Not gonna win many hearts and minds with moves like this...

[SlyPokerDog]

Agreed. Sly, I would ask you to stop that silly name substitution when someone wants to say something to me. I'm not made of sugar. If someone wants to tell me to go fuck myself on this board, I have zero problem with it. Please re-edit julius' post to include my name.

If I'm editing your posts when you insult others I'm going to edit their posts when they insult you. I know you're tough and that it doesn't hurt your feelings but if we're going to have a no personal insult rule it should be applied equally to all.

 

[julius]

Agreed. Sly, I would ask you to stop that silly name substitution when someone wants to say something to me. I'm not made of sugar. If someone wants to tell me to go fuck myself on this board, I have zero problem with it. Please re-edit julius' post to include my name.

I don't think I referenced you. I think I said...it's easy to be a pompous blow-hard, don't be upset when people call you one, or something. didn't put your name in it (because the same applies to me far too often).

 

[maxiep]

I don't think I referenced you. I think I said...it's easy to be a pompous blow-hard, don't be upset when people call you one, or something. didn't put your name in it (because the same applies to me far too often).

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Hell, the post I read from you after that one I tried to rep you on. I know how I come across, so it doesn't bother me when someone makes fun of me for it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm getting tired of people acting like SlyPokerDogs on this board.

 

[Natebishop3]

Golly, you're so smart and superior to the stupid, knuckledragging citizenry. I bow to your towering intellect and only ask that you tell me what I should think next.

If you want to look at it that way, so be it, but it's pretty common knowledge that people don't question things as long as the water is running, the TV is still on, and they can still feed their family. How many people vote for the Republican or the Democrat simply because they have a D or R next to their name? How many people vote the party line without reading what they're voting for? If I went on the news tonight and called you a child rapist, completely unfounded or not, I'd bet that there would be people out there who would think you were a child rapist until the day you die.

You sure get defensive when someone starts talking about the Tea Party. I didn't say that's how I perceive your party, I said that's how it seems the public generally perceives your party. Not my fault you guys backed some whack jobs.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i want to answer the questions that i want to answer, you are being rude

 

[Natebishop3]

http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/Radio/Newspapers/Oct31/NYT.html

A wave of mass hysteria seized thousands of radio listeners between 8:15 and 9:30 o'clock last night when a broadcast of a dramatization of H. G. Wells's fantasy, "The War of the Worlds," led thousands to believe that an interplanetary conflict had started with invading Martians spreading wide death and destruction in New Jersey and New York.

http://listverse.com/2009/03/16/top-10-bizarre-cases-of-mass-hysteria/

 

[Natebishop3]

[video=youtube;kkCwFkOZoOY]

 

[maxiep]

If you want to look at it that way, so be it, but it's pretty common knowledge that people don't question things as long as the water is running, the TV is still on, and they can still feed their family. How many people vote for the Republican or the Democrat simply because they have a D or R next to their name? How many people vote the party line without reading what they're voting for? If I went on the news tonight and called you a child rapist, completely unfounded or not, I'd bet that there would be people out there who would think you were a child rapist until the day you die.

You sure get defensive when someone starts talking about the Tea Party. I didn't say that's how I perceive your party, I said that's how it seems the public generally perceives your party. Not my fault you guys backed some whack jobs.

And it's not my fault that you can't understand that any time you see a "tea party organization" say something, it's a lie. It's neither a party nor an organization in the way you think of political parties. It's a movement without a leader who doesn't back candidates as a unit, but only as individuals. There are political organizations that have the name "Tea Party" in it, but that doesn't mean squat. The whole idea of the Tea Party is that we only speak for ourselves and are only united by the idea of limiting the size and scope of government. The only thing that any Tea Party "organization" will have is a local coordinator who will put up local meetings or the time of a protest. That's why you don't see polished signs that are all the same; it's completely grassroots.

As for my defensiveness, you would be defensive too if I ascribed a set of false ideas and claims to you and people with whom you politically agree. I've been yanking on your veil of ignorance to try to enlighten you, but you have that thing tied down tight.

 

[maxiep]

Nate, your disdain for others not as smart as you think you are is noted.

 

[Ed O]

I guess what annoys me is how these people claim to be constitutionalists, yet they try to push an agenda on issues like gay marriage or abortion. A true anti-federalist, small government, democratic republican would never support the government getting involved in who can or can't marry.

Actually, I don't think you're correct.

Democracy means that majority rules. If the majority rules, then courts shouldn't have to use judicial proceedings to overturn the will of the people.

Further, the Constitution is mum regarding marriage, which means that it's up to the states to define marriage.

Finally, I don't think that the state defining marriage makes any difference in the size of government, given that the states used to do so (presumably) when the Constitution was written.

I am 100% in favor of allowing gay marriage, but I think that it should be up to the voters and/or their elected officials at the state level. I just find your position to be very off-base.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

And it's not my fault that you can't understand that any time you see a "tea party organization" say something, it's a lie. It's neither a party nor an organization in the way you think of political parties. It's a movement without a leader who doesn't back candidates as a unit, but only as individuals. There are political organizations that have the name "Tea Party" in it, but that doesn't mean squat. The whole idea of the Tea Party is that we only speak for ourselves and are only united by the idea of limiting the size and scope of government. The only thing that any Tea Party "organization" will have is a local coordinator who will put up local meetings or the time of a protest. That's why you don't see polished signs that are all the same; it's completely grassroots.

As for my defensiveness, you would be defensive too if I ascribed a set of false ideas and claims to you and people with whom you politically agree. I've been yanking on your veil of ignorance to try to enlighten you, but you have that thing tied down tight.

I didn't ascribe anything. You're either intentionally ignoring my point or you can't get past your defensive reaction to anything you perceive as negative towards.the tea party. I think people like odonell are helping to strengthen the image that is currently perceived by the left. I don't think its true personally but I've seen and read that perception many places. My whole point is that it doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people hear, and as I've shown, people believe what they hear unquestioningly. But hey, keep making personal attacks.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Natebishop3]

Actually, I don't think you're correct.

Democracy means that majority rules. If the majority rules, then courts shouldn't have to use judicial proceedings to overturn the will of the people.

Further, the Constitution is mum regarding marriage, which means that it's up to the states to define marriage.

Finally, I don't think that the state defining marriage makes any difference in the size of government, given that the states used to do so (presumably) when the Constitution was written.

I am 100% in favor of allowing gay marriage, but I think that it should be up to the voters and/or their elected officials at the state level. I just find your position to be very off-base.

Ed O.

Firstly we aren't a democracy. We are a democratic.republic so it is not "majority rules". We have elected officials to make sure that the mob mentality doesn't always rule, and for good reason.

Further, the constitution is very clear about favoring one religion over others and that's exactly what a law about gay marriage would do. It would favor the religious beliefs of the christian right over those that believe differently.

Finally, it is bigger government because it is more unnecessary legislation and government control, especially if it is on a federal level. There's no reason for the government to get involved with marriage. If they want to control whether people get domestic partnership benefits, that's another story.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[maxiep]

I didn't ascribe anything. You're either intentionally ignoring my point or you can't get past your defensive reaction to anything you perceive as negative towards.the tea party. I think people like odonell are helping to strengthen the image that is currently perceived by the left. I don't think its true personally but I've seen and read that perception many places. My whole point is that it doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people hear, and as I've shown, people believe what they hear unquestioningly. But hey, keep making personal attacks.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Ironically, you're the one acting like the ignorant citizenry you decry. And if you think pointing out your ignorance is an insult rather than a fact, I'd say grow a pair.

 

[jlprk]

Christine O'Donnell has never held a real job in her life. Here is her resume, in chronological order.

She wrote 2 books against masturbation. (One wasn't enough.) This got her a "job" of being a thinker consultant for a couple of small conservative organizations. Then she ran for office and lost every time. Your next conservative Senator. She has never had a romance and in her 40s.

 

[maxiep]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say she was the GOP version of Alvin Greene in the 2010 race. And I don't see anyone putting him on a pedestal as the leader of a movement.

 

[barfo]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say she was the GOP version of Alvin Greene in the 2010 race. And I don't see anyone putting him on a pedestal as the leader of a movement.

As I remember, Alvin Greene got the nomination against some other relative nobodies, to contest a seat that was going to the other party no matter what.

Whereas O'Donnell beat a popular incumbent in the primary, and then lost the seat to the other party.

Big difference.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Ironically, you're the one acting like the ignorant citizenry you decry. And if you think pointing out your ignorance is an insult rather than a fact, I'd say grow a pair.

You're the only person holding this fort down. Julius agreed with me and I'm sure others would as well. As I said, I can point to countless examples of mass groups of people believing things before checking them out. Not thinking for themselves. Doing bad things or believing bad things without asking why.. What can you point to? I think you're delusional. You have far too much faith in mankind as a whole. How did Nazi Germany work out for ya? How about the Spanish Inquisition? What about the LA Riots? You're fighting an uphill battle brother. Don't get butthurt because I said that people think the Tea Baggers are a bunch of racist, biggoted, homophobic rednecks. I don't think they are, but that seems to be the perception... or do I need to go find examples of that thinking?

 

[jlprk]

The citizenry is only as knowledgeable as the media allows them to be.

If, for example, we hear only that Khadaffi is a dictator, then no one knows why most Libyans fight so strongly for him against the history of torture and prisons of oppressive colonialism.

The majority of Americans will almost always agree with the current media slant because that's where we get all our information.

We're not dumb, we're indoctrinated, which makes us dumb, so okay, we're dumb.

 

[barfo]

Also, O'Donnell raised a few million dollars from donors. Alvin Greene, less than $5000.

Some people took O'Donnell seriously. I'm sure that whoever they were, they weren't tea partiers. Probably witches who shape-shifted into the form of tea partiers.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You're the only person holding this fort down. Julius agreed with me and I'm sure others would as well. As I said, I can point to countless examples of mass groups of people believing things before checking them out. Not thinking for themselves. Doing bad things or believing bad things without asking why.. What can you point to? I think you're delusional. You have far too much faith in mankind as a whole. How did Nazi Germany work out for ya? How about the Spanish Inquisition? What about the LA Riots? You're fighting an uphill battle brother. Don't get butthurt because I said that people think the Tea Baggers are a bunch of racist, biggoted, homophobic rednecks. I don't think they are, but that seems to be the perception... or do I need to go find examples of that thinking?

Again, don't blame me for your weak mindedness. As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform. There are candidates that embrace the ideas of limited government and living within our means the Tea Party promotes. I really don't care what someone who dislikes those concepts in the first place thinks, they're not going to vote for a candidate that embraces those views. When they get to the ballot box, they'll vote for the people they think most closely match their views, and there's a world of difference between Christine O'Donnell and Paul Ryan.

Edit: As an aside, I love the irony that your first argument against my point is that I'm alone in defending it. So, which one of us is susceptible to group think?

 

[Natebishop3]

Again, don't blame me for your weak mindedness. As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform. There are candidates that embrace the ideas of limited government and living within our means the Tea Party promotes. I really don't care what someone who dislikes those concepts in the first place thinks, they're not going to vote for a candidate that embraces those views. When they get to the ballot box, they'll vote for the people they think most closely match their views, and there's a world of difference between Christine O'Donnell and Paul Ryan.

Edit: As an aside, I love the irony that your first argument against my point is that I'm alone in defending it. So, which one of us is susceptible to group think?

I seriously have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.... you just run this same lame ass bullshit every time someone brings up the tea party. Why don't you actually read the content of the thread instead of posting about how the tea party is grass roots, doesn't have any leadership, and doesn't have a platform. That was never in contention home slice. I picture the rest of this debate going something like this: \

Nate: I like the color blue.

Maxie: As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform.

Nate: A new poll says that Paris Hilton is the most hated celebrity.

Maxie: As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform.

Nate: I hate the Lakers.

Maxie: As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform.

Nate: Mexican food is tasty.

Maxie: As I said before, it doesn't matter if people try to smear us with those characterizations, because there is no "Tea Party" candidate supporting a "Tea Party" platform.

You just keep going in circles because you ignore the argument and keep regurgitating the same bullshit. You give barfo crap for that tactic, but here you are on the same street living in the same neighborhood driving the same damn car.

 

[maxiep]

Don't blame me you can't keep up. You keep trying to tell me that the Tea Party stands for a bunch of things it doesn't stand for because the media says so. You then tell me that the Tea Party "leaders" say these things. I tell you over and over and over and over that there are no leaders of the Tea Party, that these are political opportunists, but it never seems to sink in. And for the cherry on top, after not getting these simple points, you claim to be smarter than the citizenry.

Remarkable.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The best part is when Maxiep is speaking about the Tea Party he says "We believe this... and we believe that..." and then he says the Tea Party is a group of individuals and no one person can speak for their beliefs.




Edit: Damn, it's like I have had a stroke or something, this is the 2nd time I've screwed the pooch and mixed up believe and belief today.

 

[barfo]

The best part is when Maxiep is speaking about the Tea Party he says "We belief this... and we belief that..." and then he says the Tea Party is a group of individuals and no one person can speak for their beliefs.

The first rule of tea party is that no one speaks for tea party.
The second rule of tea party is that maxiep speaks for tea party.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Don't blame me you can't keep up. You keep trying to tell me that the Tea Party stands for a bunch of things it doesn't stand for because the media says so. You then tell me that the Tea Party "leaders" say these things. I tell you over and over and over and over that there are no leaders of the Tea Party, that these are political opportunists, but it never seems to sink in. And for the cherry on top, after not getting these simple points, you claim to be smarter than the citizenry.

Remarkable.

Sigh..... are you just not reading my posts or are you intentionally trying to troll me? I think you're trolling me because you don't seem to be that dumb.

I didn't say that's how I perceive your party, I said that's how it seems the public generally perceives your party. Not my fault you guys backed some whack jobs.

I don't think its true personally but I've seen and read that perception many places.

I don't think they are, but that seems to be the perception... or do I need to go find examples of that thinking?

But ya, that's me trying to tell you that the tea party stands for a bunch of things it doesn't stand for.... keep on keepin on.

 

[maxiep]

The best part is when Maxiep is speaking about the Tea Party he says "We believe this... and we believe that..." and then he says the Tea Party is a group of individuals and no one person can speak for their beliefs.

Edit: Damn, it's like I have had a stroke or something, this is the 2nd time I've screwed the pooch and mixed up believe and belief today.

We have a core set of beliefs of limited government and living within our means. To that, all of us can speak. Anything beyond that core set is an individual belief. Get it, Sly?

 

[maxiep]

Sigh..... are you just not reading my posts or are you intentionally trying to troll me? I think you're trolling me because you don't seem to be that dumb.

I'm trying to keep you on track. You're determined to wander off. Not my problem.

But ya, that's me trying to tell you that the tea party stands for a bunch of things it doesn't stand for.... keep on keepin on.

And again, the Tea Party stands for a specific set of beliefs. I get that others are trying to paint it as standing for other things, but that doesn't mean we do.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We have a core set of beliefs of limited government and living within our means. To that, all of us can speak. Anything beyond that core set is an individual belief. Get it, Sly?

I knew what you meant. I was just giving you a bad time.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I don't understand why maxie is being attacked so hard by trolls in this thread. He's been very consistent.