State of the Union [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

dean_martin

02-07-2005, 12:34 PM

Your cluelessness and ignorance still astounds me, given the fact that you should have gotten a harsh wake-up call to reality last November. It worried me last year when I saw that so many idiots like you blindly followed the moronic leadership of people like Soros and Mooron. But worry no more, as the voice of reason trounced the overamplified voices of fools back then. The silent majority was more powerful than the loudmouthed minority.

Media in the hands of conservatives? Surely you live in fantasyland. How much more proof than Rathergate do you need? Nevermind...no matter what proof is offered, you will ignore it, for you are an ignorant fool of the nth degree.

Yup...continue to spout your idiot theories. We laugh at you now. We have learned that you have no ability to reason, so we no longer want to converse with you. Your conversation has little to no value.

You really have two choices. 1) Continue your current path, in which you and your fellow idiots will continue the downward spiral into insignificance or 2) Take a cold shower in the waters of reality and begin to understand that no one takes an idiot seriously. You don't have credibility. Your theories don't hold water. You have an inability or resistance to grasping truth, probably based on your overwhelming desire to clutch onto your own warped version of reality and to forward your own selfish agenda. Change your ways, get with the program, or continue to be a loser.

It's your choice, but sadly I know that there's little in this world that will cause you to make the wise choice.

Up until recently the U.S. has been a 2-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. People complained that there was no opportunity for others (Reform Party, etc.) to compete. Congratulations! The Dumbocrats have just transformed the U.S. into a 1-party system, as the Dumbocrats have shown that they are absolutely NO COMPETITION and offer no value beyond entertainment. I believe in the value of competition to enhance a product (in this case, political debate), so am somewhat sad that Democrats have self-destructed in this way. Still, better to have them marginalized than to have any sway in our government, given their moronic belief system and total lack of ethics.

I really don't understand your nastiness. At least Rove and the Bush cronies keep theirs under the table and find creative and not-so-vulgar ways to get what they want. I don't think even the Repubs would want YOU out front as their spokesperson or poster boy. They're much more savvy and devious. We can see/hear you coming from a mile away.

Now that the election is over, it seems that you would tone down your rhetoric. Geez, is Monica Lewinski your sister? Did you have a relative at the Koresh compound? Did you have to register the last firearm you purchased? Did a minority get your job? Am I getting warmer?

dean_martin

02-07-2005, 01:09 PM

OK, ok, now that I've read the post to which you were responding, Jeskibuff, I guess Justlisten2 did have it coming to him...he did for all intents and purposes call you a dumba$$ - a simple minded one no less.

JeffKnob

02-07-2005, 01:30 PM

Your cluelessness and ignorance still astounds me, given the fact that you should have gotten a harsh wake-up call to reality last November. It worried me last year when I saw that so many idiots like you blindly followed the moronic leadership of people like Soros and Mooron. But worry no more, as the voice of reason trounced the overamplified voices of fools back then. The silent majority was more powerful than the loudmouthed minority.

Media in the hands of conservatives? Surely you live in fantasyland. How much more proof than Rathergate do you need? Nevermind...no matter what proof is offered, you will ignore it, for you are an ignorant fool of the nth degree.

Yup...continue to spout your idiot theories. We laugh at you now. We have learned that you have no ability to reason, so we no longer want to converse with you. Your conversation has little to no value.

You really have two choices. 1) Continue your current path, in which you and your fellow idiots will continue the downward spiral into insignificance or 2) Take a cold shower in the waters of reality and begin to understand that no one takes an idiot seriously. You don't have credibility. Your theories don't hold water. You have an inability or resistance to grasping truth, probably based on your overwhelming desire to clutch onto your own warped version of reality and to forward your own selfish agenda. Change your ways, get with the program, or continue to be a loser.

It's your choice, but sadly I know that there's little in this world that will cause you to make the wise choice.

Up until recently the U.S. has been a 2-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. People complained that there was no opportunity for others (Reform Party, etc.) to compete. Congratulations! The Dumbocrats have just transformed the U.S. into a 1-party system, as the Dumbocrats have shown that they are absolutely NO COMPETITION and offer no value beyond entertainment. I believe in the value of competition to enhance a product (in this case, political debate), so am somewhat sad that Democrats have self-destructed in this way. Still, better to have them marginalized than to have any sway in our government, given their moronic belief system and total lack of ethics.

So by you blindly accepting whatever Bush is telling you and every policy he puts on the table, what would that make you? That would make you clueless and ignorant in my opinion. Try opening up your mind to new things other than what our president tells you. I have met many people that voted for Bush that have told me they wish they had done more research and had gotten the facts about what is going on. They said they would have voted differently, maybe not for a Democrat but not for Bush.

We need a president that will try to represent our whole country, not just the wealthy, white, Christian Fundamentalists. I am Christian but I don't get my jollies by knowing we are attacking other countries. I don't see it as right to condemn homosexuals. I don't see it as right to cut environmental programs. I don't see it as right to be cutting taxes for the rich. They aren't the ones that are struggling to find where their next meal is coming from. Wages in this country are going down and corporate profits are going up. This has happened a lot in the last four years. So much for him being a moral president. I guess it depends on what your morals are.

Bush is just too extreme for me. I really think that some of his ideas are good ones on the surface but his plans to fix them are way too extreme and don't actually solve the real problem.

I realize that this isn't going to affect how you feel about politics in this country. I know you don't care about my views. You have your views and they will stay the same no matter what happens. No body will every enlighten you because aren't willing to accept any other ideas. Go ahead and ignore what I wrote because I am not trying to change your mind. This was mostly for me to get this off my chest.

jeskibuff

02-07-2005, 05:44 PM

I really don't understand your nastiness.It's only a tit-for-tat response to Justlisten2's nastiness, which I noticed you "conveniently" overlooked. :rolleyes:

May I remind you?

People are such dumb a$$', and the Republicans do a magnificent job of controlling simple minds. You are either wealthy, or a prime example.
Sorry, but the winking smiley doesn't diminish the implication that I have a simple mind (as I'm not especially wealthy). In that statement is also an implication that my mind is controlled and that I am one of the "dumb a$$es". I consider those pretty nasty remarks and I responded in kind. Are you his mommy that overlooks his faults and only sees fault in what others do? Apparently so. I won't demand an apology though...this is the kind of hypocrisy that we have come to expect from liberals. It's seemingly ingrained into your nature.

I don't think even the Repubs would want YOU out front as their spokesperson or poster boy. They're much more savvy and devious. We can see/hear you coming from a mile away.That's one of the major benefits of NOT being a spokesperson. I don't have to mettle my words; I can call things PRECISELY the way I sees 'em! You SHOULD be able to see me coming from a mile away...that's my intention! I don't try to hide the fact that I see an ingoranus* when I see one.

Now that the election is over, it seems that you would tone down your rhetoric.MY rhetoric?? Here's some examples of rhetoric for you:

when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something.

He just can't believe people would buy what he's saying. He's getting away with murder and loots of money. I'd have a funny smile too.... I get a chill anytime he opens his mouth...If not Iran, Korea or some other country to exploit...Gotta keep Halliburton stock up...After all, one must have one's priorities straight...The Republican's do a remarkable job of controlling the media, thereby controlling what people think. That last minute tape showing Bin Laden two days before the election was a brilliant tactical manuver...The evil empire does an admirable job of fooling the people. It's not hard really, as most of the sheep are easily fooled....He didn't protect us on 9/11, what makes him the 'safety' prez?
All this is ignorant stupidity based on what you WANT to believe, without any basis in reality. I'd call that rhetoric!

is Monica Lewinski your sister?She told you I was??? Boy, that girl's got a big mouth! ;)

Did you have a relative at the Koresh compound?Would it burn you if I told you "no"??

Did you have to register the last firearm you purchased?I don't own ANY firearms. Blows that theory out of the water, eh?

Did a minority get your job?No...I got my job!

Am I getting warmer?Why yes, yes you are. Now go change your pants and don't pee in them next time.

OK, ok, now that I've read the post to which you were responding, Jeskibuff, I guess Justlisten2 did have it coming to himAnd I just read this "apology" after writing all of the above retorts. But darn, too late to change it now...I just hit the "submit reply" button!

So by you blindly accepting whatever Bush is telling you and every policy he puts on the table, what would that make you?Where do you get this "blindly accepting" business from? I measure Bush's decisions against good old common sense. They fare pretty good, whereas the crapola spouted by the Dumbocrats makes so little common sense. So far Bush's policies win and Dumbocrats' fears lose. Recall the flack several years ago about Bush trashing the economy. Take a look at the growing economy now. Look at millions of people now freed from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the millions of happy Iraqis who braved death threats to exercise their right to vote. If Dumbocrats had their way, Saddam would still be killing Iraqis at whim! If I listened to Dumbocrats, I would've believed that fake memos really were authentic, despite OBVIOUS flaws. If I listened to Dumbocrats, I would've voted for a liar, fraud and traitor to this United States.

That would make you clueless and ignorant in my opinion.You know what they say about opinions. :rolleyes:

Try opening up your mind to new things other than what our president tells you.Put out something worthwhile - something with substance and I'll check it out. So far, liberals haven't offered anything besides the Anybody But Bush stupidity. All their theories and complaints ring hollow.

I have met many people that voted for Bush that have told me they wish they had done more research and had gotten the facts about what is going on.The FACTS? That's laughable? What facts? How Bush planted explosives in the WTC towers? How Bush fired a missile into the Pentagon? How Bush is really an alien reptile in disguise? Tell your friends to lay off the dope and hang out with more respectable people.

We need a president that will try to represent our whole country, not just the wealthy, white, Christian Fundamentalists.If half of the country weren't so idiotically hateful of the man, they'd find he has got their best interests at heart. No matter WHAT Bush does, these people will hate him. If he tightens security to prevent attacks, liberals accuse him of trampling on their freedoms and fearmongering. If he didn't take such steps and an attack did occur, the same people would accuse him of not taking the proper precautions to protect the citizenry. We've learned to just ignore and ridicule these half-wits. It's called "marginalization". Get used to it.

I am Christian but I don't get my jollies by knowing we are attacking other countries.And you're pretty dumb to think that those of us who do support the Iraq war do get our "jollies" from wartime destruction. You don't seem to have the common sense to realize that there are unsavory steps necessary in preventing even greater destruction. You would probably have opposed our Normandy Beach invasion because you didn't have the foresight to see the kind of world that would evolve with Hitler controlling it.

I don't see it as right to condemn homosexuals.And just who said it is? Is GWB sending homos to the gas chamber? Give me a link to the article...I must've missed it.

Wages in this country are going down and corporate profits are going up. This has happened a lot in the last four years.I've got news for you...this has been going on for more than four years, but you feel the necessity to blame Bush for the ills of the world. I understand. Just take a class in economics and get an education before making rash accusations. Next time you won't come across as such a dunderhead on the topic.

I really think that some of his ideas are good ones on the surface but his plans to fix them are way too extreme and don't actually solve the real problem.Any concrete examples here, or just farfetched postulation? It seems like his plan to improve the economy worked. It seems that the plan to oust dangerous tyrants is going as well as can be expected. Millions of people are now on their way to living lives in freedom, but all the Dumbocrats (like Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer) are only capable of criticism. "We could've done it better", Kerry says. What a buffoon. We dodged a bullet when that idiot lost in November!

You have your views and they will stay the same no matter what happens. No body will every enlighten you because aren't willing to accept any other ideas.Again...give me something of substance to chew on and I will consider it. So far, you've only presented vacant postulation...NOTHING OF WORTH! All your arguments are too easy to shoot down with logic and reason. You have no argument...no basis for changing my mind. I will listen to reason and common sense...you offer neither. Like Kerry, you're only capable of assigning blame...you offer no viable solutions.

JeffKnob

02-07-2005, 07:43 PM

logic and reason

I haven't seen any logic and reason yet in your statement.

Maybe I do need to take some more economics classes but it certainly doesn't require a class to see that behind the smoke and mirrors the economy isn't doing well.

It seems as though you need to go back to elementary school to learn that to have an adult conversation it doesn't require you to use childish names for groups or ideas.

You obviously have some growing up to do. In the mean time, why don't you take some economics classes and maybe some in ethics.

About me not providing examples of all my points, I wasn't trying to change your mind. I also don't want to spend my time citing examples of my points that are easily found in the news and the internet. There are clear examples of Bush's downfalls in the headlines everyday. My time is precious. Stating obvious facts to someone unwilling to listen and consider them are a waste of my time.

dean_martin

02-07-2005, 07:59 PM

It's only a tit-for-tat response to Justlisten2's nastiness, which I noticed you "conveniently" overlooked. :rolleyes:

May I remind you?

Sorry, but the winking smiley doesn't diminish the implication that I have a simple mind (as I'm not especially wealthy). In that statement is also an implication that my mind is controlled and that I am one of the "dumb a$$es". I consider those pretty nasty remarks and I responded in kind. Are you his mommy that overlooks his faults and only sees fault in what others do? Apparently so. I won't demand an apology though...this is the kind of hypocrisy that we have come to expect from liberals. It's seemingly ingrained into your nature.

That's one of the major benefits of NOT being a spokesperson. I don't have to mettle my words; I can call things PRECISELY the way I sees 'em! You SHOULD be able to see me coming from a mile away...that's my intention! I don't try to hide the fact that I see an ingoranus* when I see one.

MY rhetoric?? Here's some examples of rhetoric for you:

All this is ignorant stupidity based on what you WANT to believe, without any basis in reality. I'd call that rhetoric!

She told you I was??? Boy, that girl's got a big mouth! ;)

Would it burn you if I told you "no"??

I don't own ANY firearms. Blows that theory out of the water, eh?

No...I got my job!

Why yes, yes you are. Now go change your pants and don't pee in them next time.

And I just read this "apology" after writing all of the above retorts. But darn, too late to change it now...I just hit the "submit reply" button!

Where do you get this "blindly accepting" business from? I measure Bush's decisions against good old common sense. They fare pretty good, whereas the crapola spouted by the Dumbocrats makes so little common sense. So far Bush's policies win and Dumbocrats' fears lose. Recall the flack several years ago about Bush trashing the economy. Take a look at the growing economy now. Look at millions of people now freed from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the millions of happy Iraqis who braved death threats to exercise their right to vote. If Dumbocrats had their way, Saddam would still be killing Iraqis at whim! If I listened to Dumbocrats, I would've believed that fake memos really were authentic, despite OBVIOUS flaws. If I listened to Dumbocrats, I would've voted for a liar, fraud and traitor to this United States.

You know what they say about opinions. :rolleyes:

Put out something worthwhile - something with substance and I'll check it out. So far, liberals haven't offered anything besides the Anybody But Bush stupidity. All their theories and complaints ring hollow.

The FACTS? That's laughable? What facts? How Bush planted explosives in the WTC towers? How Bush fired a missile into the Pentagon? How Bush is really an alien reptile in disguise? Tell your friends to lay off the dope and hang out with more respectable people.

If half of the country weren't so idiotically hateful of the man, they'd find he has got their best interests at heart. No matter WHAT Bush does, these people will hate him. If he tightens security to prevent attacks, liberals accuse him of trampling on their freedoms and fearmongering. If he didn't take such steps and an attack did occur, the same people would accuse him of not taking the proper precautions to protect the citizenry. We've learned to just ignore and ridicule these half-wits. It's called "marginalization". Get used to it.

And you're pretty dumb to think that those of us who do support the Iraq war do get our "jollies" from wartime destruction. You don't seem to have the common sense to realize that there are unsavory steps necessary in preventing even greater destruction. You would probably have opposed our Normandy Beach invasion because you didn't have the foresight to see the kind of world that would evolve with Hitler controlling it.

And just who said it is? Is GWB sending homos to the gas chamber? Give me a link to the article...I must've missed it.

I've got news for you...this has been going on for more than four years, but you feel the necessity to blame Bush for the ills of the world. I understand. Just take a class in economics and get an education before making rash accusations. Next time you won't come across as such a dunderhead on the topic.

Any concrete examples here, or just farfetched postulation? It seems like his plan to improve the economy worked. It seems that the plan to oust dangerous tyrants is going as well as can be expected. Millions of people are now on their way to living lives in freedom, but all the Dumbocrats (like Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer) are only capable of criticism. "We could've done it better", Kerry says. What a buffoon. We dodged a bullet when that idiot lost in November!

Again...give me something of substance to chew on and I will consider it. So far, you've only presented vacant postulation...NOTHING OF WORTH! All your arguments are too easy to shoot down with logic and reason. You have no argument...no basis for changing my mind. I will listen to reason and common sense...you offer neither. Like Kerry, you're only capable of assigning blame...you offer no viable solutions.

You've been busy! My original post merely expressed my observation that Bush takes some positions without conviction as evidenced by his non-verbal expressions. He's human after all and there are certain things that are common to the vast majority of us, such as the inability to say something convincingly when one does not believe or cannot support his position. As I pointed out, I remember stories of analyses of Clinton's non-verbal behavior and how certain behaviors were indicative of lying and low and behold they were RIGHT on the sex denial matter. If I remember correctly, these analysts pointed to Clinton's nose-touching behavior. This has nothing at all to do with politics, but rather human behavior. Why he would say something he doesn't believe is political.

The facts, statistics, etc. that I've seen (which are practically all of them this time around and those from the mid 80's when this last came up) on our civil justice system do not support Bush's proposals for Federalising medical negligence cases and all class action lawsuits. The Federal judges don't want this, the people don't need this and it is an attack on our rights to trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution and most, if not all, state constitutions. I've seen Bush's sheepish smile after throwing around the Roveisms "junk lawsuits", "lawsuit lottery", "jackpot justice". HE knows he's attacking the dems' strongest supporters - trial lawyers. HE knows that the figures he's relied on have been refuted by the GAO. Man, you can see it on his face! As for Cheney, there are only certain topics that cause him to get that smirk on his face - tort reform and Haliburton and now that the election is over, he won't have to confront the Haliburton topic. Watch the tape of the State of the Union address and watch their expressions during the "junk lawsuit" parts of the speech as compared to other parts where you can tell Bush believes in what he's saying, e.g., spreading liberty.

It's like everything in society. We here about the extremes like MacDonald's being sued because someone's overweight. Well, do you think the civil justice system came into being yesterday? There are rules that deal with meritless lawsuits swiftly. But, you don't make it harder for the majority of cases to go to court just so you can weed out that small percentage. The statistics show that the majority of cases in both the Federal and state systems right now are contract or other disputes initiated by or between businesses. If we keep eroding our rights to have our day in court, court will be only for the elite - those who can afford it.

Do the facial expressions that I observed prove anything? No, but I was curious as to whether anyone else noticed them. (I also think he has Iran in his sights.)

I do agree with Bush's basic premise that if you bring liberty and freedom to the places of oppression where terrorism breeds, terror won't be able to hold out. (I'm sure it's been said more eloquently, but it's been a long Monday.) But, I also think it's healthy to debate where these hotbeds of terrorism and oppression are. You're going to have to accept the fact that there will always be those who oppose acts of aggression even after being attacked. I don't think even you would go into an Amish community calling everyone clueless and ignorant. The debate should be how aggressively we act on this premise. Do we invade Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, African nations, etc.? There are others besides Saddam who kill their own people on a whim. What's the criteria for overthrowing a tyrant? My point is that the Iraq debate was/is a legitimate one no matter what side you're on. I believe that anytime our troops are exposed to harm there should be an open debate. If the President has the authority to act with force, a debate won't spoil the element of surprise, it won't intefere with military operations once underway and this idea that debate displays weakness is BS because it's the ability of the people to question the authority and decisions of those in power that makes us strong.

Also, I think the majority of dems believe that going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

BTW, I don't ascribe to any of those so-called facts you mentioned. I've known some right-wing extremists who ascribe to much more bizarre things. You must be located near a pocket of whackos. I also think Rather and CBS News have lost credibility with the American people including dems. It's a shame that this occurred at a "major network" in the "mainstream media," but it goes to show you that you can't get away with some things in our society.

I have no personal memory of this but I don't think we were in that big of a hurry to stop Hitler. We were isolationists at the time and not ready to fight overseas, but an attack woke us up.

IMO, your assessment of the economy is optimistic. It's still a little early to tell whether Bush's economic plans have "worked" because his plans are so closely tied to the expense of war. It's not like WWII when war meant that everyone who wasn't deployed went to work for the war effort. In other words, only small pockets of the economy are benefitting from this war and it's not enough to carry the costs. The only strong segment of the economy is housing. This has positive ramifications in other areas besides economics, but it also means that more Americans are going into debt. We're buying more on credit than we are with cash. Retail sales at Christmas didn't get as high as expected. We have less disposable income. The dollar doesn't buy as much as it did 3-4 years ago. Interest rates favor borrowing rather than saving. The baby boomer generation will be the last generation to benefit from social security as we know it, but it's the generation that immediately follows them that needs it the most (due to an unusually high debt to income ratio and low interest rates). The Bush plan promotes the "get as much as you can now" philosophy which tends to favor those who already have it.

jeskibuff

02-08-2005, 03:47 AM

I haven't seen any logic and reason yet in your statement.That's perfectly understandable. You have to know what you're looking for when you search for something. Sorry, but I can't draw you any pictures.

Maybe I do need to take some more economics classes but it certainly doesn't require a class to see that behind the smoke and mirrors the economy isn't doing well.What planet do you come from? EVERY indication shows the economy has improved tremendously since the devastation caused by Clinton's recession, the 9/11 attacks and such things as the corporate scandals.

It seems as though you need to go back to elementary school to learn that to have an adult conversation it doesn't require you to use childish names for groups or ideas.There's nothing childish in using the appropriate terms when necessary. Kerry, Boxer, Rather, Mooron are all VERY deserving of the adjective "idiot". The ABB hatred, bozo conspiracy theories and false accusations against Bush all deserved to be labelled as idiotic because THEY ARE IDIOTIC.

You obviously have some growing up to do. In the mean time, why don't you take some economics classes and maybe some in ethics.You must first demonstrate that I have a deficiency in my understanding of economics and that I have some problem with ethics. You have failed miserably in both of those missions. There is no need for me to heed your worthless advice.

About me not providing examples of all my points, I wasn't trying to change your mind.So THAT'S it??? You weren't trying??? Will you tell me next time when you ARE trying?? I bet I won't be able to tell the difference.

I also don't want to spend my time citing examples of my points that are easily found in the news and the internet. There are clear examples of Bush's downfalls in the headlines everyday.Yeah, I've seen plenty of these allegations you refer to. I read about these memos that Rather dug up. I read how Bush is really after the oil of Iraq. Listen JeffKnob, just because some whacko publishes some drug-induced theory that claims GWB is evil personified doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. There are so MANY holes in the vitriol spewed by liberals and there are many such liberals who write such crap in our media. Don't believe everything you see/read.

Stating obvious facts to someone unwilling to listen and consider them are a waste of my time.Your "obvious facts" are unfounded allegations. Learn to recognize the difference between the two and maybe someone will listen to what you have to say.

JeffKnob

02-08-2005, 06:56 AM

It is interesting to see that you are assuming that I am believing everything the democrats say is true. I watch the news everyday and read about current events on the internet as well. Are there any sources that you find to have all the answers to our country? Fox News?

Maybe you could stop believing the Neocon propoganda so blindly. Maybe open up your mind to the fact that politics is flawed and not that just the liberals are flawed. I feel that you are just way to extreme to the "right". Do you have some sort of allegiance to the republicans? Are you Bush's illegitamate son? Is Bush your savior? (Those last two comments were ment as a smarta$$ joke) You have a problem with people blindly believing people like Michael Moore or the extreme left. I can't blame you. I have a problem with people believing the Neocons or the exteme right blindly.

I wish there was a way for us to get facts about our nation that is completely unbiased.

piece-it pete

02-08-2005, 12:45 PM

I'm not sure whether it's me or what, but when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something. VP Cheney's smirk (which looks like an evil grin) in the background doesn't help either. It's not every controversial topic, but there are a select few on which he looks like he doesn't really believe the reasons or grounds for taking the position he's taking.

Do you remember the Clinton nose-touching analyses? Supposedly, these preeminent psychologists examined his facial expressions, body language and voice inflections during several speeches/press conferences and were able to determine when he was lying based on non-verbal cues.

I guess the democrats just aren't innovative/creative/devious enough to sponsor such a study on Pres. Bush.

I also remember when the national debt and budget deficits were huge moral topics addressed by many of the moral majority. From the "where are they now" files - James Dobson's outing Sponge Bob and I'm not sure what Falwell and the John Birch Society are up to. But reducing the national debt takes money out of the pockets of the Rockefellers and other international bankers. I guess we're taking them to raise.

I got a chill when Pres. Bush called out Iran. Are we heading there next?

There were some positives in the speech. Just thought I would stir things up a bit.

Hey you've succeeded lol !

I always watch these speeches, though I'm not sure why anymore - "Our State of the Union is [great/getting better], we [party in power] rule, you drool. Here's why...".

Perhaps I'm getting cynical.

I don't go much by appearance, Clinton sure looked like he understood my pain - but the promised tax cuts never came :( . Lincoln wouldn't be electable now. And I'm sure the Dems have folks on that giveaway thing, yep.

Bush spoke well, I'd rate it VG (according to Goldmine standards :D ). That's unusual IMO. The GOP rank-and-filers LOVE him right now (He's better than Reagan!!) but I feel that, now that the GOP has become a "big government" party, the true conservatives are going to end up being just a leetle bit ticked, as actually winning elections is important to the parties (except for the commies and greens, oh yeah and LaRouche lol). Neocons are very powerful now.

See how managamous (sp) I am. I didn't include Democrats in that "winning elections" statement :lmao: ! But that's 'cause they don't belong in that group, as evidenced by how much they've been talking values lately. We'll see how well they sell it.

The real success here is how Bush managed to setup and underline the vote in Iraq. 1st with the inaugural (we are for freedom), then the vote (true vindication - succeed or fail those Iraqis will never forget it), then the State speech. Excellent, true planning, grand strategy. Superb, and the rest of the world knows it.

Which leads to Iran. I'd much rather scare them into compliance than have to fight, and boy should they be scared. And they are. Or stupid - look at Saddam. N. Korea, Syria, etc, they SHOULD think they're "on the list". Far, far better then sending our kids in.

Pete

dean_martin

02-08-2005, 02:45 PM

bjornb17

02-08-2005, 10:26 PM

i agree with you 100%, jetskibuff

jeskibuff

02-09-2005, 04:41 AM

It is interesting to see that you are assuming that I am believing everything the democrats say is true.You certainly echo many of the standard liberal talking points. That indicates to me that you don't apply much critical thought to their theories. How anyone can believe even a smidgen of what the Democrats say is beyond me. They did a remarkable job of losing an enormous amount of credibility over the last couple of years. I like this cartoon and it was deleted from another post I made (because it was "off-topic"), but it's "on-topic" now, isn't it?
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.11.07.Uncredibles-X.gif

I watch the news everyday and read about current events on the internet as well. Are there any sources that you find to have all the answers to our country? Fox News?I approach ALL news with the same attitude: the writer/anchor likely is inserting their own bias into it, no matter how small. What they say has to be measured up against the yardstick of common sense to determine if any truth lies within. Sorry, but there's too much out there where the obvious motivation is to distort the picture and that is overwhelmingly a result of the desire to promote selfish liberal agendas (gay rights, special treatment for minorities, etc.). There's PLENTY of information out there, especially on the internet. You just need to learn to whittle out the bias to see if there's anything of substance on the inside. Often there's a story within a story. For instance, the Dan Rather episode exposed the ugly bias of mainstream media instead of exposing GWB's supposed evasions of TANG duty as it had intended. Can you spell B-A-C-K-F-I-R-E??? To answer your question, it would be stupid to assume that there are news sources that "have all the answers", but I bet you're really just fishing for my news sources, aren't you? :rolleyes: No problem...I usually watch NBC news programs (Nightly News, Meet The Press). Like I said, common sense is the backbone to deciphering the news. Liberals have consistently demonstrated that they possess so little of the quality, so I understand how they get things so wrong so much of the time.

Maybe you could stop believing the Neocon propoganda so blindly.Maybe you can get a clue and consider the possibility that I DON'T buy propaganda like you think I do. This is best exemplified by this Cox & Forkum cartoon:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.10.27.CuriousSpecimen-X.gif
Obviously, it is beyond your comprehension that someone who thinks differently from you can "think for themselves". :rolleyes: Gag me!

Maybe open up your mind to the fact that politics is flawed and not that just the liberals are flawed.I've stated many times before that I'm not happy with everything that GWB and/or Republicans have done. People are imperfect and politicians are especially susceptible to being "bought". Still, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is about the same difference between the smell around a just-flushed toilet and that of a communal outhouse. Most politicians are rank, but Democrats have proven to be nothing short of putrid!

I feel that you are just way to extreme to the "right".In typical liberal fashion, you rely too much on your feelwings. Your slanted perception of me is probably attributable to your extreme lefty bias. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Do you have some sort of allegiance to the republicans? Are you Bush's illegitamate son? Is Bush your savior? (Those last two comments were ment as a smarta$$ joke)I certainly hope you're not a comedian by profession. Really lame.

You have a problem with people blindly believing people like Michael Moore or the extreme left. I can't blame you. I have a problem with people believing the Neocons or the exteme right blindly.Refer to the above cartoon once again. Why is it that I can so easily tear up virtually ANY of your lame arguments? Why is it so easy to prove you wrong? Maybe because I see things clearly and apply common sense and reason. So much of the conservative agenda holds up nicely against that standard. Practically nothing in the liberal agenda does. Call it "following blindly", but if you can't see the difference then it is not me who is "following blindly", is it?

I wish there was a way for us to get facts about our nation that is completely unbiased.It really doesn't matter much. It's quite apparent that if you got anything unbiased, you'd apply your own bias to it. What's the difference, eh?

I agree with you 100%, jetskibuffWhy thanks, bjorn! By the way, I hate jet skis, so you may notice there is no "t" in my moniker. No problem though...it's a screwy moniker anyway! :) Now, ANSWER MY QUESTION...what does ROFLWTFbbq111oneone mean (what you posted in that QuickSilver thread)?

JeffKnob

02-09-2005, 06:18 AM

If the reasoning behind Bush's policies just makes sense then enlighten me. Why does Bush's way of tackling these issues just make sense?

Social Security
Economy
Gay Rights
Environment
Unemployment
War in Iraq (the argument on this should be based on the ORIGINAL reason we went)

I am dying to know what "common sense" has been or will be applied to these issues. I have been reading about these on my own but I am dying to hear the "sense" from the horse's a$$, oops.....I mean mouth.

piece-it pete

02-09-2005, 09:00 AM

Hey, Pete. After the grueling election season I'm just now regaining my appetite for politics. Talk about burnout! But we've got some important legislation coming up that doesn't get as much air time as keeping the tax cuts permanent or restructuring/privatizing social security. The federalization of all medical negligence cases is being debated. A Congressional hearing was supposed to be held today at which patients injured by medical mistakes and their family members were supposed to be able to speak. An indictment came down today against WR Grace and some of its top officials for hiding information relating to its asbestos mine in Libby, Montana. It's not coincidental that Pres. Bush attacked "frivolous" asbestos claims in his speech.

We have a Federal No-Fault automobile insurance bill co-sponsored by Sen. McCain of all people on the horizon that is mislabeled as a choice for consumers, but if you read the legislation all the favorable choices lie with the auto insurers. Remember, only drunk drivers like no-fault insurance.

GE Protective just petitioned the Texas Dept. of Insurance to increase its rates because it says that Texas' caps on non-economic damages have had no effect on their bottom line. This is happening all over the country in states where insurance companies have won tort reform battles for caps claiming that their rates would either go down or remain steady then after winning they come back and say that lawsuits never had much effect on their rates to begin with. Tort reform was recently defeated in Maryland and there's a huge battle going on in GA right now in which the Texas Insurance Commissioner was invited to speak on the virtues of caps. I don't think he expected GE Protective's application to increase its rates, but the good guys in GA will be ready for him.

Anyhow, it's a never-ending battle to maximize the potential recovery for my clients.

Whoosh!

That's the sound of something going over my head :D .

I like your last statement though. If I need a lawyer I'll call you!

I do know a bit about the asbestos thing, as I've been in the insulation industry for many years. The vast majority of folks affected by mesothemania were also heavy smokers. I met a couple of these old timers. Horrible disease.

Agreed there were/are some real slimy characters involved in the stuff, and it's still being sold by US and Canadian companies into the third world and developing countries.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth that companies that never sold it are being sued by folks never exposed/sick. My company has passed on a number of otherwise excellent acquisitions because of possible exposure to asbestos liability. So this one issue is causing a big problem for this industry - just about every player has sold asbestos (it is an EXCELLENT insulation/fireproofing product).

Of course I would not knowingly approve of an unConstitutional method of dealing with it :) . I'll leave it for you guys to figure out!

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.

Interesting that premiums are still going up in those states. What can we do, short of nationalising the insurance industry (shudder)?

Pete

jeskibuff

02-10-2005, 03:49 AM

If the reasoning behind Bush's policies just makes sense then enlighten me. Why does Bush's way of tackling these issues just make sense?First of all, you're not really interested in finding out the truth, or you'd listen more than you jabber. There is little use in trying to explain something to someone who really isn't interested in listening to anything that opposes their ingrained conceptions. Besides, it's more fun shooting down the idiotic theories that liberals come up with as they vainly try to convince everyone that GWB is Stupid Satan.

Second, I'm not about to write a book, and while...
"Social Security
Economy
Gay Rights
Environment
Unemployment"
...may be a collection of a mere 7 words, nobody in their right mind could explain those on an internet message board forum and would be a fool to waste their time doing so, especially to someone like you. You need another reality check.

War in Iraq (the argument on this should be based on the ORIGINAL reason we went)This subject has been debated for years now. If you haven't got it yet, you never will. Apparently dean_martin has had some enlightenment, which is a good thing:

I do agree with Bush's basic premise that if you bring liberty and freedom to the places of oppression where terrorism breeds, terror won't be able to hold out.

I am dying to know what "common sense" has been or will be applied to these issues. I have been reading about these on my own but I am dying to hear the "sense" from the horse's a$$, oops.....I mean mouth.It's comments like these which will just keep your status intact as my chew toy. You don't deserve direct responses to your fishing questions because it's obvious that you're not really interested in the truth. All you really want to do is try to explain away someone else's position by implying that they're brainwashed by watching only Fox News.

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.Pete....shhhhhh!

Now repeat after me, for the benefit of our Democrat fellows:
"Dean is good. Dean holds the future for the Democratic Party. Democrats should follow Dean whereever he leads them."
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.02.05.NewDirection-X.gif
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

JeffKnob

02-10-2005, 05:03 AM

It is interesting to see that you aren't willing to explain your views to me yet you expect me to explain mine but at the same time even if I did explain mine to you you would never listen. You just find it more fun to use condescending terms and expressions toward me than to actually explain why you feel you are right. I am making an honest effort to hear a real explaination of your views. All I have heard so far is that it is just common sense. I don't feel it is common sense. 49% of the people didn't think it was common sense and a majority of the rest of the world don't think it is common sense. I really want to hear what this common sense is.

You keep stating that I am just falling in to the liberal propoganda. Wouldn't by you saying that the policies of this president are just common sense mean that you are just following the train of the conservative propoganda?

piece-it pete

02-10-2005, 10:22 AM

Jeskibuff (if that is your real name :D ),

lol that cartoon is funny. I like the one about "old Europe" as well.

Just FYI, when I was over in merry ol England shortly after the start of the Iraqi "war", I saw a HUGE anti-Bush/anti-Blair display in downtown London, among other things. But not one single anti-Saddam poster. Go figure.

Very strong similiarities to college campuses over here. And Jeff, this is part of the issue.

With apologies to Jes for butting in:

Everyone spins the stories or events to some degree. Being able to spot the spin, even occasionally, is very valuable regardless of your political inclinations. I found this book to be excellent, and non-political:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072294264/002-5997208-0929667?v=glance

When I left school I was still a long haired peacenik. I believed what they told me, yes. Then my taste in reading slowly changed from Sci-fi to history. When I started realising that we are basically being lied to and manipulated, I couldn't believe it. After all, we ARE free, right? Why would we lie to our own kids? And this AIN'T Santa Claus. This is serious business.

That's why I get my britches in a bundle. Figure out why, and you'll be pissed too. Not neccessarily become Republican. There are/have been honest Democrats, some of whom I admire greatly (Truman, Sam Rayburn come to mind) even though I disagree with them on at least 75% of the issues. I'd consider myself honored to discuss the issues of the day and long term beliefs with them.

On the flip side, there have been dishonest Reps, that I agreed with on 75% of the issues. But those folks, when recognised, should be thrown out, not applauded.

So, figure out why the kids (and uncritical adults, through the press of all stripes including Fox) are being taught and told lies and you'll know the #1 reason I get bent out of shape when I hear those lies repeated. And no, I'm not saying all critique of Bush fits this.

#2, somewhat linked to #1, is overall worldview.

I read an interesting book by Dewey, the guy Truman beat. Don't remember the name :( . After he was defeated he went on a trip through SE Asia, meeting with all the leaders of those various countries. Most talked about how things were affecting THEM. Only Chang Ki Shek (sp) discussed the overall effect and regional and worldwide consequences of various actions.

Which do you think is more likely to lead to a better world?

There have been many Democrats with a large worldview. Roosevelt. Wilson. Men with grand, sweeping vision (that I generally don't agree with :) ). They didn't just talk about how it effected us (small letters) They talked about how it would effect US AND the world.

And I don't see one smidgen of that in current Democrat discourse, they are fine to encourage the lies, even though they know differently. And believe me, the top Dems do know differently. So when I hear that crap I get upset.

I hope this helps you. Even if you end up being a Democrat in spite of it lol. You can at least be a part of the Loyal Opposition, and help us all remain free.

BTW, I don't claim to speak for Jeskibuff, JSE, Justlisten2 :p , or any other conservative or conservative-leaning member.

As far as sources, the key is multiples. If you want the "real" scoop (or an approximation thereof) of any issue or person it is neccessary to read as many sources as possible. I even watch PBS occasionally lol. Section "A" of many newspapers is a good place to look, there is a lot of background info there, it may well be the single best place for info, read cover to cover, partic on Sundays. The opinion pages too, but remember the slant (both ways). I like the McLaughlin Group on PBS, everyone thinks he's a GOPer but I've heard him beat Bush bloody occasionally, he's dead-set against the Iraq campaign and there's always the highly Dem partisan Eleanor. They discuss the issues of the moment quite well IMO.

Pete

Justlisten2

02-10-2005, 11:37 AM

No wonder the GOP owns the media, the rich have more free time. Hell I can't even be bothered to read all them posts. Jeskibuffy, FWIW, I didn't specifically refer to you as a dumba$$. The rich are smart. The dumba$$' are those that vote GOP but aren't rich. You have to be rich or be easily mind manipulated to vote GOP. I personally would love to vote GOP. That's a dream of mine. To one day be wealthy enough to vote republican.........

Now us working folks have to get back to work. I'll leave the grandstanding to you oppulent ones. ;)

piece-it pete

02-10-2005, 12:01 PM

The dumba$$' are those that vote GOP but aren't rich.

Hey now...

What about Democrats who aren't poor?

Pete

dean_martin

02-10-2005, 03:41 PM

I do know a bit about the asbestos thing, as I've been in the insulation industry for many years. The vast majority of folks affected by mesothemania were also heavy smokers. I met a couple of these old timers. Horrible disease.

Agreed there were/are some real slimy characters involved in the stuff, and it's still being sold by US and Canadian companies into the third world and developing countries.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth that companies that never sold it are being sued by folks never exposed/sick. My company has passed on a number of otherwise excellent acquisitions because of possible exposure to asbestos liability. So this one issue is causing a big problem for this industry - just about every player has sold asbestos (it is an EXCELLENT insulation/fireproofing product).

Yes, there are some gravy trainers and with the sheer numbers of injured it's difficult to weed them out early on in the process. We've referred a couple of cases to a large firm in Dallas, TX that screens cases thoroughly by requiring the plaintiff to get forms signed by doctors. There are two serious issues that must be addressed up front: 1) The latency period for disease is often 20-30 years and most states have a "discovery rule" which tolls the statute of limitations until the harm or injury is or should have been discovered, and 2) by that time the company that employed the plaintiff or manufactured the product with asbestos is often either no longer in business or has been aquired by another company (a successor company generally aquires liabilities along with assets).

Here's a timeline of asbestos-related events:

1918-1929:
Medical articles describing asbestosis first appear in scientific literature.

Dr. E.R.A. Merewether, medical inspector of factories in Great Britain, publishes a landmark article on asbestosis describing the clinical characteristics of asbestosis, the dust control requirements to prevent the disease, and the importance of educating workers about the hazards of asbestos.

1932:
Manville Corporation, a major producer of asbestos, settles first asbestosis lawsuits.

1933:
Dr. Anthony Lanza of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company discovers more than 300 cases of asbestosis at the Johns-Manville plant. The cases are never published.

1934:
Two doctors publish the first major medical article associating asbestosis with lung cancer.

1948:
Owens-Illinois Glass Company (parent company to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation) gets results of study on Kaylo, a 15% asbestos-containing pipecovering product. The lab director, Dr. Vorwald, concludes: "...since Kaylo is capable of producing asbestosis, it is better to discover it now in animals rather than later in [humans].... the company, being forewarned, will be in a better position to institute adequate control measure for safeguarding exposed employees and protecting its own interests."

The final report on Kaylo (1952) shows Kaylo dust can produce a peribroncheolar fibrosis typical of asbestosis. No brochure warning about Kaylo's health hazards was ever published.

Owens-Corning (OCF) becomes a national distributor of Kaylo (1953) and publicizes Kaylo in a 1955 sales brochure as: "Light weight, pleasant handling and non-irritating and non-toxic nature contribute to worker well- being."

1949:
Johns-Manville Corporation adopts policy not to tell employees when their medical exams show they have asbestosis.

1953:
Dr. O. A. Sander, medical consultant for Southern Asbestos Company, publishes an article stating, "Asbestosis is compatible with good health and a feeling of well-being."

1962-64:
Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, a producer of asbestos pipecovering, hires Dr. Thomas Mancuso to investigate asbestos. Mancuso reports, "there is an urgent need to protect the company's employees and customers from the danger of Philip Carey asbestos products." Mancuso is immediately fired. His report is buried. No warnings are placed on Philip Carey products.

1964:
Many major asbestos manufacturers attend an international conference (organized by Dr. I .J. Selikoff, Environmental Sciences Lab director at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York) about asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma (a unique asbestos cancer of the lining of the lung). Copies of the proceedings and scientific papers and findings were widely distributed. From a study of 117,000 industrial workers in the NY/NJ area: Up to 80% of asbestos insulators were contracting asbestosis after a latency period of 20 years.

1964:
The Manville Corporation recommends the placement of an asbestos caution label on boxes of asbestos products. The labels were 2" square, stamped in small print on the bottom of 3-foot cardboard boxes.

1965:
The Director of Safety for OCF writes a confidential memo to top management: "Our present concern is to find some way of preventing Dr. Selikoff from creating problems and affecting sales."

1966:
A letter from E.A. Martin, the purchasing director of Bendix Corporation, states: "My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it. There's got to be some cause."

1967:
Louis P. Gray, assistant head of the Pipecovering Department at Newport News Shipyard, writes a memo to four foremen advising respirators are "mandatory" when working with or around asbestos. Gray gives no reason for the respirator use. Workers never see the memo, which is not enforced. Twelve years later Gray testifies: "...it boils down to the fact that if you tell 300 people that what they are working with might cause cancer, you might not have anybody show up the next morning."

1968:
OCF's medical director, Dr. Jon Konzen, responds to an inquiry from OCF lawyers: "Asbestosis was well known and well-documented in the literature... [since the early 1940s]." OCF lawyers later state under oath: "OCF has no information or belief that prolonged use of its products containing asbestos fibers will cause asbestosis."

1969:
OCF's sales manager asks Dr. Konzen about a memo regarding the use of warning labels on Kaylo: "Are you saying that we have to do this now? I naturally would like to delay this requirement as long as possible."

1975-present:
2,500 Newport News Shipyard workers contract asbestosis, lung cancer and/or mesothelioma.

1989:
The EPA issues a ban on the manufacture, importation and distribution of most asbestos-containing products. The industry challenged the ban and it was partially overturned.

1990:
John Thomas, former president of OCF in the 1960s and top executive of OCF since the 1940s, testifies the company knew all the way back to the beginning of his employment that asbestos products were dangerous, that respirators should be worn when working with asbestos products, and that OCF should have warned workers about the dangers of its Kaylo asbestos products.

1999:
Asbestos companies ask Congress for liability relief

I'll leave it for you guys to figure out! - It's not easy but with current public awareness a filing cut-off date is a certainty.

Honestly I don't like Dean, not because he's a moderate, but because he plays like he is athough he's not. I don't trust him.

I'm not sure how the top of the Democratic Party is handled, but down here we would call it the "good ol' boy network".

Interesting that premiums are still going up in those states. What can we do, short of nationalising the insurance industry (shudder)?

Pete

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, there are 3 main problems causing medical malpractice insurance rates to increase. Although the number of medical malpractice claims and payouts has remained steady for more than 10 years, the dollar amounts of the payouts have increased. I can think of 2 reasons for this - better lawyering and increased health care costs. Most patients injured by medical mistakes require further and future medical care. The payouts are based on the stated prices of certain medical treatments and projected medical inflation. Interestingly, when someone with health insurance goes to the ER or hospital for a particular procedure, their health insurance company is not charged what an individual without health insurance would be charged. But, damages for future medical expenses are not based on the prices contracted between health care providers and insurers.

The second problem is that between 1993 and 2002, insurers' return on investments have decreased from a whopping 44% to 18%. Much of this has been made up by increasing premiums. (But I don't think 18% is all that bad, do you?)

The third problem identified is Greek to me but has something to do with the cyclical nature of insurance including the mysterious reinsurance industry which brings into play all insurance, not just medical liability. Therefore, catastrophes such as hurricanes and 9/11 are dragged into the mix.

Here are some interesting quotes from insurance industry execs. and tort reform leaders:

"We have not promised price reductions with tort reform."

~Dennis Kelly, American Insurance Association spokesman, Chicago Tribune, January 3, 2005.

"There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring."

~Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2004.

“Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%.”

~GE Medical Protective regulatory filing with Department of Insurance (TDI), October 30, 2003. The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians’ premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.

"I don't like to hear insurance-company executives say it's the tort system - it's self inflicted."

~Donald J. Zuk, chief executive of Scpie Holdings Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.

"No responsible insurer can cut its rates after a [medical malpractice tort 'reform'] bill passes."

~Bob White, President of First Professional Insurance Company, the largest medical malpractice insurer in Florida, talking about a proposed $250,000 cap in the January 29, 2003 Palm Beach Post.

"I don't think we would argue that the premiums are likely to go down. We believe it will have the effect of reducing the increases in the future. And one of the reasons the premiums won't go down is that even if noneconomic damages are capped, the losses for economic loss, medical expenses, for example, are still in this current environment escalating at, medical inflation is running in the double digits. I forget exactly what it was last year. So even if you were to cap noneconomic damages, the economic damages will still cause acceleration in the premiums. So it would not go down, I want to clarify if I misspoke and said I thought the premiums would go down."

~Cliff Webster, representing the Washington State Medical Association & Chairman of the Washington Liability Reform Coalition, testifying before the Washington State Legislature, House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 21, 2003.

"Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings..."

~From a press release published March 13, 2002, by the American Insurance Association (AIA).

"[M]any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and 'I've never said that in 30 years.'"

~Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, as paraphrased and quoted in "Tort Reforms Don't Cut Liability Rates, Study Says," published in Business Insurance July 19, 1999.

"We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates."

~Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association, as quoted in "Study Finds No Link Between Tort Reforms and Insurance Rates," Liability Week, July 19, 1999.

"Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in. An insurance company today can't do that."

~Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, "Dose of Legality," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 20, 2003.

"While MICRA was the legislature's attempt at remedying the medical malpractice crisis in California in 1975, it did not substantially reduce the relative risk of medical malpractice insurance in California."

~James Robertson, Assistant Vice President and Associate Actuary, SCIPIE Indemnity Company (California's second largest medical malpractice insurer), in written testimony responding to a question from an administrative law jugdge who is overseeing a case in which SCIPIE has requested a 15.6 % rate hike. April 30, 2003

To answer your question what can we do, I think all interested parties should honestly identify the problems first.

dean_martin

02-10-2005, 03:43 PM

Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?

bjornb17

02-10-2005, 10:25 PM

Why thanks, bjorn! By the way, I hate jet skis, so you may notice there is no "t" in my moniker. No problem though...it's a screwy moniker anyway! :) Now, ANSWER MY QUESTION...what does ROFLWTFbbq111oneone mean (what you posted in that QuickSilver thread)?

haha, i think what confused me was the person riding the waves in your icon. anyway, about the quicksilver thread, it got so off topic i posted something random :) its just a bunch of acronyms: ROFL=rolling on floor lauging, WTF=what the f..? bbq=barbeque

as for the !!!!!1111oneoneone, well sometimes people get excited online and forget to push the shift button when making exclamation mark so all they have is 1's after their sentence. the "one one one" after that is making fun of that :D

Hope that clears things up :)

jeskibuff

02-11-2005, 05:03 AM

It is interesting to see that you aren't willing to explain your views to me yet you expect me to explain mineWhat you ask for is the equivalent of asking me to "drop and do 10,000 pushups". Not only is 10,000 a ridiculous number, but why should I even give you ONE?? You've proven to be a royal waste of time on this thread. Your request for me to justify Bush's platforms on social security, gay rights, etc. is like asking me to write another War And Peace. Each of those topics has generated millions of posts on internet message boards with little movement from both sides of the fence. Yet you say I am "not willing" to perform this "simple request"? Get a clue!

...but at the same time even if I did explain mine to you you would never listen.You don't provide any substance, that's why you're dismissed so easily. All you have in your arsenal is "you're blinded by propaganda". That's seemingly your only available response to any idea outside your realm of comprehension and you've already milked it for all you could possibly hope to get out of it.

You just find it more fun to use condescending terms and expressions toward me than to actually explain why you feel you are right.I must admit that I have fun ripping up your lame arguments, but change your tactics and you'll see a different response.

I am making an honest effort to hear a real explaination of your views.What I see out of you is FAR from an honest effort at civil discourse. Here's a challenge. Pick a topic...just ONE aspect of ONE topic. Make it specific, like something that Bush did that you think he should have done differently. State HOW you would have done it better if you were in his position. Now take this topic into a new thread, but reference it back in this thread. If you make an effort to maintain a civil discourse, refrain from insults and empty accusations ("you're blinded by propaganda") and stay on topic, I'll do the same.

All I have heard so far is that it is just common sense. I don't feel it is common sense. 49% of the people didn't think it was common sense and a majority of the rest of the world don't think it is common sense. I really want to hear what this common sense is.Follow the rules I just posted and you'll get honest debate, GUARANTEED. If you honestly seek answers to questions, I'll be more than happy to oblige. But I'm not going to waste my time if you're not serious. Incidentally, saying that "the majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is common sense" is another bogus allegation. For instance, the lefties in Australia convinced everyone that the pro-Bush Prime Minister (John Howard?) would be ousted in the prior election. Once again, the majority proved that these lefties were only powerful vocally...the true majority re-elected him. The same thing happened here in the U.S. on Nov 3rd,2004. The same thing happened in Iraq less than 2 weeks ago.

You keep stating that I am just falling in to the liberal propoganda.And those last 3 examples I gave are a good indication that that's true!

Wouldn't by you saying that the policies of this president are just common sense mean that you are just following the train of the conservative propoganda?Nope. The policies are EASILY justified when measured against that yardstick of common sense. That requires using logic and reason and an understanding of human behaviour.

No wonder the GOP owns the mediaJust continuing to repeat something won't make it true. Keep trying though...no skin off my back! :rolleyes:

the rich have more free time. Hell I can't even be bothered to read all them posts.Tell that to some of your fellow liberal posters on this board. I'm lucky to get one post on this board per day. Obviously you're associating "rich" with "Republican" and "free time". Looks like you may have to resort to "plan B" to make your case.

Jeskibuffy, FWIW, I didn't specifically refer to you as a dumba$$.Don't try and slink out of this one. Obviously you lumped me in with that category. An insult doesn't have to be specific to reach its intended target.

The rich are smart.Usually the case, but not always. Look at John Kerry.

The dumba$$' are those that vote GOP but aren't rich.Another insult hurled at many conservatives that are as annoyed with your stupid comment as the the "Re-Elect Bush" guy is in the "Old Europe" cartoon I posted earlier.

You have to be rich or be easily mind manipulated to vote GOP.In your little world that may be true. But you can't seem to break out of the confines of your self-imposed intellectual prison, can you?

I personally would love to vote GOP. That's a dream of mine. To one day be wealthy enough to vote republican.........There you go again, trying to drive home your association between wealthy and voting GOP. Tell me, why did wealthy people like Mooron and Soros vote Democrat?

I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes.Start out with a "reply to a post". From there, just cut-and-paste the [ quote=] and [ /quote] tags to chop text into quotes and insert your responses.

For instance, if you replied to your own post, you'd see something like:
[ quote=dean_martin]Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]

I can turn that into two quotes, discarding what is not useful to me by typing:
[ quote=dean_martin]I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes.[ /quote]
Then this post should help you out.
[ quote=dean_martin]Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]
Well, we've taken this thread way off topic anyway, so why not make THIS a tutorial? ;)

JSE

02-11-2005, 06:55 AM

Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?

Once the text you want to quote is in your reply, I just highlight it and click on the icon that looks like a page of text in a quote symbol. It's the far right icon under the Font, Size and Color drop donw menus. Also, it seems to be easiest for me to take out the quote markings that the system puts in when you hit "reply to post". I put them back in myself where I want them with the icon mentioned above.

JSE

Justlisten2

02-11-2005, 07:22 PM

There you go again, trying to drive home your association between wealthy and voting GOP. Tell me, why did wealthy people like Mooron and Soros vote Democrat?

Well, I think it's well established what you think of these two fellows. So apparently, rich folks who vote democratic are just as stupid as non-rich who vote republican. I won't disagree with that. ;)

BTW, come on, fess up jeski, are you rich? Yeah, I thought so. :D

piece-it pete

02-12-2005, 02:28 PM

Seems like a good time to point out that the Dem congessmen are FAR wealthier than the Rep ones. It goes to follow....

:D

I doubt there is a single poor adult poster on this board.

Pete

dean_martin

02-12-2005, 03:07 PM

Start out with a "reply to a post". From there, just cut-and-paste the [ quote=] and [ /quote]tags to chop text into quotes and insert your responses.

For instance, if you replied to your own post, you'd see something like:
[ quote=dean_martin]Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]
I can turn that into two quotes, discarding what is not useful to me by typing:
[ quote=dean_martin]I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes.[ /quote]Then this post should help you out.
[ quote=dean_martin]Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]Well, we've taken this thread way off topic anyway, so why not make THIS a tutorial?

Thanks, Jeskibuff. I rarely "get it" on the first try, but your "tutorial" is helpful. I just reread your instructions and I think I get it - I can cut (or copy?) the bracketed info and paste those at the beginning and end of the segments I want to quote in my reply. OK, I'll do that, but next time - I'm losing my patience.

Once the text you want to quote is in your reply, I just highlight it and click on the icon that looks like a page of text in a quote symbol. It's the far right icon under the Font, Size and Color drop donw menus. Also, it seems to be easiest for me to take out the quote markings that the system puts in when you hit "reply to post". I put them back in myself where I want them with the icon mentioned above.

JSE

Thanks, JSE. But I've yet to locate the icon or even the Font, Size and Color drop down menus. I use the linear mode. When I hit "respond to this post" it's easy to quote the passages I want to respond to, but I haven't figured out how to brake up someone else's post so that I can respond to individual points and other than using copy and paste from my internet explorer "edit" drop down menu, I haven't figured out how to add quotes from multiple posts in my reply. Oh well. I'll keep fooling around with it until I come up with something that I'm satisfied with.

Hey, Pete. Sorry about presenting some of my ramblings in a form that made it look like I was quoting you.

jeskibuff

02-13-2005, 09:24 AM

come on, fess up jeski, are you rich? Yeah, I thought so.Well, I suppose I could be considered rich when compared with someone like you who probably has a rough time holding on to minimum wage jobs. But compare my paycheck to my manager's and suddenly I don't look all that wealthy. Compare his to the CEO's and suddenly he doesn't look all that wealthy anymore, either. Compare that CEO's income to a TV star like Ray Romano, and that CEO no longer considers himself "that" wealthy. Romano probably thinks he's small potatoes compared to Brad Pitt or Robert De Niro or Michael Jordan, doesn't he? They all probably are paupers compared to Bill Gates.

So it looks like the term "wealthy" is very relative, isn't it? Fear not, for if we look at the opposite end of the spectrum, you're probably considered extremely wealthy in the eyes of a family of 10 in India or Mexico making $20 a month, aren't you?

I doubt there is a single poor adult poster on this board.Nope...I've just shown how Justlisten2 is considered wealthy. The bottom just fell out of his argument! :D

why did wealthy people like Mooron and Soros vote Democrat?Well, I think it's well established what you think of these two fellows. So apparently, rich folks who vote democratic are just as stupid as non-rich who vote republican.Yes, I think those two are practically braindead. There aren't too many synapses firing in their brains. But you didn't really answer my question, did you? You evaded a direct answer so you could toss out yet another insult to the "non-rich who vote Republican". Don't you feel at all scuzzy sometimes because you don't have the fortitude to respond to simple, direct questions?

Thanks, Jeskibuff. I rarely "get it" on the first try, but your "tutorial" is helpful. I just reread your instructions and I think I get it - I can cut (or copy?) the bracketed info and paste those at the beginning and end of the segments I want to quote in my reply. OK, I'll do that, but next time - I'm losing my patience.You're welcome. Sorry I was in a hurry to post that, otherwise I would've prettied it up a little with some coloration so it wouldn't look so jumbled together. Let me take another whack at it...

if you replied to your own post, you'd see something like:
[ quote=dean_martin]Geez, Pete. I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes. Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]

I can turn that into two quotes, discarding what is not useful to me by typing:
[ quote=dean_martin]I still haven't figured out how to box and respond to multiple quotes.[ /quote]Then this post should help you out.
[ quote=dean_martin]Is there a link to a tutorial here?[ /quote]
Well, we've taken this thread way off topic anyway, so why not make THIS a tutorial?

Now...back to the original subject...

when Pres. Bush addresses some of his pet themes he gets this look on his face like he's just gotten away with something...he looks like he doesn't really believe the reasons or grounds for taking the position he's taking.

I believe GWB is one of the most maligned Presidents EVER to take office. He's been degraded SO MUCH just on the basis of his appearance and I believe this is another instance of that occurring, just not to the extent that some take in likening him to a chimpanzee. People can't control their outward appearances (without plastic surgery), so the impressions that some want to derive from a facial expression shoud be taken lightly. Find real substance by comparing the words of someone to their actions. In this case, GWB fares quite well. Comparatively, when Clinton's words were compared to his actions, he did quite poorly, didn't he?

I guess the democrats just aren't innovative/creative/devious enough to sponsor such a study on Pres. Bush.Or more likely, it would be a fruitless effort, just like the attempts to fabricate TANG documents.

jeskibuff

02-13-2005, 10:22 AM

Oops...I almost forgot about this article by Thomas Sowell which says so much about the way so many of these political threads go:

Here are some excepts:

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them.
,
,
Disagreements are inevitable whenever there are human beings but we seem to be in an era when the art of disagreeing is vanishing. That is a huge loss because out of disagreements have often come deeper understandings than either side had before confronting each other's arguments.
.
.
our educational system is not only failing to teach critical thinking, it is often itself a source of confused rhetoric and emotional venting in place of systematic reasoning.
.
.
Instead of trying to propagandize children to hug trees and recycle garbage, our schools would be put to better use teaching them how to analyze and test what is said by people who advocate tree-hugging, recycling, and innumerable other causes across the political spectrum.
.
.
The point is not to teach them correct conclusions but to teach them to be able to use their own minds to analyze the issues that will come up in the years ahead

Read the whole article here. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050113.shtml)

dean_martin

02-13-2005, 07:52 PM

Now...back to the original subject...

I believe GWB is one of the most maligned Presidents EVER to take office. He's been degraded SO MUCH just on the basis of his appearance and I believe this is another instance of that occurring, just not to the extent that some take in likening him to a chimpanzee. People can't control their outward appearances (without plastic surgery), so the impressions that some want to derive from a facial expression shoud be taken lightly. Find real substance by comparing the words of someone to their actions. In this case, GWB fares quite well. Comparatively, when Clinton's words were compared to his actions, he did quite poorly, didn't he?

Or more likely, it would be a fruitless effort, just like the attempts to fabricate TANG documents.

That's my conclusion based on my observations and I don't mind sharing it because I would like to know whether anyone else has noticed the same thing or whether it's my own paranoia. I notice his facial expressions immediately after he's taken a shot at lawyers and the civil justice system. I pay attention to all his little junkets to push tort reform. I know the statistics, numbers and stories of real people don't support his positions on our civil justice system. But this is a topic that the vast majority of folks have been misinformed on by large campaigns sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups. The info the public has received is all one-sided with only a grain of truth if any at all. The Stella Awards are a prime example. I've seen these myths referred to in US News and World Report and Reader's Digest as truth. I've heard them repeated on the radio as truth. It seems that the whole issue has snowballed in one direction and no one wants to verify factual assertions, hear opposing ideas or even pay attention to the results of the few reputable studies and reports. The reason there are so few unbiased, objective reports and studies is because there's simply not enough interest. What's disturbing though are the reports of the GAO and CBO that refute the figures Pres. Bush uses from biased studies. The fallacies of the very study Bush relies on are explained in the CBO report. So, at least on this one issue, his words do reflect his substance or lack thereof.

Now, I can look on my Pres.'s face when he complains about "junk lawsuits" and compare his expressions to those when he's just discussed spreading liberty in the Middle East and there's a difference to me - maybe because I've studied the issue.

I agree that Pres. Bush has taken some shots for his demeanor. But being from Alabama, his mannerisms aren't all that unusual to me. I can look past his swagger and look over his getting tripped up sometimes when he speaks without a script like normal people do. (Hell, I thought Kerry was the goofy one.) But having two boys who are now teenagers has taught me to tune in to certain things when I'm being told something that doesn't quite fit.

Justlisten2

02-13-2005, 08:06 PM

Seems like a good time to point out that the Dem congessmen are FAR wealthier than the Rep ones. It goes to follow....

:D

I doubt there is a single poor adult poster on this board.

Pete

I'm sure the wealthy congressmen just represent the Dems out of guilt. My wife's boss is very rich, whole silver spoon complex. She's a diehard Dem, sure to save the poor from this horrible world. Not enough to give up one of her homes or Mercedes, but in her heart. You know how it is, kind of like when them millionaire music stars hold a 'benefit' concert, to raise money for disadvantaged. They don't contribute their own money, just their 'gift'.

Personally, I'd prefer a real job over charity. Don't take my money, benefits, and dignity, and then try to act sympathetic by offering charity. That's my main beef with the republican's corporate america. They made it legal to steal from the working man, but if that same working man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, he's a crook.
It's amusing to me how america has chosen 'greed' as the one deadly sin to worship. Got a gluttony problem, we can get you help. Got a lust problem, we can get you help. Got anger problems, we can get you help, etc, etc.
Got a greed problem, get up on that pedestal and let us worship you, you wonderful false god you. As Don King would say: Only in America.

Justlisten2

02-13-2005, 08:22 PM

Yes, I think those two are practically braindead. There aren't too many synapses firing in their brains. But you didn't really answer my question, did you? You evaded a direct answer so you could toss out yet another insult to the "non-rich who vote Republican". Don't you feel at all scuzzy sometimes because you don't have the fortitude to respond to simple, direct questions?

Funny, those whose opinions are different from yours are 'practically braindead'. Yet you protect those you don't even know, because they agree with your POV. I only feel scuzzy while reading your posts. You represent all that is wrong with this country. You are the cancer that spreads through this country, that will lead to it's downfall. Just like the great Roman Empire, this too shall pass. I know you don't care, because you and your borrow and spend republicans live for today only. F%^k tommorrow. One day, tomorrow will come. Again, you won't care, you'll be pushing up dasies while laughing with dubya, saddam, hitler and friends in your heated new world down below.

BTW, you are rich. Nobody making less than 6 figures has your attitude or free time. Enjoy this life. No camel getting through the eye of a needle for you. ;)

jeskibuff

02-14-2005, 04:40 AM

I'm sure the wealthy congressmen just represent the Dems out of guilt.That answer is pure speculation on your part with no basis in reality, but that's to be expected from you. You have to uphold your pet theory that it's Big Corporations against The Little Guy, so because any other possibility would undermine that belief, you invent answers that suit you. Represent them out of guilt? Guilt for what??

My wife's boss is very rich, whole silver spoon complex. She's a diehard Dem, sure to save the poor from this horrible world. Not enough to give up one of her homes or Mercedes, but in her heart. You know how it is, kind of like when them millionaire music stars hold a 'benefit' concert, to raise money for disadvantaged. They don't contribute their own money, just their 'gift'.It's much easier spending other people's money. Even Kerry just pledged $1 million to get the fundraising ball rolling to raise the Democratic Party from the dead. In his 2/9 e-mail, he states: "To help kick-start this, I will make a contribution to support grassroots organizing at the Democratic National Committee in the amount of $1,000,000. Join me with a contribution of your own..." He later confesses: "The $1,000,000 I am pledging will come out of our campaign committee's funds." Pretty funny. He's giving away money that these very same people he's soliciting have given him. I'm sure his campaign funds paid back the mortgage he took out on one of his many mansions when he first jumped in the campaign. Such a "man of the people". :rolleyes:

Personally, I'd prefer a real job over charity. Don't take my money, benefits, and dignity, and then try to act sympathetic by offering charity. That's my main beef with the republican's corporate america.Naw. You're thoroughly transparent. You're just envious of anyone who makes more money than you do. You misspent your education and now need to vent your anger on those who didn't squander theirs. You were a goof-off in school. Everyone knows you, because everyone attended school with fools like you. Everything has a price, doesn't it? Was it worth what you paid?

They made it legal to steal from the working man, but if that same working man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, he's a crook.Who made it legal? If you say "Democrats", I might agree with you. It seems that Bush's tax cuts were a major effort to return money to the working man, but Democrats weren't too happy with that initiative, were they?

It's amusing to me how america has chosen 'greed' as the one deadly sin to worship.Americans are just the same as people all over the world. All human beings have the same desires and shortcomings. It's easy to get greedy when there are many temptations available. I'm sure that if you weren't posting on this board that you wouldn't have near as much appetite for more expensive audio gear, would you?

Funny, those whose opinions are different from yours are 'practically braindead'.Not quite. Those whose opinions show no common sense but rather betray an effort to support a hidden agenda are "practically braindead". In Mooron's case, it appears to me that he just wants to milk the world's liberal suckers out of their money by persuading them that he's a champion for the "little guy". In Soros case, it appears that his main cause is for legalization of drugs. His overuse of drugs is probably responsible for his synapse misfirings.

you protect those you don't even know, because they agree with your POV.That may be true, because that POV holds water. It seems your modus operandi is to attack the person rather than the POV, as you can't seem to be able to defend yours very well.

I only feel scuzzy while reading your posts. You represent all that is wrong with this country. You are the cancer that spreads through this country, that will lead to it's downfall.Triggered a nerve, did I? Is your face all a-twitchy like Inspector Clouseau's captain? Post us some pictures, will you? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

BTW, you are rich. Nobody making less than 6 figures has your attitude or free time.My, oh my. Such envy showing through. By the way, did you win the lottery? It seems that you made two wordy posts which indicates to me that you suddenly have a lot of free time. By your own reckoning, if you have time to post to a message board, you are wealthy, so you must've won the lottery, eh? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif Why can't you see how ridiculous your logic is?

Enjoy this life. No camel getting through the eye of a needle for youWho appointed you judge and jury? I'm afraid that you will have no say in the matter when my judgment day arrives. Better that you should be concerned with your own disposition. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif

JeffKnob

02-14-2005, 06:24 AM

Justlisten2,

You need to give up on jeskibuff. He isn't worth your time. He won't even consider, let alone accept, any other ideas besides his own or the ones that came from his lord and savior George W Bush. Any explaination, even if the facts hit him in the face, wouldn't be enough to sway him. He is hard headed and he is a hypocrit.

Jeskibuff,

I am really sorry you can't open your mind and realize this. You assume that I am a lot more left than I really am. I am a lot more moderate than you give me credit for. I really wish I got the impression from you that you weren't so extremely "right".

jeskibuff

02-15-2005, 03:41 AM

Justlisten2,
You need to give up on jeskibuff. He isn't worth your time.Actually, that's not all that bad advice. Justlisten2 needs to find someone more gullible who will buy his propaganda. Maybe someone will accept his wild speculations as truth. I certainly am not going to consider something so foolish that has no basis in reality.

He won't even consider, let alone accept, any other ideas besides his own or the ones that came from his lord and savior George W Bush. Any explaination, even if the facts hit him in the face, wouldn't be enough to sway him. He is hard headed and he is a hypocrit.And what facts have YOU hit me in the face with, you coward? I threw the gauntlet down, challenging you to start a thread where debate can ensue without insults. You certainly weren't man enough to take up the challenge, were you? It's easy to accuse someone of "not accepting facts" when you're not willing to put your own "facts" on the table. Coward! Blowhard!

I am really sorry you can't open your mind and realize this.Realize WHAT? That everything you believe is what everyone else should believe without question? Get a clue. You can't hold up your end of the argument. You can't even FIND your argument. You believe what you want to believe and ignore ANY facts that may challenge them. I've got your number and many other people on this board have your number. Too bad you'll never get it, but I hope one day a little flicker of light will kindle within that tiny brain of yours.

You assume that I am a lot more left than I really am.All you've proven to me is your ignorance and arrogance.

I am a lot more moderate than you give me credit for. I really wish I got the impression from you that you weren't so extremely "right".Well if you listened to what I was saying instead of plugging your ears, you might find some common ground, but you're just plainly an ignoranus*. I hope that works out for you. :rolleyes:

JeffKnob

02-15-2005, 05:17 AM

The plain and simple truth is that you attack other people for having a view different than you. You attack the view and the person. You then attack someone else and condemn them for doing the same thing....hypocrit!!! Look in the mirror and realize that nobody wants to have a discussion where is it ok for one person to be nasty but horrible for the other person to do the same.

It seems your modus operandi is to attack the person rather than the POV, as you can't seem to be able to defend yours very well.

You need need to realize that you are doing the exact same thing as you are preaching to others not to do. Why would anybody want to have a conversation and try to understand you? I would love to have a political conversation with someone that isn't going to say that I am not man enough or am a coward. This is so far beyond a political discussion.

I simply decided not to continue a political discussion on one of the topics because I don't need to take the childish name calling you want to sling at me. This is why I didn't start the other thread; not because I am not man enough, but because I can find better people to talk with than you.

piece-it pete

02-15-2005, 02:03 PM

That's my conclusion based on my observations and I don't mind sharing it because I would like to know whether anyone else has noticed the same thing or whether it's my own paranoia. I notice his facial expressions immediately after he's taken a shot at lawyers and the civil justice system. I pay attention to all his little junkets to push tort reform. I know the statistics, numbers and stories of real people don't support his positions on our civil justice system. But this is a topic that the vast majority of folks have been misinformed on by large campaigns sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups. The info the public has received is all one-sided with only a grain of truth if any at all. The Stella Awards are a prime example. I've seen these myths referred to in US News and World Report and Reader's Digest as truth. I've heard them repeated on the radio as truth. It seems that the whole issue has snowballed in one direction and no one wants to verify factual assertions, hear opposing ideas or even pay attention to the results of the few reputable studies and reports. The reason there are so few unbiased, objective reports and studies is because there's simply not enough interest. What's disturbing though are the reports of the GAO and CBO that refute the figures Pres. Bush uses from biased studies. The fallacies of the very study Bush relies on are explained in the CBO report. So, at least on this one issue, his words do reflect his substance or lack thereof.

Now, I can look on my Pres.'s face when he complains about "junk lawsuits" and compare his expressions to those when he's just discussed spreading liberty in the Middle East and there's a difference to me - maybe because I've studied the issue.

I agree that Pres. Bush has taken some shots for his demeanor. But being from Alabama, his mannerisms aren't all that unusual to me. I can look past his swagger and look over his getting tripped up sometimes when he speaks without a script like normal people do. (Hell, I thought Kerry was the goofy one.) But having two boys who are now teenagers has taught me to tune in to certain things when I'm being told something that doesn't quite fit.

Can you feel the love in this thread?

Thanks for that timeline on asbestos. I've already forwarded it to quite a few folks.

I mentioned that the big players in the asbestos industry were basically schmucks. But the little guys have been hammered over this, every local insulation contractor and distributor, who were only reselling or installing the then-ok (as far as they knew) product. They've really been caught in the middle on this thing.

I too have noticed that the Pres kinda changes depending on what he's talking about. I chalked it up to comfort level, when he is confident (terror, freedom) he projects confidence, and the opposite on the opposite :) . It could have something to do with sincerity, sure.

Whoop time to go, more later!

Pete

dean_martin

02-15-2005, 06:04 PM

I mentioned that the big players in the asbestos industry were basically schmucks. But the little guys have been hammered over this, every local insulation contractor and distributor, who were only reselling or installing the then-ok (as far as they knew) product. They've really been caught in the middle on this thing.

Pete

It is sticky for the link in the chain that comes directly before the consumer or end user. This problem may come from the laws of the various states on product liability. Some states have product liability laws which are practically strict liability laws that apply to not only the manufacturer but also the seller. Other states include an element of negligence in their product liability laws which rarely apply to sellers unless the plaintiff can prove that the seller had an oppurtunity to inspect and find the "defect" or had notice of the "defect."

For example, in my state the most common product liability case that includes the seller is a food preperation case where a restaurant actually prepares and handles the food before it gets to the consumer. If the product is prepackaged and the seller has no notice of a dangerous defect then the seller is either left out of the lawsuit or gets out early.

In some states product liability laws are from statutes and in others they are from common law developed through case law. For the most part, there are no Federal product liablity statutes. There are of course numerous regulations promulgated by various agencies that apply to certain products. Interestingly, we do not have a body of Federal common law due to the Erie doctrine which came from a 1930's case (this doctrine has eroded over the years as Congress steps into areas previously handled by the states.)

So what's Congress to do if they do step in with little or no precedence at the Federal level and varied approaches at the state level? Product liablity law is basically a creature born in the industrial age which in legal terms means it's very young.

jeskibuff

02-16-2005, 03:51 AM

The plain and simple truth is that you attack other people for having a view different than you.Not necessarily. I attack them when they can't back up their point of view with anything other than "you're brainwashed by propaganda".

You attack the view and the person.Yes, you better believe that I attack the view. I use logic, reason and common sense to discredit a viewpoint that is only speculation and wishful thinking. As far as attacking the person, you'll notice a consistency with me. If you play nice, I'll play nice. If you insist on being nasty, I'll serve it right back in your face. Justlisten2 started off being nasty and he got a nice dose of his nastiness back at him. Even dean_martin recognized that he had it coming to him. Now you entered this thread with a decision to tag team with Justlisten2, and now you're complaining that you're getting the same sort of response that he got. Like I said earlier, try a different approach and you'll get a different response. Start a new thread and attempt to be civil. You'll be astounded that you'll get a civil response. If you're too cowardly to do so then I guess you'll just have to continue to whine and wail in this thread as I lob insults back in your face.

You then attack someone else and condemn them for doing the same thing....hypocrit!!!Nope. Tit-for-tat. I have an intolerance for stupidity and rudeness. It's funny the reaction you get from rude people (like you) who get rudeness shoved right back in their face.

Look in the mirror and realize that nobody wants to have a discussion where is it ok for one person to be nasty but horrible for the other person to do the same.Take a look at your entry into this thread and see who started out being nasty. Then call yourself a hypocrite, as you deserve the label.

You need need to realize that you are doing the exact same thing as you are preaching to others not to do. Why would anybody want to have a conversation and try to understand you?Is there an echo in this room? Didn't you just say this earlier?

I would love to have a political conversation with someone that isn't going to say that I am not man enough or am a coward. This is so far beyond a political discussion.And I extended an invitation for you to do so, but you don't have enough substance to engage in a polite political conversation, do you?

I simply decided not to continue a political discussion on one of the topics because I don't need to take the childish name calling you want to sling at me. This is why I didn't start the other thread; not because I am not man enough, but because I can find better people to talk with than you.But if you started that thread and I got nasty without provocation, THEN you could call me a hypocrite and point out that I broke my promise. But you aren't capable of doing so, so you just resort to weaseling out of the challenge. I, on the other hand am confident that I have the full capacity to engage in polite political debate and will take up ANYONE on that challenge. I just fully expect that most liberals aren't capable of doing likewise, so until one is man enough to step up to that challenge, we'll NEVER know, will we? C'mon, JeffKnob....TAKE THE CHALLENGE. DON'T BE A COWARD. TAKE THE CHALLENGE! Prove that I'm a hypocrite! Can't do it, can you?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

JeffKnob

02-16-2005, 06:05 AM

Not necessarily. I attack them when they can't back up their point of view with anything other than "you're brainwashed by propaganda".

Yes, you better believe that I attack the view. I use logic, reason and common sense to discredit a viewpoint that is only speculation and wishful thinking. As far as attacking the person, you'll notice a consistency with me. If you play nice, I'll play nice. If you insist on being nasty, I'll serve it right back in your face. Justlisten2 started off being nasty and he got a nice dose of his nastiness back at him. Even dean_martin recognized that he had it coming to him. Now you entered this thread with a decision to tag team with Justlisten2, and now you're complaining that you're getting the same sort of response that he got. Like I said earlier, try a different approach and you'll get a different response. Start a new thread and attempt to be civil. You'll be astounded that you'll get a civil response. If you're too cowardly to do so then I guess you'll just have to continue to whine and wail in this thread as I lob insults back in your face.

Nope. Tit-for-tat. I have an intolerance for stupidity and rudeness. It's funny the reaction you get from rude people (like you) who get rudeness shoved right back in their face.

Take a look at your entry into this thread and see who started out being nasty. Then call yourself a hypocrite, as you deserve the label.

Is there an echo in this room? Didn't you just say this earlier?

And I extended an invitation for you to do so, but you don't have enough substance to engage in a polite political conversation, do you?

But if you started that thread and I got nasty without provocation, THEN you could call me a hypocrite and point out that I broke my promise. But you aren't capable of doing so, so you just resort to weaseling out of the challenge. I, on the other hand am confident that I have the full capacity to engage in polite political debate and will take up ANYONE on that challenge. I just fully expect that most liberals aren't capable of doing likewise, so until one is man enough to step up to that challenge, we'll NEVER know, will we? C'mon, JeffKnob....TAKE THE CHALLENGE. DON'T BE A COWARD. TAKE THE CHALLENGE! Prove that I'm a hypocrite! Can't do it, can you?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

There is nothing for me to prove....you have done a fine job of that on your own.

dean_martin

02-16-2005, 08:51 AM

Even dean_martin recognized that he had it coming to him.

Thanks...err, I guess [insert "a liberal, pinko commie bastard like" after "Even"]. I tickle myself sometimes.

piece-it pete

02-16-2005, 10:10 AM

[insert "a liberal, pinko commie bastard like" after "Even"].

Oh it's worse than that - you're a lawyer!!!

:D

Sorry, couldn't pass it up. But don't feel too bad - I'm in sales.

As far as the asbestos thing, I don't know what the specific issue is, but if you've touched it in this industry it's the kiss of death. It's a real drag on this market segment, which effects the whole construction industry.

They still haven't found a real overall replacement for it btw. The stuff was incredible.

Pete

jeskibuff

02-17-2005, 03:42 AM

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

There is nothing for me to prove....you have done a fine job of that on your own.
Once again, you display your tendencies to rely on fantasy and wishful thinking to justify your belief system. So you think I've proved myself to be a hypocrite, eh? That might be funny if it weren't such a lame and pathetic illogical argument.

Now if you want proof of something, all we have to do is look at how I painted you into a corner where all you can do is utter a nervous laugh in order to pretend you're NOT painted into a corner. But the words are here for all to see, aren't they?

I challenged you to engage in a polite, civil debate, sans insults. This was the equivalent of challenging an illiterate to a simple game of Scrabble, I suppose. It's not like I'm challenging you to a gunfight, is it? Yet all you can do is hem and haw and find lame excuses to avoid the inevitable embarrassment. You've done this on a message board where many people have witnessed the exchange. Spin it any way you want, but you're obviously a toothless coward who doesn't have the capacity to engage in such a debate.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence is overwhelming. JeffKnob is plainly a coward who can't put his money where his mouth is. Maybe he actually believes that "you're blinded by propaganda" is really not an insult. Maybe he actually believes that it is a valid response to a point made by the opposition. Whatever the case, it's evident that he possesses neither the desire nor the ability to engage in polite, civil debate. What further proof is necessary?

[insert "a liberal, pinko commie bastard like" after "Even"]Oh it's worse than that - you're a lawyer!!!Oh now pete, just because others have resorted to responding with only insults doesn't mean you should stoop to the same level! :D And dean_martin...are you psychic? How did you know that is really the way I wanted to phrase it? :D Of course for some reason "liberal pinko commie f-a-g" seems to roll off the lips a little more naturally. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif

JeffKnob

02-17-2005, 06:46 AM

Once again, you display your tendencies to rely on fantasy and wishful thinking to justify your belief system. So you think I've proved myself to be a hypocrite, eh? That might be funny if it weren't such a lame and pathetic illogical argument.

Now if you want proof of something, all we have to do is look at how I painted you into a corner where all you can do is utter a nervous laugh in order to pretend you're NOT painted into a corner. But the words are here for all to see, aren't they?

I challenged you to engage in a polite, civil debate, sans insults. This was the equivalent of challenging an illiterate to a simple game of Scrabble, I suppose. It's not like I'm challenging you to a gunfight, is it? Yet all you can do is hem and haw and find lame excuses to avoid the inevitable embarrassment. You've done this on a message board where many people have witnessed the exchange. Spin it any way you want, but you're obviously a toothless coward who doesn't have the capacity to engage in such a debate.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence is overwhelming. JeffKnob is plainly a coward who can't put his money where his mouth is. Maybe he actually believes that "you're blinded by propaganda" is really not an insult. Maybe he actually believes that it is a valid response to a point made by the opposition. Whatever the case, it's evident that he possesses neither the desire nor the ability to engage in polite, civil debate. What further proof is necessary?

Oh now pete, just because others have resorted to responding with only insults doesn't mean you should stoop to the same level! :D And dean_martin...are you psychic? How did you know that is really the way I wanted to phrase it? :D Of course for some reason "liberal pinko commie f-a-g" seems to roll off the lips a little more naturally. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif

That is really funny because it was I that challenged you to show and explain your "common sense". (Post on 02-09-2005, 08:18 AM ) You then decided do a good ol switcheroo to make it look like you challenged me. (Post on 02-11-2005, 07:03 AM)

You claim that this is all common sense and that I have no sense at all. Prove it! I have asked you to show even some of your common sense and you skirted around this idea. What you really want is for me to tell you how I feel about an issue and then you will destroy this view with your common sense. I wanted to have a discussion. You wanted to smear someone (me) on this board. That is clearly shown in your last post by stating that you had backed me into a corner. I hope you are proud of yourself. What a man!!

Now I don't even want to discuss these issues with you anymore. I don't care anymore. You can call me a coward and people on this board can make up their own mind about me and you. I know that I am not a coward and all the people that are important to me know that I am not a coward so why do I care what you think of me. You don't need to hold your own trial for me. That is just childish. Who is pathetic now?

I am so glad to know that you think about the many people who are reading this and judging us. I frankly don't care. People can think what they want. This message board is not my life. Judging by your behavior and actions you should be a lot more worried about how people are going to perceive you after this.

dean_martin

02-17-2005, 08:31 AM

And dean_martin...are you psychic? How did you know that is really the way I wanted to phrase it? :D Of course for some reason "liberal pinko commie f-a-g" seems to roll off the lips a little more naturally. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif

Yes, I'm psychic. I knew you were thinking "f-a-g", but I didn't want to bring up your homophobia. I know that traumatic event on the river that day still haunts you. Maybe if you confront it head-on we can help you with it. You know how us liberals are - always concerned about feelings and stuff, so I've provided a link for you to confront your past and resolve some issues. It even has some soothing music.

http://www.thesahara.net/deliverance.htm

Remember Mr. Buff, we're here for you.

jeskibuff

02-18-2005, 04:47 AM

That is really funny because it was I that challenged you to show and explain your "common sense". (Post on 02-09-2005, 08:18 AM )Not quite. You challenged me to write a book encompassing several general topics. It was a ridiculously unreasonable request. I explained why it was unreasonable. You ignored my explanation, continuing to believe your fantasy that it was a reasonable request. Do you EVER listen to a response or do you just like listening to yourself babble on? I told you that if you zeroed in on a SPECIFIC aspect of ONE of those topics, then that would be reasonable. What part of that DON'T you understand? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

You then decided do a good ol switcheroo to make it look like you challenged me. (Post on 02-11-2005, 07:03 AM)There is only a "switcheroo" occurring inside your feeble imagination. I merely set down some rules for POLITE & CIVIL debate. There's no doubt that you've tried every excuse in the book to cower out of that simple, REASONABLE and FAIR challenge. People can only wonder why, can't they? Like I said, it's not like it's an invitation to an Hamilton/Burr style duel.

You claim that this is all common sense and that I have no sense at all. Prove it!First of all, you don't seem to have the basic common sense to understand that a request for someone to expound on several GENERAL topics is unreasonable, especially on an internet message board. Geez, people complain that my posts are too long anyway and you want me to write a book, ESPECIALLY FOR YOU??? What part of that DON'T you understand? THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE. You HAVE NONE!

I have asked you to show even some of your common sense and you skirted around this idea.Nope. You asked me to write a book. Now I am tiring of repeating the same old questions. WILL YOU EVER GET IT, or do I need to get some kind of internet endless loop message device to feed you the same old answers? This is a common problem when engaging people like you. This is my THIRD TIME trying to communicate the same thing to you. Either you ignore what is written or you're just TOO DENSE to comprehend simple concepts. Which is it?

What you really want is for me to tell you how I feel about an issue and then you will destroy this view with your common sense. I wanted to have a discussion.So you're AFRAID of getting your feelings demolished by common sense, are you? If they can be vaporized by common sense and reason, shouldn't they be tossed out the door anyway? Do you REALLY want to hang on to viewpoints that have no basis in reality? You don't want to have a discussion. You're AFRAID to have a discussion. You're afraid to get into a debate where I've neutralized your only weapon which is the comment "you are blinded by propaganda". Without that ammunition you find yourself defenseless, don't you?

You wanted to smear someone (me) on this board.I have no desire to smear ANYONE. I DO have the desire to expose the ridiculous logic that you embrace, as the moronic mindset that you possess is like a nasty cancer that needs to be eradicated. Getting rid of lunacy can only make the world a better place in which everybody can live.

That is clearly shown in your last post by stating that you had backed me into a corner. I hope you are proud of yourself. What a man!!You ARE backed into a corner, I am proud of myself and I'm quite the man! You have only ONE option to get out of the corner you're in. That ONE option is to take my challenge. Weaseling out of it just keeps you cowering in the corner. Cower away, JeffKnob!

Now I don't even want to discuss these issues with you anymore. I don't care anymore.I had to look this up in my Whiner-to-English dictionary. It translates to: "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh"!

You can call me a coward and people on this board can make up their own mind about me and you. I know that I am not a coward and all the people that are important to me know that I am not a coward so why do I care what you think of me.Well you should care, because such cowardice and distance from reality can only have adverse affects on your own lifestyle, outside of an internet message board.

You don't need to hold your own trial for me. That is just childish. Who is pathetic now?Why YOU are of course. Is there any doubt?

I am so glad to know that you think about the many people who are reading this and judging us. I frankly don't care. People can think what they want. This message board is not my life. Judging by your behavior and actions you should be a lot more worried about how people are going to perceive you after this.I don't care a flip about what anyone on this board thinks of me, so it's not like I'm out to win a popularity contest for my own self validation. I do enjoy dissecting flimsy arguments to expose them for the trash that they are. Mindsets like yours need to be dealt with so that other people won't be sucked in by such flawed philosophy. It also entertains me as an interesting study in human behaviour. Thanks for presenting yourself as such a willing subject! :D

I knew you were thinking "f-a-g", but I didn't want to bring up your homophobia. I know that traumatic event on the river that day still haunts you.Man, I just can't get that banjo music out of my head. And no one told me they were filming the whole thing! http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Maybe if you confront it head-on we can help you with it.My doctor says there's nothing that can be done. Every third week I get this urge to just go out and KILL KILL KILL someone. I tried to just substitute by torturing puppies and kittens, but it just didn't have the same effect. Now just talking about it works up my desire.
I think it's about time I took out a trial lawyer. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif
Know of any?? ;)

JeffKnob

02-18-2005, 06:15 AM

Not quite. You challenged me to write a book encompassing several general topics. It was a ridiculously unreasonable request. I explained why it was unreasonable. You ignored my explanation, continuing to believe your fantasy that it was a reasonable request. Do you EVER listen to a response or do you just like listening to yourself babble on? I told you that if you zeroed in on a SPECIFIC aspect of ONE of those topics, then that would be reasonable. What part of that DON'T you understand? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

There is only a "switcheroo" occurring inside your feeble imagination. I merely set down some rules for POLITE & CIVIL debate. There's no doubt that you've tried every excuse in the book to cower out of that simple, REASONABLE and FAIR challenge. People can only wonder why, can't they? Like I said, it's not like it's an invitation to an Hamilton/Burr style duel.

First of all, you don't seem to have the basic common sense to understand that a request for someone to expound on several GENERAL topics is unreasonable, especially on an internet message board. Geez, people complain that my posts are too long anyway and you want me to write a book, ESPECIALLY FOR YOU??? What part of that DON'T you understand? THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE. You HAVE NONE!

Nope. You asked me to write a book. Now I am tiring of repeating the same old questions. WILL YOU EVER GET IT, or do I need to get some kind of internet endless loop message device to feed you the same old answers? This is a common problem when engaging people like you. This is my THIRD TIME trying to communicate the same thing to you. Either you ignore what is written or you're just TOO DENSE to comprehend simple concepts. Which is it?

So you're AFRAID of getting your feelings demolished by common sense, are you? If they can be vaporized by common sense and reason, shouldn't they be tossed out the door anyway? Do you REALLY want to hang on to viewpoints that have no basis in reality? You don't want to have a discussion. You're AFRAID to have a discussion. You're afraid to get into a debate where I've neutralized your only weapon which is the comment "you are blinded by propaganda". Without that ammunition you find yourself defenseless, don't you?

I have no desire to smear ANYONE. I DO have the desire to expose the ridiculous logic that you embrace, as the moronic mindset that you possess is like a nasty cancer that needs to be eradicated. Getting rid of lunacy can only make the world a better place in which everybody can live.

You ARE backed into a corner, I am proud of myself and I'm quite the man! You have only ONE option to get out of the corner you're in. That ONE option is to take my challenge. Weaseling out of it just keeps you cowering in the corner. Cower away, JeffKnob!

I had to look this up in my Whiner-to-English dictionary. It translates to: "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh"!

Well you should care, because such cowardice and distance from reality can only have adverse affects on your own lifestyle, outside of an internet message board.

Why YOU are of course. Is there any doubt?

I don't care a flip about what anyone on this board thinks of me, so it's not like I'm out to win a popularity contest for my own self validation. I do enjoy dissecting flimsy arguments to expose them for the trash that they are. Mindsets like yours need to be dealt with so that other people won't be sucked in by such flawed philosophy. It also entertains me as an interesting study in human behaviour. Thanks for presenting yourself as such a willing subject! :D

Man, I just can't get that banjo music out of my head. And no one told me they were filming the whole thing! http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

My doctor says there's nothing that can be done. Every third week I get this urge to just go out and KILL KILL KILL someone. I tried to just substitute by torturing puppies and kittens, but it just didn't have the same effect. Now just talking about it works up my desire.
I think it's about time I took out a trial lawyer. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif
Know of any?? ;)

It always amazes me how you just seem to prove my point everytime you respond. Your vicious degredation of me shows a lot for your character. Your insults just fall off my back because I am just a better person than you. Nobody is going to listen to a person that treats other people like you. Nobody will listen to your view when they see that you have fun degrading people when they disagree.

I purposely chose not to accept your challenge based on your additude. You have showed no signs that you can have a civil discussion so why would I want to give you a second chance. 51% of the country voted the way you did so I have plenty of people I can discuss topics with to learn what makes their "logic" tick.

How many more times do I have to explain why I am not going to discuss politics with you? You just keep making wild assumptions about me based on nothing but your worthless "common sense". :o

Get a clue!! I don't want to talk politics with you because you don't want to talk politics. You want to degrade my ideas because they are different than yours and because they are different, there is no way that they could be right. To not even consider alternatives is just plain ignorant. That is my main problem with you. You discredited them before they were even told to you.

dean_martin

02-18-2005, 01:36 PM

I think it's about time I took out a trial lawyer. http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/yikes.gif
Know of any?? ;)

Uhhh...I'm just a simple country lawyer. You should probably start with those smarty-pants big city lawyers in New York and Chicago. Good luck. Let me know when you're heading down this way...please.

jeskibuff

02-23-2005, 04:34 AM

It always amazes me how you just seem to prove my point everytime you respond.The only thing that continues to be proven here is your cowardice and total delusion.

Your vicious degredation of me shows a lot for your character.Your extreme cluelessness indicates you have no character. Your continual evasion just keeps reminding us of your cowardice.

Your insults just fall off my back because I am just a better person than you.Naw. They "fall off your back" mainly because you are the only one that doesn't see how well those insults fit, like hand-in-glove. Or perhaps you do realize that they apply but have way too much pride to admit it.

Nobody is going to listen to a person that treats other people like you.In your dreams, maybe.

Nobody will listen to your view when they see that you have fun degrading people when they disagree.I don't have fun degrading people. There's nothing I would like better than for you to remove yourself from fantasyland and get with the program. In the long run it'll make you a better person. And you don't just "disagree" with me. You argue without a basis for your argument. The only retort in your arsenal is an insult, then you wonder why you get insults in response to it. :rolleyes:

I purposely chose not to accept your challenge based on your additude.It's painfully obvious that you choose not to accept my challenge because you don't have the capability to do so and are one big scared-y cat. Anybody with a smidgen of self awareness would step up to the plate if for nothing else, just to prove that they could hold their own in such a conversation. But noooooooo you won't do that, because you and I (and everybody else) KNOW that you can't do it. It would be the simplest thing in the world to take the challenge instead of cowering like such a blowhard. You could prove me wrong immediately if you only would.

It reminds me of a Joe Scarborough article I read yesterday ("What Democrats need to do to win", or something like that. Sorry, no link. MSNBC is not responding this morning). Scarborough gave a lucid point-by-point analysis on what Democrats need to do to regain political power. At the end of the article he explains why he gives away so many secrets to a party whom he would prefer to remain out of power. The reason? He knows the Democrats are TOO STUPID to take his advice!

So likewise, here am I telling you what you need to do to prove me wrong. I'm laying out a roadmap for you. All you would have to do is pick it up and follow the instructions. But you won't BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! Go ahead...prove me wrong!

You have showed no signs that you can have a civil discussion so why would I want to give you a second chance.I made a promise that I would if you would. Now put your money where your mouth is and stop cowering, will you? I'm confident that I can and I'm confident that you can't do the same. You're all talk and no action, aren't you? Prove me wrong!

51% of the country voted the way you did so I have plenty of people I can discuss topics with to learn what makes their "logic" tick.And what good would that do? Given your inability to carry on a courteous and rational discussion, your penchant to resort to your only ammunition ("you're blinded...") and your inability to grasp the obvious, there's nothing that that 51% could possibly say that wouldn't just bounce off your impenetrable cranium.

How many more times do I have to explain why I am not going to discuss politics with you?Oh, you don't need to convince me that you're incapable of civil discussion. We already know that. The fun is just watching you squirm as you make up all sorts of lame excuses why you won't do so.

You just keep making wild assumptions about me based on nothing but your worthless "common sense".There's no wild assumptions being made here. It's quite obvious you're a coward and a blowhard. There's one way to prove me wrong: TAKE THE CHALLENGE! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

Get a clue!! I don't want to talk politics with you because you don't want to talk politics.Now there's a "wild assumption" if I've ever seen one. I've got plenty of examples of courteous political conversations I've had with people I've disagreed with.

You want to degrade my ideas because they are different than yours and because they are different, there is no way that they could be right.There's little possibility they could be right simply because you yourself are incapable of defending them with anything but "you're blinded...". I'm always open to thoughtful analysis. You have nothing to offer in that regard. You believe what you want to believe without analyzing it.

To not even consider alternatives is just plain ignorant.I wholeheartedly agree. When will you take your own advice?

That is my main problem with you. You discredited them before they were even told to you.Have a link? I didn't think so.

I think it's about time I took out a trial lawyer. Know of any??Uhhh...I'm just a simple country lawyer. You should probably start with those smarty-pants big city lawyers in New York and Chicago. Good luck. Let me know when you're heading down this way...please.I don't think I could tell the difference between a simple country lawyer or a smarty-pants big city one. Maybe it's because I'm guilty of slathering on too much barbecue sauce so it masks the true flavor. Whatever the case, I think the fava bean & Chianti combination has been waaaay overblown and certainly not to my liking!

JeffKnob

02-23-2005, 06:02 AM

The only thing that continues to be proven here is your cowardice and total delusion.

Your extreme cluelessness indicates you have no character. Your continual evasion just keeps reminding us of your cowardice.

Naw. They "fall off your back" mainly because you are the only one that doesn't see how well those insults fit, like hand-in-glove. Or perhaps you do realize that they apply but have way too much pride to admit it.

In your dreams, maybe.

I don't have fun degrading people. There's nothing I would like better than for you to remove yourself from fantasyland and get with the program. In the long run it'll make you a better person. And you don't just "disagree" with me. You argue without a basis for your argument. The only retort in your arsenal is an insult, then you wonder why you get insults in response to it. :rolleyes:

It's painfully obvious that you choose not to accept my challenge because you don't have the capability to do so and are one big scared-y cat. Anybody with a smidgen of self awareness would step up to the plate if for nothing else, just to prove that they could hold their own in such a conversation. But noooooooo you won't do that, because you and I (and everybody else) KNOW that you can't do it. It would be the simplest thing in the world to take the challenge instead of cowering like such a blowhard. You could prove me wrong immediately if you only would.

It reminds me of a Joe Scarborough article I read yesterday ("What Democrats need to do to win", or something like that. Sorry, no link. MSNBC is not responding this morning). Scarborough gave a lucid point-by-point analysis on what Democrats need to do to regain political power. At the end of the article he explains why he gives away so many secrets to a party whom he would prefer to remain out of power. The reason? He knows the Democrats are TOO STUPID to take his advice!

So likewise, here am I telling you what you need to do to prove me wrong. I'm laying out a roadmap for you. All you would have to do is pick it up and follow the instructions. But you won't BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! Go ahead...prove me wrong!

I made a promise that I would if you would. Now put your money where your mouth is and stop cowering, will you? I'm confident that I can and I'm confident that you can't do the same. You're all talk and no action, aren't you? Prove me wrong!

And what good would that do? Given your inability to carry on a courteous and rational discussion, your penchant to resort to your only ammunition ("you're blinded...") and your inability to grasp the obvious, there's nothing that that 51% could possibly say that wouldn't just bounce off your impenetrable cranium.

Oh, you don't need to convince me that you're incapable of civil discussion. We already know that. The fun is just watching you squirm as you make up all sorts of lame excuses why you won't do so.

There's no wild assumptions being made here. It's quite obvious you're a coward and a blowhard. There's one way to prove me wrong: TAKE THE CHALLENGE! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

Now there's a "wild assumption" if I've ever seen one. I've got plenty of examples of courteous political conversations I've had with people I've disagreed with.

There's little possibility they could be right simply because you yourself are incapable of defending them with anything but "you're blinded...". I'm always open to thoughtful analysis. You have nothing to offer in that regard. You believe what you want to believe without analyzing it.

I wholeheartedly agree. When will you take your own advice?

Have a link? I didn't think so.

I don't think I could tell the difference between a simple country lawyer or a smarty-pants big city one. Maybe it's because I'm guilty of slathering on too much barbecue sauce so it masks the true flavor. Whatever the case, I think the fava bean & Chianti combination has been waaaay overblown and certainly not to my liking!

I believe you have found the correct party for yourself. You continue to degrade an bully me just like Bush feels he is destined to do to the world.

You see me as a coward. I see you as a bully. I know my reason for not "challenging" you is because you are not a worthy debator. You think you are hot $hit and feel a need to prove it to yourself and others. I have the balls to know that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Did mommy not give you enough attention growing up? Why is it so important to lash out at me? Do you feel that you are saving the world from another liberal? It is time to stop being a mercenary.

Go ahead and think I am a coward. The more mature people reading this thread will realize that isn't true, but you wouldn't know anything about maturity. Bully's aren't mature. Your credibility is gone. At this point your opinion means nothing so a debate about politics is nothing. Give it up.

jeskibuff

02-26-2005, 05:24 AM

I believe you have found the correct party for yourself. You continue to degrade an bully me just like Bush feels he is destined to do to the world.
Gawd! I can't fault you for having no imagination, can I? First off, bozo, you need to get a handle on some basic concepts. A bully is generally someone who can't muster the courage to fight someone that might offer them a fair challenge. The bully looks for the weak and timid in order to bolster their own self-image. Their overall feeling of worthlessness gets cast aside temporarily when they can manage to demean someone else, hoping that they are momentarily seen as superior in some manner as compared to their target. By asserting some unfair advantage that they have over their prey, they hope that others will think more highly of themselves.

One glaring characteristic of a bully is that they will run in the opposite direction when someone of greater stature challenges them. They can only prey on someone weaker than themselves. Take away the bully's advantage and make it a fair fight and the bully will try to find every excuse under the sun to escape the challenge. Sound familiar?

Bush a bully? Then I imagine you think Saddam was a harmless gnat. Your value system is obviously all warped and inverted. Saddam brutalized and terrorized his people for decades. Millions died at his command. Bush showed the world that Saddam was the coward, finally digging him out of a hole in the ground. Millions of Iraqis now have the opportunity to live in freedom. Yet you somehow have the "brilliant" idea to label Bush the bully. :rolleyes: I don't think I'll ever understand why some people can demonstrate so little mental acuity such as you display.

You see me as a coward. I see you as a bully.I see you as a cowardly bully. I challenged you to a fair fight on a level playing field. The rules are established: we both put down our weapons (in this case "insults") and see who prevails. Hey, nobody even has to prevail! If it's a civil discourse, EVERYBODY wins and learns something! Again, you obviously are afraid of such an engagement, as is evidenced by your flaming cowardice demonstrated in your last fifteen? posts in this thread. Why are you so afraid? Is it because you cannot hold your own without your insults? (pay no mind to the rhetorical question)

I know my reason for not "challenging" you is because you are not a worthy debator.That is a wild and incorrect presumption on your part. If you feel you can prove your presumption, TAKE THE CHALLENGE. Anything else just means those cowardly feet of yours have to keep a'dancin', doesn't it?

You think you are hot $hit and feel a need to prove it to yourself and others.I don't need to prove a thing to anyone about myself. I have more than enough self confidence in my abilities and intelligence and don't need to pull some screwy stunt on the internet to get respect out of people I don't even know and probably never will meet. I do feel the need to put a cowardly braggart in his place though.

I have the balls to know that I don't have to prove anything to anyone.A bold statement, but deep down inside you know you're just a blustery coward, don't you? Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.
A noble try though. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

Did mommy not give you enough attention growing up?Maybe too much, in my opinion. Kind of overprotective, if you ask me. But enough of you trying to turn the spotlight on me and off of your cowardly self. Let's get back on track...

Why is it so important to lash out at me?Simply because you claim to be someone you're not. You match the profile of a bully, no doubt about it. You accuse others of attacking with insults when you yourself only have insults as your ammunition. You're a hypocrite. Now take the challenge and learn something instead of shivering like a scrawny chihuahua in a snowstorm, making up any excuse under the sun to avoid it.
http://www.iloveduckies.com/images/nodders/chihuahua-lrg.jpg

Do you feel that you are saving the world from another liberal?Naw. The last election taught me that there are more people in this world who are aware of liberal stupidity and will eventually succeed in marginalizing liberals into oblivion. The Dan Rathers, Michael Moorons, Jacques Chiracs, John Kerrys and Sean Penns have shown their true nature and the world finds them to be self-serving idiots. Open your fat mouth to spew your mindless drivel while you're singing at the Aladdin casino and the patrons will boo you out the door! Dump billions of dollars into smear campaigns and we just laugh as you fools and your money are soon parted, pumping more into the U.S. economy. We just love the looks on your face as the real poll outcomes differ from the exit polls and the slanted "DU'ed" opinion polls.

You spent so much money. You threw so much mud. You had the media chanting your mantra. How could you still lose? Short answer: you're idiots, and more than enough people know it! Enough people who were willing to wait in line for hours to ensure the loudmouthed liberals wouldn't achieve victory.

The Democratic Party is officially dead. The denial of reality and inability to properly assess and do damage control spells out certain demise. The election of Dean to head the DNC just nails that coffin tightly shut.

It is time to stop being a mercenary.Feeling a bit beat up, I gather? Sorry, but I got this thing for truth and justice and the American Way. You're getting a healthy dose of justice in this thread...coward! Besides, someday you may thank me for helping to exorcise this demon of stupidity who currently possesses your soul. By the way, isn't it time for your tag team buddy to come in and give you a break? Can't he see how bloodied up you're getting, or does he just not care?

Go ahead and think I am a coward.Oh, so I needed your permission? :rolleyes:

The more mature people reading this thread will realize that isn't true, but you wouldn't know anything about maturity. Bully's aren't mature. Your credibility is gone. At this point your opinion means nothing so a debate about politics is nothing. Give it up.Keep dancing your jig! You need to learn some new steps though. You're wearing a hole in the floor! And the "more mature people" can easily see you how you are cowering away from a fair challenge. As I said before, it's not a like it's a gun duel!

JeffKnob

02-26-2005, 08:10 AM

Gawd! I can't fault you for having no imagination, can I? First off, bozo, you need to get a handle on some basic concepts. A bully is generally someone who can't muster the courage to fight someone that might offer them a fair challenge. The bully looks for the weak and timid in order to bolster their own self-image. Their overall feeling of worthlessness gets cast aside temporarily when they can manage to demean someone else, hoping that they are momentarily seen as superior in some manner as compared to their target. By asserting some unfair advantage that they have over their prey, they hope that others will think more highly of themselves.

One glaring characteristic of a bully is that they will run in the opposite direction when someone of greater stature challenges them. They can only prey on someone weaker than themselves. Take away the bully's advantage and make it a fair fight and the bully will try to find every excuse under the sun to escape the challenge. Sound familiar?

Bush a bully? Then I imagine you think Saddam was a harmless gnat. Your value system is obviously all warped and inverted. Saddam brutalized and terrorized his people for decades. Millions died at his command. Bush showed the world that Saddam was the coward, finally digging him out of a hole in the ground. Millions of Iraqis now have the opportunity to live in freedom. Yet you somehow have the "brilliant" idea to label Bush the bully. :rolleyes: I don't think I'll ever understand why some people can demonstrate so little mental acuity such as you display.

I see you as a cowardly bully. I challenged you to a fair fight on a level playing field. The rules are established: we both put down our weapons (in this case "insults") and see who prevails. Hey, nobody even has to prevail! If it's a civil discourse, EVERYBODY wins and learns something! Again, you obviously are afraid of such an engagement, as is evidenced by your flaming cowardice demonstrated in your last fifteen? posts in this thread. Why are you so afraid? Is it because you cannot hold your own without your insults? (pay no mind to the rhetorical question)

That is a wild and incorrect presumption on your part. If you feel you can prove your presumption, TAKE THE CHALLENGE. Anything else just means those cowardly feet of yours have to keep a'dancin', doesn't it?

I don't need to prove a thing to anyone about myself. I have more than enough self confidence in my abilities and intelligence and don't need to pull some screwy stunt on the internet to get respect out of people I don't even know and probably never will meet. I do feel the need to put a cowardly braggart in his place though.

A bold statement, but deep down inside you know you're just a blustery coward, don't you? Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.
A noble try though. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

Maybe too much, in my opinion. Kind of overprotective, if you ask me. But enough of you trying to turn the spotlight on me and off of your cowardly self. Let's get back on track...

Simply because you claim to be someone you're not. You match the profile of a bully, no doubt about it. You accuse others of attacking with insults when you yourself only have insults as your ammunition. You're a hypocrite. Now take the challenge and learn something instead of shivering like a scrawny chihuahua in a snowstorm, making up any excuse under the sun to avoid it.
http://www.iloveduckies.com/images/nodders/chihuahua-lrg.jpg

Naw. The last election taught me that there are more people in this world who are aware of liberal stupidity and will eventually succeed in marginalizing liberals into oblivion. The Dan Rathers, Michael Moorons, Jacques Chiracs, John Kerrys and Sean Penns have shown their true nature and the world finds them to be self-serving idiots. Open your fat mouth to spew your mindless drivel while you're singing at the Aladdin casino and the patrons will boo you out the door! Dump billions of dollars into smear campaigns and we just laugh as you fools and your money are soon parted, pumping more into the U.S. economy. We just love the looks on your face as the real poll outcomes differ from the exit polls and the slanted "DU'ed" opinion polls.

You spent so much money. You threw so much mud. You had the media chanting your mantra. How could you still lose? Short answer: you're idiots, and more than enough people know it! Enough people who were willing to wait in line for hours to ensure the loudmouthed liberals wouldn't achieve victory.

The Democratic Party is officially dead. The denial of reality and inability to properly assess and do damage control spells out certain demise. The election of Dean to head the DNC just nails that coffin tightly shut.

Feeling a bit beat up, I gather? Sorry, but I got this thing for truth and justice and the American Way. You're getting a healthy dose of justice in this thread...coward! Besides, someday you may thank me for helping to exorcise this demon of stupidity who currently possesses your soul. By the way, isn't it time for your tag team buddy to come in and give you a break? Can't he see how bloodied up you're getting, or does he just not care?

Oh, so I needed your permission? :rolleyes:

Keep dancing your jig! You need to learn some new steps though. You're wearing a hole in the floor! And the "more mature people" can easily see you how you are cowering away from a fair challenge. As I said before, it's not a like it's a gun duel!

Again, with your posts, you just keep proving the points I have been making about you. Calling someone a coward is a great way to challenge them. (sarcasm) The only way I would be dumb is to actually take that challenge that "you" made. (I have already made the point that I was actually the one that made the challenge). The real morons would actually succumb to your childish banter. If you chose to discuss things, rather than label me with things like coward and moron, I might have done so. Why would I give in to your requests when you obviously have no idea of what respect is? You call it cowardice. It is like meeting someone for the first time and all they do is demean you. So if you don't become their friend or at least talk to them you must be a coward. It is called being selective of who you talk to and choosing the people who respect the views and feelings of other people. I am a confident person and will walk away from people who have no concept of respect. Again you call it cowardice but obviously have no grasp of what that label means. You can't seem to fathom why I have not stepped up to the plate. You then make up wild reasons that make yourself look good. I have CLEARLY explained why I am not going to discuss this with you. How many more times does it take for it to sink in? I challenge you to read my posts over and over again until you can grasp the reason I am not discussing politics with you so that I don't have to keep wasting my time wondering why you just don't get it.

jeskibuff

02-27-2005, 06:05 AM

Again, with your posts, you just keep proving the points I have been making about you.Points? You made points? Point out your points to me PLEASE! All you are doing is dancing, hoping against all hope that people don't see you as the coward that you are.

Calling someone a coward is a great way to challenge them. (sarcasm)Oh, I knew from the beginning that you were too much of a blowhard to take the challenge. You don't have the capacity to carry on a reasonable civil debate. All we're left with now is to be entertained as you come up with every lame excuse in the world to evade the challenge.

The only way I would be dumb is to actually take that challenge that "you" made. (I have already made the point that I was actually the one that made the challenge).You're quite the fool. I told you no less than 3 times that your "challenge" was unreasonable. I laid it out in very simple terms. I repeat: I am not going to write a book for someone who wouldn't digest it if I had. Do I have to say it 4 times or more? (guess I just did, eh?) Are you just TOO DUMB to understand the concept? I told you to GET SPECIFIC rather than being so general. All I get is the same glazed-eye deer-in-the-headlights look out of you as if I'm speaking another language.

The real morons would actually succumb to your childish banter.Oh, but you are a real moron. I've had you dancing from many posts back. I said a while ago that I had you painted into a corner. That was true then. It's true now. You just keep denying the obvious, that's all!

If you chose to discuss things, rather than label me with things like coward and moron, I might have done so.No you wouldn't. You'd continue to cower and whine just as you're doing now. The fact is that you have no basis for your arguments so you're incapable of carrying on reasoned discussion on hot topics. That is why you have to resort to your standard retort: "you are blinded by propaganda". There's only ONE WAY to prove me wrong and you refuse to do so, so you just continue to prove me right. Why are you such a coward?

Why would I give in to your requests when you obviously have no idea of what respect is?Respect is given when respect is deserved. You deserve none, so you get none. Now if you made a valiant effort to conduct a civil conversation without insults, then perhaps you'd get some respect where it would be warranted. Until then you just get ridiculed for being such a coward and a blowhard.

It is like meeting someone for the first time and all they do is demean you.Of course, you conveniently left off the part where you insult them upon meeting them. Then you wonder why you're demeaned?

So if you don't become their friend or at least talk to them you must be a coward.No, if you show yourself to be a clown incapable of polite social interaction then are challenged to either "put up or shut up" yet continue to make a never-ending effort to duck the challenge, THAT makes you a coward. You're like a drunken guest at a party. Everyone can see that you're totally inebriated. You say you're not (with slurred speech). We challenge you to walk a straight line and you come up with every excuse you can think of to avoid doing so. We laugh at your inability to even stand up straight.

It is called being selective of who you talk to and choosing the people who respect the views and feelings of other people.Oh good, yet ANOTHER lame excuse. So you will only discuss topics with people who you respect, eh? Well let me take you down memory lane. I'm sure most everyone recalls the biggest idiot who ever posted on this board. He initially called himself "The Troll", then later reincarnated himself as "Bush Is A Liar" and several other monikers he tried to sneak in with after he was banned. This world-class idiot had earned zero respect, yet he challenged me to post my opinions concerning the Israel/Palestinian conflict. He continually badgered me for it and I told him that it was coming, that it took some time and I would do it on my own schedule, not his. Eventually I got the time, put together a lengthy but cogent response and posted it.

This bozo Troll couldn't take even ONE of my points and dissemble it! All he could do is take the cowardly way out and say "you're an idiot". It didn't surprise me, as it follows the pattern for most of you blowhard liberals.

The point I'm making here is that The Troll had very little respect from me, much less from everyone else. Yet I took the effort to take him up on his challenge, pretty much anticipating his exact response. I knew he didn't have the substance to respond, but my effort was worth it by putting out the information for ALL to see. As I recall, no one ever disputed even one my points. Too bad we can't dig up those old posts anymore.

So, why is it that I can respond to a challenge from someone who I have no respect for, yet you cannot? Maybe because you're a C-O-W-A-R-D????

I am a confident person and will walk away from people who have no concept of respect.Naw. You're just a coward digging up any excuse you can find to get out of a challenge.

Again you call it cowardice but obviously have no grasp of what that label means.Not true. I looked it up in my dictionary and there was your picture!

You can't seem to fathom why I have not stepped up to the plate.Yes I can. You're a cowardly blowhard, THAT'S WHY!

You then make up wild reasons that make yourself look good. I have CLEARLY explained why I am not going to discuss this with you. How many more times does it take for it to sink in?There's nothing to "sink in". Excuses are excuses, and that's all you're capable of.

I challenge you to read my posts over and over again until you can grasp the reason I am not discussing politics with you so that I don't have to keep wasting my time wondering why you just don't get it.Your posts are too boring. Besides, I have read this entire thread several times though, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. My responses are spot-on EVERY TIME. And man, you're really taking quite a pounding, aren't you?