[tonyrockyhorror]

Obama uses teleprompters and a podium with the presidential seal to address 6th graders.



What a doofus

[wakeyboy]

Here's another doofus, with an upside down kiddies book while terrorists attack New York...

[JuanaLaLoca]

Here's another doofus, with an upside down kiddies book while terrorists attack New York...

[tonyrockyhorror]

Who's president?

[tonyrockyhorror]

Jon Stewart is no conservative

[eddie2003]

I'm shocked at how Stewart has really ripped into the Democrats over the last few months...His take on Olbermann last week was pretty good.

[tonyrockyhorror]

I'm shocked at how Stewart has really ripped into the Democrats over the last few months...His take on Olbermann last week was pretty good.

Very funny, Stewart blew his 'act' away.

Even if you call yourself liberal, you would have to be a major tard to watch Olbermann.

[mr dragon]

I've always liked Jon Stewart (and NOT just 'cause he's a 'liberal'), but rather because he does like to rip into things with humour that he thinks are bullshit or worth satirising- even regardless of his own politics. I once saw him interview that obnoxious Chris Mathews character you have over at MSNBC in the US. He DESTROYED him. But only in a way Stewart can- he's never nasty, just perceptive and funny. That Mathews guy was literally squirming in his seat at the end of it. I don't think he expected it all. He was looking for a book plug.

[wakeyboy]

Our straight (and by that I mean heterosexual) talking bumpkin in notes on hand embarrassment!

Apparently Palin used notes during speech at tea bagging orgy.

[eddie2003]

So?

[wakeyboy]

So?

Normally I would agree. So what? But when one group of glass house dwellers start throwing stones at another, you can't expect there to be no retaliation.

[eddie2003]

I'm completely indifferent to your opinion on this matter, Wakey...So I will post this:

[wakeyboy]

I'm completely indifferent to your opinion on this matter, Wakey...So I will post this:

[tonyrockyhorror]

Liberals secretly fantasize about catching some bare assed OTK from Palin, the crazier they are, the kinkier it gets

It's a fact, I saw it on Dr. Phil

Spoiler:

You know you want it wakey

[wakeyboy]

I dont want anything from that despicable bitch.

[JuanaLaLoca]

What's OTK? And, whatever it is, I'm pretty sure that I don't want any of it from a bare-assed Sarah Palin!

[tonyrockyhorror]

It's the bare assed liberal that secretly wants some OTK from Palin, dressed in dominant attire.

Spoiler:

You sure wakey?

[JuanaLaLoca]

If I were bare-assed, I wouldn't even let Sarah Palin in the room! Whatever OTK is.

[wakeyboy]

I certainly am sure.

[kitchenwitch]

Liberals secretly fantasize about catching some bare assed OTK from Palin, the crazier they are, the kinkier it gets

It's a fact, I saw it on Dr. Phil

If Dr. Phil says it's true than it must be indisputable.

And the Republicans are out doing way more kink than over the knee spanking.

You can find them doing their thing in public restrooms or maybe while hiking.

Although I think their real thrill is saying to to everything and playing hypocrite about stimulus money. Posing for photos with their constituents holding giant checks for their share of the stimulus they accepted and then going back to Washington to decry how horrible it is. If they think it's so bad they ought to give it back.

[kitchenwitch]

By the way, Urban Dictionary describes Sarah Palin's use of crib-notes inked onto her hand as a red-neck teleprompter.
Did she ever really grow up and leave high school? She slags people off on Face Book and writes magic marker notes onto her hand for a speech.
Is that something mature adults with aspirations to be President of the U.S. does?
What's wrong with note cards? Or telling someone off to their face and not their "face page". Hey even a phone call would be a bit more mature.

[tonyrockyhorror]

over the knee spanking.

Liberals would much prefer to call the experience, Over The Rainbow.

By the way, Urban Dictionary describes Sarah Palin's use of crib-notes inked onto her hand as a red-neck teleprompter.
Did she ever really grow up and leave high school? She slags people off on Face Book and writes magic marker notes onto her hand for a speech.
Is that something mature adults with aspirations to be President of the U.S. does?
What's wrong with note cards? Or telling someone off to their face and not their "face page". Hey even a phone call would be a bit more mature.
By the way, Urban Dictionary describes Sarah Palin's use of crib-notes inked onto her hand as a red-neck teleprompter.
Did she ever really grow up and leave high school? She slags people off on Face Book and writes magic marker notes onto her hand for a speech.
Is that something mature adults with aspirations to be President of the U.S. does?
What's wrong with note cards? Or telling someone off to their face and not their "face page". Hey even a phone call would be a bit more mature.

Fucking evil isn't she?

Stupid liberals don't realise that the more they get like over Palin, the more they validate her,

Sadly, liberals are neither swift of thought nor regular of bowel.

[wakeyboy]

Its the fact that a dunce, who would be a fascist if she wasnt so dumb, is not a lone crank but taken seriously as a political force by a lot of people that makes sensible people ITs kind of a "whats the world coming to?" "I despair at..." moment.

[kitchenwitch]

Fucking evil isn't she?

Stupid liberals don't realise that the more they get like over Palin, the more they validate her,

Sadly, liberals are neither swift of thought nor regular of bowel.

I don't think she's particularly evil. I would describe her as immature, and basically none too bright. I'm less concerned about her than the people who believe every word that falls from her lips.

I am heartened to know that you are concerned about the bowel functions of liberals Tony. Perhaps you should personally "rectumfy" the situation.

[cotoole]

OK, I have to ask, first, Wakey, you say you don't think the fact she wrote notes on her palm is a big deal, and yet you brought it up. Why?

However, if you'd like to point out where writing notes on your hand is wrong, perhaps you can go after Senator Dianne Feinstein who pulled the same stunt during a crucial debate when she unsuccessfully ran for governor against Pete Wilson. Back in October 1990, Feinstein and Wilson had their one-and-only debate of the campaign; before the statewide televised event, Feinstein scrawled three words — “growth, education, choice” on her palm in blue marker, to remind her of the policy themes she wanted to sound.Her action technically violated a ground rule, on which the campaigns had agreed, against bringing notes to the podium. When reporters challenged her about it after the debate, Feinstein hid her hand behind her back, said, “I’m not going to show you,” and walked away.

I question, why does she need to write points for her own beliefs on her hand? Oh, wait, maybe because she was going to be in a high pressure situation and wanted to make sure she covered the points she wanted to cover, like Sarah Palin did.

Now, I write notes on my hand from time to time when I am in the middle of something and have no paper around, so I don't consider what Sarah Palin did so unusual, however, if we are going to attack people for doing it, perhaps we should go after the ones who are violating agreed upon rules in doing so.

Second, I notice liberals are so keen to insult the intelligence of conservatives. It seems to be the new "RACIST!" claim. Obviously, we have gotten to the point that screaming racist at us simply means nothing anymore, because we are not, so, now, all of you libs jumped on the idiot bandwagon. Well, I think it was pointed out when Kerry ran against Bush, Bush had better grades in college than Kerry. Now, you are going after Sarah Palin. Quite frankly, the whole she's stupid claim reflects on the idiocy of the left, as you don't seem capable of defeating her on policy issues, so, you turn to insults.

Have fun, but, that whole bandwagon is rolling out the door with the racist charge. If you want to pick on her political beliefs, fine, let's debate that. However, if all you want to do is insult her because she won't drink your kool aid, well, it just shows who the real idiots are. And, Sarah is not amongst that group.

Chris

[JuanaLaLoca]

Second, I notice liberals are so keen to insult the intelligence of conservatives.
...
all of you libs jumped on the idiot bandwagon ... the idiocy of the left, ... it just shows who the real idiots are.

Stupid liberals ... Sadly, liberals are neither swift of thought nor regular of bowel.

Hmmm.

[cotoole]

So what of it Juana? Want to try to debate real policy, or shall we stick to swapping insults? Hell, we can just fill these pages with post after post where libs call conservatives dumb, and we call you dumb. Is that really the kind of debate you are looking for?

Tell me, what has Sarah Palin done to prove she is dumber than any other average American? And just because she does not believe what you do, is not proof she is dumb, however, making that claim does prove the reverse.

Chris

[eddie2003]

I dont want anything from that despicable bitch.

Really?

[JuanaLaLoca]

So what of it Juana? Want to try to debate real policy, or shall we stick to swapping insults? Hell, we can just fill these pages with post after post where libs call conservatives dumb, and we call you dumb. Is that really the kind of debate you are looking for?

Tell me, what has Sarah Palin done to prove she is dumber than any other average American? And just because she does not believe what you do, is not proof she is dumb, however, making that claim does prove the reverse.

Chris

Oh, and apparently if conservatives call the current President a doofus or say that all liberals are idiots and have irregular bowel habits, that is 'debating real policy'? I just don't see how anyone can believe that this thread was started in order to debate policy; it appears to me that it was started in order to insult Obama.

I reviewed the thread because I thought I might have had a memory lapse, but I don't see where I claimed that Sarah Palin is dumb. I just said that I was not interested in OTK relating to her (and I guess I finally know what it is, no thanks to Tony).

[cotoole]

Oh, what the hell, one more question, if I may?

Its the fact that a dunce, who would be a fascist if she wasnt so dumb, is not a lone crank but taken seriously as a political force by a lot of people that makes sensible people ITs kind of a "whats the world coming to?" "I despair at..." moment.

I know it is fashionable for liberals to accuse Republicans and Conservatives of being fascists, however, have you looked up the definition? I mean after all, you compare us to Hitler, but, the ideals of his Nazi movement were more akin to those of the modern progressive movement. Fascists want a giant government, with total control over the people, kind fo a nanny state, where the dumber people are told what is best for them by the really bright ones, you know, like Hitler and Mao? Sounds more like Democrats to me. Please, show me where I am wrong. Look up the definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist

I mean, if you liberals are going to accuse us of being stupid, at least you can learn to stop comparing us to your own leaders. For example the ever popular Mao, Stalin, Marx, and Che amongst the left. These people are the heroes of the modern progressive movement, and, I do believe, you'll find they are more akin to "fascists" than anyone on the right. Look it up and get back to me, OK?

Until then, perhaps you can stop accusing conservatives of being fascist and stupid at the same time. I mean, it shows who really is being the stupid one, after all if you can't get that one basic point right.

Chris

[JuanaLaLoca]

I assume you're not directing that at me, since I never said any of that stuff. And, BTW, I am American and always have been. Mao, Stalin, et all have NEVER been my leaders.

[cotoole]

Juana, I do agree this thread was started to insult the liar in the White House. (heard how he is no longer concerned about his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class?)

However, I also recall a lot of very similar attacks on President Bush, including even in this very thread, all of which, in my humble opinion have been unfounded. As I pointed out in this thread, I find it questionable behavior to pick on a person for a mis-pronunciation, or a mis-statement. It happens to the best of us, however, the left seemed to jump on it to attack Bush. I can see how it might hurt to have those attacks thrown back in your face. Kind of like when the Democrats claimed booing the President during a speech before Congress was so wrong, or calling him a liar, when I can post you links to Democrats booing Bush during his State of the Union Addresses, and numerous links of liberal Congressmen and women insulting his intelligence. Of course, most of their statements are an attempt to insult our intelligence as well, but, obviously, some people believe the crap they are shovelling. Or the picture you liked of Bush holding the book upside down while he is deciding the best way to respond to what appeared to be an attack on our soil during an appearance at a school. Yes, I know Wakey posted it, but, you laughed at it. However, I wonder how Clinton, Gore or Obama would have handled that news first thing in the morning when they were expecting to be entertaining some elementary school kids, and pushing an education message. DO you really think they would be concentrating on how they were holding the book, or trying to think of a response, and at the same time trying to keep from upsettign the kids? Just asking.

However, you, and many other libs, have attacked the intelligence of those of us on the right in many other threads, and a couple have attacked Sarah Palin's intelligence, and that of those who like her, in this very thread.

On the other hand, I tend to see some intelligence from many of your posts, even though you do tend to read only what you prefer to see in some comments from the right. I do want to get a proper debate going, and frankly, dicussing Sarah Palin's politcal stance and opinions sounds to me to be a bit of a fun place to start.

What do you say, are you game? Insults aside, a real substantive debate about philosophies? We can ignore the insults from those on both sides who want only to belittle others. I think I said somewhere, either on this board or another that I am disappointed in so many on the right who feel like they have to play the game like the liberals played it during the Bush years. Let's debate real pollicy, and stop with the insults.

Chris

[cotoole]

I assume you're not directing that at me, since I never said any of that stuff. And, BTW, I am American and always have been. Mao, Stalin, et all have NEVER been my leaders.

No, actually, it was largely directed toward Wakey, who did call Palin a fascist, or, actually, said she would be if she was not so dumb.

I can, of course, take that two ways, either that she would be a fascist as he feels the rest of the conservatives are, (which, by definition, we are not, liberals are closer to fascists, and progressives are fascists) or, I could assume he is saying she is not smart enough to be a fascist, like his side consists of. To which I suggest she is obviously too smart to be a fascist, or she would be a progressive.

If we want to debate that progressives do in fact idolize fascists, I can get you some quotes of progressives praising Mao, Marx, Che, etc.

Chris

[wakeyboy]

Well my ears are burning I wont quote everything that relates to me, directly or indirectly but I'll try to address them...

Stalin and Mao are not heroes of "progressives" or whoever they are. They're certainly no heroes of mine.

Che Guevara is a hero among socialists (the true meaning of the word - not the American usage), but that doesn't mean that he's respected/idolised by all people on the left, or all liberals.

Hitler most certainly is NOT respected or admired by the left, and I cant believe anyone calling themselves "progressive" would admire fascists and nazis!

The reason that the FAR right (not all conservatives - many of which are decent people) are compared to fascists is because there are similarities. Just as you can warp liberal or left-wing ideology to fit with aspects of fascism so can I with conservativism: Extreme patriotism and national symbolism, anti-immigration, concerned with race and racial purity, militaristic, more likely to see war as a better solution that diplomacy, homophobic, believe in a survival of the fittest - dog-eat-dog - world where the weak and the disadvantaged are not helped but rather neglected at best, exterminated at worst! (not that any mainstream conservative would advocate such a thing). - so see how I linked Nazism to the political right?


As for Palin, I dont care that she wrote on her hand, I think its pretty normal for people to make notes when they're speaking in public. As Ive already said, I dont have an issue with it, I was simply using it to highlight hypocrisy. When the creator of this thread used Obama's use of an autocue to insult him I thought it was pretty stupid. So in comes more stupidity - Palin writes on her hand nah nah nah!

You see what I'm getting at? You cant have it both ways. Nor can the left.

Which brings us to your point on debating policy, philopsophy and ideology... Im all for it. Please lets leave stupid insults out of this. But then again I didnt start this thread which was designed to cause precisely the playground mud slinging that has taken place here.

[mr dragon]

I assume you're not directing that at me, since I never said any of that stuff. And, BTW, I am American and always have been. Mao, Stalin, et all have NEVER been my leaders.

No, actually, it was largely directed toward Wakey, who did call Palin a fascist, or, actually, said she would be if she was not so dumb.

I can, of course, take that two ways, either that she would be a fascist as he feels the rest of the conservatives are, (which, by definition, we are not, liberals are closer to fascists, and progressives are fascists) or, I could assume he is saying she is not smart enough to be a fascist, like his side consists of. To which I suggest she is obviously too smart to be a fascist, or she would be a progressive.

If we want to debate that progressives do in fact idolize fascists, I can get you some quotes of progressives praising Mao, Marx, Che, etc.

Chris

I wasn't going to get into this debate particularly, until I read your last comment Chris. Obama mispronouncing a word, or Sarah Palin reading bullet points from her hand doesn't really interest me that much. I don't think Obama is 'evil' or 'stupid' and I don't particularly think Palin is either.

However, I do question this:

which, by definition, we are not, liberals are closer to fascists

This is meaningless (and also completely untrue). The whole terminology of 'liberal' has been contorted out of all context in recent years- particularly in America. The political movement of 'Liberalism' began in the 19th century. The original Liberals were basically break away Conservatives- they opposed certain Conservative views of the time. They wanted free trade policies, lower taxation whilst also balancing government budgets- meaning lower deficits, less colonialism (particularly in countries like Britain), and more social philanthropy for people who had fallen through the 'cracks' in society- ie for people who were poor and massively disadvantaged economically at that time. Their basic tenets came from the belief in personal 'liberty'. The word root comes from the Latin- 'liber' (or liberalis): which means to be 'free'. Liberty, Liberate, Liberal- same root definition linguistically. That basic belief is at the heart of what created your own country- America. As time has progressed (particularly throughout the twentieth century) the original 'liberal' movement has splintered into different terms of how you represent 'liberalism' politically. For example you now have 'social liberals' today who think the Government should try and make 'society' 'fairer' (which is what I think would be an accurate description of the Obama Administration- in terms of its narrative), and you also have 'economic liberals' which is what both Thatcher and Reagen are/were in their terms in office regarding economics. You also have different countries taking a different slant on the original concept of 'liberalism'. In Australia they still use part of the original definition of 'liberalism' politically: the Liberal Party of Australia- which was John Howard's party when he was the Australian PM is a centre right political party, it's not a left wing political party. In the UK our own Liberal Party, which began in the 19th Century, was originally what you might see as more of a 'Libertarian party' by today's political standards. Their philosophy has somewhat splintered over time and they eventually became a 'centre-left' liberal party after the 1970's, later combining with the Social Democrats- making them a 'social-liberal' political centre-left political party. However the term 'liberal' in the UK can still be attached to a person of conservative views quite easily. For example- the current shadow leader of the Conservative party in the UK, David Cameron, is partially a 'liberal' Conservative (at least as far as we can see right now)- or a 'One Nation Tory' (which is the term for a person with a liberal/Conservative/Tory view point. However in America, it seems to me, the term 'liberal' politically has now partly become meaningless from the American Conservative point of view. It's just become a generic insult for anyone on the 'right' politically to throw to anyone who isn't a Republican or doesn't have hard core American Conservative political sympathies. The 'narrative' used by the American conservatives when calling someone a 'liberal' has taken to 'mean', as an insult, that you're something akin to a Marxist, or a 'big government freak' who wants to control everyone's lives, or someone who is a 'coward' in the face of potential danger from outside international security threats etc etc. I'm British, and I'm probably partially 'liberal' as a person politically, yet I can't identify with any of that style of definition in the US by the right wing because I understand what the root of the word actually means- as I'm sure many Americans of a degree of 'liberal' persuasion also do. Just looking at the current crop of American posters on here I'd say there's a fair few who have 'liberal' values in some form, yet they aren't in any way fascists! Therefore, this particular 'viewpoint' of a so called 'liberal' by many Conservatives in the US makes no sense. Even just by definition of terminology.

Just to give you an insight into the political issues of what 'Liberalism' can be. Winston Churchill served time in both political parties in the UK in senior cabinet positions as both a Liberal and a Conservative, whilst in Government, over very long stretches in his political career. He was a member of both parties at different times.

To say that being a 'liberal' then means that you're a 'fascist' in terms of definition is slightly insane- in my personal view. But there you go...

[cotoole]

OK, then, I think we have an agreement between Wakey and I to avoid insulting each other, and stick to actual policy issues.

However, I am more than happy to give you links this afternoon when I get home and have more time to several U.S. liberals praising people like Mao. Including prominent members of the current administration.

As to Mr. Dragon, thanks for the history lesson, but, I am aware of it, already. I also know that times change. The Democrat and Republican parties have changed their platforms numerous times over their history.

I'll reinforce your Churchill point by pointing out Reagan was a Democrat before he became a Republican.

However, the modern U.S. Progressive Liberal is in fact pushing towards the teachings of Mao, Marx, and other quite evil bastards from history. Again, I'll give you links to prove it this evening, I have to get running, have things I have to do this morning. And they are trying to compare Conservatives to Fascists and Hitler, which is a joke. Especially when you look at their role models.

But, again, I am calling for us to agree, and I'll take it one person at a time, to stop insutling each other, and start debating policy, based on policy, not percieved intelligence of the speaker, or poster. Care to make that promise to me Dragon?

Chris

[wakeyboy]

I don't think Marx was particularly evil. He merely came up with a way of looking at the world, based on attempts at philanthropy and combining it with research into various regimes, governments, organisations etc. His sociological interpretations influenced those on "the left". It was people using his research that invented such evils as communism, and political movements such as socialism (not necessarily evil, and probably quite the contrary).

No sensible person should be praising Mao, and even less would support Stalin. Both of which ruined the lives of millions of people.

Mao ruined what was one of the greatest nations on earth.

Stalin helped defeat Hitler, but only for another form of oppression to blight the lives of many europeans.

Che Guevara is often seen through rose tinted glasses in Europe. Cuba was a seat of vice and corruption and the 'government' was just a puppet of the United States. Guevara (himself not even cuban) et al revolted, to take the country back into the hands of ordinary Cubans and to improve people's lives, ending the corruption and exploitation.

HOWEVER, like many revolutionaries, once in power they end up being not much better that those they deposed. Instead of making the way for democracy, so started a dictatorship. There are many good things about Cuba, such as its education and health systems, but most Cubans are still poor. No one is living in absolute dire circumstances, but everyone is under the glass ceiling of communism, and not able to progress or become rich and succesful.

Some argue that a trade embargo is an act of war, and that since Cuba is 'at war' with the USA they have had martial law ever since the revolution... hence no democracy. I dont really go with that, but I do disagree with the embargo. Its achieved nothing. Time to change tack?

(hope i didnt insult anyone!)

[mr dragon]

As to Mr. Dragon, thanks for the history lesson, but, I am aware of it, already. I also know that times change. The Democrat and Republican parties have changed their platforms numerous times over their history.

I'll reinforce your Churchill point by pointing out Reagan was a Democrat before he became a Republican.

I'll reinforce your example with the fact that Churchill began as a Conservative for about four years, then became a Liberal for twenty years- serving in very senior cabinet positions in Liberal Governments, then later switched back to being a Conservative again. Though the truth is, Churchill wasn't really fully either a 'conservative or a 'liberal'. He had views that went both ways. I was just pointing out that stating 'liberals' are closer to 'fascists' is a little off base when you consider that Winston Churchill was in a political party as one for a fifth of a century

However, the modern U.S. Progressive Liberal is in fact pushing towards the teachings of Mao, Marx, and other quite evil bastards from history. Again, I'll give you links to prove it this evening, I have to get running, have things I have to do this morning. And they are trying to compare Conservatives to Fascists and Hitler, which is a joke. Especially when you look at their role models.

Well, I can't comment on the 'U.S. Progressive Liberal' movement. I live in Britain. What I will say is that by definition, if you say someone is a 'liberal', you can't equate them with being a 'fascist'. The terms contradict one another. It's an oxymoron to put the words in the same sentence like that. Now, does that mean that some 'liberal' people, who you may term as 'social liberals', don't act in a 'fascistic' way? Of course they can. But then again, so do some people on the right of the political spectrum. I don't agree with either when it comes to behaving like that. However, that has more to do with individual personalities. I consider myself to be a 'liberal' in certain ways, yet I'm in no way a fascist. The opposite in fact- I am a 'liberal' precisely because I oppose fascism or communism, or any other kind of extremism in Government that hinders your daily life as an individual from a 'controlling' point of view that isn't necessary. Just to give you an idea. I don't really ally myself with either the left or the right politically, I'm an independent. I have my own criteria for what I want out of a government. The one that comes the closest to my personal criteria is the one that gets my vote in an election. However, I am probably closer to a centre right political viewpoint- if you want a very loose description. That doesn't stop me from having a 'liberal' viewpoint at the same time- in fact it goes easily hand in hand with that political position for me. Maybe we're more used to using the definition more broadly in the UK, and also in relation to it's historical context as well. Being a 'liberal' or having certain 'liberal' views can mean different things over here- depending on where you place your 'liberal' values. As for 'US liberals' the only thing I can say is that there are quite a few current American posters on here who I would say have a 'liberal' viewpoint in some form or another. I've never seen any evidence, in any way, of them being 'fascists'. Whether that also holds true for some other American 'liberals', I can't really comment.

As for calling Republicans 'facsists' or people calling George Bush- Hitler etc, it's simply childish and stupid. But, by the same token, calling Democrats 'communists' or calling Obama- Stalin, Pol Pot or Chairman Mao, is equally childish and stupid. I've never done either. However, I don't think anyone firmly ensconced on either side of a partisan political divide in the US is in a position to start crying about that. It seems to go both ways with some people.

But, again, I am calling for us to agree, and I'll take it one person at a time, to stop insutling each other, and start debating policy, based on policy, not percieved intelligence of the speaker, or poster. Care to make that promise to me Dragon?

Chris, I don't need to make that promise to you. I've bought up this same issue repeatedly in the past on this forum. My view is- if someone starts being insulting to me, then don't be surprised if they get an insult back. But in general I try not to approach topics or disagreements with insults overall- at least until someone else starts doing it, or just acting like an arsehole in responses for no reason. You can healthily disagree with someone on a topic without getting personal. It's sometimes amusing to read all that stuff, or give it back if it's been given, but it can also completely derail some debates into giant personal slag-fests that have nothing to do with the topic in hand. I would also like to point out to you, going back over a few years on this forum, you have started a fair amount of posts (and threads) with insults. Along the lines of- Liberal morons, libtards, fucktards, idiots, etc etc. So, let's see if we can all avoid going there on this topic.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

I think there needs to be a little clarification here. In America the word liberal is used to describe the Democrats. In the UK the Liberals are the Party in the middle of Labour and Conservatives. The US equivalent of Liberals is the Independents.

[mr dragon]

That's an interesting perspective Jenn. I can't really comment on American Independent voters. I would normally assume some are Conservative and some are Democrat in values- but can also vote both ways (or some just don't choose to register with either side), or some are left or right centrists, and some don't really ally themselves with either side and go whatever way they want to in elections. But as I'm not an American I can't really give a accurate or perceptive description of it in the US. With the current political situation in the UK, between the three main parties, I would actually say the Conservatives are centre right, the Lib Dems are centre left, and Labour seem to go centre right or centre left depending on the policy. However objectively, I wouldn't say the Lib Dems (as a party) are in the 'middle' anymore. The Lib Dems (once The Liberal Party) seemed to have gone to the left since the 1970's and are 'technically' what I would call 'social liberals'. However back in the fifties/sixties they were the centrist party of that period (and going back much further, prior to that, they were the opposition to the Conservatives- before Labour became a major power- when Labour was truly to the left. As things have changed over time some of the 'then' Liberals have either gone to the Tory's or Labour, because they can also have a place there politically. What remained of the original British Liberal Party then coalesced with the Social Democrats (who are centre left leaning). Hence what we have now.

My point is, the actual term 'liberal' covers a very broad church. You can be a 'liberal' and still be a Conservative or a Labour supporter in the UK depending on how you interpret your 'liberal' views politically. David Cameron (the current Tory leader) is a fairly liberal Conservative. One the most economically sound Conservative Chancellors (and one of the most popular and successful) we've ever had in this country is Ken Clarke- and he's without question a 'liberal', and yet a Conservative party member.

[cotoole]

I would also like to point out to you, going back over a few years on this forum, you have started a fair amount of posts (and threads) with insults. Along the lines of- Liberal morons, libtards, fucktards, idiots, etc etc. So, let's see if we can all avoid going there on this topic.

Mr. Dragon, I neither deny, or attempt to deny most of that charge. I don't think I used the terms libtards or fucktards, however. But, as I explained when I came back, that is one of the reasons I left, I was turning into one of the people I despise, who resorted to that kind of behavior to "debate".

Like anyone, I may get frustrated and slip up again from time to time, and if so, will apologize if and when I do. However, it is my aim to try to refrain from petty insults, and go back to the debating I used to love, and would love to find that others here will do the same.

And, Wakey, here, check out this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYL6Nvl3jI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27cXXirAIw4

Chris

[mr dragon]

I would also like to point out to you, going back over a few years on this forum, you have started a fair amount of posts (and threads) with insults. Along the lines of- Liberal morons, libtards, fucktards, idiots, etc etc. So, let's see if we can all avoid going there on this topic.

Mr. Dragon, I neither deny, or attempt to deny most of that charge. I don't think I used the terms libtards or fucktards, however. But, as I explained when I came back, that is one of the reasons I left, I was turning into one of the people I despise, who resorted to that kind of behavior to "debate".

Like anyone, I may get frustrated and slip up again from time to time, and if so, will apologize if and when I do. However, it is my aim to try to refrain from petty insults, and go back to the debating I used to love, and would love to find that others here will do the same.

That's absolutely cool with me Chris and I respect you saying that. I've not always been perfect either on here, and we all slip up from time to time. It's also natural for people in general to sometimes get irritated or heated when discussing things with other people they may completely disagree with- which ever side they're on. You and I have sometimes strongly disagreed on certain issues in the past, but I'm very happy to debate with you on a straight level using debating arguments rather than insults. I've never had cause to dislike you personally as a poster (as I don't think you have with me) on here, even when we've completely disagreed or view things in entirely different ways, and perhaps also rubbed each other up the wrong way sometimes.

[cotoole]

So, let's do it.

Sarah seems a fun place to start, I'll post a new thread, and let's try to stick to policy debating everyone, please.

Chris