Again, just because he was credited with balancing it does not mean it was deserved!! Oh, ye who rewrites history on the fly.

I would love to see that. How can you call someone out for calling you names when you yourself engage in the same tactics you individual with excrement for cerebral matter.

Come here to where I am and make that threat, it will be the last one you ever make. Indiana is a "Stand your ground" state and I am licensed to carry. GOT COURAGE?

You would miss the entire barn if you were placed in front of it and pushed into it. Your party is notorious for rewriting history much more than their "opposition". You have the mainstream media working for you to help the matter. Read "1984" by George Orwell. There, as it is being done today by the MSM, they rewrite history on an almost daily basis. Your party has learned a lot from Mr. Orwell's writings.

An allegedly 68-year old man with the mentality of a 5-year old boy. I believe if you farted you would lose all brain function.

If you want to insult someone, try harder. I know it will be difficult, but try. This does not even register at the bottom of the insult list.

When you get the chance to jump on someone for making a mistake you are all over it like dung beetles on poo. So it is very hypocritical of you to get your panties in a bunch when you are called out for "an error". You were wrong about the same thing in several posts.

You are deflecting.

Now here is the part that really gets my ire up. In my post to you, I told you you were wrong, but I was never derogatory nor insulting and you insist on continue to behave with those behaviors. When are you going to learn that you do not deserve any respect when you do not give any. "You can kiss my shady spot you blithering i***ts." is vulgar and disrespectful and unwarranted when directed at me. I am not a blithering i***t, as you well know, especially when considering your posts. And yes, that was a blatant insult, you are a blithering i***t. I will even go so far as to say you are THE blithering i***t. See now you have made me fall off the wagon with your arrogant, belittling behavior and exasperating need to always win when there is no possibility of you doing so.

Obama promised in his campaign speeches during his first campaign to have us out withing 18 months of his e******n. It took him much longer than that and we still have troops there, so he did not get us out yet. The same thing with Afghanistan.

As this next part is based partly on speculation and partly on what I have gathered about how those wars have been fought since they began.
I would like to point out that the United States Military was hampered in getting the job done quickly by politicians and politics. It was hampered by the constant negative reports in the Mainstream Liberal Media. It was hampered by Rules of Engagement that made it very difficult to fight the war. Talk to a veteran of those theaters, you will find the t***h, as a vet who uses the VAMC quite a bit, I get the opportunity to talk to vets from those theaters on a regular basis. It was not always sunshine and roses over there.

We LOST Viet Nam due to the same thing. So before you continue to tell yourself that your precious Obama won the war, remember that politicians on both sides of the fence did not allow that war to be quick. Including your precious Democrats.

I have also referred to myself as one who is trying to change. I, while not receiving equal treatment, have tried to be respectful in my writings to you and you have yet to change. Have I been 100% successful? NO! To which I have already admitted here and elsewhere. Where is the reciprocity?

As there is plenty of evidence on these forums to support the accusation, it is neither moronic, nor is it untrue.

See again, you come at me with the wrong attitude and worse yet, the wrong facts. I am a Constitutional Libertarian. I am not a Republican, I am not a Conservative. I have major issues with planks within both platforms. And just like Liberals and Democrats, they are not always the same thing. I see the flaws with "my side" as you incorrectly call it, that is why I have changed my affiliation.

I am and I do, but you seem to find it necessary to force me to believe in your ideology.

And so, continuing childish behavior is the only recourse? I have pointed out to you that you started with the derogatory, denigrating, insulting and inflammatory behavior within your first few posts. Taking, in my opinion, something that was not a direct or indirect, implied or intentional attack and exploding it into a personal attack. It was a post that disagreed with yours. YOU STARTED IT from nearly your first post. You are the one who will not see the facts that do not fit your worldview.

Excuse me, direct your attacks at the person to whom you are replying. In my post, to which you replied, I made no mention of Pelosi, Clinton, etc.

My post:


As you can see, I made no mention of anyone or anything to which you posted as a response to my post. I called into question your character when you complained about not having facts posted and then trying to put forth "not completely accurate" "facts" to support yourself.

LEARN TO PAY ATTENTION. It is for reasons like this that people fight you so hard. Respond to what I say, NOT what someone else says.

Now let us address your incorrect response.
You demand verifiable facts from others but do not take the moment of time it takes to look up and verify your "facts". Naughty, naughty. And you wonder why people look down upon you.


As you could not possibly have intended this for me, I will ignore it.

Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi is the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives and served as the 60th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 2007 to 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
YOU ARE WRONG!! And it took me 15 seconds to look it up and read that sentence.

Unverified, unsubstantiated and ambiguous because you make no mention of which of the three, the House, the Senate or the White House, you are talking about.

Just because he got credit does not mean 1) it is deserved and 2) it is fact. You are speculating since you do not show the source of your "FACTS".

To quote a female Democratic Representative, Corrin Brown, “Don’t confuse me with any facts.”

Again, see above.

What has Morton Downey have to do with the House, the Senate and the White House. Morton Downey, Jr.(?) "pioneered the "trash TV" format". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey,_Jr.

What has he to do with politics, I now ask since I took the time to look him up?
Do you watch Jerry Springer with love and adoration because he is a Liberal and a "trash TV" show host? At least he was in politics. Oh wait, wasn't there a scandal about him as mayor of Cincinnati wherein he was busted for bouncing a check used to pay a prostitute? THAT is quality in both politics and television.

To that I can say only one thing: Why continue to try and continue to allow that person to annoy you?

As I am as guilty of feeding many of the trolls here a lot, I am finding I reduce my stress level when I do not try to confront, but reason with individuals like thatduck83. While not 100% successful in changing his negative ways, I feel I have made a dent in his armor.

It is up to him to decide to become a better person. If no one feeds his lust for attention and if no one retaliates against his inflammatory, derogatory or denigrating remarks, he will do like so many things do in this world, he will wither and, figuratively, die, or he will change his ways, become respectful of differing opinions and stop being an anonymous internet bully.

I would not call it being victimized, as I gave as good as I got. And I expect no apologies. I left because I felt I was in the wrong and needed to re-evaluate myself. Besides, I was spending way too much time on this site and not engaging IRL; that was another reason I left. I returned a while back and fell back into the same pattern as before, being contentious and inflammatory and derogatory and denigrating. I thought I had changed, but I did not.

It was not until recently, the last couple of weeks where I have made a concerted effort to be civil and call others out for not being likewise. But it was pointed out to me by one of those I called out that I only "pick" on the "opposition" to which I had to admit my bias. Now I just have to call out those on both sides. There are plenty of people here who are reactionary in a negative way. Whether the anonymity of the internet justifies it or not, it really has to stop. I am no angel and can make no claim on an angelic status. I am a recovering internet bully trying to help those I see doing the same.

From two different posts:

16 minutes apart.

You call into question whether the facts usually, blatant facts or otherwise(not sure what kind of facts are not blatant, but it seems your dictionary carries multiple definitions of the word fact than mine), carry the day.

16 minutes later, you call into question something you are purporting as fact, even if it is "not completely accurate", your words. A fact does not have degrees of fact-ness(as the editor does not like the use of this work, I guess I made it up). It is either true or it is not a fact. In this case there are no shades of grey.

I prefer a more proactive approach myself, especially since, while not being 100% successful in changing the way I respond to some, I am making an attempt to not be inflammatory or derogatory. I keep falling off the horse, but "he ain't so big I cain't get back on 'im."

There is a major difference between discussion and debate and the continued rudeness of many posters. (ASIDE)I feel like an alcoholic trying to convince another that AA works.(Leave ASIDE)
Differences of opinion are great and useful. The desire to beat or force someone to believe as you (not you specifically, but a person in general) does not work, much to the chagrin of many. The more you beat a mule, the more stubborn it gets. While it may be in pain, you are eventually going to be in pain too and quit.

Then why try so hard and negatively force someone to believe in your side. Someone has to take the first step to change the world, even if it only encompasses a small part of it.

If your arguments are valid and supported, then if the "opposition" is open-minded they will research it on their own and come to the same conclusion you have. I have found that being derogatory and negative toward a "non-believer" is absolutely useless. That is why I have decided to change my ways.

That can be considered a matter of opinion. I have seen you post stuff I consider crap as well, and have even taken the time to read the article to prove it. I try, for the most part to read it with an open-mind, now, but am still critical when I consider the politics of the poster and the politics of the source. Like they say in regard to statistics, you can always find a group of numbers that match your intended outcome.

Yes, they do, and that does not justify it, it only magnifies the problem.

I am in agreement there. But my reasons stem from knowing what he accomplished during his career before becoming President and what he has done since becoming President. I have looked into his history, his political career, his education career, his community organizer career and found a very disturbing, to me, trend. While I have not looked at most past Presidents in the same light, I did not really care about politics until I got into my late 30s and early 40s, I have started to scrutinize even more those who are elected to represent me, including my own Republican Senator Dan Coats, and my own Republican Representative Susan Brooks. I now subscribe to their newsletter and comment when I feel it is necessary, which is quite often.

Acceptance of citizenship and being deserving of being President are completely different things. As the "opposition" or "birthers" have not been proven right and the burden of proof is on the accuser, not much can be said. There are whackos on both sides, our side has the "birthers", let them prove their case, and until then, do what I do, ignore them. They are led by a man I respect for the most part, but this is ridiculous.

As for his deserving to be President, I will take issue with the word deserving. No one deserves anything. I call into question his qualifications simply because he has not led anything. Being a community organizer does not mean you have the ability to lead. It just mean you can organize things. See the definition of the word. I can organize things, I can analyze things, I can write speeches, I can talk in front of an audience when I know my topic or when I am prompted, but that does not qualify me to lead a flock of geese across the road, let alone running an entire country.

Why is this a point of contention? I find this government too big and too intrusive. It is my feeling they want to control every little aspect of my life, and that is the feeling I have from both sides because the Republicans had control of the House, Senate and White House at one point in time and very little was done to decrease the size and intrusive capabilities of the government. Call it paranoia, but as I see it, I am looking at our government, regardless of who is in power, as our Founding Fathers looked upon England. I feel that no one in this government, recent past included, really gives a damn about me personally, and in reality why should they? But, I also feel that distancing of themselves from me, by them, makes them feel themselves to be above me. To me, I am the ant they step on because that is how they portray themselves.

I have not seen this term used.

When you consider that the man's father was Kenyan, that does give anyone the right to call him that because that is part of his heritage. Some use it in a derogatory sense, others do not. You forget that Obama is half-white, but no one ever calls out that he denies half his heritage when he ascribes himself as a black man. As for Muslim, yes, he has been called one, that cannot be denied, but I believe it is in response, and this is speculation, to the fact that he appears to support the Muslim cause and wants to deny Christianity. There have been many threads on this site with quotes attributed to him supporting the one and downgrading the other.

When referring to the words c****e and socialist, you have to look at his history as well. I have to ask if you have read his book. I have read many of the same books he has read. It affected me, but I see them as the danger, so I am against those political ideologies. They give the government power over me, when this country was founded on the principle that I, we the people, have the power. From what I have seen of his actions, he does believe in a Socialist or C*******t form of government and there is where he is trying to lead us.

That still does not justify the behavior of many on this forum.

But you have, as well as I, told many people to shut up. Is that not a form of attempted censorship, whether successful or not.

I am not the perfect poster, I have a bad reputation from the past, I have been trying to change that FACT, and become what I expect others to be and try to treat others as I want to be treated. I will fall. I know this, I am human. All I can do is pick myself up, dust myself off, admit to being in the wrong and try to do better the next time. I ask no forgiveness, once something is said and done it cannot be made to go away. These are some of the lessons I have learned while a member of this site.

NOTE: Everything I said in contradiction to your beliefs is my OPINION. I do not see any inflammatory remarks in any of my responses, but that is my viewpoint. If you perceive something as inflammatory or directly debasing, you can do as I did and say you take exception to it, but that does not necessarily give you license to be derogatory or inflammatory. I am personally trying to engage in a dialog in which each side is given an opportunity to state his/her opinions and/or facts and the other side is given a chance to respond in kind.

To which rumitoid responded:


Response to ginnyt
I am partly in agreement and partly in disagreement with this statement. Many who post here with inflammatory or derogatory comments appear to me to be cowards and attack when they feel they are being attack, then the discussion degrades from any possibility of debate to one of one personal attack, implied or direct, followed by another personal attack, again, applied or not.

Why do I say this, because that is how I felt the first time I came to this site and was blatantly attacked by "the opposition". There was no debate, the respondent made it personal, so I attacked back. After a time, I got tired of this and left the site for a while. I came back, and things had not changed. I tried my best to not react negatively when attacked, and for the most part did well. But then, something personal happened and I came to the realization that the person attacking me is no less a coward than I for doing the same thing. I have made great strides toward changing my behavior. I have called out many who continue to do it who have a large presence on this site when I see it. It was recently pointed out to me, and quite correctly, that I was only calling out "the opposition". Now, I have to rethink things and start going after not only the derogatory and inflammatory "opposition", but have to go after the "ones on my side as well". Is it a fruitless battle? Probably, but I believe I have changed the attitude of some to treat me better by appealing to the side of them that realizes that not all opponents are really bad people, they just have different opinions. I decided someone had to reach out, and feeling that it had to be me, I tried. Have I succeeded 100%, obviously not because people got tired of my diatribes and quit reading them or have not gotten to read them as there is a lot of threads on this forum.

I have pointed this out many times and pretty much get the same response from all with no intention of changing their hostility. I have been told "I will say it to your face in person." Although, none so far has invited me to meet them in person to do so. That would be a shock for many.

Later in this thread you mention the definition of a comment. A comment can be written as such that to many it is not inflammatory, but there are those who will read it that way. Some people ARE broken and cannot or will not be fixed. That is one of several problems with human society.

Response to rumitoid
You know as well as anyone that outlook comes from seeing people all the time at each others throats over what many perceive as petty issues.

Another problem with human society even in this country of diversity and openness.

From my experiences here, I believe it is the minority that does not post to "get reactions" because they care passionately about American ideals. I believe it is the majority. As this is an anecdotal opinion from me, I expect nothing from it, just want to put it out there.

Yes.

Again, yes. But the problem lies in human nature. There will always be issues and there will always be at least two sides to those issues. No group of people small or large can really ever satisfy everyone. And if you let majority rule, then it becomes more dangerous. That is why our Founding Fathers wanted a Representative Republic whose representatives were Democratically(mob rule) elected, not a Democracy.

Yes.

For some the jury is still out. :twisted: Most others would be in agreement with this assessment.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

And I have seen you post inflammatory comments when responding to someone who has made no personal attack on your or the Liberal ideology directly. Just because someone has a difference of opinion does not give you license to attack.

I have not seen it, but I usually bypass your remarks because of the derogatory and inflammatory remarks you have made in the past. The ones I have recently responded to have less to do with what you posted than how you post your response.

[quote=BoJester]So the bottom line becomes, if you start reining in your i***ts, then the entire tone of this forum can change./quote]This can be said of both sides. There are indeed i***ts on both sides of any issue, but feeding those trolls, as many have accused you of being, is just as harmful for one side as it is another.

And you know the i***ts on your side. Do not forget, this constant disrespect, constant flaming, constant derogatory, inflammatory comments comes from both sides.

You are absolutely right. But make sure you do the same for those on your side, whether you agree with them or not.

Herein lies two problems.

One, how are you defining what is a "douchebag conservatards"? Who gets to decide who is a "douchebag conservatards"?
Two, is there no such animal as a "douchebag libtard"? Who decides who gets that appellation?
Both are nothing more than very subjective definitions.

I have returned it to you, do with it what you will.

And as a representative of the non-"conservatards", you represent virtue and wholesomeness?

My, my, it appears that someone changed my dictionary and forgot to send me the correct link.

It is just like a Liberal like you to complain about the way Liberals are treated by Conservatives when you vilify even the word Conservative. You post a lot of bad-mouthing, verbally abusive statements yourself. Have you ever looked at your own writings without the bias that you are never disrespectful of others or that you cannot be wrong. Do not get me started about who started what, when. I went through that with another Liberal who treats people like you, he lost.

You are the type of person that has made me change one of my mottoes in life from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (A.K.A. The Golden Rule" to "Do unto others as they do unto you" (What I like to call the Crappy Golden Rule). If you treat me with respect, you get respect in return. Treat me like crap, and well, you get the picture.

You do not come here to debate, you come here to flame and bash. You are the epitome of the impotent internet bully. You hide behind your computer, making inflammatory comments without posting anything of real substance or value to strike up legitimate debate.