State of The Union play by play

Kerad

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Oh, please, say it is so and that Kerad will not have an Internet connection to bother us ever again. JPC, Sr. posts are so stupid, they are easily ignored. Kerad is like a flea. A great irritant. Good thing I am not the grand poobah of this board.

Poor baby....are you mad that someone may have a different opinion than your own? I know many Republicans can't handle opposing viewpoints...you are obviously one of those.

Last I checked, this is the "Politics" forum....not the "Only post here if you slurp Dubya and his party" forum. I know the overwhelming majority of you have a FOX News tattoo somewhere on your body, so you're not used to criticism. That's okay...you'll get used to it.

It's good to know I irritate you...it encourages me.

:yay:


That is all. For now.

You may now go back to your slurping.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad said:
Poor baby....are you mad that someone may have a different opinion than your own? I know many Republicans can't handle opposing viewpoints...you are obviously one of those.

Last I checked, this is the "Politics" forum....not the "Only post here if you slurp Dubya and his party" forum. I know the overwhelming majority of you have a FOX News tattoo somewhere on your body, so you're not used to criticism. That's okay...you'll get used to it.

It's good to know I irritate you...it encourages me.

:yay:


That is all. For now.

You may now go back to your slurping.
You are wrong again. You are good at being wrong.

I am a strict constructionist. The Republicans are too liberal for me.

Don't be encouraged. You are easily ignored.

The slurping sound you hear is nothing more than your brain being sucked out by the Democratic vacuum.
 

Kerad

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
You are wrong again. You are good at being wrong.

I am a strict constructionist. The Republicans are too liberal for me.

Don't be encouraged. You are easily ignored.

Which you most excellently demonstrate with your responses and unsigned karma :lmao:

I guess I'm not so easy to ignore after all, Genius.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad, I am not the sexist remark you left in your karma. You on the other hand, are not much of a person having to resort to such comments. Comments, I am sure you would not say in person. Just ask DoWhat.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad said:
Which you most excellently demonstrate with your responses and unsigned karma :lmao:

I guess I'm not so easy to ignore after all, Genius.
No karma from me as of late. And, yes, according to my IQ, that is something you finally got right.
 

Kerad

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
No karma from me as of late.

Oh...I guess it's just a coincidence of timing and location. If true, I apologize for calling you a "kittie" in my karma.

Ooops...you're forgetting to ignore me again. You should work on that.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad said:
Oh...I guess it's just a coincidence of timing and location. If true, I apologize for calling you a "kittie" in my karma.

Ooops...you're forgetting to ignore me again. You should work on that.
I said you are easy to ignore. I rarely turn my back to someone during a conversation no matter how I may think about them.
 

Kerad

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
I said you are easy to ignore. I rarely turn my back to someone during a conversation no matter how I may think about them.

That is a good trait.

But why would you have a conversation with someone you would like to ban from this forum? Wasn't that your implication earlier?

I've got things to do...so I've got to run. I know you'll miss me...but don't worry. I'll make it a point to irritate you soon enough. I'll have to study about "Constructionists"...never heard of you guys before. That way I can irritate you...specifically. :yay:

You shouldn't be so afraid of differing points of view. You might just learn something.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad said:
That is a good trait.

But why would you have a conversation with someone you would like to ban from this forum? Wasn't that your implication earlier?

I've got things to do...so I've got to run. I know you'll miss me...but don't worry. I'll make it a point to irritate you soon enough. I'll have to study about "Constructionists"...never heard of you guys before. That way I can irritate you...specifically. :yay:

You shouldn't be so afraid of differing points of view. You might just learn something.
:howdy: That's really a "bye" and not a "howdy". I also have a meeting to attend tonight and must sign off.

I find that much of what you post is not expressing a point of view but only ridiculing others' points of view. That is not acceptable behavior in my opinion even though it is done by many. Unacceptable behavior on a forum is met with banning.

I am not "afraid" of much of anything earthly.

The thing about debate is it very rarely, if ever, changes the opinion of the debaters, so if your opinion differs from mine, your opinion, no matter how you express it, will most likely not change my opinion. Debate is for the non participates. I have no need to debate. I express my opinion. People agree or they don't. :shrug: No skin off my nose either way.
 

willie

Well-Known Member
2ndAmendment said:
Kerad, I am not the sexist remark you left in your karma. You on the other hand, are not much of a person having to resort to such comments. Comments, I am sure you would not say in person. Just ask DoWhat.
Did you beat up DoWhat?
 

Kerad

New Member
willie said:
Did you beat up DoWhat?

Is beating up DoWhat endorsed by the Bible??? :confused:

Or..maybe just asking that question will make Ned Flanders want to banish me to Hades.

Not sure....
 
Last edited:

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kerad said:
Is beating up DoWhat endorsed by the Bible??? :confused:

Or..maybe just asking that question will make Ned Flanders want to banish me to Hades.

Not sure....
Ah. Here we go with the attack the Christian tactic. I was wondering when you would resort to that. It is always pulled by those that choose not to believe in the Bible because if they did believe they would have to admit that their life choices are not confirmed by scripture.

PM DoWhat and ask him how I treated him.
 

Kerad

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Ah. Here we go with the attack the Christian tactic. I was wondering when you would resort to that. It is always pulled by those that choose not to believe in the Bible because if they did believe they would have to admit that their life choices are not confirmed by scripture.

PM DoWhat and ask him how I treated him.

:drama:

"attack the Christian"???

Please point out where the "attack" in my post occured. Maybe you're one of those overly sensitive types who are always looking to be offended.
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
Kerad said:
:drama:

"attack the Christian"???

Please point out where the "attack" in my post occured. Maybe you're one of those overly sensitive types who are always looking to be offended.

I wouldn't have put it that way ... but it's a deflection from the argument. It's not uncommon (and I have no idea WHAT you believe) for some to challenge someone's adherence to Christian principles or belief in the Bible as a tactic to change the discussion to a personal one. And if you don't actually BELIEVE them yourself, it's disingenuous at best.

So it's not "attack the Christian" so much as it is, "attack the person by challenging him on his Christian beliefs". This is also known as ad hominem, or "to the man". It's not a good thing to try, because ad hominem attacks are usually the resort of persons who are LOSING an argument.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This stuff is SIMPLE...

MMDad said:
Don't forget supply and demand. If we have a million Kerad's going to Canada to get their little blue pill, the supplies dwindle and prices rise. All of this Canadian durg crap is a distraction from the real issue: How can we get reasonably priced drugs to consumers yet still allow enough profit incentives to the manufacturers so that they continue developing better drugs?
I don't have an answer, which is why I'm not in the library running for office.


Bruzilla and I covered this in our insurance conversation last week. His point is that if there is NO medical insurance, costs of EVERYTHING will come down to whatever the market, you and I, decide is acceptable, what we're willing to pay.

That sounds radical but it is true. You and I (most of us) don't pay for heart surgery or little blue pills; insurance does. If insurance is not paying for these things then all the other myriad costs associated with insurance, the whole food chain from lawyers to regulators, doctors, hospitals, nurses, office staff and so on and so forth dissapear.

How much would a bag of potato chips cost if you had some food plan at work that someone else paid for that also had that whole chain of people and entities involved, all looking to make a proft off of your chips?

Answer: Who cares? You don't ever see a bill. As far as you're concerned they cost whatever the co-pay is.

The true answer is that they'd cost a fortune compared to the market price that you and I are willing to pay now and people like Kerad would be loading up the Winnebago heading off to Moose Jaw to load up on cheaper Canadien chips if he didn't have a great insurance plan.

Now, my position is a compromise, somewhere in between. The full coverage insurance we have has resulted in the massively expensive system we have. Bruzillas plan is all the way the other way.

I say that a heart surgery is likely still gonna cost some pretty good change so, I want insurance that will cover the really expensive stuff and I will cover broken bones, dental, colds, flus, etc, etc.

I pay for that insurance level I choose. When we pay for things, market discipline works.

As it is, we have outstanding healthcare and medicine but it's all behind this wall of insurance which makes it a pain in the ass and way more expensive
than necessary.

The Kerads of the world only see the end result, not how we got here, so, it's easy to express that we have it wrong and Canada has it right. Canada has done nothing but subsidize. They haven't invented a pill or a precedure.

Simply take Kerads monthly insurance premium his company is paying and give it to him, if that is the case, and let him choose the type and level of insurance he wants, and pay for it. The market will then chase him and compete for him instead of the collusion of making deals with the government and big business and Canada.

We all know if someone else is paying for something for us, there is no free lunch. We gotta look past how cool our plan is and see the problems it makes for everyone else.
 

Kerad

New Member
Frank said:
I wouldn't have put it that way ... but it's a deflection from the argument. It's not uncommon (and I have no idea WHAT you believe) for some to challenge someone's adherence to Christian principles or belief in the Bible as a tactic to change the discussion to a personal one. And if you don't actually BELIEVE them yourself, it's disingenuous at best.

So it's not "attack the Christian" so much as it is, "attack the person by challenging him on his Christian beliefs". This is also known as ad hominem, or "to the man". It's not a good thing to try, because ad hominem attacks are usually the resort of persons who are LOSING an argument.

I didn't realize we were engaged in argument. He was the one who instigated our conversation, by referenceing something that had nothing to do with him and calling me an irritating flea.

It took me many minutes to get over the psychological damage that was done by that personal attack, but was finally able to muster enough inner strength to try and learn his motives.

Of course, his implied threat referring to something that may have occured between himself and "DoWhat" is interesting.

Isn't it funny how some people can get so torqued because someone publically expresses an opinion that differs from their own?

Downright Un-American...
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I supposse that's one way of putting it...

Kerad said:
Isn't it funny how some people can get so torqued because someone publically expresses an opinion that differs from their own?

Downright Un-American...


Your first comment and the one that 2a first responded to, correct me if I missed something, was:

You all had an incestuous orgy watching the "Prime Time Lies Special"..didn't you???

Differing opinion or irritating flea? Tonight on Hardball...
 

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
Your first comment and the one that 2a first responded to, correct me if I missed something, was:



Differing opinion or irritating flea? Tonight on Hardball...

Was it? I thought it was this:

Originally Posted by Kerad
Well..at least we have one honest statment from a Republican on the night.

It's a start!

That was posted in response to Pete's response to the "Prime Time Lies" remark. At least Pete responded with a bit of humor befitting my comment.

Regardless of the comment, it was 2A...not I...that started this "discussion". Which he started in a hostile manner.

Once again...why be so afraid of my opinions and/or irritating remarks?
If I were crashing a Republican's only forum, I would understand.


Oh well. This has been fun.



BTW...how come no one's started a thread celebrating Alito's first Supreme Court decision?

Oh....yeah. Ooops.

See ya! :howdy:
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
Kerad said:
Isn't it funny how some people can get so torqued because someone publically expresses an opinion that differs from their own?

Downright Un-American...

Actually, it's EXTREMELY American....if you mean, by the way Americans *behave*. Nothing gets Americans more p!ssed than a good disagreement in politics.

Well, unless you're *me*. I'm so used to being disagreed with, it has almost no effect on me anymore.

But I hope you're not trying to imply that this is solely a characteristic of the right. From my experience, the left is at LEAST equally guilty if not moreso - because unlike most conservatives I know - who recognize that "right" and "left" are the balancing of different political views - most on the "left" do not see their views as "left" at all, but belonging to the mainstream. Thus, there are their own "normal" views, and those of the right-wing loonies.

As a consequence, from their perspective, it's like sharing the stage with people who believe in a flat-earth or in the phlogiston theory. It's no longer a matter of "balance" - it's a matter of rational versus ridiculous. In such a situation, it's ok to ridicule their views, because it's no longer a matter of respecting equally valid ideas - because - from their perspective - they're not valid. From any viewpoint.

This is why those on the left can tell a Harvard president to shut the hell up because his views on gender are just "wrong" - but can support a University of Colorado professor for calling 9/11 victims a bunch of Eichmanns.

In THAT respect - I favor the conservatives, because as much as they detest liberal views, they recognize them as the 'balance' to their own.

On the other hand ---

BOTH sides have similar approaches to disparaging views of the other side of the aisle. They both attack *motives*.

Those on the left, believing their side is enlightened and rational and unhindered by religious prejudice, will claim the other side is racist, bigoted, ignorant, old-fashioned, and motivated by heartlessness and greed. They're dismissive of the other side - without any regard to the MERITS of the argument - because of a prejudging of the person.

Those on the right are equally culpable in this approach, believing the other side is blinded by embracing the latest fad, motivated by cowardice, lacking any moral restraint. They regard the other side as moral weaklings without a backbone, spiritual heathen without a conscience who use class warfare as a tool for their own ends.

Should I go on? We've heard it all before.

I'm not above this, even in person - because it's hard NOT to get provoked when your opponent has wandered off the path of rational argument.

But hopefully - ONLINE - we can ALL be better arguers, since we actually TAKE THE TIME to write things out. I know from experience I've deleted - and NEVER answered - about half of everything I've ever attempted online.
 
Top