# Another "liberal" demonstrating his tolerance for "Diversity"



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Is this a hate crime? Probably not, but it sure is a good example of religious intolerance. Imagine if it were a self-identified "conservative" refusing to shake hands with a Muslim POTUS candidate...or even just an everyday Muslim.

https://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/



> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While schmoozing local residents at a diner in Dover, New Hampshire on Tuesday morning, a senior citizen refused to shake hands with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and said he would never vote for a Mormon.
> 
> *"I am one person who will not vote for a Mormon,"* the man, identified by the Associated Press as Al Michaud, said to Romney as he approached Michaud's table.
> 
> ...


This does not seem to be a case of politely "agreeing to disagree", this person seems to fairly actively dislike anyone that is a Mormon and makes a pretty explicit statement I have bolded in regards to religious intolerance. I wonder if this is representative of New England liberals planning to vote for Hillary?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I lived in New Hampshire for many years, there is no middle ground in politics in the Granite State. Funny thing is, the state was easily the most liberatarian state in the nation until about 10 years ago, when a mass exodus of people fleeing Massachusetts taxes increased the number of democratic voters. Very interesting case study. Very sad though, intolerance does not seem confined to the Republican party as is often portrayed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'Liberal' is to reality what the famous HOLLYWOOD sign's intended use in old Los Angeles County was. Now, If Romney ever visits California and offers his hand to me, the true liberal reaction will be this; " Hello, I'm Chris with the local GREEN PARTY. We share some common concerns. Pehaps we can discuss them together and share ideas and information,or you can have a informal talk with our candidate." I am doing this while firmly shaking his hand and not letting go until I get my message across." I SMILE and make EYE contact. Hilary is to liberalism what Stalin was to communism.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Kav said:


> 'Liberal' is to reality what the famous HOLLYWOOD sign's intended use in old Los Angeles County was.


I don't quite get what you are driving at here, Kav. The HOLLYWOOD sign was originally "HOLLYWOODLAND" and was simply up there to promote a nearby real-estate development. I am old enough to remember well when it was HOLLYWOODLAND before they took off the "LAND" back in 1949. My family, who had a very nice view of the hills from their home, always loathed that sign as a public eyesore. They had been in their home for about eight years before the sign was erected. My mother was born in that house and died there too, 77 years later--a rare thing in Los Angeles.

As to the general topic of this thread, I don't think rudeness and incivility are confined to any sector of the political spectrum. I won't vote for a Mormon for president, for reasons I have previously articulated in this forum, but I won't be rude to one either, even if he comes knocking on my door to proselytize, as occasionally happens. Mr. Michaud was obviously a boor of the first water!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

On principle, I have no issue with a man that won't vote for someone or even refuses to shake their hand. However, if he can't look that man in the eye when he tells him that - I think that person is a coward. Just my opinion. I like the way Romney handled himself here and I continue to be impressed by him.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Is this a hate crime? Probably not, but it sure is a good example of religious intolerance. Imagine if it were a self-identified "conservative" refusing to shake hands with a Muslim POTUS candidate...or even just an everyday Muslim.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/
> 
> This does not seem to be a case of politely "agreeing to disagree", this person seems to fairly actively dislike anyone that is a Mormon and makes a pretty explicit statement I have bolded in regards to religious intolerance. I wonder if this is representative of New England liberals planning to vote for Hillary?


No, but that question is very representative of right-wing pigeonholing. This man's attitude is anything but liberal, even though he apparently identified himself as such. (We don't see the claimed interview in this video.)

I do know a LOT of Americans are tired of having LDS faithful knocking on their doors every Saturday morning. We had to post a "No Soliciting" sign on our front door specifically because of them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No, but that question is very representative of right-wing pigeonholing.


Damn...too bad I am not right-wing. Ah well, can't win them all Frank.

gnatty8, excellent statement and exactly the observation I was making.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Jan, My reference to the Hollywood sign was exactly your history. It was a crass business venture turned into a bit of 'glamour.' Liberalism today, to me is the reverse. What is suposed to be a political worldview has been co opted to sell people with rather personal agendas. Right about now several 'liberals' packaging is about as suspect as chinese toothpaste, petfood ingredients and toys filed with pollutant waste materials.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

One enthusiastically encourages homogeneous diversity.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I do know a LOT of Americans are tired of having LDS faithful knocking on their doors every Saturday morning. We had to post a "No Soliciting" sign on our front door specifically because of them.


If you are going to make such a statement you ought at least get it right. "LDS faithful" are not the ones you are referring to that knock on your door "every Saturday morning." That would be the Jehovah's Witnesses whose membership are required to do exactly as you describe, on Saturday mornings.

The LDS faithful you erroneously referred to are actually full-time missionaries, generally between the ages of 19-23, who may or may not knock on your door any day of the week since that is a part of their calling for a period of 2 years. Although they do still occassionally walk neighborhoods and knock on doors, that practice has largely been replaced by relying almost exclusively on member referrals. Having served in Brasil myself from 1980-82, I can speak with some authority on the subject.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> If you are going to make such a statement you ought at least get it right. "LDS faithful" are not the ones you are referring to that knock on your door "every Saturday morning." That would be the Jehovah's Witnesses whose membership are required to do exactly as you describe, on Saturday mornings.
> 
> The LDS faithful you erroneously referred to are actually full-time missionaries, generally between the ages of 19-23, who may or may not knock on your door any day of the week since that is a part of their calling for a period of 2 years. Although they do still occassionally walk neighborhoods and knock on doors


Our family has had 35+ years experience dealing with LDS missionaries knocking on our door. In fact, far more LDS than JWs the past ten or so years. Don't tell ME what my own family's experience has been.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Damn...too bad I am not right-wing.


Yes, that's evident from your choice of subject for this thread.

'nuff said.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, that's evident from your choice of subject for this thread.
> 
> 'nuff said.


Touche, Frank.

Don't worry Wayfarer, you still have my vote.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I think if Romney gets the nomination he will have to have his Kennedy moment where he tells the country that if elected POTUS he will not take his marching orders from Salt Lake City, like JFK told skeptical Protestants in 1960 that if he was elected Rome wouldn't be calling the shots.

But its interesting to note that uber-left MA elected Romney their governor - now a lot of this had to do with the paucity of Democrat talent in that state but still.......

I'd vote for Romney though he is my fourth choice, after McCain, Fred Thompson and Newt.

Karl


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Although they do still occassionally walk neighborhoods and knock on doors, that practice has largely been replaced by relying almost exclusively on member referrals.


From personal experience, I can say that a few of the missionaries have not gotten the memo on this. Nice young men, in ties, riding bicycles through my neighborhood, but I do not need to hear about their faith while I am trying to mow the lawn.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*I forgot*

Back to the original topic, I agree that Romney handled the situation well, and I saw him this morning on the Today show, and his continued reaction to the situation does him credit. I'm still not going to vote for him, because I believe he is really a Democrat disguised as a Republican. I've learned from my mistake of voting for Bush.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> But its interesting to note that uber-left MA elected Romney their governor -


Many voters here held their nose while in the booth, recognizing that Romney at least was ready for the corner office while his Democratic challenger was not. If he hadn't gone hard with pledges not to mess with the commonwealth's laws on reproductive rights or gun control-- positions he's now renouncing as fast as he can-- he wouldn't have made it in.

Now people here are POd that he spent the last two years of his term telling the rest of the country that he doesn't really live here. He'll be lucky to win more than the Republican primary in MA.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, that's evident from your choice of subject for this thread.
> 
> 'nuff said.


Yes, data sets of one are EXTREMELY reliable. And I see you had your facts straight for whowhatme too. LOL Francis, it's like shooting fish in a bucket.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I think if Romney gets the nomination he will have to have his Kennedy moment where he tells the country that if elected POTUS he will not take his marching orders from Salt Lake City, like JFK told skeptical Protestants in 1960 that if he was elected Rome wouldn't be calling the shots.


I do not think the left will allow him such a moment. I think if Romney wins the nomination, I shall have months and months of chuckling at the left for religious bigotry.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I think if Romney gets the nomination he will have to have his Kennedy moment where he tells the country that if elected POTUS he will not take his marching orders from Salt Lake City, like JFK told skeptical Protestants in 1960 that if he was elected Rome wouldn't be calling the shots.


But I think the LDS issue is a bit deeper than that. The LDS church maintains, I believe, that its leader is a living prophet. This is a much broader (and problematic from a political point of view) claim of power and authority for the head of their church, I think, than even the most ardent Catholic would ascribe to the Pope.

A "Kennedy disclaimer" may not be fulsome enough to allay concerns for some people because of that fact.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I think if Romney gets the nomination he will have to have his Kennedy moment where he tells the country that if elected POTUS he will not take his marching orders from Salt Lake City, like JFK told skeptical Protestants in 1960 that if he was elected Rome wouldn't be calling the shots.
> 
> Karl


Romney has already been asked and answered this question many, many times. Why does he need to have a 'moment' when he has a record as Governor? Do you really think he doesn't know the political history of the Kennedy's as well as you do? How do you think he got elected Governor of Mass. - without making such a statement? If he had a moment previously and you missed it, does that mean he has to do it again and again until you clue in? In my personal opinion, anyone making that kind of statement has clearly not done any homework and is probably not convincable regardless of what the man says. Frankly, I like Romney's polite, but GFY-attitude about the Mormon issue.

Your comment sounds like something "insightful" Rush or Hannity would say. If you have an issue with something specific Romney said on the matter, post a quote. Anything else is either bigoted or ignorant speculation of the worst kind IMHO. If you can find an example of an action Romney took as Governor where you think he was "taking marching orders" from Utah, please post that as well.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Easy does it big fella.

First I don't have an issue with Romney's religion and would vote for him. BUT (and try and pay attention here) a signifigant part of the electorate does and I think that if Romney gets the nomination he will need to address their concerns (which are misguided IMO) if he wants to win a general election.

Second I don't listen to Limbaugh or Hannity and since you apparently do I will have to take your word on their insight.

Now perhaps you can direct your ignorance elsewhere.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Easy does it big fella.
> 
> ...


I'm happy to direct you to this article and blog discussing the polls to which you infer:

https://coloradansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/oops-poll-article-about-voters-and.html
https://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/explaining-37-religious-bigots.html

Since you don't listen to Rush or Hannity, please tell us where you picked up the "marching orders from Salt Lake" line? Or are you going to claim you made it up yourself? You're parroting some un-informed bigot. I do apologize for making the logical guess it was one of the two biggest. So, just tell us who and we're done here.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Deep in the bowels of the L.A. Temple two returned missionaries meet with the Bishop. Donning magic underwear and exchanging secret handshakes they discuss strategy. A few days later one of the Goodyear blimps is tithed to the church by these same two men. A mechanic, sedated and suffering PTSD can only tell the F.B.I. they were consuming huge quantities of Hawaiian Punch and slipped a CD of Donny and Marie into the onboard player before swaying in a hypnotic state chanting " I'm a litle bit country...." Using magical spectacles, a canadian poppy quarter and printouts from AAAC later recovered at the Temescal Canyon crash site, authorities have pieced together a ingeneous intelligence operation to locate the victim, one Frank DC who fortuitously was not at home when 666 water damaged Pearls of Great Price came crashing through his shake shingled roof. Frank DC is reported to have claimed it's a plot by Vietnam Veterans disquised as Mormon Missionaries, though he ran behind reporter Suzy Nguyen when two mexican dayworkers pedalled by on bicycles. Meanwhile, Presidential candidate Romney's campaign headquarters reports a spike in emails from California, most seeming to originate in New Age bookstores now substituting Hawaiian Punch for green tea and requesting POGP copies to stock next to Edward Cayce and Guru Ma.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL Kav. You seem to have the best candy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I believe it was no less than T.R. who made the first appointment of a LDS to high political office which saw a protracted fight to secure his position. Being stopped by missionaries is one of life's pricetags for living in a free society. I'm a environmeddler treehugger, so I guess it's like accepting fleas to enjoy mountain lions or something. Western writer Edward Abbey, who recorded the ultimate Jack Mormon in Seldom Seen Smith probably summed up LDS best, " Nothing so rediculous can be true- or all that bad."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL Kav. You seem to have the best candy.


The Church of LSD?


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> The LDS faithful you erroneously referred to are actually full-time missionaries, generally between the ages of 19-23, who may or may not knock on your door any day of the week since that is a part of their calling for a period of 2 years. Although they do still occassionally walk neighborhoods and knock on doors, that practice has largely been replaced by relying almost exclusively on member referrals. Having served in Brasil myself from 1980-82, I can speak with some authority on the subject.


I've yet to meet a Mormon missionary who was unpleasant or pushy when I told him I already had a church. I usually invite them in and offer them a glass of water and a chance to rest. They're often tired from the walking and hot from the summer sun, and every one I've invited inside was happy to talk about things other than religion -- their interests, being away from home, what they want to do with their lives. Several have become repeat visitors, and they always offer to help me in any way they can. I have great respect for what they do, even if their beliefs aren't my own.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> I've yet to meet a Mormon missionary who was unpleasant or pushy when I told him I already had a church.


We've had pretty much the opposite experience. None have been rude, but almost all of them were pushy.

Reminds me of a Paul Lynde line from "Hollywood Squares":

Peter Marshall: "Paul, how many fingers in the girl scout salute?"

Paul Lynde: "One. The last time i saw it was when i didn't buy their cookies."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*knock knock*

I've never had the Mormons stop by our house. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones we always see.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Between the "fake" alarm salesmen, rude & pushy lawn service salesmen, and religious witnesses, give me the do-gooders. I've had to resort to raising my voice (or worse) far too often with the first two groups and never with the last. Apparently, my dog is not mean enough looking - bichon frisse. LMAO!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Between the "fake" alarm salesmen, rude & pushy lawn service salesmen, and religious witnesses, give me the do-gooders. I've had to resort to raising my voice (or worse) far too often with the first two groups and never with the last. Apparently, my dog is not mean enough looking! LMAO!


Instead of yelling, tell them you would like to talk to them about a great business opportunity with Amway/Quixtar. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I do not know where all these pushy Mormons I am reading about here come from. I mean, I live in the state with the #2 greatest amount of Mormons and in nearly 10 years, not a single missionary has even walked by my house. I see the young guys in white shirts and ties cycling all over here, had a couple in my MBA program, but not a single door knock! 

Is it not amazing though that someone is attempting to divert this thread away from clear religious bigotry by a self-professed liberal to complaining about "pushy" boys in white shirts? I guess that does justify yet another religious war against the Mormons.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not know where all these pushy Mormons I am reading about here come from. I mean, I live in the state with the #2 greatest amount of Mormons and in nearly 10 years, not a single missionary has even walked by my house. I see the young guys in white shirts and ties cycling all over here, had a couple in my MBA program, but not a single door knock!
> 
> Is it not amazing though that someone is attempting to divert this thread away from clear religious bigotry by a self-professed liberal to complaining about "pushy" boys in white shirts? I guess that does justify yet another religious war against the Mormons.


Someone? Who could it be? Who could it be? Could it be ... SATAN? LMAO! 

The Mormons here in Florida are some of the best neighbors around IMHO. Never a problem. I don't think there's any other group of any kind I can't tell a good story about. Never had a problem with a Mormon though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Someone? Who could it be? Who could it be? Could it be ... SATAN? LMAO!


To quote the Bard, "A rose is a rose by any other...oh lighten up Francis!"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rival camps take aim at Romney's religion
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | June 21, 2007

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/21/rival_camps_take_aim_at_romneys_religion/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Haven't I always said the Macaniac was a RINO? However, I am sure this will not be the only incident of Repubs taking shots at Mormonism too. Let us face it, Mitt probably is going to fair the poorest amongst southern evangelicals due to religion.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*AL MICHAUD*

If anyone wants this dirtbag, bigot's telephone number to call him and let him know what you think of how rude he was to Romney, let me know, I found it in the White Pages.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Instead of yelling, tell them you would like to talk to them about a great business opportunity with Amway/Quixtar. :icon_smile_big:


there was a fantastic tv show in britain called "absolutly" on channel 4, I think. a sort of saturday night live type of thing, with reaccuring characters. once, a couple of johovas witnesses came to the house of a character who was notoriously boring - and he let them speak all they wanted, and then made them listen to his boring drivel about train spotting, anoraks and his suzuki jeep. when they suggested they should go he said "I listened to you, now it is your turn". they were in a huge hurry to get out.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tolerance is one of those handle grabbing words to take control of other people by accusing.

Who on this earth is completely tolerant? People that like to manipulate others use words such as tolerance so they can ruthlessly rule other people. While tolerance has it's place, and a good one, it is people that abuse fine words for their own greed that make life hard and often show themselves to be intolerant, but the accused are often on their toes defending themselves so they rarely see it until later if ever.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

agnash said:


> Back to the original topic, I agree that Romney handled the situation well, and I saw him this morning on the Today show, and his continued reaction to the situation does him credit. I'm still not going to vote for him, because I believe he is really a Democrat disguised as a Republican. I've learned from my mistake of voting for Bush.


You did make a mistake in voting for Bush, in my opinion, but I hope you are not saying he is, under the skin, a Democrate. I hope you are saying he just mis-represented himself as there is nothing democrat about him.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

There are idiots who say they are liberals, conservatives, catholics, jews and the list can go on. I guess I am missing your point, or am I? One person does not equal what all people (even Liberals) are like. Why is the term liberal such a dirty word to so many? Why can't someone be a liberal and still have conservative beliefs? It is not all black and white, or do you think it is?



Wayfarer said:


> Is this a hate crime? Probably not, but it sure is a good example of religious intolerance. Imagine if it were a self-identified "conservative" refusing to shake hands with a Muslim POTUS candidate...or even just an everyday Muslim.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/
> 
> This does not seem to be a case of politely "agreeing to disagree", this person seems to fairly actively dislike anyone that is a Mormon and makes a pretty explicit statement I have bolded in regards to religious intolerance. I wonder if this is representative of New England liberals planning to vote for Hillary?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Damn...too bad I am not right-wing. Ah well, can't win them all Frank.


I guess Frank is relying on that old "if it waddles, quacks and has webbed feet, it is probably a duck" adage. If you're not right-wing, you certainly waddle, quack and swim like one.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

rip said:


> I guess Frank is relying on that old "if it waddles, quacks and has webbed feet, it is probably a duck" adage. If you're not right-wing, you certainly waddle, quack and swim like one.


Amen.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I guess Frank is relying on that old "if it waddles, quacks and has webbed feet, it is probably a duck" adage. If you're not right-wing, you certainly waddle, quack and swim like one.


Pro-abortion, want basic universal healthcare, want free needle exchanges, agnostic/athiest, pro civil union.

Quack eff'ing quack. 70 huh? Hmmm, MCI?

And back at you too Guit...from the guy asking if it's all "black and white". Maybe look in the mirror and ask that question. And Guit, I never said "all liberals". I stated "another". Would you like yet "another" self-identified lefty that has just about got himself banned him for prejudicism against Mormons? Please meet Francis.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> Why can't someone be a liberal and still have conservative beliefs? It is not all black and white, or do you think it is?


The reason is because true conservatives have beliefs based on principles and ideals that do not waver from issue to issue. Liberals are free to pick and chooose. For example, this is the consternation with Bush over immigration. He claims to be a conservative. His proposed solution simply flies in the face of sound, conservative principles like enforcing the law and not rewarding intent over consequences. As merely a Republican, a politician, that would be expected. As a conservative it is not. Liberals too I guess can claim to have a conservative belief here or there, but a conservative is more black and white, or as we would say principled and consistent. When your principle is to be principled and consistent then from that perspective no a liberal cannot have a conservative belief because when you pick one you are violating some other liberal belief that you have. Just because you may agree in the end with a conservative does not mean you have a conservative belief. While you may feel you have a conservative belief, you are just being inconsistent or picking and choosing your winners based on emotional connection. You may occasionally arrive at the same place, but you get there another way.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The reason is because true conservatives have beliefs based on principles and ideals that do not waver from issue to issue. Liberals are free to pick and chooose. For example, this is the consternation with Bush over immigration. He claims to be a conservative. His proposed solution simply flies in the face of sound, conservative principles like enforcing the law and not rewarding intent over consequences. As merely a Republican, a politician, that would be expected. As a conservative it is not. Liberals too I guess can claim to have a conservative belief here or there, but a conservative is more black and white, or as we would say principled and consistent. When your principle is to be principled and consistent then from that perspective no a liberal cannot have a conservative belief because when you pick one you are violating some other liberal belief that you have. Just because you may agree in the end with a conservative does not mean you have a conservative belief. While you may feel you have a conservative belief, you are just being inconsistent or picking and choosing your winners based on emotional connection. You may occasionally arrive at the same place, but you get there another way.


+1 Well said.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Like any other group of people, there are all kinds of Mormon missionaries. Some of them are pushy and aggressive. Others have never been away from their families before and miss them terribly, hate every minute of their mission, and are simply going through the motions because it's expected of them. 

I knew one former Mormon who used to blame his mission for all the trouble he had later in life. If he were alive today, he might even blame his suicide on his mission.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Leftist,rightist,populist, anarchist, hedonist, communist, fascist,nihilist and all the other ism's seem to overlook common and reciprocal courtesy. It is political and social suicide to miss any opportunity to impress, and I hope be impressed by anyone with a voice in the body politic. This whole site comes down to that very first impression clothing affords us all. Romney may very well become our next president. I WANT to shake his hand, as he forever connects Environmentalism with somebody in a tie, firm handshake, full eye contact and a smile.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Leftist,rightist,populist, anarchist, hedonist, communist, fascist,nihilist...


I used to be a nihilist but then I found out no one cared.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Liberals too I guess can claim to have a conservative belief here or there, but a conservative is more black and white, or as we would say principled and consistent.


Or as "we" would say, repressive and closed-minded.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Or as "we" would say, repressive and closed-minded.


Yes, but as you prove again and again you're a total fraud so who would care?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Or as "we" would say, repressive and closed-minded.


Says the man that claims Mormons torture the nads of homosexuals. Just too, too funny for words.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Originally Posted by *ksinc* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=576175#post576175
> _The reason is because true conservatives have beliefs based on principles and ideals that do not waver from issue to issue. Liberals are free to pick and chooose. For example, this is the consternation with Bush over immigration. He claims to be a conservative. His proposed solution simply flies in the face of sound, conservative principles like enforcing the law and not rewarding intent over consequences. As merely a Republican, a politician, that would be expected. As a conservative it is not. Liberals too I guess can claim to have a conservative belief here or there, but a conservative is more black and white, or as we would say principled and consistent. When your principle is to be principled and consistent then from that perspective no a liberal cannot have a conservative belief because when you pick one you are violating some other liberal belief that you have. Just because you may agree in the end with a conservative does not mean you have a conservative belief. While you may feel you have a conservative belief, you are just being inconsistent or picking and choosing your winners based on emotional connection. You may occasionally arrive at the same place, but you get there another way._
> 
> +1 Well said.


I have to respectfully disagree.....can one follow a party line 100%, do you truly believe that everything said or done by any one party is right on? Sorry, I don't. I see value in different points of view, in different issues, in handling things in a way that makes sense, not being stuck in a pattern because it was established in another issue. That is one reason I could never ever embrace the Republican party, and BTW, many people that vote republican do not embrace all they say, they embrace one principle that means more to them than the rest..so is that a good way to chose a leader?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> I have to respectfully disagree.....can one follow a party line 100%, do you truly believe that everything said or done by any one party is right on? Sorry, I don't. I see value in different points of view, in different issues, in handling things in a way that makes sense, not being stuck in a pattern because it was established in another issue. That is one reason I could never ever embrace the Republican party, and BTW, many people that vote republican do not embrace all they say, they embrace one principle that means more to them than the rest..so is that a good way to chose a leader?


Disagree all you want, but you're confusing several things. Conservative is not the same as Republican party. You didn't ask about being a Republican you asked about conservative beliefs and I told you the answer. There is nothing principled or consistent about either political party. I refer to them as the evil party and the stupid party. Most Democrats I know, being from the south, are conservatives. Being conservative, southern, and Republican is a somewhat new thing, post-Reagan-era. There are also liberal Republicans. A good example is Sen. Arlen Spectre of PA. If what you meant to say was can't one be a Democrat and sometimes agree with a Republican? Sure. However, that was not what you asked and these words are not interchangeable. I am a conservative. I am registered as a Republican, but I would never say "I am a Republican". They are not one and the same.

Please make note of this quote in my previous response "He claims to be a conservative. His [W's] proposed solution simply flies in the face of sound, conservative principles like enforcing the law and not rewarding intent over consequences. *As merely a Republican,* a politician, that would be expected. As a conservative it is not."

What part of that confuses you or implies conservative and Republican are the same thing? Or; that Republicans are principled and consistent?


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Disagree all you want, but you're confusing several things. Conservative is not the same as Republican party. You didn't ask about being a Republican you asked about conservative beliefs and I told you the answer. There is nothing principled or consistent about either political party. I refer to them as the evil party and the stupid party. Most Democrats I know, being from the south, are conservatives. Being conservative, southern, and Republican is a somewhat new thing, post-Reagan-era. There are also liberal Republicans. A good example is Sen. Arlen Spectre of PA. If what you meant to say was can't one be a Democrat and sometimes agree with a Republican? Sure. However, that was not what you asked and these words are not interchangeable. I am a conservative. I am registered as a Republican, but I would never say "I am a Republican". They are not one and the same.
> 
> Please make note of this quote in my previous response "He claims to be a conservative. His [W's] proposed solution simply flies in the face of sound, conservative principles like enforcing the law and not rewarding intent over consequences. *As merely a Republican,* a politician, that would be expected. As a conservative it is not."
> 
> What part of that confuses you or implies conservative and Republican are the same thing? Or; that Republicans are principled and consistent?


Yes, I did mix republican and conservative, you are right. Now as far as conservatives go, I have no issue with a conservative view, but I still believe there is gray area there, nothing set in stone, afterall, liberal (that dirty word) does not mean someone wants to hand over everything to government, ask me..but I am not a typical liberal, or am I. I have many conservative leanings, I just like to select them myself.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> Yes, I did mix republican and conservative, you are right. Now as far as conservatives go, I have no issue with a conservative view, but I still believe there is gray area there, nothing set in stone, afterall, liberal (that dirty word) does not mean someone wants to hand over everything to government, ask me..but I am not a typical liberal, or am I. I have many conservative leanings, I just like to select them myself.


You are skirting very close to the key of the issue concerning "liberals". You want to chose each position on an _ad hoc_ basis. You stated this pretty clearly above. There is no underlying core principle, merely pursuit of policy that makes you feel, for lack of a better term, "good". It is why someone can preach "diversity" yet feel totally justified engaging in religious prejudice against Mormons. Or why someone can convince themselves that private citizens should not have concealed carry permits...except themselves, their friends, and their body guards (think Rosie or Diane Feinstein).

This is not to say there cannot be disagreement amongst conservatives. This will occur in what people take as their core concepts, their guiding assumptions. You Guit agreed with rip that I am a "right winger". Yet I am pro-abortion. Think hard as to why you would consider me a "right winger" yet I go against one of the core planks of what is seen as the "right wing" in the US. You confused that with being conservative, to try and pigeon hole me, yet even you two realized I am really not like yourselves. Think on that.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You are skirting very close to the key of the issue concerning "liberals". You want to chose each position on an _ad hoc_ basis. You stated this pretty clearly above. There is no underlying core principle, merely pursuit of policy that makes you feel, for lack of a better term, "good". It is why someone can preach "diversity" yet feel totally justified engaging in religious prejudice against Mormons. Or why someone can convince themselves that private citizens should not have concealed carry permits...except themselves, their friends, and their body guards (think Rosie or Diane Feinstein).
> 
> This is not to say there cannot be disagreement amongst conservatives. This will occur in what people take as their core concepts, their guiding assumptions. You Guit agreed with rip that I am a "right winger". Yet I am pro-abortion. Think hard as to why you would consider me a "right winger" yet I go against one of the core planks of what is seen as the "right wing" in the US. You confused that with being conservative, to try and pigeon hole me, yet even you two realized I am really not like yourselves. Think on that.


You never fail to convince me that you do not see anything beyond your belief. There is no skirting, I have no issues with mormons or any other religion. You fail to see ( one one hand, but see on the other) that there are idiots, bigots, people with different opinions that have many different ideologies, you say so yourself, you yourself are pro-abortion. I have trouble with abortion but will not take the right away from a woman to choose, it is her body. I am not trying to pigeon hole you or anyone else who calls themselves a conservative, it is usually those conservatives (I will use Rush, the loudest of them all) that try to pigeon hole liberals as dirty, stupid, charity givers.. this is not the case, you can have compassion, you can want to offer choice to others, you can even want to help others without being a "bleeding heart". Maybe we agree on more than we disagree on, on thing is that I know you post many of your posts to be provocative, that is ok, always good to have some thought process going on. But to lump all into one pot, and by that I mean the norm to say liberals all smell because they cook with brussel sprouts, is a misconception that needs to be addressed in our political environment. Do I think the leadership in our political parties, both of them, is lacking, you bet I do. Do I condemn people for political beliefs, liberal or conservative, only when they follow the pack without thinking.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

And I also believe that there is global warming, does that make me a total liberal?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> Yes, I did mix republican and conservative, you are right. Now as far as conservatives go, I have no issue with a conservative view, but I still believe there is gray area there, nothing set in stone, afterall, liberal (that dirty word) does not mean someone wants to hand over everything to government, ask me..but I am not a typical liberal, or am I. I have many conservative leanings, I just like to select them myself.


Well, you are right about that. There are people who are not real conservatives that try to claim some sort of conservative label. I would say anything hyphenated social-conservative or fiscal-conservative belies the conflict in their point of view. You may have libertarian that you think are conservative leanings. What I think is clear in your language such as 'select' is that you like to choose the outcome. That is not conservative philosophy a la Edmund Burke, et al. Nothing wrong with that or anything else, per se. I tend to be libertarian-conservative myself. Which is a qualifier that is only recently necessary.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> You never fail to convince me that you do not see anything beyond your belief.


So what "belief" is this exactly? Please, elucidate.



guitone said:


> There is no skirting, I have no issues with mormons or any other religion.


This grows tiresome, and no matter how many times you repeat it, the answer will always be the same: I never said you did. I never said all liberals do. It is quite clear some liberals do and I just attempted to explain to you how this can be. You can repeat this straw man another thousand times but it still will be a straw man.



guitone said:


> You fail to see


Now that is a typical liberal argument right there. If I just had your understanding, all would be clear. lol



guitone said:


> I am not trying to pigeon hole you or anyone else who calls themselves a conservative...


That sounds very nice. A shame it is a complete and utter lie. Please scroll up to where you gave Father Rip an "Amen" in regards to calling me a "right winger". Have you forgotten that, will now step back from the statement, or have you had an epiphany now and will never again pigeon hole people?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> And I also believe that there is global warming, does that make me a total liberal?


No, but using litmus tests to define yourself does! 

Seriously, that's the point. Conservatives believe in principles. Liberals believe in outcomes. Global warming is not a belief. You believe in it, but it is not a because of some other principle you believe in that provides that outcome among competition. Global Warming is like a religion. At the moment Global Warming theory does not rise above the hurdle and criteria of scientific skepticism or suspended judgement. Climatology on the other hand does. What this area of science shows is that the earth has periods of climate change and has been warming since the ice age. Some signs point to a gradual acceleration, but some also point to a deceleration. Climatology says: IF there is an acceleration, it may or may not be initiated or affected by man. I see no problem with that thinking. I suspend judgement and I think we should consider and research further.

However, as a conservative I am also a conservationist and outdoorsman. So, while I may not sign on to global warming theory, I support many environmental initiatives on different grounds, such as being a good steward of scarce resources (economic principles - guns vs. butter). Certainly, man has an affect on the surface environment via polution, clearing, building, etc.. Certainly, realistic water, forest, and wildlife management is an important issue. However, to use your own labels/language, I do not feel I have a 'liberal belief'. Others may disagree, we are all clearly biased to our own view.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, but using litmus tests to define yourself does!
> 
> Seriously, that's the point. Conservatives believe in principles. Liberals believe in outcomes. Global warming is not a belief. You believe in it, but it is not a because of some other principle you believe in that provides that outcome among competition. Global Warming is like a religion. At the moment Global Warming theory does not rise above the hurdle and criteria of scientific skepticism or suspended judgement. Climatology on the other hand does. What this area of science shows is that the earth has periods of climate change and has been warming since the ice age. Some signs point to a gradual acceleration, but some also point to a decline. IF there is an acceleration it may or may not be initiated or affected by man.
> 
> However, as a conservative I am also a conservationist and outdoorsman. So, while I may not sign on to global warming theory, I support many environmental initiatives on different grounds, such as being a good steward of scarce resources (economic principles - guns vs. butter). However, to use your own labels/language, I do not feel I have a 'liberal belief'. Others may disagree, we are all clearly biased to our own view.


Excellent post. Take Ducks Unlimited. They have done more to restore productive wetland habitat than any other group I know. However, the typical liberal response is, "But then they HUNT DUCKS!" Yes, they do. In an entire eco-system that was once destroyed and now rebuilt. I believe some liberals would rather have barren drained wetland vs. thriving productive areas where some ducks are culled.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> I am not trying to pigeon hole you or anyone else who calls themselves a conservative, it is usually those conservatives (I will use Rush, the loudest of them all) that try to pigeon hole liberals as dirty, stupid, charity givers...


Have you ever actually listened to Rush? By that I mean not heard something he said, but actually listened to his entire three hour show everday for a week?


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Have you ever actually listened to Rush? By that I mean not heard something he said, but actually listened to his entire three hour show everday for a week?


I listen for as long as I can take his ego, so no, never for much more than 30 minutes....and he does spread some terrible lies, as I am sure you are aware of, and many of his followers would follow him blindly. Mega dittos


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> I listen for as long as I can take his ego, so no, never for much more than 30 minutes....and he does spread some terrible lies, as I am sure you are aware of, and many of his followers would follow him blindly. Mega dittos


Wow, you just described Al Gore and many of his followers. The lesson: people that live in glass houses should not give their kids toy hammers.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Wow, you just described Al Gore and many of his followers. The lesson: people that live in glass houses should not give their kids toy hammers.


Are you trying to insult me? Rush is a bigot, he is someone that distorts the truth, he is not representative of all conservatives, he is not representative of most anymore. His blind backing of Bush for far too long is just one example of his inflexibility. Al Gore is who he is, and yes, people should walk the walk not just talk the talk. The Gore stuff may not be distored, I do not kow for sure, I know that it sure does not look good on him...but like Gore and Rush, are we to base our decisions on an entire descriptive term, party or ideology on the ones that stick out the most that we don't like. It is a disservice to others to pick one thing and then use it as the thing, the defining thing. Because Gore used a lot of electric to keep his home (and work are, I believe one in the same) going does not look good when preaching global warming. Rush's words of mis-truth for those that know a bit do not look good either. The audience I hear when I venture to the IBwhatever network, and from the gift from God himself is sometimes very smart, very articulate, but many times totally out of time. Rush is always about him and how brilliant he is and how stupid everyone else it, and many in his audience buy this, that is what I call a problem, whether it be rush or gore or whoever...people need to think, read, understand, not just grab onto one thing and then lump everyone the can into that one thing. Again, one stupid man that does not like a certain religion does not an ideology make.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> Are you trying to insult me?


No guit, if I was trying to insult you, trust me, there would be no doubt. In fact, I have been going out of my way not to insult you. I am not sure how long that will last though, as you seem to be escalating. Case in point:



guitone said:


> Rush is a bigot...


Do you have some proof of this? Not a sentence or two pulled out of context as people constantly seem to do, but some real proof. I know he has employed many minorities and for people like me, actions mean something. Actions will give away a person's inner landscape far more surely than almost anything else. I mean, the guy had Clarence Thomas officiate his last wedding!



guitone said:


> Al Gore is who he is, and yes, people should walk the walk not just talk the talk. The Gore stuff may not be distored, I do not kow for sure, I know that it sure does not look good on him...but like Gore and Rush, are we to base our decisions on an entire descriptive term, party or ideology on the ones that stick out the most that we don't like. *It is a disservice to others to pick one thing and then use it as the thing, the defining thing.* Because Gore used a lot of electric to keep his home (and work are, I believe one in the same) going does not look good when preaching global warming.


Are you trying to insult me? One thing? How blind are you? This guy was part of getting the Feds to sell the mineral rights to Occidental Petroleum, a company Gore's father worked with and a company that helped make the Gore family multi-millionaires through stock ownership. A tract of sensitive land the Feds had held for nearly 100 years. Look it up, 47k acres called "Elks Hill". Basically, everything people accuse Cheney of doing with Haliburton can factually be proved with Gore and Occidental.

He himself was a huge tobacco farmer. His "stories" about "real families" during his POTUS run that turned out to be 100% manufactured lies designed to emotionally manipulate foolish voters. No, Al has been proven a hypocrite and liar on a grand scale.

Further, Gore has many followers that just blindly swallow his pap. Several months ago I was talking with someone I had thought was fairly intelligent, a successful attorney. He quoted some tripe from Gore's movie and I almost tossed my cookies. I even heard a piece on NPR that basically stated Gore's movie did not accurately represent current factual modeling by scientists that are studying global warming.

No, the insult is to me, to try and tell me the Gore/Limbaugh comparison is invalid and that Gore has a sole act of hypocrisy based on his electricity use. It is actually a track history of decades. Ask Dee Snyder.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No guit, if I was trying to insult you, trust me, there would be no doubt. In fact, I have been going out of my way not to insult you. I am not sure how long that will last though, as you seem to be escalating. Case in point:
> 
> Do you have some proof of this? Not a sentence or two pulled out of context as people constantly seem to do, but some real proof. I know he has employed many minorities and for people like me, actions mean something. Actions will give away a person's inner landscape far more surely than almost anything else. I mean, the guy had Clarence Thomas officiate his last wedding!
> 
> ...


To depersonalize this, which I think would be a good thing.

I have no horse in the Gore race, I am not a believer or a follower of his.

Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister? I am not intimate with him?

As far a Rush being a bigot, my statement comes from what I hear come out of his mouth. He may be friends with Judge Thomas, I know plenty of people that have black or Hispanic friends that are bigots, one does not exclude the other. If Rush is not a bigot he sure does a good job of talking as one. No I cannot quote you, I can tell you I have heard him say things that just make me shake my head, and maybe if I listened for the next two hours I would hear him say, only kidding. You know, we have a saying in my circles, if you say it, even in jest, you mean it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> I have no horse in the Gore race, I am not a believer or a follower of his.


Then why are you defending him?



guitone said:


> Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister? I am not intimate with him?


Dee was once a target of a pogrom launched by Al and Tipper. Religion started getting injected into it. Something those same people apparently find objectionable when their political opponents do it.



guitone said:


> As far a Rush being a bigot, my statement comes from what I hear come out of his mouth. He may be friends with Judge Thomas, I know plenty of people that have black or Hispanic friends that are bigots, one does not exclude the other. If Rush is not a bigot he sure does a good job of talking as one. No I cannot quote you, I can tell you I have heard him say things that just make me shake my head, and maybe if I listened for the next two hours I would hear him say, only kidding. You know, we have a saying in my circles, if you say it, even in jest, you mean it.


So I need to just take your word? M'kay. I am more than willing to believe Rush is a bigot, I just need that thing liberals often have a problem providing: proof. Give me some I can check out and I am more than happy to agree with you that Rush is a bigot. Until then, I shall judge him by the actions I can see which seems to indicate he has no problem employing and being friends with people from various backgrounds.

And as far as saying something in jest and having it count against you? So then should I assume when I hear a <insert protected class here> person make a <insert same protected class here> joke, they are in fact bigots?

Do you see the difference in our arguments? I provide you easily verifiable proof on my points, I need to take your word on your points...after of course I shred some of your prior points.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> And as far as saying something in jest and having it count against you? So then should I assume when I hear a <insert protected class here> person make a <insert same protected class here> joke, they are in fact bigots?
> 
> Do you see the difference in our arguments? I provide you easily verifiable proof on my points, I need to take your word on your points...after of course I shred some of your prior points.


When it comes to bigotry the is no jest, if it is said, just like a joke that pokes fun of one ethnic group, there is a belief there. So I say that when someone is joking about some ethnic group, it is in bad taste, one should tell them that then walk away. There is no room for humor in religious or racial slurs, ask those that get slurred. As far as taking my word, you won't and that is fine...my world is open to many possibilities and I try to be flexible and open to things. If I dug I could find you proof, I am not as invested in this as you are. I have said my piece, you are convinced of your beliefs, that is good, I am sure you sleep fine at night, as do I.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> When it comes to bigotry the is no jest, if it is said, just like a joke that pokes fun of one ethnic group, there is a belief there. So I say that when someone is joking about some ethnic group, it is in bad taste, one should tell them that then walk away.


Was my above point to esoteric for you? Go re-read it. For a concrete example, I asked you, if a gay person makes a gay joke, are they in fact bigoted against gays? If that is your criteria, probably every gay person I have ever met is bigoted against gays, probably 50% of Jewish people I have met are bigoted against Jews, etc. You keep telling me how open your mind is, but you keep proving how closed it is. Humour can also be a defense mechanism (another possibility vs. your universal judgment on this topic).



guitone said:


> There is no room for humor in religious or racial slurs, ask those that get slurred.


You have just injected the concept of "slurs" here. Prior to that, we were speaking of "jest" or jokes. Do not conflate things (yet again).



guitone said:


> As far as taking my word, you won't and that is fine...my world is open to many possibilities and I try to be flexible and open to things.


Actually, I have just pointed out to you how you wish to limit your world to one and one only possibility on the above topic. Further, I have told you my world is also open, it just requires that ever so bothersome thing to you. Facts. So how do you feel about facts? Let us see...



guitone said:


> If I dug I could find you proof, I am not as invested in this as you are. I have said my piece, you are convinced of your beliefs, that is good, I am sure you sleep fine at night, as do I.


Ah yes, "proof" is right there but you just are not "invested" enough to provide it. Again, your actions betray you. If you have so little investment, why did I get multiple posts from you on the topic? Further, I have asked you to elucidate on these "beliefs" of mine you keep referencing. Once again, a deficit of fact is presented.

So Guit, basically what is important here is to say your "piece"? Just talk out your arse and the value is in how you feel about these things, not in any way to provide proof...as after all, you are just not as "invested" in this as people that actually want to present a fact or two. Yes, you are so far above the fray of us common mortals that your ramblings should be taken as the revealed gospel. I am indeed lucky you will stoop so low as to present The Word of Guit to me!

It would seem to me that person that has a set of beliefs that cannot be challenged is you.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Was my above point to esoteric for you? Go re-read it. For a concrete example, I asked you, if a gay person makes a gay joke, are they in fact bigoted against gays? If that is your criteria, probably every gay person I have ever met is bigoted against gays, probably 50% of Jewish people I have met are bigoted against Jews, etc. You keep telling me how open your mind is, but you keep proving how closed it is. Humour can also be a defense mechanism (another possibility vs. your universal judgment on this topic).


This is what you said "And as far as saying something in jest and having it count against you? So then should I assume when I hear a <insert protected class here> person make a <insert same protected class here> joke, they are in fact bigots?"

You did not state that when a gay person make a gay joke, a Jew makes a joke about Jews" There is what is acceptable to a group, one speaking of themselves, which was not what I was talking about. I obviously did not read your very well put <insert this, insert that>...but come off of it, you are always looking for a fight and you will never see anyone's side but yours, kinda like, what's his name, oh yea, Rush............. on that note, see you around the ranch, this is getting too silly for me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> This is what you said "And as far as saying something in jest and having it count against you? So then should I assume when I hear a <insert protected class here> person make a <insert same protected class here> joke, they are in fact bigots?"


Yes, that is exactly what I said.



guitone said:


> You did not state that when a gay person make a gay joke, a Jew makes a joke about Jews"


Correct again, I did not originally give a concrete example. I was trying to avoid any and all baggage by using a universal variable.



guitone said:


> There is what is acceptable to a group, one speaking of themselves, which was not what I was talking about.


However, that is what you said. You said:


> When it comes to bigotry the is no jest, if it is said, just like a joke that pokes fun of one ethnic group, there is a belief there.


Clearly, that statement encompasses my example, which you are now excluding.



guitone said:


> ...but come off of it, you are always looking for a fight and you will never see anyone's side but yours, kinda like, what's his name, oh yea, Rush............. on that note, see you around the ranch, this is getting too silly for me.


No Guit, I repeat, I have always gone out of my way to treat you with kid gloves. I just decided to take them off after reading your "Amen" comment. A comment you seem to now want to have people forget you made, as you refused to address it when I called you on it. And now you are comparing me to Rush, clearly meant to insult me given your many comments about him above. And with a final insult, you deem the topic "silly" and withdraw.

What a coward.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

guitone said:


> I listen for as long as I can take his ego, so no, never for much more than 30 minutes....and he does spread some terrible lies, as I am sure you are aware of, and many of his followers would follow him blindly. Mega dittos


What do you think "Mega dittos" means?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hugs Wayfarer and admonishes him to be nice. Slaps Guit on back and gives a second encouragement. Wayfarer smiles and walks off, failing to notice the GREEN PARTY button neatly pinned inside his Kilt pin. Guit walks off, a GREEN PARTY bumpersticker on his back. Elitists are not Liberals. Greedheads are not conservatives.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Hugs Wayfarer and admonishes him to be nice. Slaps Guit on back and gives a second encouragement. Wayfarer smiles and walks off, failing to notice the GREEN PARTY button neatly pinned inside his Kilt pin. Guit walks off, a GREEN PARTY bumpersticker on his back. Elitists are not Liberals. Greedheads are not conservatives.


LOL, yer braw laddie, but nae sae braw I'll not be telling ye to keep yer hand awa my kilt pin


----------

