Hey girlie, reply to me.  You like macho, eh?  Let me show you liberale macho, aggressive macho.  Haha

You don't want macho really, you want a pinata and you have yours here.

A real man or woman is someone with nothing to prove and nothing to lose.  That leaves you and your macho stupido men here out in the cold rain.  

Be very careful of what you want...

as a wise man once said (actually quite recently):

 

Those who wish for macho justice, macho power, macho sex, they may receive it in agony.  These little girls here who want this know nothing.  They think people like paulejb and his dwarves are real men.  These are not to be found pontificating, pulling wings off flies on a blog.  These so-called men are papier-mache machos.  Pinatas. Many of these I have seen struck with the stick and opening up with candy and cheap toys. They are silly donkeys full of fantasy and all about the show.  For us, in America, where truth and justice are on the line, they are infected zits on the derriere of democracy.

What we need in America is justice flowing down like waters and peace like an everlasting stream.  We need wisdom.  We need the deeper intelligence of ones without malice or fear in their hearts.  We need strong people who can stand up to the stench of the stupidos and banish them to places where they can do no harm.  I do believe this is inevitable.  Gloria a Dios!

Bienadventurados los que padecen persecucion por causa de la justica, porque les importa mas la justicia que su destino humano!

 

When you grow up, and can live without all the fantasy, maybe you will be a woman.  Or not.

adios, honeybuns

 

 

Repubnomas,

Paulejb must really have put the hex on you. He has not posted here for weeks, but you persist in commenting on him. You seem obsessed. Did he get so far inside your head that you can't get him out? Do you feel helpless at the thought that he might return? Are you suffering from nightmares caused by your fears of paulejb?

You can not be strong if you do not conquer your fears, Repubnomas. You cannot continue cowering in trepidation that paulejb may return to take you to task. You must man up and stop taking council of your fears. I am sure that paulejb is a big enough person to take pity on you and let you down easy. 

Fortes fortuna adiuvat,

donaldrex 

Repubnomas,

Paulejb will not be pleased with your disrespect for women. You had better not be around when he returns. I understand that he has a particular disdain for misogynists. Just ask 40YearR. 

Mr./Ms. "Sanderella":

 

I have already discussed Ahmadinejad. I'm not trying to defend him - and I certainly don't support his actions - but he is, by all accounts, sane. Call it corrupt, call it calculated atrocity - but it isn't madness. 

 

An ad hominem IS a direct attack, you irrational "wimp." (That, sir/madam, is an ad hominem.) I find it ironic that you mention libraries - judging by your past posts, I would question whether you've ever actually been to one. NONE of my arguments (among those which you have posed as examples) fall into the category of logical fallacy or "direct attack." I have made honest concessions, and I have done my utmost to point out inconsistencies in the arguments of others. I try to adhere to my "own advice." Besides, I don't need to defend my ethos from someone who can't keep his/her typing fingers under civil control.

 

 I referred to Mr./Ms. "donaldrex" as a "liar" because he/she (like you) has repeatedly presented illogical opinions with no evidence (although I must admit that he/she, at the minimum, manages to refrain from being completely rude and boorish). Most anti-Obama "reasoning" I have seen is premature, extremely biased, and quite willfully flawed. Additionally, scriptural verses ARE entirely irrelevant in the realms of politics and pragmatism. We don't all share the same religious views, and it is profoundly asinine to assume so.

 

You HAVE neglected arguments from me. Every single meaningful one, in fact. You are doing so right now. You completely disregard my (f)actual responses and viewpoints, instead calling names and futilely trying to wreck your opposition's credibility. A very Fox-y approach, indeed. Don't you have better things to do than prove your utter ignorance? I suggest you quietly return to your "manly" lifestyle; at least then you can preserve some dignity.

Fab,

Damning with faint praise, are you? Just because you do not agree with he facts does not make them lies. As a matter of fact, you diminish your credibility when your only response to an argument is to make accusations of lying.

I do not accuse you of lying. I just assume that you are misinformed and hope to provide a dose of reality.  I regret that it disturbs you so, but they do say that the truth will set you free.  

Mark Thieme extends his own pathetic pantomime.  His only peer is paulejb.  Both are compulsive declarants that they are to be feared and respected.

 

They only manage being different manifestations of the damaged ego that must pronounce that they are feared ... or respected ... or others are the victims of ... their own imagined ... specialness ...

 

Both are tedious to the extreme ...  Declaring  ...  boasting  ... of imagined ... different things ... but the same nonetheless ...  Each invents allies ... because they lose on the 'merits' ...  vapid ... accomplishers of nothing ... so they seek ... here ...

 

Mark Thieme who could not win even when he was right ...  laughed at and ridiculed ... because he just lost it ...  laughed off of NW ...  Just like Joe Zero for preeningly posting to himself ... just like Mark Thieme, Jeans and Lolita do ...  because they have to ...  Just like Mark Thieme ... and Repubnomas ... who have to claim ... each ... having these "important friends" at NW ... these powers ... and oh, Daddy ... Lolita and Jeans ... with these powerful lawyers ... who have compiled this impressive dossier on 40 and all the women who have restraining orders on 40 ...  the guy who humiliated that wannabe failed writer so badly, he 'went home' ...  Lolita the masochistic 20 year old sex slave ... who was spurned by 40 ...  Jeans who is so proud that all the men in her husband's church lust after her so ...

 

Declare that you are fearsome, Mark Thieme ... to be feared ...  repeat your fables ... the ones to yourself because no one else is listening ... and certainly not impressed ...  about important friends ... declare your superiority ... Mark Thieme ... just like paulejb ... only you impress only yourself ... Mark Thieme ...  just like paulejb ...

 

Different flavors ... the failed writer in your case ...  damaged ego ... needy ... declare a superiority you could not achieve in real life ... or even at NW ...

 

Sad ... actually

 

nothing more

 

a failed writer who fails to impress even at NW blogs ...

 

But doooo come back Mark Thieme ...  throw us another signature tizzy like your latest series of posts ... and tell us how boring and inferior everyone else is ...

"but he is, by all accounts, sane"

 

That's your opinion, which isn't rational.  Anyone who claims the Holocaust never happened when the entire planet knows otherwise, no matter what his "reasons" are, isn't sane.

 

"An ad hominem IS a direct attack, you irrational "wimp."

 

Now there's a direct attack.  Obviously you're unaware that ad hominem requires irrelevancy of the subject and the attack.  What I stated and what you just stated is a direct attack, there was no subject to divert from.  Got it? 

 

You display every liberal trait there is, including your justification of calling Donaldrex a liar.  More of the same, "it's okay for me to do it, but not anyone else."  If fact, you get very angry when someone else does what you do here everyday. 

 

I have no problems with your beliefs.  I'll argue with them with fact and opinion.  If you want to think Ahmadinejad is mentally fit as a fiddle and sharp as a tack, you go right ahead.  You're also free to ad hominem till the cows come home.  However, if you're going to respond to people here with the statements that were listed below, you might consider getting instructions on "if I'm going to dish it out, I had better learn to take it", because your indignant, hypocritical, pompous, and so-called intellectual responses expose you as a crybaby.

Mr./Ms. "donaldrex":

 

You refer to one book by Tanenhaus. The piece, like any inflammatory political commentary, weaves and distorts issues to suit its own arguments. It aroused much controversy, but I don't necessarily agree with its premise that the complete "death" of conservatism is possible. Certainly, traditionalism is a fruitless effort - history shows this quite well, also - but it will always garner some support from the socially "uncomfortable" or the closed-minded. Where are you getting your information? The War on Poverty had considerably positive effects; it drastically lowered the number of Americans living below the poverty line (by almost 10%), and its legacy persists to this day. Ensuring that millions more of our citizens may live in financial security is not a waste of "trillions." It is only those who (selfishly) resent temporarily heightened or income-based taxes who try to smear it, to portray it as LBJ's social "injustice." If your "blood" is the necessary taxation imposed on the rich for the benefit of those with less, liberalism can and should "suck" more of it. Hey...lots of protein and minerals.

 

I'm not going to restate my list for you. You managed to ignore it previously, anyway. If you are so determined to give up on Obama, trying to divert your thoughts from Fox's spin isn't going to prove practical for anyone. However, I might add that most progressives did at least (initially) give Bush a fighting chance in 2000; the relentless criticisms against Obama at present only demonstrate that conservatives make sore losers.

 

Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty pragmatic fellow (probably a liberal by modern definition), but his foreign-policy catchphrase was intended to support his corollary to the Monroe doctrine - not as a tactic for averting nuclear crises. In Roosevelt's time, we had protection from European threats in the form of the Atlantic Ocean. In today's world, if Iran saw a big, threatening stick anywhere in its vicinity, I wouldn't be too surprised at its explosive and horrific reaction. So far, the worst the U.S. has done is impose sanctions; if we threatened to launch our missiles, our major population centers would be reduced to rubble within weeks (whether we have MDSs is the Czech Republic and Poland or not). Our stalemate with the Soviets was a result of approximately equal firepower; that is, both sides knew that any conflict could destroy the entire world (several hundred times each, no less). We have thousands more warheads in our armory than in Iran's paltry stockpile, and we can be assured that any wrong moves would result in irrational acts of desperation. If we were to give an inexperienced and foolhardy leader like Palin a "big stick," she wouldn't "speak softly" - but she WOULD put her own eye out with it (with potential fatality to millions). In the meantime, cooperative, "consensus-building" diplomacy is our best option. Words are more powerful than any weapon.

 

A bit of convenience is a puny sacrifice for universal healthcare. It works just fine in all other "first-world" countries. If a relative of mine (or yours) were dying and unable to afford treatment, that "visit to the Post office" would seem like a saving grace. How can you justify your view?

 

Schwarzenegger is the governor. Not Prejean. Do you really believe such silliness? Can you prove it?

 

The proviso for governmental welfare is provided right away in the Constitution's Preamble: "We the people of the UnitedStates, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insuredomestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, _promote the generalwelfare_, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Domestic aid is an integral aspect of our government. Ayn Rand's radically capitalist and self-gratifying ideals merit literary analysis, but they aren't pragmatic for society.

 

Call it "wishful thinking" all you like, but there is a certain degree of skepticism and openness to reason in my perspectives. If Palin were, for example, to prove me wrong and become a successful, forward-thinking, practical president, I wouldn't hesitate to revise my position. However, in the meantime, my impression of her (and conservatism as a whole) remains far from favorable.

Mr./Ms. "Sanderella":

 

If you are unable to understand the definitions of "sanity" and "rationality," you are the one sorely in need of a "trip to your local library." As terrible and cruel as it is, Holocaust denial isn't "insane." It's a calculated judgment, a premeditated lie, to oppose Israel's legitimacy. Iran, like most of the Middle East, is hostile toward its displaced, Jewish neighbor. It's not about to acknowledge its "rights" to the "Holy Land"; accepting the Holocaust would, in effect, be a form of political surrender - of acquiescence. Ahmadinejad may have abandoned his morals, but he has retained his wits. I might mention that this argument over Ahmadinejad's sanity is completely idiotic and impractical. Rational or not, Iran's leader remains a tentative threat to the world, and diplomacy and understanding are essential tools in solving the potential crisis at hand.

 

Ad hominem: (adj., coll. noun) "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument" (Random House Dictionary). This describes, verbatim, what you do constantly. It gets us - especially you - nowhere. My one, ironic "example" which you have (so observantly) pointed out fits the definition perfectly - as does your every other word. By the way, when did "liberal" become an insult? I don't necessarily see it as such.

 

How am I angry? Please help me understand (with whatever limited capacity you have to do so) how my arguments are less "crybaby[ish]" than yours. I understand full well the sort of hypocrisy and ignorance I am forced to interact with on these boards, and I'd like to think that I've braced myself for it quite well. Ultimately, you only prove my points. You are the frustrated one here; hence, you refuse to answer me with coherent logic.

 

Which merits my (standing) accusation that you still haven't stated any facts. 

For eight years the Republican Party strongly and stubbornly supported everything the Bush Administration did as it totally placated and patronized Special Interests and a select few, done with an in-your-face arrogance. Together they irresponsibly and unconscionably encouraged the dishonesty, self-indulgence and neglect that literally contributed to bringing down most systems in this country. The Bush Presidency unapologetically passed a gargantuan mess on to the Obama Presidency and the Republican Party then just attempted to block/obstruct, without any regard for other than their own interests, all efforts to solve problems. Without ever contributing anything positive or constructive they now aggressively criticize the Obama Administration for not totally turning things around in just ten months. Today everyone should be able to recognize the lies, the scare tactics and the appeals to prejudices and emotions, all intended to mislead and manipulate the majority and benefit only the few. Anyone who accepts all of that, who supports the Republicans' efforts and the substantial overt and covert activity of their patrons, aimed to return to 'more of the same', obviously has to be certifiably crazy. Anyone who is willing to ignore the consequences, at the very least, has to be masochistic.

What lies are you talking about?  I've never seen anything substantiated, but you lefties keep on saying "lies" over and over with the hope that maybe someday it will come true.  It hasn't.  If you are talking about the war in Afghanistan,  your Saviour has already given that one his thumbs up, so as one of his sheep you are obligated to think it is a just war.  

 If your complaint is Iraq, why aren't you crying about the boat load of your democrat favorites that were completely supportive of going to Iraq, but have since chosen to deny that they ever said it was the right thing to do?  And how come none of you followers of The Great One ever call those people "liars?"  

 If your complaint is about Bush spending like a drunken sailor, I can't disagree with you.  But if he was a drunken sailor, The Messiah that made you feel all warm and squishy last November is the equivalent of not just a drunken sailor, but the entire Navy all drunked up and ready to spend the nation into oblivion.  

 I don't think anyone expected your Grand Poo-Bah to turn things around in ten months.  But those of us that have known all along what a mistake you lefties were making are just surprised to see how much worse he has made things, and at such an exorbitant price.   

"Lump yourself in with the stupids.  I didn't mix anything, I was very straight forward."

No need.  You did mix most meanings.

"I always, always have evidence."

You do not...or at least I have bever seen it. 

"You on the other hand post a link verifying the 75 percent unfit to serve statement.  You failed to note that one site said 35 percent, and the site that mentioned the 75 percent rate also mentioned that includes people who even have one tattoo.  There's always a story behind numbers like that, but that's no surprise as I've seen this type of thing from you before."  Tatoo is "unfit for service".  The numbers of rejections specifically from failure to pass ASVAB test and obeisity are rising.  No one in the army would dispute that.

According to the latest Pentagon figures, a full 35 percent, or more than one-third, of the roughly 31.2 million Americans aged 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because of physical and medical issues.http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_unfityouths_recruiting_110309w/.

The 35% is specifically related to just the medical portion.  There is also intelligence testing and other factors (which rarely change).

"When you get cornered you start with name calling, then you get called out for it."

 

You are you repeating what I've already said.  It's a liberal trait.  I cited one poster that conically offends and name calls, but can't take it when it comes back to him.

"No, it isn't.  Crying about getting called on for hypocrisy is."

No it isn't.

"Another liberal trait... thinking you write the rules for everyone on any given subject."

More words - more wimpiness.

"Think hard about what is upsetting me?  Wrong Sigmund F. If you want to analize someone, put yourself on the couch first."

No need.  Can't get past Sandarella "looney street" first.

"It really makes you guys angry when confronted with your 'do as I say, not as I do' liberal hypocrisy, doesn't it?  Anyone who confronts you is upsetting to you.  You hate it.  Good.  Squirm."

To the contrary.  Sometime I have gotten upset.  But trust me on this one...not from your posts.  You're just angry because not everyone agrees with you.  If it were otherwise, you'vd be debating and presenting data, instead of just saying you are and trying to act tough in front of your computer.

don-

 

In all fairness, I've never seen Fab fein away from any debating forum.  The problem is when it digresses from the subject.  But as I said in a previous post, each side wants something different with their posting engagements.  That's why there's so much bitterness.

Ah, yes.  Rob, you are too good for this place, but I repeat myself.  Do your duty as you see fit and pay no attention to grizzled old warriors.  You have my respect, if that may be of any consequence.

Indeed many come here, but few have opinions.  Most just have needs.  I ask myself why I come here and I realize it is an opportunity to mock fools.  Thus, I have become an arrogant old fool myself.  Nonetheless, I have never abided fools easily, not even when I look in the mirror.

My true sorrow is that it is the stupidos, not the left or right, who endanger the nations of the world.  Ideology is just a place to hang a hat.  A stupido is always looking for such a place and all they ever find is a place to hang themselves.  And they do find it.  Most never know the damage they have done with their tiny little solipsistic lives.

I have predicted savage things here.  These predictions have not made me happy, nor will I play any part in the fulfillment of such.  Yet these things do come to the deaf and dumb.  And as surely as history spirals to its nadir/apex, these who live in such illusion will see, even if only for one hiorrble moment, the splattering of the tiny bubble as it comes into contact with the very reality that has always surrounded, always has been there, waiting.

So, it must be. But I will raise my voice because it is all I can do.  A woman stepped in front of a train last night.  If I would have been there, I would have tried to warn her, even though I may have felt she was getting a sort of rude justice... I still would have tried to drag her away from the tracks and if I had been successful, she likely would have cursed me.  She wanted it that way.  She left only a mess on the tracks.  She was a stupido, but she deserved better than her that bloody and horrid fate to which her inborn stupidity handed her over in the end.  

Thus he gives his beloved... sueno.

Carry on, compadre.

 

Quite an impressive piece of propaganda, excepting for the fact this only works with the base (your diminishing rated base), it would have been easier to digest. Anybody with half a brain knows the difference between Fox News' opinion shows (this piece is a News Week's opinion piece) and their news outlet. Beside the best way to know what's going on with any administration is always to plug your head into the channel / news outlet that is most opposed to it. I am a center right independent, yet, during Bush years, I made it a habit of listening mainly to MSNBC only because I perceived them then as the news outlet most opposed / biased to BUSH.
The only reason Fox's rating is going up right now is because of their perceived opposition to Obama, making their coverage of anything in his administration SPIN FREE of him (that is they have no Chris Matthew tingling feelings up their leg or to quote Chris Matthew's "I want to make him succeed" kind of thinking. (I can???t believe Chris was stupid enough to have openly and shamelessly made such a comment.)