|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 14, 2008 11:21:38 GMT -6
Oh yeah, I can't be a snob. I can bowl over 200. I grew up in a trailer park. I couldn't afford to go to a big city liberal elite law school like Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, or Yale. I guess that making chicken salad out of chicken shit and getting out of poverty and the white trash culture that pervades Iowa, makes some of you think I'm a snob. I enjoy a mac and cheese supper and an ice cold can of Coors Light (it's non-union) as much as the next freaking guy. I do not want to live in a Communist country and don't think it is the ideal system of government or economics. However, the other extreme (which you and auto jack off to) can be just as destructive. Woah, woah, woah. Don't drag me down into whatever cesspool BTR resides in. And I don't know anyone credible who advocates a completely laissez faire economy. Sh**, if we eliminated government regulation, I'd be out of a job.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 11:27:34 GMT -6
Oh yeah, I can't be a snob. I can bowl over 200. I grew up in a trailer park. I couldn't afford to go to a big city liberal elite law school like Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, or Yale. I guess that making chicken salad out of chicken shit and getting out of poverty and the white trash culture that pervades Iowa, makes some of you think I'm a snob. I enjoy a mac and cheese supper and an ice cold can of Coors Light (it's non-union) as much as the next freaking guy. You can be a snob and you are in your posts about those who don't have the same economic means as you do. I do not want to live in a Communist country and don't think it is the ideal system of government or economics. However, the other extreme (which you and auto jack off to) can be just as destructive. Your personal rags to riches story is admirable and should be congratulated. It is too bad that the you hate on those who didn't choose the same path as you and think that they are inferior people. That is where you need to mature. I thought it was clear that after not having to stand in line with the unwashed masses at the airport a few weeks ago, my disdain for the poors has been eliminated. I don't have anything against poors, as without them, my dry cleaning wouldn't get done, my trash wouldn't get moved out of the building, I wouldn't be able to eat, etc - I understand the symbiotic relationship we all have. In fact, by generally advocating for free market economics, lower tax and such, I am helping strengthen the foundation of America's economy which will help the poors out. It's anti-free trade, class based rhetoric advocated out of the extreme left that keeps the poors poor.
|
|
|
Post by ignatiusreilly on Apr 14, 2008 11:30:34 GMT -6
I think it's more your Star Jones attitude and the general douchebaggery that exists in your posts that would lead people to come to this conclusion. It has nothing to do with bowling, tralier parks, and drinking sissy beer like Coors Light. But to each his own. If you think that your liberal arts degree makes you better than the next guy, then by all means think that. You are not alone. I was watching an old episode of Hell's Kitchen and there was this customer who got irate and proclaimed, "I have a doctorate in Music" to the maitre'd as he poked his chest. I figured the guy to be about as tough as the paper his liberal arts degree is printed on... soaking wet. What the hell is a Star Jones? I don't think everyone should go to college because the world needs ditchdiggers, too. In fact your average dumbass with a doctorate in music (I'm not surprised you'd be watching a show about such a guy who got tough with what sounds like a Frenchman) is probably a helluva lot dumber than the guy who graduated last in his class at Lincoln Tech. Star Jones is the fat black lawyer on The View that you remind me of. Actually I know little about the actual person, only Tracy Morgan's parody of her. I think she got that gastric bypass surgery. She was always reminding everyone on the show that she was a lawyer. Kind of like you do on here. It was funny how Tracy Morgan (dressed as a fat black woman) would say it. "I am a lawyer" then he(she)'d pause and look around the set to see if anyone actually gave a sh*t. Usually said it multiple times during the course of a skit. Always cracked me up.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 11:30:37 GMT -6
I do not want to live in a Communist country and don't think it is the ideal system of government or economics. However, the other extreme (which you and auto jack off to) can be just as destructive. Woah, woah, woah. Don't drag me down into whatever cesspool BTR resides in. And I don't know anyone credible who advocates a completely laissez faire economy. Sh**, if we eliminated government regulation, I'd be out of a job. Hold on there, if you aren't pro-minimum wage, pro-union, pro-wealth transfer act of 1933, as amended, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, you are an extreme anarcho capitalist.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 11:32:12 GMT -6
What the hell is a Star Jones? I don't think everyone should go to college because the world needs ditchdiggers, too. In fact your average dumbass with a doctorate in music (I'm not surprised you'd be watching a show about such a guy who got tough with what sounds like a Frenchman) is probably a helluva lot dumber than the guy who graduated last in his class at Lincoln Tech. Star Jones is the fat black lawyer on The View that you remind me of. Actually I know little about the actual person, only Tracy Morgan's parody of her. I think she got that gastric bypass surgery. She was always reminding everyone on the show that she was a lawyer. Kind of like you do on here. It was funny how Tracy Morgan (dressed as a fat black woman) would say it. "I am a lawyer" then he(she)'d pause and look around the set to see if anyone actually gave a sh*t. Usually said it multiple times during the course of a skit. Always cracked me up. Well shit, obviously somebody on here cares that I am a lawyer. He keeps bringing it up.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 14, 2008 12:22:58 GMT -6
Woah, woah, woah. Don't drag me down into whatever cesspool BTR resides in. And I don't know anyone credible who advocates a completely laissez faire economy. Sh**, if we eliminated government regulation, I'd be out of a job. Hold on there, if you aren't pro-minimum wage, pro-union, pro-wealth transfer act of 1933, as amended, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, you are an extreme anarcho capitalist. You guys aren't the only ones who are allowed to put people in dogmatic categories.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 14, 2008 12:31:59 GMT -6
Man I disappear for a few days and the thread goes to hell.
Ok, Ignatius, BTR hit the nail on the head as far as Abortion goes. 1 more right wing dude on the Supreme court and you can kiss roe vs. Wade goodbye. And abortion is a big issue for me. Murdering unborn babies as yet to be born who do NOT HAVE A CHOICE is a big deal. If the freakin mother isn't competent enough to take care of it then she should either 1) keep her knees locked together or 2) give the baby up. Simple as that.
Gumby, Yeah I know about Mccain, not happy about it but what can a guy do. Make him change his immigration policy? Not to mention who the hell else is there to vote for?
Ignatius, weak-kneed on Defense? Yes, and I'm not talking about this fucked up excuse for a war. I'm talking about EVERY SINGLE TIME a Dem' gets in office the military goes to hell. Military supplies go down to nothing, people enlisting in the military goes down and we usually end up kissing some stupid little countries ass so as to not have to go to war and risk those poor boys who signed up for the military in the first place. They knew what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line. Why do you think a good portion of the military supports the republicans?
BTR; I don't think you are a snob, I think you remember what it was like when you were a kid growing up like that and you have "disdain" for the lifestyle, not the people? Just a guess. I feel the same way and I would be willing to bet a good amount of money I am the poorest bastard on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 14, 2008 12:36:23 GMT -6
Gumby, Yeah I know about Mccain, not happy about it but what can a guy do. Make him change his immigration policy? Not to mention who the hell else is there to vote for? Voting for someone who doesn't want to sell out his country would be a start...
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Apr 14, 2008 12:39:58 GMT -6
Man I disappear for a few days and the thread goes to hell. Ok, Ignatius, BTR hit the nail on the head as far as Abortion goes. 1 more right wing dude on the Supreme court and you can kiss roe vs. Wade goodbye. And abortion is a big issue for me. Murdering unborn babies as yet to be born who do NOT HAVE A CHOICE is a big deal. If the freakin mother isn't competent enough to take care of it then she should either 1) keep her knees locked together or 2) give the baby up. Simple as that. Gumby, Yeah I know about Mccain, not happy about it but what can a guy do. Make him change his immigration policy? Not to mention who the hell else is there to vote for? Ignatius, weak-kneed on Defense? Yes, and I'm not talking about this fucked up excuse for a war. I'm talking about EVERY SINGLE TIME a Dem' gets in office the military goes to hell. Military supplies go down to nothing, people enlisting in the military goes down and we usually end up kissing some stupid little countries ass so as to not have to go to war and risk those poor boys who signed up for the military in the first place. They knew what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line. Why do you think a good portion of the military supports the republicans? BTR; I don't think you are a snob, I think you remember what it was like when you were a kid growing up like that and you have "disdain" for the lifestyle, not the people? Just a guess. I feel the same way and I would be willing to bet a good amount of money I am the poorest bastard on this board. Yeah, Clinton really gutted the military. That is why 9 months after he left office, the military he built kicked ass in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 12:57:50 GMT -6
Gumby, Yeah I know about Mccain, not happy about it but what can a guy do. Make him change his immigration policy? Not to mention who the hell else is there to vote for? Voting for someone who doesn't want to sell out his country would be a start... This issue can really split America. On one hand, illegal immigration should be eliminated to the extent possible. But on the other hand, this country is a country of immigrants and used to welcome the poor and the best and brightest from other countries. We have completely abandoned that principle. The border is shut tight for all but a select few legal immigrants and wide open for illiegal immigrants. We need someone who will flip the situation. As much as I enjoy bashing the Rooseveltian Ponzi schemes, even I will concede that those are now necessary, and the only way that those can be funded is through population increases driven primarily by immigration.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 12:58:46 GMT -6
Yeah, Clinton really gutted the military. That is why 9 months after he left office, the military he built kicked ass in Afghanistan. Matt Millen bolstered the Lions. They could go roll over most high school teams in the country. He's a great general manager.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 14, 2008 13:12:56 GMT -6
Yeah, Clinton really gutted the military. That is why 9 months after he left office, the military he built kicked ass in Afghanistan. Matt Millen bolstered the Lions. They could go roll over most high school teams in the country. He's a great general manager. Exactly! Since when did the our Military's ability to do Afghanistan become a measuring stick for whether we are strong enough? Thats tantamount to cutting off both of my arms and one of my legs, then saying I'm perfectly fit because I can still go 100 yards faster than the guy who has no legs. Having said that, that is exactly the kind of logic Clinton used when 4 of every 10 Air Wing Squadron aircraft were robbed for parts for the other 6. It is also the same logic he used when deployments ran longer with shorter rest periods in between because he butchered fleet size.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 14, 2008 13:23:02 GMT -6
Yeah, let's focus on what Clinton did to the military and ignore what W has done.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 14, 2008 13:24:01 GMT -6
I love these 'issues' like abortion. They are completely irrelevant, but always get used as a reason to vote for a Republican. Nothing but a political issue that I personally couldn't give a sh*t about. Not because it's not an important topic but because it's meaningless. It's just a way to divide up the votes. I think anybody who uses that as a reason to vote a certain way is a sucker, no offense. You're just dividing yourself up exactly the way the party wants you to. Every president, senator, house rep, governor, mayor and city councilman claims to be one way or another on this to get these easy votes. But nothing ever changes and understandably so. Abortion was made legal by the supreme court and that isn't going to change. I'm no lawyer, but what is the term- 'stare decisis', basically Case Law - a US court has made a decision and that decision becomes law. George Bush doesn't even know what that means-- you think he's capable of changing the abortion laws? Republicans and people who use this anti-abortion 'issue' tactic are just securing the gullible vote. It's like 'family values'... got to be one of the stupidest political terms I've ever heard, but many people fall for it. They are likely the same ones that vote for candidates who are 'strong on abortion'. Maybe I should have posted this in the 'people who need to be thinned from the herd' thread. If I were running for President (God help us all), I would make clear my position on abortion. "I don't give a f*ck". I'm not going to do anything. I'm going to let the courts decide that one. The President has more important issues that need 4 years of attention. And I'd guarantee my opponents would do the same thing, no matter what they say. I'd challenge them.. someone like John McCain. If he wants to use abortion as an issue I'd want to know his specific plan to overturn the decision. And if he didn't have one I'd tell him to shut the hell up about it then so we could focus on a real issue. You are a liberal (lower case). Of course you don't give a fuck about abortion! It is the murder of an innocent baby. It is the liberals (lower case) that decided that the life of an innocent baby wasn't as important as the "right" of a woman to "choose" to murder that baby. The entire movement was liberals (lower case) who don't give a fuck!.....which is exactly why "suckers" like me continue fighting to overthrow Roe V Wade in an effort to save those babies who can't save themselves because idiots like you who don't "give a fuck" continue treating them as if they were the daily trash to be taken out to the curb. What comes around goes around!
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 14, 2008 13:29:14 GMT -6
Exactly. No person who spent 4 years at Harvard would say something as snobby and elitist to the people of small town and middle America as... You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. The quote must have been manufactured by the vast right wing conspiracy and the Clinton PR machine. I just can't believe that any Harvard Law grad would think/say that people only "cling" to their religion because of bitterness about jobs that left 25 years ago, especially at a fundraiser in San Francisco. That quote is 100% true. He should not back down from that. You are clueless. American's have embraced our right to bear arms much longer than the 25 years he says we have been "clinging" to it. Even Obama has backed off that position after being confronted about it. How can you even doubt it? Were you not raised in this Country?
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 14, 2008 13:43:13 GMT -6
Oh yeah, I can't be a snob. I can bowl over 200. I grew up in a trailer park. I couldn't afford to go to a big city liberal elite law school like Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, or Yale. I guess that making chicken salad out of chicken shit and getting out of poverty and the white trash culture that pervades Iowa, makes some of you think I'm a snob. I enjoy a mac and cheese supper and an ice cold can of Coors Light (it's non-union) as much as the next freaking guy. Your rise to success is admirable, to be sure. That doesn't preclude you from being a snob. Just because you like Coors and mac and cheese doesn't mean you're not a snob, either. It just means you like cheap beer and mac and cheese. That's just fine, and has nothing to do with your apparent disdain for people who aren't like you (an achiever who came from poverty). I don't know, you tell me. BTR can speak for himself, but I'll give you my take. It is a take from most Conservatives (Upper case). What you see as "snobbishness" is nothing more than the following observation: Those of us who have made good decisions and busted it for many years to make lives better for us and our families are constantly being targeted as the "rich" by guess who........thats right.....the liberals (lower case). They know they can't legislate work ethic and ethics in general, so we are constantly being ambushed by those who want to take what we have worked so hard for and give it to those who haven't worked for it at all. It is, more and more everyday, becoming a Country of dependency plagued takers at the expense of those who have earned their successes.
|
|
|
Post by ignatiusreilly on Apr 14, 2008 13:45:32 GMT -6
You guys are off your rockers if you believe our military spending is ever insufficient, with Republicans OR Democrats in charge. We spend more on defense than damn near every nation in the world put together, no matter who's in office. We've got American ingenuity working hard in outstanding companies such as Rockwell Collins ensuring America's ass-kicking abilites should they ever be called into action. If anything, the Republicans overspend. Certainly in Bush's term. He overspent our defense budget so much it has clearly put our economy in jeopardy, among other things. Don't confuse wasting billions with being strong on defense. America has plenty of gunpowder to fuel its rockets.
The only party that has proven to be weak on defense is the Republicans. For 8 years George Bush's cockiness and failed policies have cost billions, spread our troops thin around the world, grown worldwide anti-American resentment to an all-time high. Not to mention how weak we look in Iraq. Going in there, declaring Victory! and then looking like chumps getting our asses handed to us for the next 5 years. And you Republicans still have the audacity to claim Democrats are weak-kneed on defense. The Republicans have shown they are absolute sh*t at defending America. If the Republicans were an offensive coordinator they'd be Ken O'Keefe.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 14, 2008 13:49:52 GMT -6
Your rise to success is admirable, to be sure. That doesn't preclude you from being a snob. Just because you like Coors and mac and cheese doesn't mean you're not a snob, either. It just means you like cheap beer and mac and cheese. That's just fine, and has nothing to do with your apparent disdain for people who aren't like you (an achiever who came from poverty). I don't know, you tell me. BTR can speak for himself, but I'll give you my take. It is a take from most Conservatives (Upper case). What you see as "snobbishness" is nothing more than the following observation: Those of us who have made good decisions and busted it for many years to make lives better for us and our families are constantly being targeted as the "rich" by guess who........thats right.....the liberals (lower case). They know they can't legislate work ethic and ethics in general, so we are constantly being ambushed by those who want to take what we have worked so hard for and give it to those who haven't worked for it at all. It is, more and more everyday, becoming a Country of dependency plagued takers at the expense of those who have earned their successes. Rush and Hannity called, they need their talking points back.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 13:53:40 GMT -6
There are multiple problems in Iraq. The most important is that the liberals have essentially precluded us from waging total war and leveling the shit out of a country. Unless you are willing to level Iraq and completely squeeze the will to fight out of the Islamofascists, as we did with the Axis in WWII, declaring and defining victory in a modern war is difficult. See, e.g. Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 14, 2008 13:56:51 GMT -6
BTR can speak for himself, but I'll give you my take. It is a take from most Conservatives (Upper case). What you see as "snobbishness" is nothing more than the following observation: Those of us who have made good decisions and busted it for many years to make lives better for us and our families are constantly being targeted as the "rich" by guess who........thats right.....the liberals (lower case). They know they can't legislate work ethic and ethics in general, so we are constantly being ambushed by those who want to take what we have worked so hard for and give it to those who haven't worked for it at all. It is, more and more everyday, becoming a Country of dependency plagued takers at the expense of those who have earned their successes. Rush and Hannity called, they need their talking points back. Why is it that instead of arguing the merits of a point made by a conservative, liberals resort to saying "You must get your talking points from Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity"? I don't get it. I don't watch or listen to any of those windbags. Liberals don't have an original thought in their brains, their policy ideas are those cooked up Mussolini and Hitler back in the day, and they claim the conservatives are the unoriginal ones?
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Apr 14, 2008 14:16:53 GMT -6
Yeah, Clinton really gutted the military. That is why 9 months after he left office, the military he built kicked ass in Afghanistan. Matt Millen bolstered the Lions. They could go roll over most high school teams in the country. He's a great general manager. Matt Millen is a genius and a wonderful GM (see sports forum). Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 14, 2008 15:08:50 GMT -6
You guys are off your rockers if you believe our military spending is ever insufficient, with Republicans OR Democrats in charge. We spend more on defense than damn near every nation in the world put together, no matter who's in office. We've got American ingenuity working hard in outstanding companies such as Rockwell Collins ensuring America's ass-kicking abilites should they ever be called into action. If anything, the Republicans overspend. Certainly in Bush's term. He overspent our defense budget so much it has clearly put our economy in jeopardy, among other things. Don't confuse wasting billions with being strong on defense. America has plenty of gunpowder to fuel its rockets. The only party that has proven to be weak on defense is the Republicans. For 8 years George Bush's cockiness and failed policies have cost billions, spread our troops thin around the world, grown worldwide anti-American resentment to an all-time high. Not to mention how weak we look in Iraq. Going in there, declaring Victory! and then looking like chumps getting our asses handed to us for the next 5 years. And you Republicans still have the audacity to claim Democrats are weak-kneed on defense. The Republicans have shown they are absolute sh*t at defending America. If the Republicans were an offensive coordinator they'd be Ken O'Keefe. Ignatius, no doubt about it, Iraq is a screwed up mess. Yes the Bush Administration has made some serious problems. The least of which is firing any general who disagrees with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. I also agree Bush has made some mistakes, foreigh policy wise, as far as dealing with other countries. But to say that the lib's have it all figured out and aren't a bunch of screw ups in their own mind is absolutely ludicrous. You ask ANY member of the military on this board, MCPO HAWK etc. who they vote for and while they may or may not have a problem with the way the bush administration is running this war I can guarantee you 3/4ths or MORE of all military members are going to vote Republican. You ask why that is? Because for 1 simple fact they know that the republicans are going to stand up for them and make sure they have the equipment/supplies/know how, necessary to fight and win a war. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 14, 2008 15:54:23 GMT -6
Rush and Hannity called, they need their talking points back. Why is it that instead of arguing the merits of a point made by a conservative, liberals resort to saying "You must get your talking points from Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity"? I don't get it. I don't watch or listen to any of those windbags. Liberals don't have an original thought in their brains, their policy ideas are those cooked up Mussolini and Hitler back in the day, and they claim the conservatives are the unoriginal ones? Because in this instance, said poster (IAfan), did not address the actual merits of Obama's quote. He just spouted off about Americans always loving guns and their right to bear arms. He wasn't addressing the socio-cultural issues that lead some middle and lower class people to forget about the fact that they are being shit on by those in the upper 2% of wealth in this country. Simpletons deserve simple responses.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 15, 2008 6:05:48 GMT -6
There are multiple problems in Iraq. The most important is that the liberals have essentially precluded us from waging total war and leveling the shit out of a country. Unless you are willing to level Iraq and completely squeeze the will to fight out of the Islamofascists, as we did with the Axis in WWII, declaring and defining victory in a modern war is difficult. See, e.g. Vietnam. Speaking of not having an original thought, you're talking about Iraq as though it were Vietnam, and it isn't. Your discussion of the "soft on terror" of "liberals" is straight out of the Fox playbook. There are sooo many reasons why you are wrong about Iraq. The only thing you said that made any sense at all was that that the situation is complicated. A brief primer on why you're wrong: 1. Iraq did NOT attack us. 2. You want us to level a nation full of many, many innocents, after already killing hundreds of thousands of both non-innocent and innocent Iraqis. 3. We have not affected Bin Laden's minions one bit. 4. Bin Laden was a freakin' SAUDI, moron!! I could go on all day, but conservatives fail to see a few very basic points about the war. It isn't that I'm against all war. I am not. I'm against what we've done, which has been a massive, history-making mistake. Btw, WWII was shorter than this, and we defeated actual governments who were invading other countries. The only comparison to WWII that is valid is the friggin length of time it is taken, and even that is now a moot point, because this debacle is still going on.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 15, 2008 6:14:23 GMT -6
There are multiple problems in Iraq. The most important is that the liberals have essentially precluded us from waging total war and leveling the shit out of a country. Unless you are willing to level Iraq and completely squeeze the will to fight out of the Islamofascists, as we did with the Axis in WWII, declaring and defining victory in a modern war is difficult. See, e.g. Vietnam. The most important point that I didn't address was your complete willingness to "level the shit" out of a country, even when there has never been any credible reason to do so. Given the fact that the bad guys are likely in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia (as well as all over the world), please explain why spending all of our military time and resources in Iraq is helping the problem. Seriously. Help me understand why we need to completely destroy Iraq. You make the fundamental mistake of thinking that we're all so "soft" that you end up defending something that is really, really stupid. I can give you a lot of example of how Iraq is hurting us, how about some examples of how it is helping us?
|
|