# A Question for Democrats



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Now that Edwards is out (or, to put it another way, now that it's down to two), whom do you support?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I did not answer the poll*

because I am not a Democrat, but it would have been possible me to vote for one of the Democratic candidates who dropped out.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

That makes two of us for Obama so far, Jack. To be honest, I preferred Edwards, but I didn't think, and I was right, that he had a chance.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Edwards for me. I can't vote for Obama or Hillary because of gun control. I'll have to see who the republican nom is, but if it's anybody but Ron Paul (and it will be), I'll probably just write in John Edwards.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*How do you do polls?*



jackmccullough said:


> Now that Edwards is out (or, to put it another way, now that it's down to two), whom do you support?


Jack is there a thread to show me how to do polls? I can not find one.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> Jack is there a thread to show me how to do polls? I can not find one.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_vb_poll_explain


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*awesome.........*



Laxplayer said:


> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_vb_poll_explain


Cool beans thanks!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Obama, to my surprise*

I favored Richardson, even sent him money, but when it got down to the two remaining candidated choosing Obama was easy. (He is pretty mainstream, she might as well be a Republican.)

BTW, I am a registered Peace and Freedom Party voter. Both mainstream parties seem to me to be terribly conservative and not at all interested in the well-being of most of us.

Interesting poll.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You left off McKeating.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You left off McKeating.


Who is McKeating?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Who is McKeating?


McCain-Keating



> In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.
> 
> This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

McCain-Feingold is some kind of twisted penance.

This is the "best light" https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1955596/posts


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Obama is an electrifying speaker, a dynamic thinker, and could truly be the unifying force that this country needs. He has my vote 1000%.

However, to be honest...after the past 7+ years - anyone would be an vast improvement over Bush


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> ....she might as well be a Republican.


Quoted for humour.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Obama is an electrifying speaker, a dynamic thinker, and could truly be the unifying force that this country needs. He has my vote 1000%.
> 
> However, to be honest...after the past 7+ years - anyone would be an vast improvement over Bush


Obama would put me to sleep except he is always yelling.

What are his dynamic thoughts in policy terms? I have to be honest all I hear is "Yes, we can." and that doesn't quite do it for me. However, he [n]ever says what we can do.

I will say that I have heard him many times say he wants Dems, Indies, and Repubs to vote for him, but that's not unifying. 'W' said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider and just recently he was asked about it and he responded rather candidly "yeah, that didn't work." So, what is Obama's plan other than being such a nice looking, well spoken guy?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Obama would put me to sleep except he is always yelling.
> 
> What are his dynamic thoughts in policy terms? I have to be honest all I hear is "Yes, we can." and that doesn't quite do it for me. However, he ever says what we can do.
> 
> I will say that I have heard him many times say he wants Dems, Indies, and Repubs to vote for him, but that's not unifying. 'W' said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider and just recently he was asked about it and he responded rather candidly "yeah, that didn't work." So, what is Obama's plan other than being such a nice looking, well spoken guy?


He's got a Web site here:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> He's got a Web site here:


Ah, I figured an electrifying speaker and dynamic thinker could just tell me what he is going to do.

Sneaky, almost subversive, that Barack is! 

Here's an example of the 'problem' I have with Obama so far.



> Barack Obama's Plan
> Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
> 
> ...


That's not a "plan" that's a vision. Visions have to broken down into goals and then into plans. This is a practical aspect of having led something before. Simply saying "I plan to crack down on employers" is not a "plan" on cracking down on employers. This is why I previously said Barack should spend the next eight years in the private sector and then he might make a great President. Either way, we would know for sure.

And; that's not "cracking down". I agree that needs to be done, but that system would actually be helping good employers obey the law, not "cracking down ON EMPLOYERS" who willing violate the law. "Cracking down" is raising the penalty for hiring an illegal and increasing the frequency of INS audits of businesses. Right now I think you have just about have to be "tipped" to get an audit because of a lack of resources directed to "cracking down".

What about "cracking down" on the illegal criminals themselves and not just employeers? My personal view is: any person stealing a SSN or American's identity should do 20 years in prison and then be deported if they are also an illegal. Any illegal raping or murdering an American should receive the dealth-penalty and any American should receive life in prison. These should be automatic, mandatory sentences. Once the jury finds a person guilty there is no need for a 'penalty or sentencing phase'. That's cracking down.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> What are his dynamic thoughts in policy terms? I have to be honest all I hear is "Yes, we can." and that doesn't quite do it for me. However, he [n]ever says what we can do.
> 
> I will say that I have heard him many times say he wants Dems, Indies, and Repubs to vote for him, but that's not unifying. 'W' said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider and just recently he was asked about it and he responded rather candidly "yeah, that didn't work." So, what is Obama's plan other than being such a nice looking, well spoken guy?


At this point in the primary season, none of the candidates have put all of their policy cards on the table - so this line of comments just rings of desperation.

Obama is leading the Democratic delegate count, picking up key endorsements daily, and has a wave of momentum that we haven't seen since JFK. Why would he muck that up right now by getting into deep policy debate? That is what the general election is for.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Exactly. I think that the sort of charisma that he has would be great for the nation, ushering in an era where children around the world look up to the US President as their hero (as with FDR and JFK)


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm still disappointed that Gov. Richardson dropped out. I still haven't figured out between Obama and Clinton where my vote will go on Tuesday.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> At this point in the primary season, none of the candidates have put all of their policy cards on the table - so this line of comments just rings of desperation.
> 
> Obama is leading the Democratic delegate count, picking up key endorsements daily, and has a wave of momentum that we haven't seen since JFK. Why would he muck that up right now by getting into deep policy debate? That is what the general election is for.


LOL

Sorry, but not buying it. That is what primaries are for - to build the platform. General elections are to contrast one party's platform with another.

While there is still some fleshing out to do at the primary level, this is what a more specific proposal looks like at this stage:



> The Romney Plan:Stop Illegal Immigration
> 
> Secure The Border. Follow through on Congressional commitment to build a physical and technological fence along the southern border, and secure other points of entry.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Northeastern said:


> I'm still disappointed that Gov. Richardson dropped out. I still haven't figured out between Obama and Clinton where my vote will go on Tuesday.


Who do you think is more likely to pick Richardson as a running mate? Will that affect your choice Tuesday?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Who do you think is more likely to pick Richardson as a running mate? Will that affect your choice Tuesday?


Hillary and Obama are anti-gun. Neither of them will pick Richardson. I'd be surprised if either of them won NM in a general election.

If Obama is going to have to pick a Mark Warner or something along those lines (i.e. white person that could at least be considered to be from the SE). The window is open for Edwards on Obamas ticket, though I think he'd more likely find himself in a cabinet position. He couldn't be on Hillary's ticket because he has bashed her too much.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Hillary and Obama are anti-gun. Neither of them will pick Richardson. I'd be surprised if either of them won NM in a general election.
> 
> If Obama is going to have to pick a Mark Warner or something along those lines (i.e. white person that could at least be considered to be from the SE). The window is open for Edwards on Obamas ticket, though I think he'd more likely find himself in a cabinet position. He couldn't be on Hillary's ticket because he has bashed her too much.


Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

What do you think are the odds they could each go with someone like Gen. Wesley Clark?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.
> 
> What do you think are the odds they could each go with someone like Gen. Wesley Clark?


I think he'd be a smart choice for either candidate, but Obama couldn't pick him up since he's endorsed Hillary. The Democratic nominee is going to be careful to avoid picking up anybody who has said much against him after what happened to Kerry and Edwards when they ran together.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I think he'd be a smart choice for either candidate, but Obama couldn't pick him up since he's endorsed Hillary. The Democratic nominee is going to be careful to avoid picking up anybody who has said much against him after what happened to Kerry and Edwards when they ran together.


I agree with that aspect. One of the things that has my goat right now is the number of people that went Fred->Rudy->McCain as though that was a logical progression.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

It's all in the media. The media is supposed to just report, but instead they tell you who has a chance. If people like somebody, but the media tells them they have no chance, they just go with whoever the media tells them is similar. For instance, most of Edwards' votes are going to go to Obama (which is why now that Edwards is out I think Obama will get the nomination). There is absolutely no reason for that. They're very different, but since they're both from lesser backgrounds (supposedly...Obama wasn't exactly lower/lower-middle class), they just get lumped as substitutes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> LOL
> 
> Sorry, but not buying it. That is what primaries are for - to build the platform. General elections are to contrast one party's platform with another.


The fact that you claim to be "not buying it", and then post policy information from the Romney website just further proves my point.

You didn't get that information from a quote by Mitt at a debate&#8230;you pulled it from his website. And why did you have to go to his website to find detailed policy ideas?

Because none of the candidates get that deeply into details during the primary debates.

Last I checked the Democrats were turning out more voters than the Republicans - so obviously their strategy is working. But somehow I doubt you are LOL at that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> The fact that you claim to be "not buying it", and then post policy information from the Romney website just further proves my point.
> 
> You didn't get that information from a quote by Mitt at a debate&#8230;you pulled it from his website. And why did you have to go to his website to find detailed policy ideas?
> 
> ...


No, it doesn't prove your point. If you need to be reminded was:



> At this point in the primary season, none of the candidates have put all of their policy cards on the table - so this line of comments just rings of desperation.


Clearly, the information I posted is evidence contrary to this assertion by you.

No where in this thread did you hedge with "during the primary debates", but I can tell you that the Republican debates have included such details. Fred, Mitt, and McCain put out plans and discussed them in the debates.

The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere.

Why would I laugh at turnout? How is that relevant or humorous? Until someone turns out 100% of the electorate they are all failing in this regard IMHO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

quotes from debate transcripts



> ROMNEY: Our liberty is based upon being a nation of laws. I would welcome those people to get in line with everybody else who wants to come here permanently.
> 
> ROMNEY: But there should be no special pathway to permanent residency or citizenship for those that have come here illegally.
> 
> ...


ABC NH debate
https://abcnews.go.com/Story?id=4091645&page=3



> ROMNEY: First of all, the Z visa that was offered in that Senate bill let everybody who's here illegally, other than criminals, stay here for the rest of their lives. And that may not be technically amnesty, but it is certainly amnesty in fact.
> 
> I was at the San Diego border and met with our border patrol agents. They told me that more than half of those that try and come across those fences are able to do so. They said there's no way to stop them at the border unless you close down the magnets.
> 
> ...


Fox debate NH


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

For what it's worth, Edwards had all his plans laid out several months ago. He also represented what I think is a truer vision of the Democratic party (more concerned with organizing labor than changing don't ask don't tell), but everybody votes for the media darlings (whether you think that is a bad vision is one thing, but I think that's more what a Democrat is supposed to be about).


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere.


Complete and utter misinformation. Obama has more detail on his website than nearly all of his competitors.

On health care, for example - he has a 15 page document that you can download detailing all of his ideas on the subject. By contrast Romney and McCain both have *1 page each.*

Nice try though.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Complete and utter misinformation. Obama has more detail on his website than nearly all of his competitors.
> 
> On health care, for example - he has a 15 page document that you can download detailing all of his ideas on the subject. By contrast Romney and McCain both have *1 page each.*
> 
> Nice try though.


uh, Beavis, the subject is a plan on ending illegal immigration not healthcare.

It also contradicts your previous statement which was that he did not have his cards on the table at this stage, but I figure that is a moot issue.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> uh, Beavis, the subject is a plan on ending illegal immigration not healthcare.
> 
> It also contradicts your previous statement which was that he did not have his cards on the table at this stage, but I figure that is a moot issue.


You know as well as I that I mentioned that Obama has not put his cards on the tables in relation to the debates&#8230;but again, nice try.

First you tried to claim that -* "**The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere."*

Not only is that not a fact, it is an outright lie. 

Now, after being presented with the fact that Obama not only has clearly stated positions - but they are much more detailed than any of the Republicans - you are trying to claim the debate isn't about health care (ONE issue I used as an example), but instead is about Immigration.

OK&#8230;so here is Obama's plan on immigration - the same plan you previously claimed did not exist. (), 

Lets see which way you try to twist this one&#8230;lol.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> You know as well as I that I mentioned that Obama has not put his cards on the tables in relation to the debates&#8230;but again, nice try.
> 
> First you tried to claim that -* "**The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere."*
> 
> ...


No, you didn't, but I said even if you didn't limit it to that you are wrong.

#1 that is not a plan

#2 you previously said he didn't have a plan and defended why he didn't have a plan

#3 now you claim he has a plan on immigration? see #1

Calling it a plan doesn't make it one. Scroll up for discussion on what constitutes a plan.

The nice try thing and calling it a lie is ITG crap. Unimpressive. Do any of you people ever try that off the computer?

go back to post #16 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=697938&postcount=16

Now tell me I'm "TRYING TO CLAIM" and "OUTRIGHT [LYING]" that the discussion was about his lack of an immigration plan.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

here was the exact exchange



> Posted by ksinc
> What are his dynamic thoughts in policy terms? I have to be honest all I hear is "Yes, we can." and that doesn't quite do it for me. However, he [n]ever says what we can do.
> 
> I will say that I have heard him many times say he wants Dems, Indies, and Repubs to vote for him, but that's not unifying. 'W' said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider and just recently he was asked about it and he responded rather candidly "yeah, that didn't work." So, what is Obama's plan other than being such a nice looking, well spoken guy?





> Posted by mrkleen
> At this point in the primary season, none of the candidates have put all of their policy cards on the table - so this line of comments just rings of desperation.


Then I showed you where other candidates have put their cards on the table.

Marlinspike even told you Edwards had put his plans out.

Now you are claiming Obama has plans out.

Which is it - he has plans out or he doesn't have plans out?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Listen, I am over it...so you can stop pulling quotes out of context and posting them up anytime now.

In the end, you can call it a plan, you can call it a position, you can call it whatever you want – but in the end, the majority of people in this country are ready for a change. 

Don’t know if it will be Obama, Clinton or McCain – but a change is coming. :icon_smile:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

How is this not a plan? Obama states that he wants undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the laws and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. He also plans to secure the borders by adding additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and ports of entry. He then plans to remove incentives for entering the U.S. illegally by cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. I'm sorry if Obama has not yet laid out exactly who he will hire to patrol the borders and what hours these new employees will be working. Would that be enough detail for you? Romney had illegals working for him, in lawn care, so why should we believe anything he has to say about his immigration plan?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Listen, I am over it...so you can stop pulling quotes out of context and posting them up anytime now.
> 
> In the end, you can call it a plan, you can call it a position, you can call it whatever you want - but in the end, the majority of people in this country are ready for a change.
> 
> * Don't know if it will be Obama, Clinton or McCain - but a change is coming. :icon_smile:*


I agree, and personally can not wait until Tuesday so we can finally stop hearing about Romney.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> How is this not a plan? Obama states that he wants undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the laws and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. He also plans to secure the borders by adding additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and ports of entry. He then plans to remove incentives for entering the U.S. illegally by cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. I'm sorry if Obama has not yet laid out exactly who he will hire to patrol the borders and what hours these new employees will be working. Would that be enough detail for you? Romney had illegals working for him, in lawn care, so why should we believe anything he has to say about his immigration plan?


+1, Lax.
LOL.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

BertieW said:


> +1, Lax.
> LOL.


+ another


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> How is this not a plan? Obama states that he wants undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the laws and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. He also plans to secure the borders by adding additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and ports of entry. He then plans to remove incentives for entering the U.S. illegally by cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. I'm sorry if Obama has not yet laid out exactly who he will hire to patrol the borders and what hours these new employees will be working. Would that be enough detail for you? Romney had illegals working for him, in lawn care, so why should we believe anything he has to say about his immigration plan?


#1 it's not true Romney had "illegals working for him" in lawn care - the guy that owned the lawn care company had illegals working for him. You don't blame the customers for the employers actions you punish the employer. If you go to McDonald's and an illegal hands you a coke is he "working for you?" Here's an article it is very fair even skeptical that Romney didn't know. However, it doesn't claim they were working for Romney.
https://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/05/more_immigrant_woes_for_romney/?page=1

#2 It's not a plan for the reasons I already listed on Page 1

He says crackdown, but it isn't centered on stengthening enforcement and penalites. The Republican plans like Romney, Fred, and even McCain do.
Obama is talking about bringing people out of the shadows and improving & streamlining the process/system to become legal. And; he does talk about the employer verification system removing incentives, but many employers already know their employees are illegal, the problem is the enforcement and punishment is not there. The INS audits are a joke. I've watched more than a few of them. Without enforcement and punishment the incentives are not removed. He doesn't talk about that. Am I the only one that read past the title on the links provided? Apparently.

Yall can slap each other on the back all you want; it doesn't change facts. I hate to be a stickler, but a plan has to have a reasonable chance of success and a logical basis for that success. To say employers simply don't know the people are illegal is the big lie. Come down to Florida and ask any construction company. They know. They don't care because the rewards of hiring illegals outweight the risk of hiring illegals.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Listen, I am over it...so you can stop pulling quotes out of context and posting them up anytime now.


I haven't pulled a single quote out of context. I posted the exact and entire exchange of your comment. Which you don't like. Apparently, the truth hurts.
I am the one putting the comments in context not taking them out. Scroll up. You did it twice.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Don't know if it will be Obama, Clinton or McCain - but a change is coming. :icon_smile:


How would McCain be a change? I thought McCain was a Conservative?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> For what it's worth, Edwards had all his plans laid out several months ago. He also represented what I think is a truer vision of the Democratic party (*more concerned with organizing labor* than changing don't ask don't tell), but everybody votes for the media darlings (whether you think that is a bad vision is one thing, but I think that's more what a Democrat is supposed to be about).


And that's important because it ended up working so well for us.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

hopkins_student said:


> And that's important because it ended up working so well for us.


Say what you will, the guys who started it up were pretty ratty, but the truckers sure had it a lot worse before there was Hoffa.

Anyways, as I said a person is free to disagree with it, but I think the Democrats are supposed to represent the working man whoever he may be, not just the minority man. They're supposed to be about public schools and individual rights. It cost him, but Howard Dean said it right: "There's no reason why white guys who have a Confederate flag in the back of their pickup truck shouldn't be walking side-by-side with blacks"


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

_In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Even after a Globe story in December 2006 highlighted Romney's use of a landscaping company that employs illegal immigrants to tend to his grounds, Romney continued to employ Community Lawn Service With a Heart - until yesterday. The company continued to employ illegal immigrants._
Thanks for the link. It goes on to say: 
_Questioned yesterday afternoon during a campaign swing through New Hampshire about the use of illegal immigrants on his lawn, Romney declined to answer. An aide said he would issue a statement, and Romney, emerging from a Concord restaurant, said, "Did you hear him? We'll give you a statement."_
_Then,_ he fired them. "Did you hear him? We'll give you a statement." Sounds to me more like..."Hold on, we need some time to think of a good way to spin this." 
Also, in response to your McDonald's analogy, I don't hire someone from McDonald's to hand me a coke. Romney hired his lawncare company. You would think that someone with political aspirations would have more sense. Especially when he sees Mexicans working in his yard.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I just noticed this. It looks like you _do _know the truth about Romney. _To say employers simply don't know the people are illegal is the big lie. Come down to Florida and ask any construction company. *They know. They don't care because the rewards of hiring illegals outweight the risk of hiring illegals. *_Yep, just like Mitt.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I just noticed this. It looks like you _do _know the truth about Romney. _To say employers simply don't know the people are illegal is the big lie. Come down to Florida and ask any construction company. *They know. They don't care because the rewards of hiring illegals outweight the risk of hiring illegals. *_Yep, just like Mitt.


What part of Romney did not employ them do you not understand? They were employed by the owner of the lawn company, Saenz.

I just noticed that none of you ever read all of anything


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> _In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Even after a Globe story in December 2006 highlighted Romney's use of a landscaping company that employs illegal immigrants to tend to his grounds, Romney continued to employ Community Lawn Service With a Heart - until yesterday. The company continued to employ illegal immigrants._
> Thanks for the link. It goes on to say:
> _Questioned yesterday afternoon during a campaign swing through New Hampshire about the use of illegal immigrants on his lawn, Romney declined to answer. An aide said he would issue a statement, and Romney, emerging from a Concord restaurant, said, "Did you hear him? We'll give you a statement."_
> _Then,_ he fired them. "Did you hear him? We'll give you a statement." Sounds to me more like..."Hold on, we need some time to think of a good way to spin this."
> Also, in response to your McDonald's analogy, I don't hire someone from McDonald's to hand me a coke. Romney hired his lawncare company. You would think that someone with political aspirations would have more sense. Especially when he sees Mexicans working in his yard.


So now it is the responsibility of the consumer to demand an employer prove his mexican looking employees are legal? How? You can't have it both ways  Should I ask to see the papers of the mexican handing me my coke before I take it?

...

In an interview in the doorway of his Chelsea two-family house yesterday afternoon, Saenz, 54, said the workers he hired were here legally. "They have papers," he said. "I copied them."

...

Saenz repeatedly denied having illegal workers at Romney's property at the time.

...

Saenz said he contacted the Romney family in the early spring and offered them his services, and they accepted. In May, he began the landscaping work.

He said he usually spoke about the work with Romney's wife, Ann, or one of his children, and that no one asked for papers for his workers. "What papers, if I'm a company?" Saenz asked. "I don't understand why they have to verify anything. Their job is not to check up on my company."

----

In a telephone interview last night, Tagg Romney confirmed that he met with Saenz on a warm March day on his front yard, with his brother, Craig, a fluent Spanish speaker, translating over a cellphone. The Romney brothers said they told Saenz they would no longer use his service because of the prior Globe story, but Saenz urged them to reconsider. He vowed there would be no undocumented workers on the property.

"He came over and he was very apologetic for what had happened and asked if he could continue with us," he said. "He asked for a second chance."

Asked if he was reluctant to rehire Saenz's company, Tagg Romney said he was not.

"He was so adamant because he would personally make sure that he would only have documented workers working with him," he said. "We trusted him. I don't know what more we can do."
...

Just before Romney fired him, Saenz, the Colombian-born owner of the landscape company, who is a US citizen, spoke fondly of Romney yesterday. He went so far as to endorse him for president.

"He's a man of integrity," Saenz said. "He's a whole man. Morally and spiritually, I find him to be the one who can lead this country."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

You keep using the McDonald's thing, but that is a faulty analogy. The Mickey D's employee is not working for me at my house, and I'm not a politician advocating for immigration reform. For a guy who is always harping about using logic, you're not being very logical. Keep up the spin, ksinc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You keep using the McDonald's thing, but that is a faulty analogy. The Mickey D's employee is not working for me at my house, and I'm not a politician advocating for immigration reform. For a guy who is always harping about using logic, you're not being very logical. Keep up the spin, ksinc.


Harping about using logic? I think you have me confused with Wayfarer. I harp about the meaning of words, relevant supporting documentation, and intellectual honesty. Logic is not required as these do not require interpretation. And; I never spin unless I tell you so first. 

However, I will grant you that I made a mistake in my analogy. I actually doubt that Romney ever dealt directly with the Mexicans where as you deal directly face-to-face with McD's employee. So, I was being overly generous to your side with my analogy and providing for the same opportunity which is not an accurate analogy. Thanks for the correction.

I think you are confusing a lawn service with where you hire some guy and that guy cuts your yard; like a one-man operation. Such as, if Saenz was an illegal I would have a problem with Romney over it.

In Romney's case, he hired a company, not the company's employees. The employer has the responsibility to make sure they are legal.

In determingin if someone is an independent contractor where they are working matters, but it is secondary to how they are working. It's not like he hired some labor and then supervised them at his house. Apparently, he only ever dealt with Saenz the owner of the company who is a legal, columbian immigrant.

How exactly is a person supposed to tell an illegal Mexican from a legal Columbian without ever having contact with them? And; how is an individual supposed to know this is his job and force said suspected illegal to comply with his interrogation? Am I just supposed to call the State Police any time I see someone with a natural tan? Are you taking KKK applications again or what?

It's clear you just want an issue with Romney where there is none. He fired the service. He wants illegals gone. It's not like he was sneaking them across the border in his dog carrier on top of his car! LOL

BTW, did yall check to see if Barack was an illegal mexican first?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

For someone who has made immigration reform part of his platform, he sure does not seem to have very good judgment. It seems obvious to me that this issue is not very important to him no matter how much he puffs himself up as the tough guy on illegal immigration. This shouldn't be surprising to me though since Missouri's own Republican governor did basically the same thing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> For someone who has made immigration reform part of his platform, he sure does not seem to have very good judgment. It seems obvious to me that this issue is not very important to him no matter how much he puffs himself up as the tough guy on illegal immigration. This shouldn't be surprising to me though since Missouri's own Republican governor did basically the same thing.


How exactly is a person supposed to tell an illegal Mexican from a legal Columbian without ever having contact with them? And; how is an individual supposed to know this is his job and force said suspected illegal to comply with his interrogation? Am I just supposed to call the State Police any time I see someone with a natural tan? Are you taking KKK applications again or what?

? <- These curly things mean something too! 

I don't get at all that he puffs himself up as a tough guy on illegal immigration. He actually has a much more tolerant view than I do. He has this thing that they should be sorted into like singles, marrieds, and married w/ kids and they should have different time frames to leave so they can do so cleanly; such as their kids finishing the school year. I don't find that "tough guy" at all.

Doesn't every candidate in both parties have immigration reform as part of their platform?

Speaking of good judgement: McCain is the one with his name on the Amnesty bill.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> How exactly is a person supposed to tell an illegal Mexican from a legal Columbian without ever having contact with them? And; how is an individual supposed to know this is his job and force said suspected illegal to comply with his interrogation? Am I just supposed to call the State Police any time I see someone with a natural tan? Are you taking KKK applications again or what?
> 
> ? <- These curly things mean something too!


Trying to do what you accuse Frank of huh? You're losing your argument, and so now you have to try to make it look like I'm a racist. Good move, ksinc. Why don't you just run along and get out of this, the DEMOCRAT thread? Here's a visual aide for you since you don't seem to understand that you lost.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Trying to do what you accuse Frank of huh? You're losing your argument, and so now you have to try to make it look like I'm a racist. Good move, ksinc. Why don't you just run along and get out of this, the DEMOCRAT thread? Here's a visual aide for you since you don't seem to understand that you lost.


Yeah right. I haven't lost anything. That's just childish to think a person can lose a discussion. So, is your little picture.

I repeated the questions because you won't answer any questions. How can you win a debate when you won't address the questions? How could you possibly win anything that way?

You are acting like Frank (and I don't think Frank can be racist or I've made him out to be; I think Frank is black).

This is about you. You are the one making the assertion Romney showed bad judgement without offering what he should have done. You are implying he shirked some responsibility. So, I repeat the questions that you won't address.

If you want to know if I think your assumption is based on racism just ask. I'll be happy to answer your inquiry when you answer mine.

If anyone lost it was you when you opened with a clearly demonstrably untrue statement, "Romney had illegals working for him, in lawn care, so why should we believe anything he has to say about his immigration plan?" You've tried to run from it. You've tried to divert, but it ain't happening. Facts aren't a game.

Is that your problem? You are trying to win? No wonder you are frustrated! Here's a visual aid for you


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yeah right. I haven't lost anything. That's just childish to think a person can lose a discussion. So, is your little picture.
> 
> I repeated the questions because you won't answer any questions. How can you win a debate when you won't address the questions? How could you possibly win anything that way?
> 
> ...


I'm not going to play along, ksinc. If you want to think I am racist fine. My cousin's wife is Mexican. I speak Spanish. I speak Spanish because I enjoy talking with Hispanic people and being able to comunicate with my cousin's family. You know damn well that Romney, if he really cared about this so much, should have checked into the people working in his yard. Personally I don't give a damn who is working in his yard or my yard....I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. It's just plain stupid on his part at best and hypocritical at worst. As for your questions, screw you...I'm not playing your little game.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I'm not going to play along, ksinc. If you want to think I am racist fine. My cousin's wife is Mexican. I speak Spanish. I speak Spanish because I enjoy talking with Hispanic people and being able to comunicate with my cousin's family. You know damn well that Romney, if he really cared about this so much, should have checked into the people working in his yard. Personally I don't give a damn who is working in his yard or my yard....I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. It's just plain stupid on his part at best and hypocritical at worst. As for your questions, screw you...I'm not playing your little game.


Well, if don't play you can't win. 

You say that he should check into them, but you don't say how or why it is his responsibility since they were not working for him. That's plain stupid.

PM sent on the "screw you."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, if don't play you can't win.
> 
> You say that he should check into them, but you don't say how or why it is his responsibility since they were not working for him. That's plain stupid.
> 
> *PM sent on the "screw you."*


ksnic, Would you PLEASE stop PM-ing me trying to be an Internet Tough Guy. You are making me laugh so hard, I'm gonna end up waking my son! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> ksnic, Would you PLEASE stop PM-ing me trying to be an Internet Tough Guy. You are making me laugh so hard, I'm gonna end up waking my son! :icon_smile_big:


Well, I wouldn't want your cop cousins that taught you krav maga to be embarrassed by that lacrosse comment.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I'll post your PMs if you like so everyone can have a laugh, psycho.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I'll post your PMs if you like so everyone can have a laugh, psycho.


Then I'd have to post yours and everyone would see what a little girl you are.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*Very well, ksinc*

*ksinc* (1st post) 
I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer your "screw you" in person.
*Lax* Please. You think you could take me? A former college lacrosse _and_ hockey player? I lift weights daily, pal. My grandpa was a street cop. Two of my cousins are cops. You think I'd not know how to defend myself? You're probably some martial arts guy though right? All training and no REAL fights am I right? Let me guess...Tae Kwon Do? Judo? Try krav maga if you want a real martial art. Easy to be a tough guy from the comforts of your home in Florida though huh?
*ksinc* You whine like a girl.
*Lax* I'm not the one trying to be an Internet Tough Guy by PM. Nice comeback though, P***Y. 
*ksinc* You are the one that started with the personal insults.
You're the p***y. My cousin, my grandpa, my cousin's wife ...
wtf are you canadian or just a f*g?
*Lax *First of all I don't know krav maga. I though you were going to tell me you were some martial arts tough guy. And second, what are you gonna do besides make me laugh some more? You're the one who sounds like a 10 year old girl with all of your ROTFLMAO LOLOL (it's laugh out loud, not laugh out loud, out loud) and . Karl was right, you are a psycho. Glad I was able to piss you off so much though! It's given me a good laugh.
*ksinc* I'm 100% ready to meet you off the internet lacrosse/hockey/kravmaga tough guy. ROFLMAO you sound like a 10 year old girl.
*Lax* Big problem from what? An anonymous message board? Gawd, ksinc...I'm shaking. 
*ksinc* If I'm a psycho you have a big problem now. Laugh all you want, alice.
*ksinc* Who says it's Anonymous?
keep pushin. and karl's problem is he got in over his head.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Original LAX post


Laxplayer said:


> *ksinc* (1st post)
> I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer your "screw you" in person.
> *Lax* Please. You think you could take me? A former college lacrosse _and_ hockey player? I lift weights daily, pal. My grandpa was a street cop. Two of my cousins are cops. You think I'd not know how to defend myself? You're probably some martial arts guy though right? All training and no REAL fights am I right? Let me guess...Tae Kwon Do? Judo? Try krav maga if you want a real martial art. Easy to be a tough guy from the comforts of your home in Florida though huh?
> *ksinc* You whine like a girl.
> ...


Corrected.


Laxplayer said:


> *ksinc* (1st post)
> I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer your "screw you" in person.
> *Lax* Please. You think you could take me? A former college lacrosse _and_ hockey player? I lift weights daily, pal. My grandpa was a street cop. Two of my cousins are cops. You think I'd not know how to defend myself? You're probably some martial arts guy though right? All training and no REAL fights am I right? Let me guess...Tae Kwon Do? Judo? Try krav maga if you want a real martial art. Easy to be a tough guy from the comforts of your home in Florida though huh?
> *ksinc* You whine like a girl.
> ...


QFT, sugar. * although out of order



> Originally Posted by Laxplayer
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by ksinc
> ...





> If I'm a psycho you have a big problem now. Laugh all you want, alice.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Now everyone can see what a nut you are. Nighty night, ksinc. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Now everyone can see what a nut you are. Nighty night, ksinc. :icon_smile:


ok, alice.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> QFT, sugar. * although out of order


How is this out of order? I can post the times too if you'd like.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> How is this out of order? I can post the times too if you'd like.





Laxplayer said:


> *ksinc* (1st post)
> I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer your "screw you" in person.
> *Lax* Please. You think you could take me? A former college lacrosse _and_ hockey player? I lift weights daily, pal. My grandpa was a street cop. Two of my cousins are cops. You think I'd not know how to defend myself? You're probably some martial arts guy though right? All training and no REAL fights am I right? Let me guess...Tae Kwon Do? Judo? Try krav maga if you want a real martial art. Easy to be a tough guy from the comforts of your home in Florida though huh?
> *ksinc* You whine like a girl.
> ...


See my correction in my first quote compared to what you posted above: the last posts unless you answered a big problem before I asked it.

Are you done being an idiot yet?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

You're right. I mixed up the last two as I was cutting and pasting your numerous PMs.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You're right. I mixed up the last two as I was cutting and pasting your numerous PMs.


Of course, I'm right. It's actually amazingly it happens frequently because I'm really a retard. However, when one cares about the truth instead of trying to slander people with nonsense like "Romney had illegals working for him" you can get lucky quite often.

It's funny you mention Karl. Did you read the Conservative thread? He continually does the same weak routine you do. It's an amazing similar pattern. You start out attacking someone with a condescending declarative statement that you think is funny. By repeating the conclusions and lies one hears on TV that can't stand up to even simple factual checking you think somenow that makes you informed. Then; when you are shown to be clearly wrong you try to condescend thinking the other person will shrink away from your rude confrontation. When that doesn't work you accuse the other person of lying or being ignorant or resort to some other snippy little insults like your little picture or "screw you" because you are hiding behind the "anonymous" nature of the internet.

People like that need a dose of reality therapy and some of us are more than happy to provide it. Apparently, you think because I have a backbone and won't put up with it that makes me an ITG or a psycho and because your 'cousin's wife's Grandpa was a mexican cop' (I might have that confused) that makes you bruce lee.

Oh, and good morning, sunshine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Especially when he sees Mexicans working in his yard.


And you can tell someone is Mexican just by looking at them?  Imagine if Rush Limbaugh said that. :icon_smile_big:

And ksinc...wtf, leave Canadians out of this!


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Well, I can. My Mexican friends are always wearing something proclaiming their heritage.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> Well, I can. My Mexican friends are always wearing something proclaiming their heritage.


Something like this?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Of course, I'm right. It's actually amazingly it happens frequently because I'm really a retard. However, when one cares about the truth instead of trying to slander people with nonsense like "Romney had illegals working for him" you can get lucky quite often.
> 
> It's funny you mention Karl. Did you read the Conservative thread? He continually does the same weak routine you do. It's an amazing similar pattern. You start out attacking someone with a condescending declarative statement that you think is funny. By repeating the conclusions and lies one hears on TV that can't stand up to even simple factual checking you think somenow that makes you informed. Then; when you are shown to be clearly wrong you try to condescend thinking the other person will shrink away from your rude confrontation. When that doesn't work you accuse the other person of lying or being ignorant or resort to some other snippy little insults like your little picture or "screw you" because you are hiding behind the "anonymous" nature of the internet.
> 
> ...


You pull the same crap with any posters that don't agree with you. You enjoy dishing it out, but you sure can't take it. If I remember correctly, it was you who whined to the mods about Karl. You're far too sensitive since you think a checkmate picture, as a joke, and "screw you" used that way are insults. Screw you, meaning "Screw you if you don't like the fact that I refuse to answer your silly questions. I'm not playing your little game." And you have a backbone because you act like a tough guy through PM on an anonymous message board, knowing full well that no one would actually be dumb enough to give you their real name, or come down to Florida to meet you? Yeah sure thing, psycho. I'll give you my address so you can come up here to fight me. Maybe we could film it and put the video on You Tube. What a fantasy world you live in. Put me on ignore if you don't want to hear from me again (I'm done responding to you)...that or GFY.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You pull the same crap with any posters that don't agree with you. You enjoy dishing it out, but you sure can't take it. If I remember correctly, it was you who whined to the mods about Karl. You're far too sensitive since you think a checkmate picture, as a joke, and "screw you" used that way are insults. Screw you, meaning "Screw you if you don't like the fact that I refuse to answer your silly questions. I'm not playing your little game." And you have a backbone because you act like a tough guy through PM on an anonymous message board, knowing full well that no one would actually be dumb enough to give you their real name, or come down to Florida to meet you? Yeah sure thing, psycho. I'll give you my address so you can come up here to fight me. Maybe we could film it and put the video on You Tube. What a fantasy world you live in. Put me on ignore if you don't want to hear from me again (I'm done responding to you)...that or GFY.


No, I do not pull the same crap. I discuss issues with sincerity and I provide facts to backup my statements. I expect others to do the same and challenge them with tough questions when they do not. I answer the questions posed to me when I am challenged. You do not do either.

No, I have backbone for the reason I stated. And; I shall continue to use it. 
No, I will not put you on ignore. That's another childish suggestion from you.

None of the rest of your post is all true, relevant, or sane. I did not ask for your name, et al. I simply challenged your assertions and your rudeness. If you don't like that you should remember:
You are the one that asked if I thought I could take you. Now you're pissed that the answer is, yes. 
You're the one that responded with beating your chest - "I lift weights everyday, I play hockey and lacrosse, my cousin is a cop and krav maga is a real martial art" BS. Good grief, alice. I bet you play with swords too. 
You're the one going on about your "anonymity" while building up your ITG status. 
You are the one hiding behind your computer saying "screw you" and "GFY".
You are the one acting like you think the purpose of the board is to anonymously get away with what you can't get away with in real life. What you consider the benefit of the forum is what I consider the PITA.

I reiterate my previous statement, "I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer your "screw you" (and now GFY) in person." If you were as secure as you keep trying to convince me you are, you would look forward to it too. Instead you respond with some sort of self-image through association. Perhaps you are too sensitive, alice? It appears that the relevation that I'm not in the downhill side of you is ruining your self-image. I guess you're just now figuring that out? As I stated, Karl89 has the same problem. The facts are never on his side either, and when he realizes he's in way over his head he turns the chess board over. I've been called just about every name in the book by him publicly and privately while he enjoys his anonymity also.

I took the personal stuff to PM and off the board out of respect for the board and a desire to keep the thread on topic. You have a simple choice: you can continue to be a monkey throwing dung or you can evolve and try to be a man.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Something like this?


haha Nah. They wear red, green and white bracelets that say Mexico, football jerseys and the like.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> haha Nah. They wear red, green and white bracelets that say Mexico, football jerseys and the like.


You can read their bracelets? You must have good eyes!

Does not Italy have a flag with the same three colours? So an Italian soccer fan might have the same tri-coloured bracelet, no?

While I was more or less joking with LAX, to say someone "looks Mexican" is obviously employing just a touch of stereotyping. Not all brown skinned hispanics are from Mexico was my point. While I am sure LAX is not racist, my point was that if a big Republican name, like Rush Limbaugh, had said a similar thing, he would have been crucified by the liberals.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And so it begins. The Media is going to tear him apart now that he is the presumptive nominee. I'm a little surprised they didn't wait until Wednesday though.

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3295472.ece

This is sort of like the guy that said he hoped Barack's previous drug use wouldn't be used as an issue in the election because it would be wrong for anyone to bring that up! LOL


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, you didn't, but I said even if you didn't limit it to that you are wrong.
> 
> #1 that is not a plan
> 
> ...


Just for a reminder, here is your post. The one that drew me into this argument. 
Pure and simple arrogance on your part. _Unimpressive. _Why? because YOU say it is? _Do any of you try that off the computer?_ Because if you did, boy what an ass whooping I'd give you!_ Now tell me I'm trying to claim blah blah blah!_ Now, damn it...I'm ksinc! I demand you follow my orders!

I know you dream of pulling a Michael Douglas in _Falling Down_, but that's just not reality.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Laxplayer,

Dont worry, Ksinc can't get along with anyone. He threw a hissy fit when I addressed him by his first name and made all sorts of threats. He may not have a world class mind but he certainly has a world class ego.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Just for a reminder, here is your post. The one that drew me into this argument.
> Pure and simple arrogance on your part. _Unimpressive. _Why? because YOU say it is? _Do any of you try that off the computer?_ Because if you did, boy what an ass whooping I'd give you!_ Now tell me I'm trying to claim blah blah blah!_ Now, damn it...I'm ksinc! I demand you follow my orders!
> 
> I know you dream of pulling a Michael Douglas in _Falling Down_, but that's just not reality.


Yes, that's correct. Another one of your blowhards that can't dispute the argument, but has to sling personal declarative statements and insults that are not true.

Yes, I'd like to see you try that off the computer with anyone. It has nothing to do with solely me. Just go outside and call someone an outright liar. Go right ahead tough guy, but you might want to take your cousin's wife with you for protection! LOL

Yes, in response to another user's link (Bw) to Obama's positions I remarked how I disliked that Obama's immigration reform plan was not really a plan. Then mrkleen said it was normal for him not to have a plan at this stage and that none of the candidates had them. Then when I showed that Romney, Thompson, and even McCain had plans. Mrkleen said he meant in the debates. So, I showed him transcripts of republican debates with their plans and that Barack didn't have one. Then he linked to a HealthCare plan and tried to play gotcha saying Barack did have a plan. When I pointed out that clearly we were discussing immigration plans he said I was outright lying by claiming that I meant immigration reform and that I had not been discussing immigration all along as I "claimed".

Yeah, that's a tough call. I see how that drew you in. Particularly inspite of the detailed thread posts that supported my statement. How could you let that stand?

Also impressive was this little piece of inaccurate dung you flung from your monkey cage to conclude your first post on the subject, "Romney had illegals working for him, in lawn care, so why should we believe anything he has to say about his immigration plan?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Laxplayer,
> 
> Dont worry, Ksinc can't get along with anyone. He threw a hissy fit when I addressed him by his first name and made all sorts of threats. He may not have a world class mind but he certainly has a world class ego.
> 
> Karl


"made all sorts of threats?" really?

No, I made a request, then a demand, and then a threat.

When you published my private information without permission on a public message board I asked you to remove it. You tried to tell me it was your right and you wouldn't be told what to do and said would decide if and when you would delete it. All while insulting me from behind your computer.

And; how exactly did that turn out for you, Karl89?

Here, let me remind you:



> Alexander Kabbaz
> Senior Moderator
> Technical Support
> 
> ...


Perhaps your time would be better spent correcting the blatent inaccuracies in your posts in the Conservative thread rather than posting new ones?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc.

Great Scott! You sure have a lot of time on your hands.....

Now before you go and complain......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Scott

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

You called mrkleen "Beavis" implying he was ignorant like Beavis and Butthead. Then he said: _You know as well as I that I mentioned that Obama has not put his cards on the tables in relation to the debates&#8230;but again, nice try.

First you tried to claim that -* "**The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere."*

Not only is that not a fact, it is an outright lie. 

Now, after being presented with the fact that Obama not only has clearly stated positions - but they are much more detailed than any of the Republicans - you are trying to claim the debate isn't about health care (ONE issue I used as an example), but instead is about Immigration.

OK&#8230;so here is Obama's plan on immigration - the same plan you previously claimed did not exist. (), 

Lets see which way you try to twist this one&#8230;lol.
_In ksinc's world it is perfectly ok to insult someone, but they absolutely are not allowed to make any insults back to you (real or imagined) because _you_ say so. Why can't I say that Romney hired illegals? Neither of us were there, so who is right? You have your personal opinion and I have mine. I find it odd that someone who truly believes in immigration reform would allow this to happen...twice. First time, ok maybe it was a mistake...the second time? I don't think so.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Folks ... I'm not sure I want to get into this one ... and in any event ... I am not supposed to address *he who shall not be named*. Quite some time back, *he who shall not be named* was offended by something I said regarding his method of attack. *He who shall not be named* asked that I not address him further and I agreed. When at a future time I alluded to something posted by _*he who shall not be named -- *_even though I took great care not address him -- I was reported to the moderators. Of course, _*he who shall not be named*_ had often resorted to preciseness of definition as a tool of attack. Perhaps it's needless to say, I took _*he who shall not be named*_ literally at his word ... but obviously *he who shall not be named* required preciseness only when it served _his_ purpose.

Of course, Alex offered that he did not cotton (a very finely woven cotton I'm certain) to such agreements ... especially on the Interchange.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You called mrkleen "Beavis" implying he was ignorant like Beavis and Butthead. Then he said: _You know as well as I that I mentioned that Obama has not put his cards on the tables in relation to the debates&#8230;but again, nice try.
> 
> First you tried to claim that -* "**The fact is Obama does not have a publicized plan like the three mentioned do; on a website, in a debate, or anywhere."*
> 
> ...


#1 That is not a plan. It is called a plan, but it is not a plan. (EDIT: actually, it isn't even called a plan in that link - issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf). It is a few observations and perhaps a vision. It is not *a publicized plan like the other 3 plans.* It is not detailed *like the other plans*, it does not say HOW he plans to correct any of his observed ills *like the other plans* or crackdown on employers, etc. Like I said in post #16 as well. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=697938&postcount=16

ADD: #1a Not only have I not been presented with it; Barack doesn't have clearly stated plans. And; his positions are not as clearly defined or detailed as the Republicans metioned. Which I proved by posting their plans and their debate transcripts. And you call me a Liar?

#2 mrkleen first defended Obama not having plans, then he argued that he did have plans thus contradicting himself.

#3 Saenz hired illegals, not Romney. Romney hired Saenz. Both Saenz and Romney says so. The reason is because words and truth matters. Not that you relativists would get that.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> You can read their bracelets? You must have good eyes!
> 
> Does not Italy have a flag with the same three colours? So an Italian soccer fan might have the same tri-coloured bracelet, no?
> 
> While I was more or less joking with LAX, to say someone "looks Mexican" is obviously employing just a touch of stereotyping. Not all brown skinned hispanics are from Mexico was my point. While I am sure LAX is not racist, my point was that if a big Republican name, like Rush Limbaugh, had said a similar thing, he would have been crucified by the liberals.


The bracelets have large alphabet beads spelling out "MEXICO"


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

It is rather pathetic to send someone a PM insinuating any sort of violence, I had no idea anyone did such things.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> #1 That is not a plan. It is called a plan, but it is not a plan. (EDIT: actually, it isn't even called a plan in that link - issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf). It is a few observations and perhaps a vision. It is not *a publicized plan like the other 3 plans.* It is not detailed *like the other plans*, it does not say HOW he plans to correct any of his observed ills *like the other plans* or crackdown on employers, etc. Like I said in post #16 as well. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=697938&postcount=16
> 
> ADD: #1a Not only have I not been presented with it; Barack doesn't have clearly stated plans. And; his positions are not as clearly defined or detailed as the Republicans metioned. Which I proved by posting their plans and their debate transcripts. And you call me a Liar?
> 
> ...


Well, you have me there. This is why I believe that your own cognitive bias does not allow you to look at things objectively, and your confirmation bias causes you to interpret things in the way you want to see them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> The bracelets have large alphabet beads spelling out "MEXICO"


First, I want to mention that you seem to have ignored my real point.

Second, I live 60 miles from Mexico. I probably see more Mexicans in a day than you do in a year. Can you tell me how to accurately identify a Mexican by looks alone? I assure you, not every Mexican is issued one of these bracelets. If you cannot, my point, of course, stands.

The concept of looking "Mexican" is clearly one based on racial/cultural stereo types. I have a friend, born and raised in Mexico, his family has been there several generations, and he is blonde haired and blued eyed. His people belonged to a group of German Mennonites that settled in Mexico (apparently, there is quite a number of them). I also know a woman from Mexico City and again, her family has been there for generations, and she is light skinned with light brown hair with blonde highlights. You often cannot tell a person born in Mexico from a person born in Arizona, El Salvador, Bolivia, or Guatemala. I will not even bother confusing this issue with such things as say, the Tohono O'Oddham tribe, who's reservation straddles the border and their often time similar facial characteristics to Asians. Ditto Pasqua Yaqi, the Ak'Chin, etc.

Sorry to bother people with real life 

My corollary was that if someone like a Rush Limbaugh had said that, vs. someone cutting down Mitt Romney, Rush would have been skewered.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

jpeirpont said:


> It is rather pathetic to send someone a PM insinuating any sort of violence, I had no idea anyone did such things.


Completely agree. Each of us have enough issues and drama in our lives....no need to take message boards that seriously.

Guess I will go back to the main forum and stick to threads about clothing steamers, cuff links, and how many vents are best. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> It is rather pathetic to send someone a PM insinuating any sort of violence, I had no idea anyone did such things.





mrkleen said:


> Completely agree. Each of us have enough issues and drama in our lives....no need to take message boards that seriously.
> 
> Guess I will go back to the main forum and stick to threads about clothing steamers, cuff links, and how many vents are best. :icon_smile:


Interesting. Would it be correct to conclude that you both think it is entirely appropriate and honorable to distort the truth, to play 'gotcha', or to call people liars, ignorant, or tell them GFY/"screw you"?

jpeirpoint, you didn't do these things, but you seem to have ignored them and only risen in objection now. Did you just not see the others? If so, that's understandable. If not, see below ...

mrkleen, LAX, Karl89 actually did these. Karl habitually distorts the truth and refuses to accept evidence to the contrary. LAX's confirmation bias is a perfect descriptor OF KARL89. In addition, each of these three made attempts to deride the person providing evidence to the contrary of their statement's which are usually derogatory or inaccurate in the first place. Karl doesn't only do it to me. It's a long standing pattern with him.

I have a long standing pattern too. My view is: people who talk sh*t should be prepared to back it up. Whether that is with facts to their argument or with defense of their verbal insults with their nose. You're welcome to think that is a negative pattern AS WELL. An objective person will find the people who have a problem with me have a lot of things in common. Moral relativists of a feather?

However, you will have to excuse me if I'm not humbled and awed by this new found sense of integrity and "proportion" regarding message boards.

Hypocrites are very pathetic.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Interesting. Would it be correct to conclude that you both think it is entirely appropriate and honorable to distort the truth, to play 'gotcha', or to call people liars, ignorant, or tell them GFY/"screw you"?
> 
> jpeirpoint, you didn't do these things, but you seem to have ignored them and only risen in objection now. Did you just not see the others? If so, that's understandable. If not, see below ...
> 
> ...


I guess your more sensitive than I, but anyone not only you, but, anyone who threatens folks online for any reason is silly it isn't really negative or positive it is just a joke. This is the Interchange nothing here is serious, and I seriously doubt your going to STL to smack Lax around, so relax and take the forum for what it is, a place for middle aged argumentative fools to express their views.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I guess your more sensitive than I, but anyone not only you, but, anyone who threatens folks online for any reason is silly it isn't really negative or positive it is just a joke. This is the Interchange nothing here is serious, and I seriously doubt your going to STL to smack Lax around, so relax and take the forum for what it is, a place for middle aged argumentative fools to express their views.


So, you do conclude those are appropriate; interesting perspective. I will give your objection its due weight.

You're post is seriously flawed. You are the one that is sensitive by your logic. You are the one rising to object about my PRIVATE message. I agree it shouldn't be on the board, but you are being a hypocite.

I'm not asking or insisting they stop what they are doing. I'm simply pointing out they do it without any regard for consequences because they are on the 'net. I simply post the facts that show them for what they are.

I don't hide that I believe a person should be able to say whatever they are prepared to back up; like I said with facts and/or their nose if they are going to be offensive.

I do, however, have a conscience. I am consistent. If someone wants to come punch me in the nose if I insult them they are welcome. If I called some a name or said GFY I would fully expect them to do so whether they did or not. I'm simply pointing out that if LAX said GFY to me in person, he'd be picking himself up. Maybe he might pick himself up and kick my a$$. I don't know and don't care. That is irrelevant. The point is I'd take my due turn.

Pretending that people have some immunity from accountibility is being too sensitive and unrealistic.

You do bring up one good point. Apparently the opinion is that the Interchange is not serious and therefore not real. That is definitely not my perspective and perhaps I am not sensitive, but incompatible with that type of thinking. I'm an accountible person and I'm not on the Interchange to take a break from that responsibility. I'm the same person here that I am off the board.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Great Scott! Your utter lack of self awareness boggles the mind. I am glad that you take yourself seriously bc no one else does.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Great Scott! Your utter lack of self awareness boggles the mind. I am glad that you take yourself seriously bc no one else does.
> 
> Karl


You're a real weak sister Karl. Thanks for continuing to demostrate your own lack of self-awareness. Why don't you go correct (or own up to) your lies in the other thread?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

jpeirpont said:


> ... take the forum for what it is, a place for middle aged argumentative fools to express their views.


Good way to put it! Sometimes this fellow (read: argumentative fool) just has to get the weight of staying silent off his liberal relativists shoulders!

As for those expressing the more conservative views ... it still amazes me that some of you use the words "relativist" and "liberal" as an insult. When you do this ... what am I left assume but that you are against reason and logic and for demagogy. Of course, all the while ... the arguments of the more intelligent among you frequently represent the height of sophistry. How very odd when the sophist are considered the founders of relativism.

It seems to me that a few among you whose souls appear to be possessed of ultra-conservatism are here just waiting for a "liberal" to trip on his words ... mainly so you can point the finger at him ... and conveniently away from yourselves.

Frankly, given the tone of a number of the neo-con/conservative arguments ... as you go about speaking of racial and/or ethnic profiling ... attempting to point the finger at the other side as being the _real _"bad guy" ... throwing in casual comments about racial and ethnic hate groups ... well, it's more than a little obvious who is more prejudiced and who is less. It ain't the liberals who are less tolerant.

Just my opinion.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

How very odd it is ... the obsession some have with thinking of men in the feminine.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

You are like one of those caricatures of a Southern "gentleman" who is offended by everything and is always demanding satisfaction. Perhaps you should challenge someone to pistols at dawn.

And now I am a a weak sister? Is that like when you called Laxplayer a f*g? So in addition to being delusional and prone to threats of violence it seems you are also a misogynist and a homophobe as well.

Keep burying yourself as we all look forward to dancing on your proverbial grave.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> And now I am a a weak sister?
> 
> ...


No, you were always a weak sister.

You're both just as guilty if not more so than I. Afterall you both started with the insults I just handed them back to you.

Now:
How about those 3-4 lies, Karl89? You going to address those or just sit here and attempt to do collectively what you can't do alone?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> As for those expressing the more conservative views ... it still amazes me that some of you use the words "relativist" and "liberal" as an insult. When you do this ... what am I left assume but that you are against reason and logic and for demagogy. Of course, all the while ... the arguments of the more intelligent among you frequently represent the height of sophistry. How very odd when the sophist are considered the founders of relativism.
> 
> It seems to me that a few among you whose souls appear to be possessed of ultra-conservatism are here just waiting for a "liberal" to trip on his words ... mainly so you can point the finger at him ... and conveniently away from yourselves.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, conservative = nothing but demagogues and sophists and liberal relativists = reason and logic. Seriously, I have to assume this is nothing but a trolling attempt (and not a very good one at that).

What is even more funny, and tragically ironic, is that someone who claims to be a relativist, constantly pronounces these broad stroke judgments. Talk about "mutually exclusive", I think you take the cake RSS :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

I notice you didn't deny being delusional, prone to threats of violence, a misogynist or a homophobe. 

Also it seems you are anti-Canadian. 

Just one more question - are you as big a fool in real life or do you just play one on the Internet?

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> I notice you didn't deny being delusional, prone to threats of violence, a misogynist or a homophobe.
> 
> ...


I didn't think your name calling warranted a response.

I asked if he was Canadian because he raised Hockey as though it was a notch on a belt.

I asked if he was a f*g because he brought up all those other people as a way to make himself look tough and while he called me a pu**y.

Both were in response. I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

I call you a 'weak sister' because you count on the fact that I can't hit you just a like girl does. Your little "Great Scotts!" is an example.

It's not that I'm threatening to hit you, it's that it's obvious that you are relying on the fact that no one can. And; acting in a way you wouldn't if someone could. I don't think I have to threaten to hit you, because I don't think you have the balls to say it in person. So, the point of a threat is meaningless and that is the point.

*Now: How about those 3-4 lies, Karl89? You going to address those or just sit here and attempt to do collectively what you can't do alone?*


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

So if I did tell you were a fool in person you would hit me? Tell me, how can I get in on your office pool about the date when you go postal?

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> So if I did tell you were a fool in person you would hit me? Tell me, how can I get in on your office pool about the date when you go postal?
> 
> Karl


No, because I really think that just shows how stupid you are. That you think I'm a fool convinces me I'm not. You are constantly factually in error. There's definitely a line and "fool" doesn't cross it.

But if you told me "screw you", GFY, or called me a liar, I certainly would give you what you asked for just as I figure most others would too. However, based on the level of character you have demonstrated, I highly doubt you have the *stuff* to do that. You're not exactly a standup guy.

However, you again miss the point. I'm not going to go postal in an office, I don't have to because IN REAL LIFE people don't run off the mouth like you do on the 'net in your little fantasy world. I haven't had anyone speak to me like that in person in 25 years.

It's called accountiblity. For example, if someone raped my Wife or my child, I'd kill them. Is that necessarily right? No. Is it taking the law into your own hands? Yes. Would I be willing to stand before a jury and accept their judgement? Absolutely. Would that deter me? Not in the least.

On the other hand: I've met Jessica Lunsford's father and I am in total awe of his ability to keep it together. I respect that and clearly he is doing the right thing on a certain level. I just know I could never do that.

I'm not claiming to be perfect or without any wrong. I might be a lot of things, but I am a standup guy.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

So if I tell you to screw yourself or call you a liar (actually I think you are just a fabulist who lies from time to time) you would resort to violence?

What type of beating would ensue Ksinc? A bloody nose, broken bones, or something more serious? In otherwords would you commit a misdemeanor or a felony?

I notice you qualified that you wouldn't go postal in an office but did not entirely rule out the possibility that one day you will succumb to your violent urges.

The only advice I can offer is that perhaps you should stop making threats on the internet as that may hinder your defense in a future trial.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm not claiming to be perfect or without any wrong.


Thanks for clearing that up but I doubt anyone labored under that illusion.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> So if I tell you to screw yourself or call you a liar (actually I think you are just a fabulist who lies from time to time) you would resort to violence?
> 
> ...


I'd deck you, once. Yes.

Yes, I think that is a misdemeanor.

As long as I'm willing to answer to society for it, what's the problem? Isn't that the social contract? Frankly, I find it hard to believe someone would take a look at you and what you said and put me in the can for 30 days for decking you. I don't even think the sheriff would arrest me. They might laugh a little and tell you to keep your mouth shut in the future. However, if they did. Oh well. You are going to claim it's different where you live? IN TEXAS? I know a lot of guys from Texas and I'd sure think it through before I told them 'GFY'. Maybe you should get outside more? What do you think your avatar would do?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up but I doubt anyone labored under that illusion.
> 
> Karl


no comment, just imprinting the sig


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'd deck you, once. Yes.
> 
> Yes, I think that is a misdemeanor.
> 
> As long as I'm willing to answer to society for it, what's the problem? Isn't that the social contract? *Frankly, I find it hard to believe someone would take a look at you and what you said and put me in the can for 30 days for decking you. I don't even think the sheriff would arrest me. They might laugh a little and tell you to keep your mouth shut in the future.* However, if they did. Oh well. You are going to claim it's different where you live? IN TEXAS? I know a lot of guys from Texas and I'd sure think it through before I told them 'GFY'. Maybe you should get outside more? What do you think your avatar would do?


This is a good example of your delusions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> This is a good example of your delusions.


That's fair. I do wonder if you have ever met an Orange County Sheriff's Officer.

Of course, that would be a delusion you share based on your previous posts and PMs.

I think it's called 'bias blind-spot' since you were throwing around the psych-terms.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> What do you think your avatar would do?


Remind me how many times Reagan decked Carter, Mondale, Ted Kennedy or Gorbachev.....

Easy does it big fella.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's fair.
> 
> Of course, that would be a delusion you share based on your previous posts and PMs.
> 
> I think it's called 'bias blind-spot' since you were throwing around the psych-terms.


That I share? I don't think I could punch someone and get away with no penalty. Speeding?...maybe depends if I knew the officer, and I have never asked to be let off.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Remind me how many times Reagan decked Carter, Mondale, Ted Kennedy or Gorbachev.....
> 
> Easy does it big fella.
> 
> Karl


As soon as you remind me how many times they told him 'GFY' to his face.

I seem to remember a story about Gorbachev being intimidated by Ronald Reagan because he didn't wear an overcoat in Geneva ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That I share? I don't think I could punch someone and get away with no penalty. Speeding?...maybe depends if I knew the officer, and I have never asked to be let off.


I added, that I do wonder if you have ever met an Orange County Sheriff's Officer.

Florida, at least when I grew up and where I live is more of a rednecky State. We aren't Disney World all over.

I can tell you I've never been arrested and it's not because I spent Friday's and Saturday's in church when I was 20 and single.

I will give you, the world she is a changing, and rapidly. Much to my chagrin. We are becoming a nation of weak victims instead of rugged individuals.

Perhaps resistance to that change is my delusion. I won't deny that. I have quit wearing cowboy boots with my suits, however.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I added, that I do wonder if you have ever met an Orange County Sheriff's Officer.
> 
> Florida, at least when I grew up and where I live is more of a rednecky State. We aren't Disney World all over.
> 
> ...


Well, I think Missouri would rank pretty high on the ******* scale too. I don't know where Orange County is in Florida. I've been to Miami several times, Tampa, Marco (family has a condo there) and of course Orlando (Disney). Personally, I don't say much to people in person anymore. I once told a guy to keep his mouth shut (he was yelling at the clerk at a gas station) and he pulled a knife on me. Fortunately scaring me and the others in line was enough for him and he ran off to his car. Since then, I have learned to keep my mouth shut in public. In a professional setting though, yes I have told people they are a liar if I feel they are lying. They are less likely to have a weapon, and often people use the "You callin' me a liar?" as intimidation to get you to back down. Once I was fired for calling my manager a liar. Actually I said what he was saying about me was not true...he said I called him a liar. He later called me to offer me the job back after another employee convinced him he was wrong about me. I told him where to stick it. btw I don't think you are lying about Romney. Mislead possibly or maybe just not wanting to believe something about your favorite candidate.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> So, you do conclude those are appropriate; interesting perspective. I will give your objection its due weight.
> 
> You're post is seriously flawed. You are the one that is sensitive by your logic. You are the one rising to object about my PRIVATE message. I agree it shouldn't be on the board, but you are being a hypocite.
> 
> ...


None of what you said matters, threatening folks on the net makes you look like a fool period, if you do not understand why, then so be it, but it is the case. Anyway tis is not my fight to fight and the last person I'd defend is LAX, my view is out there and the need to participate in this is over. Peace and good looking for reasonably priced air fare.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> First, I want to mention that you seem to have ignored my real point.
> 
> Second, I live 60 miles from Mexico. I probably see more Mexicans in a day than you do in a year. Can you tell me how to accurately identify a Mexican by looks alone? I assure you, not every Mexican is issued one of these bracelets. If you cannot, my point, of course, stands.
> 
> ...


Oh, nevermind. I wasn't talking about racial identification. I was talking about the way to differentiate people I learned whilst living in Asia - soccer jerseys! haha


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> Oh, nevermind. I wasn't talking about racial identification. I was talking about the way to differentiate people I learned whilst living in Asia - soccer jerseys! haha


I never do mind. Even when one argues over several posts about racial identification through bracelets and then signs off saying it was soccer jerseys and not about racial identification.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> None of what you said matters, threatening folks on the net makes you look like a fool period, if you do not understand why, then so be it, but it is the case. Anyway tis is not my fight to fight and the last person I'd defend is LAX, my view is out there and the need to participate in this is over. Peace and good looking for reasonably priced air fare.


I didn't threaten him on the 'net. I said "I'd love to look forward to the opportunity to answer in person." As in, I'm sure it's not going to happen, but I sure wish it would. He brought up the violence and didn't seem at all bothered by it. When asked a question; I answered it. I never mentioned flying to StL. Now who is being foolish?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Gentlemen?*

I hope you recognize how badly you're behaving.
And ''He started it,'' is no excuse.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

What I mean to say is it is racial identification but not through racial features - I'm pushing the view that the only way to tell such things superficially is through attire and accessories.
In any case, what do you think of the great pissing match that has childishly broken out in this thread during our discussion?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I better not.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I hope you recognize how badly you're behaving.
> And ''He started it,'' is no excuse.





JibranK said:


> In any case, what do you think of the great pissing match that has childishly broken out in this thread during our discussion?





forsbergacct2000 said:


> I better not.


10-4.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

*A civil reply with humor ... at least I hope so.*



Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, conservative = nothing but demagogues and sophists and liberal relativists = reason and logic. ).


 Why, of course. :icon_smile_wink: But lets be serious ... if that is possible in this tread. In any event ... I was talking about those who resort to using liberal -- or conservative for that matter -- as insult. The ones who speak the word --be it conservative or liberal -- with dripping contempt.

Sophists, of course, are not limited to right-wing philosophy ... it's just that many ultra-conservative talking heads -- Rush, Sean, Bill, etc -- are excellent examples.



Wayfarer said:


> What is even more funny, and tragically ironic, is that someone who claims to be a relativist, constantly pronounces these broad stroke judgments


 Now, now, now ... that's neither tragic nor ironic. To assume that relativists see all points of view as equally valid ... _that _is ironic ... and tragically, a common misconception.  Certainly relativists make distinctions ... that is what logic and reasoning are all about.

Just to be upfront ... I wasn't thinking of you as I wrote that post. And thank you for being civil ... and not resorting to call me names.

But then perhaps you did. Were you calling me a relativist ... or a were you calling me a _relativist_? You know ... the good kind ... or the bad kind?
As Glenda (and Toto too) might have said ... are we talking good relativist, or bad relativist. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> *To assume that relativists see all points of view as equally valid ... that is ironic ... and tragically, a common misconception.*  Certainly relativists make distinctions ... that is what logic and reasoning are all about.


Well you are quite clear on this point. Your liberal view, so you have told us repeatedly, is more valid than any conservative view. But as you keep saying you use logic and reasoning, can you not see you have created an absolute paradigm? That, to me, is just as close minded as the people you rail against, and anything but being a relativist.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Well you are quite clear on this point. Your liberal view, so you have told us repeatedly, is more valid than any conservative view. But as you keep saying you use logic and reasoning, can you not see you have created an absolute paradigm? That, to me, is just as close minded as the people you rail against, and anything but being a relativist.


I haven't really followed this thread, but I think there is a distinction to be made between cultural relitivists and total relativists. That is, the thought that different cultures have different ideals and so you can't put everything that happens around the world against the same background and the thought that everything is equally valid.

Having said that, I just thought of this all conservatives are wrong idea. If I had to pick my two favorite candidates who are (rather, were) seeking the nomination, they would be Edwards and Paul. Have I fallen into the well of the total relativist?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I haven't really followed this thread, but I think there is a distinction to be made between cultural relitivists and total relativists. That is, the thought that different cultures have different ideals and so you can't put everything that happens around the world against the same background and the thought that everything is equally valid.
> 
> Having said that, I just thought of this all conservatives are wrong idea. If I had to pick my two favorite candidates who are (rather, were) seeking the nomination, they would be Edwards and Paul. Have I fallen into the well of the total relativist?


You are right, you have not been following this thread. If you had, you would not have made this post.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> You are right, you have not been following this thread. If you had, you would not have made this post.


I stopped reading around post 36 or so. I decided to pop back in and see what's up. Even from a quick skim, I can see it got ugly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I stopped reading around post 36 or so. I decided to pop back in and see what's up. Even from a quick skim, I can see it got ugly.


Coyote ugly.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> None of what you said matters, threatening folks on the net makes you look like a fool period, if you do not understand why, then so be it, but it is the case. *Anyway tis is not my fight to fight and the last person I'd defend is LAX, my view is out there and the need to participate in this is over.* Peace and good looking for reasonably priced air fare.


Thanks, jpeirpont. I'd save you for last also. :icon_smile:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Coyote ugly.


 We agree! :icon_smile:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Well you are quite clear on this point. Your liberal view, so you have told us repeatedly, is more valid than any conservative view. But as you keep saying you use logic and reasoning, can you not see you have created an absolute paradigm? That, to me, is just as close minded as the people you rail against, and anything but being a relativist.


I have not said my view is more valid ... it is just my view ... and this is a forum where one can express his or her views. I might, however, have implied that I reason my view to be in America's best interest ... America as a whole, that is. Of course, that is as I see it and as I work to have it be.

By my view ... today's conservatism it not true conservatism &#8230; it is a radical departure from our past ... in being neither principled nor ethical. Today's conservatism is by authoritarian style rule which ignores the principles of the constitution. It favors a tight-fisted moneyed elite (at the expense of those less fortunate), a blurred separation of church and state, and a reduction in our rights of privacy ... while it carries out its work under a veil of secrecy. That, by my reason and logic, is not in the nation's best interest ... it is only the best interest to the few (to paraphrase Edward Green's line ... after all, this is a sartorial website). Of course I realize that there are those who understand our nation's existence as truly being only for the few ... the "elites" as opposed to the "have-nots."

My preference is to see the Democrats in power. This is not to say that the Democratic Party is perfection &#8230; as it most certainly is not. It's just that I see the Democratic Party as far preferable to the Republican party ... relatively speaking, of course.

*EDIT:* I might note that when I post on a website that is conservative by today's common definition of the word ... and write very much in the style above ... I am often "edited" out. In short ... I am censored because I do not fall in line with the "accepted" view. That is of concern. It is certainly un-American and at odds with free speech as protected by the Constitution.

*EDIT 2:* I note that _relativist_ and _liberal_ are not words I initially used to describe either myself (relativist) or my views (liberal). They were first used by others of this forum to "define" me. Anyone reading my post/s shouldn't assume I use them all that seriously. However, it is certainly true that I am more a relativist than an absolutist ... and certainly my views are more liberal than conservative ... at least by current applications of those words. 

Now ... I realize that in posting in such a hornets' nest ... I risk having others lower their opinions of me ... but I do hope I remain above the fray ... or at least on the periphery and not in the midst.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Okay, here is a lesson in using an _ad hoc_ rescue given to us by RSS. The conversation went like this:



Wayfarer said:


> What is even more funny, and tragically ironic, is that someone who claims to be a relativist, constantly pronounces these broad stroke judgments. Talk about "mutually exclusive", I think you take the cake RSS :icon_smile_big:


RSS replies with:



RSS said:


> To assume that relativists see all points of view as equally valid ... _that _is ironic ... and tragically, a common misconception.  Certainly relativists make distinctions ... that is what logic and reasoning are all about.


So I take him to task about being a relativist yet rendering judgment, as he does on people with other views that do not agree with his. Not to be boxed into a logical corner, as really logic does not work here, he tells me no, all views are not equally valid, ergo I am not being inconsistent with my relativist views. Relativists, so RSS says, "make distinctions" using logic and reason. So after telling me certain views are not as valid as others, as reason and logic tells him thus, what does RSS say when pressed again?



RSS said:


> *I have not said my view is more valid...*


!!!!

I think this is coming full circle here. He has changed his answer so many times, he forgot what he originally maintained! So Gentle Reader, here is a lesson on what happens when you try to defend a logical cul-de-sac; you end up back on the street you just turned off of 

And I notice he is doing multiple edits and additions to try and hedge his bets even further. RSS, just walk away from the keyboard! For your own sake.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

^^^ QED. Nicely done,Wayfarer. The point being that not all viewpoints are equally valid. That's the problem with relativism: nice in theory, unworkable in practice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> ^^^ QED. Nicely done,Wayfarer.


Why thank you yachtie


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> *EDIT:* I might note that when I post on a website that is conservative by today's common definition of the word ... and write very much in the style above ... I am often "edited" out. In short ... I am censored because I do not fall in line with the "accepted" view. That is of concern. It is certainly un-American and *at odds with free speech as protected by the Constitution.*


Really? Could you explain exactly how this is a Constitutional issue? I certainly would not do this myself, nor condone it, but I am confused on how this falls under said protection. Also, I am confused as to why you would raise this on this Board? It does not seem to happen here, ergo, I would say this is rather a red herring, no? Reason and logic tells me this.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

*To see* and *to be* are two different things. 

To suggest that I *see *my view to be more valid is not to suggest that my view* is *more valid. There is quite a distinction between the two. 

Edit: "I think therefore I am" does not lead to I think, therefore my thoughts are absolutes. When it comes to philosophical ideas &#8230; man simply does not posit fact. To hold an opinion about something does not make it reality. An opinion - even a strongly held one - is still just an opinion. 

However, it is absurd for you to think that I would not hold more dearly to those viewpoints which I espouse &#8230; *seeing* them as more valid than those I have rejected (in full or in part). This does not mean that my viewpoints *are *more valid than yours or others. _(RSS thinks to self ... but only an idiot would think otherwise in this matter.:icon_smile_wink _

For anyone to feel otherwise about his viewpoint/s is to be delusional. After all, no man's views are anything but limited and imperfect.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> *To see* and *to be* are two different things.
> 
> To suggest that I *see *my view to be more valid is not to suggest that my view* is *more valid. There is quite a distinction between the two.


Oh, well that clears it all up! 

LOL, seriously, just step away from the keyboard.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Really? Could you explain exactly how this is a Constitutional issue?


Come on, you know what he meant. It's obvious he meant it goes against those principles we espoused in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Come on, you know what he meant. It's obvious he meant it goes against those principles we espoused in the Bill of Rights.


Well, that is just how you *see* it, not how *it is*. That is quite a distinction! :icon_smile_big: :devil: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

From my post on page 4 ...


RSS said:


> It seems to me that a few among you whose souls appear to be possessed of ultra-conservatism are here just waiting for a "liberal" to trip on his words ... mainly so you can point the finger at him ... and conveniently away from yourselves.


 Wayfarer is obviously no exception. And sometimes even the "trip" is trumped-up.



Wayfarer said:


> Oh, well that clears it all up! .


We can all make any point we like when taking statements out of context ... or when inferring more than is implied ... such as that comment about the constitutional issue. But glad to have presented my thoughts more clearly ... and as intended.



Wayfarer said:


> ... seriously, just step away from the keyboard


I really should. This wonderful site with all this entertaining disagreement begins to interfere -- or so I'm told -- with more important matters.

_RSS stares intently at the screen, when suddenly, in an act of willpower, he manges to pull his hands free from the near magnetic pull of the keyboard. Slowly he pushes his chair back from the desk and rises to his feet. With deliberateness he turns and walks toward the doorway. As he reaches it, he considers turning back. "Just one last time," he thinks to himself ... but manages to avoid this temptation of evil. Then in one quick instant he has passed through the opening and is closing the door behind him. After all, he has more important matters to accomplish. _

_Goodbye. _

​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> We can all make any point we like when taking statements out of context ...


Out of context? I quoted complete statements from both of us in a chronological manner to lay out exactly the logical circle you had created for yourself. Sadly, everyone seems to have seen it but you. And yet you continue to try and somehow ad hoc and twist your own words, desperately attempting to cobble together something that you can feel you will be able to draw a Pyhrric victory from. Or one you *will see* as a victory, maybe not one that *will be* a victory, as that is quite a distinction you tell us.

I am sorry to poke fun but really, you just keep talking and it just keeps making no sense. We can keep this up indefinitely as I have great patience in these matters.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry to poke fun...


 Oh, by all means poke fun ... disagreement is what this forum is all about ... so if no one pokes fun this forum is no fun.

And yachtie, you are one fellow who forever remains a gentleman even in disagreement.

And I imagine that both of you know that I realize I'm a rather ... well ... uhhh ... what's the word ... opinionated -- yes, that's it -- fellow. This is not to say you might not use a different word or phrase. And, of course, while I might not see your word or phrase as more valid than my own choice ... that is not to say your choice isn't valid. :icon_smile_wink:

And now, I must walk down the block to my neighbor's garage ... where I vote. I will be pulling the lever (or inking the dot) for H.C. Of course, by Berkeley Hills standards ... that will be a conservative vote. But it won't be the most conservative vote on the block; the only Republican just happens to share my address! Can you imagine ... right here in River City? What will folks think?

Good evening you two, et al.


----------

