Giving liberals a millimeter of slack is self-defeating.
You will never be repaid in kind for courtesy shown to liberals.
You will never see facts acknowledged, or differing viewpoints accepted, by a liberal.
You will never see boundaries respected or rules followed by a liberal.
Conservatives can coddle them if they choose. They have been warned about how liberals behave. When the liberals break their heart, my shoulder will not be available to cry on.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 17.10.2008 @ 13:19
The inability of a person to admit that they are wrong, or even to admit that they made a simple grammatical mistake (for example, writing a few sentences that do not accurately reflect what they really feel, but claiming everyone else's dictionary is wrong) does not speak well of the level of confidence that they have in themselves or the ideas they profess.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 15.10.2008 @ 12:39
"Dag, a lot of you are beating around the bush with your long-winded rants. Just face it: you don’t want a black president who rejects Wall Street values in favor of the working man."
If Harold Ford Jr. ran, I could support him if he won. He is a democrat, but he isn't a moron. He also isn't a socialist. And he has a record of accomplishments upon which he can be judged.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 14.10.2008 @ 15:54
"I voted twice for Bush and see what a mistake it was. I’m going back to Libertarian or nothing; you guys are pretenders."
I am not happy with McCain or his record. But compared to the 0bamessiah, McCain is vastly preferable. A full colostomy bag would be a better president than 0bama.
A vote for anyone other than McCain is a defacto vote for 0bama. Ross Perot cost Bush 41 his second term. Nader kept Gore from winning.
Remember that. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 14.10.2008 @ 15:06
"I just think that Obama has run a smarter campaign."
Smart Campaigning 101Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 14.10.2008 @ 12:53
1) Work hard and achieve something to demonstrate your competence (Edit the Harvard Law Review but never publish a single article)
2) Have principles and vote them (160 "Present" votes)
3) Be open about your record (where are the Harvard & Columbia transcripts? the Annenberg Challenge documents? College thesis?)
4) Don't take illegal campaign donations (Good Will, Doodad Pro)
5) Don't spend $800,000 to subsidize vote fraud (Acorn)
6) Don't hang around with racists (Rev. Wright)
7) Don't hang around with religious kooks (Rev. Pfleger)
8) Don't hang around with unrepentant terrorists (Ayers, Dohrn)
9) Don't take a pedophile as your mentor (Frank Marshall)
If my interpretation of Rick's words is incorrect, why are so many other commenters interpreting them exactly the same way?
Because most people, surprisingly, interpret what they read to match their preconcieved notions. People interpret my advocating accepting Obama as president the same way as if I said "bend over and accept whatever the Democrats and liberals want to give you."
ed.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 14.10.2008 @ 10:46
This is not an Either/Or situation.
Between the polar opposite extremes of rubber-stamping Obama's liberal policies and an Obama-flavored B.D.S., there is considerable middle ground.
Just because the Republicans in congress are clueless does not mean there is no middle ground.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 13.10.2008 @ 14:26
I did not comment with the intent to annoy you, or to pick a fight.
Nor do I wish to parse or nitpick what you wrote.
If my words caused you distress, I apologize for that. As a communication professional, I sometimes subject language to closer scrutiny than most people do.
We all make our choices, and then we live with them. Surely we can all agree on that.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 13.10.2008 @ 14:18
"Republicans should counter a President Obama with better IDEAS. Hunh. Imagine that. Actual ideas."
Never gonna happen. Not with the gang of wimps in congress now.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 13.10.2008 @ 14:03
You ask: Where do I see in your article where you advocate rolling over?
My reading comprehension skills say here:
"But when push comes to shove and crisis erupts somewhere in the world involving American interests – and no president in recent memory has escaped such a challenge – I plan on backing my president’s play."
and also here:
"But I will not wish that he fail nor will I work to see that he does."
Those ARE your words, right?
If the president makes the wrong play, I will not support it, or him.
If the president works towards a bad goal, I will work to see that he fails in achieving it. And I certainly will not do anything that might help a lousy president get re-elected when a better alternative is available.
Blind loyalty is a bad thing.
If your words mean something other than what they say, then accept my apologies for mischaracterizing them. But, as written, they mean exactly what I said they did.
I don't want to see t-shirts with obama's picture and racial epithets on them any more than you do. Everyone is entitled to basic human dignity. In that respect, we both differ from the Kos Kommunists and the the MoveOutOfMyMomsBasement.org loonies.
But I won't give support to bad ideas, or bad leadership, just because the president says so. And you seem to be saying that you will support them.
You would hope that an Obama presidency would fail in some foreign crisis? Are you nuts? Or just an un-American, un-patriotic dunce?
And yes, you have mischaracterized what I wrote - time and time again. I specifically talk about "fighting tooth and nail" for what you believe in. How in God's name can anyone except someone who can't read English take that to mean that I am advocating rolling over and playing dead?
I would suggest you go to a site where the poster uses words of less than three syllables. You will no doubt be more comfortable there.
ed.Comment Posted By Hyman Roth On 13.10.2008 @ 13:35
Pages (2) :  2