namelesstavern.net

oh shit, you can't want general good to win out vs personal greed!

I asked for unbiased. It tells alot about someone's character when they call women names like that just because she hasn't "earned their respect" What does she owe you? not a thing. If you want to vote for her, fine. If you don't want to vote for her fine. This is why I started this conversation in a moderated forum, so the adults could have an adult conversation. If you can't play nicely, please do not post in this thread at all. I may not be a moderator, but I am sure that I can find a moderator to agree with me on this one. It is after all, a moderated forum.

Anyway, I'm leaning to voting for Hillary because she is a woman. But then I think, maybe I should look into what they believe in.

I don't think you can say anything about what we said after having said that.

The Kizzy wrote:I asked for unbiased. It tells alot about someone's character when they call women names like that just because she hasn't "earned their respect" What does she owe you? not a thing. If you want to vote for her, fine. If you don't want to vote for her fine. This is why I started this conversation in a moderated forum, so the adults could have an adult conversation. If you can't play nicely, please do not post in this thread at all. I may not be a moderator, but I am sure that I can find a moderator to agree with me on this one. It is after all, a moderated forum.

Hey guys, is this forum moderated?



Voice of Mod: Why yes, yes it is. Nothing here has required modding so far, however. Carry on.

It doesn't matter if it's unmoderated or not. Nobody said anything bad, nor has anybody insulted you personally. So stop carrying on about this trivial matter Janet.

Mindia, you must admit, though, that calling Sen. Clinton names is hardly polite. Furthermore, while I may consider, for example, Huckabee a raving moron for raising his hand when asked if he didn't believe in evolution, and I may disagree with him on a vast number of political and social issues, I haven't felt the need to call the man names. I simply would never vote for him and would advise others not to do so if asked. It is possible to not think highly of someone while still remaining civil.

-Arlos

Harrison wrote:Respect is earned. She hasn't earned any from me. She was lucky enough to have married a governor turned president, and from there has done nothing to earn anything of her own. She is riding on the wave of her name.

interesting to hear you call her lucky based on her marriage when it's so widely known the flaws of it. i wouldn't call someone who's been in an unfaithful marriage 'lucky' based on who she's married to.

if you're going to dislike the woman, dislike her based on issues you hold personal, not what the masses tell you to dislike. "I just don't like her, so there!" just isn't a great reason, nor is voting for her only because she's a woman.

Every network is full of people you need to know and who you talk to is important. How much they like you is important. The Clintons have friends all over, people like them. Gyps is right, their marriage, as an example, is indicative of many American families and everyone knows it.

I like Hillary Clinton and I think she is an excellent woman, politician, speaker and I like her attitude. She really understands what it takes and she goes for it. I think she has very good experience in leadership she isn't new to politics. She isn't riding anyone's coat tails, they met in college and both pursued political careers. She deserves much more credit for her personal achievements than many let her have..

I don't want to vote Democrat this election, I like Ron Paul for putting things in order. I want to see a Republican party take over and make it awesome..I have faith in what Ron Paul supports and believes in. I realize we can't back out of Iraq but people want to and they want to do it properly. Immigration is an important issue and I realize this war has been on-going, but it isn't like once a President is elected troops will come home. It will be a while. The candidates are concentrating on certain platforms and it's tricky..we're in war..and they have to have a stance on the war..

I'm careful to trust Guiliani for the reason he seems to be harping in and focusing only on his reign as mayor, and immigration and while that is important and I'm glad he did such a great job, he isn't President material for me. Awesome guy I'm sure.

I agree with Arlos about Obama. I liked him a lot, he was my first thought for President when I saw him being interviewed last year. He was so well spoken and bright, no hesitation in answering or speaking. But..I've seen some of that and he doesn't debate so well. He lacks focus.

The Bush Administration really messed things up. I think the Presidency should stay in Republican hands and make things better again. I like Clinton's idea of sitting at the table with foreign leaders, she speaks confidently on that subject. I do like that..I see Ron Paul doing the same.

Ron Paul is going to be here in a few days..gonna hear him speak. I think I'll know more then how I feel.

Arlos wrote:Mindia, you must admit, though, that calling Sen. Clinton names is hardly polite. Furthermore, while I may consider, for example, Huckabee a raving moron for raising his hand when asked if he didn't believe in evolution, and I may disagree with him on a vast number of political and social issues, I haven't felt the need to call the man names. I simply would never vote for him and would advise others not to do so if asked. It is possible to not think highly of someone while still remaining civil.

-Arlos

But calling Bush Shrub is fair game?

If you have any ideas of voting for that crazy bitch read "Rewriting History" by Dick Morris.

At least Araby is staying on topic.

Socialism and neo-conservative foreign policy aside, I honestly can't understand why people would like Hillary at all. I've never heard her give a straight answer to anything. She's, rather transparently, a complete pandering politician, in the worst sense of the word. The thought of her as the prime candidate is just depressing.

araby wrote:Every network is full of people you need to know and who you talk to is important. How much they like you is important. The Clintons have friends all over, people like them. Gyps is right, their marriage, as an example, is indicative of many American families and everyone knows it.

I like Hillary Clinton and I think she is an excellent woman, politician, speaker and I like her attitude. She really understands what it takes and she goes for it. I think she has very good experience in leadership she isn't new to politics. She isn't riding anyone's coat tails, they met in college and both pursued political careers. She deserves much more credit for her personal achievements than many let her have..

I don't want to vote Democrat this election, I like Ron Paul for putting things in order. I want to see a Republican party take over and make it awesome..I have faith in what Ron Paul supports and believes in. I realize we can't back out of Iraq but people want to and they want to do it properly. Immigration is an important issue and I realize this war has been on-going, but it isn't like once a President is elected troops will come home. It will be a while. The candidates are concentrating on certain platforms and it's tricky..we're in war..and they have to have a stance on the war..

I'm careful to trust Guiliani for the reason he seems to be harping in and focusing only on his reign as mayor, and immigration and while that is important and I'm glad he did such a great job, he isn't President material for me. Awesome guy I'm sure.

I agree with Arlos about Obama. I liked him a lot, he was my first thought for President when I saw him being interviewed last year. He was so well spoken and bright, no hesitation in answering or speaking. But..I've seen some of that and he doesn't debate so well. He lacks focus.

The Bush Administration really messed things up. I think the Presidency should stay in Republican hands and make things better again. I like Clinton's idea of sitting at the table with foreign leaders, she speaks confidently on that subject. I do like that..I see Ron Paul doing the same.

Ron Paul is going to be here in a few days..gonna hear him speak. I think I'll know more then how I feel.

the only candidate in either party even worth listening to is Ron Paul.

I wouldn't know who to vote for because I don't know their views on the hot issues. Still waiting for a break down.

Martrae wrote:

Arlos wrote:Mindia, you must admit, though, that calling Sen. Clinton names is hardly polite. Furthermore, while I may consider, for example, Huckabee a raving moron for raising his hand when asked if he didn't believe in evolution, and I may disagree with him on a vast number of political and social issues, I haven't felt the need to call the man names. I simply would never vote for him and would advise others not to do so if asked. It is possible to not think highly of someone while still remaining civil.

-Arlos

But calling Bush Shrub is fair game?

Thats one of the least things Arlos has said. He is nice enough to posit for courtesy while calling Huckabee a moron without even bothering to know the mans actual stance on science. So much for a desire for civil discourse. His Cheney/Bush/etc propaganda and name calling is pretty deep for him to complain about a lack of courtesy here.

It ain't a big deal, everyone does it, but don't try to take the highroad when one has been tunneling for years.

I don't have to post "propaganda" about Bush & Cheney, the truth is plenty damning enough. I mean really, can anyone honestly say this country is better off now than it was in 2000 when they took over? Lets see, 2000 we had a budget surplus, no imperialistic ill-conceived deceit-born foreign war of conquest that was incredibly bungled and is bleeding the economy white, partisanship had yet to reach the heights it is at now, the government wasn't torturing people, we weren't keeping potentially completely innocent people in indefinite detention centers with no access to non-military lawyers or writ of habeus corpus, we hadn't had a complete dismantling of competence in FEMA which lead to unnecessary deaths & hardship, there had yet to be a comprehensive government attack on civil rights and liberties as well as privacy via the Patriot Act and its bastard siblings.... Need I continue? Indeed, I can't think of just about ANY major aspect in which this country is BETTER now than in 2000.

Face facts, the Bush & Cheney administration has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster, which is what I predicted from the very beginning when Bush got handed the election by the Supreme Court. Much as I despise the Republican-led congress, I can't even blame them for it, beyond blaming them for being nothing more than a giant rubber stamp for anything the administration wanted to do, rather than act as an actual, you know, independent branch of government. The reason is, they just gave Bush & Cheney whatever they wanted, pretty much without exception.

So, if ANY politicians have earned being referred to by demeaning names, Bush & Cheney are it. Still, you are correct that it is hardly polite, and is rather trite. How about I refer to him by a more accurate apellation, President Fuckup?

-Arlos

Your post above is all that one needs to see to realize where you are coming from, and nothing I can say will rebuke the truth better than that.

So you honestly think they've done a good job, and that the country is better off now than in 2000?

Them be some powerful hallucinogens you got there, my friend....

-Arlos

The point of the conversation was your desire for civil discourse and supposed dislike of name calling, before you started going Huffington post on me. Moving away from it is ok, if it's someone you dislike, though. Uh huh.

While I don't like this administration that much, and disagree on tons of issues, I'd rather talk to people who are into decent conversation, and not frothing anti GOP hatred.

It's a waste of my time to discuss the economy, foreign affairs, or other avenues with you since it's all anti bush bullet points, all the time. Not just you, plenty of people who are all about the hate and propaganda, and could care less about facts or truths.

lyion wrote:Not just you, plenty of people who are all about the hate and propaganda, and could care less about facts or truths.

For example, you.

Not every country can have a truly great conservative smart President. Good job there, Zanchief.

lyion wrote:George Walker Bush will go down in history as the greatest President of all time.

No wonder you're so rabidly crazy about defending him. You sure would look the fool if you were wrong.

Is it really necessary to post a 1.1meg picture of your current sexual fantasy object?

Zanchief is right, though, you are as guilty or guiltier than anyone here of rabid partisanship and ignoring of facts and arguments when they don't match up to your preconceived notions.

You have evidence that refutes claims of mine, bring it, I want to see it.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:I don't have to post "propaganda" about Bush & Cheney, the truth is plenty damning enough. I mean really, can anyone honestly say this country is better off now than it was in 2000 when they took over? Lets see, 2000 we had a budget surplus, no imperialistic ill-conceived deceit-born foreign war of conquest that was incredibly bungled and is bleeding the economy white, partisanship had yet to reach the heights it is at now, the government wasn't torturing people, we weren't keeping potentially completely innocent people in indefinite detention centers with no access to non-military lawyers or writ of habeus corpus, we hadn't had a complete dismantling of competence in FEMA which lead to unnecessary deaths & hardship, there had yet to be a comprehensive government attack on civil rights and liberties as well as privacy via the Patriot Act and its bastard siblings.... Need I continue? Indeed, I can't think of just about ANY major aspect in which this country is BETTER now than in 2000.

Face facts, the Bush & Cheney administration has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster, which is what I predicted from the very beginning when Bush got handed the election by the Supreme Court. Much as I despise the Republican-led congress, I can't even blame them for it, beyond blaming them for being nothing more than a giant rubber stamp for anything the administration wanted to do, rather than act as an actual, you know, independent branch of government. The reason is, they just gave Bush & Cheney whatever they wanted, pretty much without exception.

So, if ANY politicians have earned being referred to by demeaning names, Bush & Cheney are it. Still, you are correct that it is hardly polite, and is rather trite. How about I refer to him by a more accurate apellation, President Fuckup?

-Arlos

I hope you don't think that "torturing people" didn't start with the Bush Administration. Need I remind you that "waterboarding" is not even considered "torture," but rather a very effective strategy the CIA has used for decades? Do I need to remind you that wiretapping is for the protection of U.S. citizens? I've never understood why liberals feel a need to play the "rights" card in this regard. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder and is bringing America to its knees. Need I also post the TONS of evidence of corruption, deceit, and scandals brought forth by slick willie and his accomplice, the hilldebeast? I will go there, no problem.

And don't take this like I'm lauding the Bush administration. Bush turned out to be a serious disappointment to me on many issues.

Arlos wrote: Lets see, 2000 we had a budget surplus, no imperialistic ill-conceived deceit-born foreign war of conquest that was incredibly bungled and is bleeding the economy white, partisanship had yet to reach the heights it is at now, the government wasn't torturing people, we weren't keeping potentially completely innocent people in indefinite detention centers with no access to non-military lawyers or writ of habeus corpus, we hadn't had a complete dismantling of competence in FEMA which lead to unnecessary deaths & hardship, there had yet to be a comprehensive government attack on civil rights and liberties as well as privacy via the Patriot Act and its bastard siblings....

BWAHAHAHAHAH