. You said red states were inherently racist.??Yet would not address landslide victories??by Republicans in 1980-84 and 88 when 00 and 04 blue states were not blue states.

2. You claimed Reagan announced his candidacy in the hometown of the Ku Klux Klan.??

False.??Blantant lie on your part.

3. You claimed that states rights were a centerpiece of his announcing his candidacy.

False.

All of this was linked.??All of this provable and your only concern is that I call you dumb???Which, BTW, I removed.??I was wrong to call you dumb.??We'll let your posts illustrate relative intelligence.??It's wrong of me to make a blanket statement assuming someone that lies and misinforms is indeed dumb.

This is not outcome based debating.??My goal here is not to heighten your self esteem.??My only job was to point out how abjectly wrong you truly were.

You can't refute one point I made in rebuttal to your statements of misinformation and outright lies.??So you need to say I insulted you?

Um, yeah, right.??Okay, you're the most brilliant debater I've ever run across.??I stand in awe that you're only wrong 2 times in a single post and need to revise previous statements to pull your foot out of your mouth.??That's a hallmark of having a truly superior mind.

You can insult right-wingers all you want. I don't care. I've heard them all and you're not going to be enlightening anyone or bothering me one bit.

I would, however, ask that when you pass of information as fact you improve your accuracy rate. At least then I will be able to refrain from laughing at the absurdity of your claims.

[ECW]

Let?s review, shall we?

You started out this democrat bash with this question:



Okay, shout out your answer.

Which is greater as a percentage of political party makeup?

Hardcore racist Republicans?

Or harcore anti-American scum Democrats?

to which I responded

Hardcore racist Republicans. It's why the South is solid red in every presidential election. You lose.

You then made your first mistake in taking what I said out of context. In your futile determination to preserve the ?whitewashed? memory of Ronald Reagan, you threw his name into the mix. I had not even metioned him, only the South but you felt that you could not support that position so you constructed a Strawman that you could support by bringing in non-southern states into the question by saying this:

You do remember that Reagan won 49 states.... right?

So, about those red states, they were racist then but aren't now?


I called you on your non-sequitor but you were already off on your tangent and were not going to be stopped by logic or reason.

That's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. Most of those 49 states were not in the South. The reason that Southern states are "red" is that the Kloset Klansmen all hopped over to the GOP. Hell, Reagan even began his campaign in the town where the Klan was founded with a speech about states rights.

You went further over the edge by trying to put words in my mouth with this absurd and ignorant statement:

You said Republicans were racist, therefore red states were inherently racist.??Did you not?

Yes, you did.??

No, I did not. You made up that load of crap and thried to make it SEEM like I said it but I did not. You asked a question about whether there were more racist Republicans or??anti-American Democrats and I answered it. You didn?t like the answer and went off the deep end ranting like a four year old who can?t find his binky for nap time. I said SOUTHERN states voted solidly GOP because of the Kloset Klansmen who became Republicans. And you insulted me over MY reading comprehension.

Then you further misquoted what I said by alleging that I said that Reagan ?announced? his campaign in the home of the Klan. I said he BEGAN his campaign there (but I was wrong on that point). The Klan was indeed founded in Pulaski, Tennessee as you stated. I meant to say that he BEGAN his campaign in the town known for the murders of three civil rights workers in the 1960?s, Philadelphia, Mississippi but I misspoke. The Klan WAS in attendance that day and Reagan did, in fact, make a point of referring to states rights, code words that every racist southerner understands is a rejection of the federal government?s role in protecting civil rights for all instead opting to protect the good-old-boy way of doing things.

You then showed us your neo-con namecalling ways. It seems like there isn?t a neo-con that can post without an insult, a smear, calling someone a name, or a cheap shot. I?ll keep that in mind as I will gladly return the favor, insult for insult and cheap shot for cheap shot. Since you were not man enough to apologize for the insults (even as you were supposedly in the right), I?ll take that as a character reference for future dealings. Of course, the avatar of the racist Reagan should have been enough to tip me off. I won?t make the same mistake twice.

Finally, you said

Why should I apologize?

Seriously, everything you said claimed you were wrong about.

Everything.

Well, you were wrong about??this:

1. You said red states were inherently racist.??Yet would not address landslide victories??by Republicans in 1980-84 and 88 when 00 and 04 blue states were not blue states.

You said that, not me. I said that SOUTHERN states went red because of racist Republicans forming the majority. The rest of that was crap you made up.

2. You claimed Reagan announced his candidacy in the hometown of the Ku Klux Klan.??

False.??Blantant lie on your part.

Not a lie but a mistake but you will call it what you want regardless of how I explain it so it makes no difference. I already owned up to my mistake. I corrected what I intended to say.

3. You claimed that states rights were a centerpiece of his announcing his candidacy.

False.

Where? Where did I say that it was a ?centerpiece? of his campaign? I did not. Another Strawman on your part.

He spoke of states rights in his Philadelphia speech to let the Kloset Klansmen know he was on their side. It was a follow-up to Nixon?s Southern Strategy which took the solid South away from the Democrats and delivered it to the GOP using race and race-based issues as the platform.

Proof? Right here...

The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.

The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.

Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" ? a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

You have gone off the deep end a number of times in this thread making it up as you go along and expecting me to defend against the horse manure you extracted from who knows where. Two out of your three points against me were proven wrong. And you called ME dumb...

Now, as far as I can tell this doesn't have a damn thing to do with the troops or who supports them but I wasn't going to let your attack upon me and the numerous misstatements you made to stand without correction. So you can rant on here if you want to but if it doesn't have anything to do with supporting the troops, I won't bother with responding.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my "Just Got My A$$ Handed To Me" alarm, just went off!
2. ECW, don't get into it with PAD, he will tear your little tree house down bud.
3. You are just not up to his level of debate bud.
4. He knows of what he speaks, and can catch the smallest of lies.
5. And just try to understand this, We The Republicans Hate You Bastards Liberals Calling us Neo-Cons.
6. This link you try to make with us Republicans and the Neo-Nazis, is a freaking outrage.
7. And I personally condemn you bastards to hell for doing such.
8. Do not ever use that term, unless you want me to condemn you to hell.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I don't think I need to say anything when it took ECW two weeks to form a response.....

[ECW]

I don't think I need to say anything when it took ECW two weeks to form a response.....


I had better things to do than to bother with a neo-con namecaller who is pretty full of himself. But now that you have been shown to be a fabricator of the first degree and a champion Strawman builder, you are too embarassed to admit that you went over the edge, down the deep hole, and out in foul territory. I wouldn't be able to form a response either, if I were in your shoes, which I am thankful I am not. Tough to debate when you can't get away with your usual namecalling/insulting line of BS, eh?

[ECW]

1. But my "Just Got My A$$ Handed To Me" alarm, just went off!

Thanks for the compliment. With all the exaggerations Mr PAD used in this thread it wasn't hard at all to hand him his A$$.

2. ECW, don't get into it with PAD, he will tear your little tree house down bud.

Sorry, Jimmy boy, but I am not an ape so I don't live in a tree house. If you are big and bad enough, you can come on over to huff and puff to blow my real house down.

3. You are just not up to his level of debate bud.

True. I don't spend a lot of time wallowing around in the mud engaging in namecalling or insulting posters with contrary views but I do make exceptions to the rule when warranted... like now.

4. He knows of what he speaks, and can catch the smallest of lies.

Funny. I caught him in a few lies of his own that *somehow* eluded the steel trap...

5. And just try to understand this, We The Republicans Hate You Bastards Liberals Calling us Neo-Cons.

We Liberals Hate the Hate eminating from you Conservatives. We Liberals Hate the namecalling you always seem to decorate your posts with. We Liberals hate the self-righteous attitudes from Conservatives who never seem to notice their own flaws but rush to point out everyone else's flaws and do so with venom, hatred and a multitude of insults. We Liberals Hate being called Bastards or any other name for that matter. Until you get all those ducks in line, you will be known by THIS Liberal as a neo-con. Don't like it? Tough.

6. This link you try to make with us Republicans and the Neo-Nazis, is a freaking outrage.

Trust me, Chauncy, if I want to call you a Nazi or a neo-Nazi, I will do just that. I won't be hiding behind the term neo-con when I really want to say something else. Don't forget, I'm not the one playing games with names on this board, BUD.

7. And I personally condemn you bastards to hell for doing such.

I'm shaking in my boots.

8. Do not ever use that term, unless you want me to condemn you to hell.

Let's see... you just called me a bastard and your rightwing buddies have posted all sorts of names designed to denegrate, insult, and bash Liberals and Democrats like Moonbat and Coward and you are pissing and whining about being called a neo-con? MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Get used to it, Jimbo, because it is a perfectly acceptable term with a real meaning. If it pisses you off to be called one, maybe you should change your political stripes so no one will be tempted to identify you with that term. Until then, tough cookies. Neo-con it is.

[lily]

Ok.....my money is on ECW!