-
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:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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 :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
It is interesting to see that you aren't willing to explain your views to me yet you expect me to explain mine
What 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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
No wonder the GOP owns the media
Just continuing to repeat something won't make it true. Keep trying though...no skin off my back! :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
Jeskibuffy, FWIW, I didn't specifically refer to you as a dumba$$.
Don't try and slink out of this one. Obviously you lumped me in with that category. An insult doesn't have to be specific to reach its intended target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
The rich are smart.
Usually the case, but not always. Look at John Kerry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
The dumba$$' 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
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? ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
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.
-
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:
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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. ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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/v4...ee/howling.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
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/v4...ee/howling.gif Why can't you see how ridiculous your logic is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justlisten2
Enjoy this life. No camel getting through the eye of a needle for you
Who 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/ima...lies/yikes.gif
-
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".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
You assume that I am a lot more left than I really am.
All you've proven to me is your ignorance and arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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:
-
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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/v4...ee/howling.gif
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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/v4...ee/howling.gif
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
There is nothing for me to prove....you have done a fine job of that on your own.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
[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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
[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/ima...lies/yikes.gif
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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/ima...lies/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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
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.
|