AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of the
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people. I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does. The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club. (BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. But he isn't in the club. Sounds
a little childish.

Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

Paul

On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" He should have used the word
hypocricy.

I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz
The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. He hasn't done anything.
He's still campaigning.

Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. But he isn't in the club. Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.

Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. Correct.

I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave

On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:



On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything. *
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Correct.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave



Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Respectfully (for now),
Paul

" Respectfully (for now), Paul "

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

On Oct 10, 1:26*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? *Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

Dave:
I do not threaten anyone. Ever. I have no reason to disrespect you.
I am perfectly capable of allowing for the fact that you disagree with
me and still might be a perfectly decent, yet of course misguided,
human being. The "for now" was more an allusion to the reality that I
have noticed that occasionally some of these threads stray to the
absurd. Since we do not know one another, I just wanted to allow for
the possibility that I might have to adopt a less tactful tone. I am
sure it won't be necessary. I am currently enjoying the exchange.

I would find it difficult to join the Democratic Party (there is no
such thing as the Democrat Party...another silly tactic) as I am pro-
life to the degree of militancy and am fiscally conservative beyond
the bounds of any politician I am aware of in any party. While it may
seem that Ken Fortenberry and I may adopt similar stances on this and/
or other matters, I am pretty certain from the posts I have read, he
and I are miles apart philosophically. Even still, I can recognize
that he is coherent in his thought processes.

I am just saying that I have made the personal judgement that the lack
of intelligent thought in the controlling arm of the "conservative"
movement is astounding and I wish to have nothing to do with them. It
is an error in logic to assume I should join the Democratic Party
because I find Tea Party Protestors, Conservative Talk Show Hosts, and
the controlling apparatus of the party to be either deficient in
intellect or in excess of malice.

I did not state that I disliked O'Reilly. I simply stated that
conservatives were not in want of media outlets where they could
listen to their ideology being espoused. I rather like O'Reilly. I
believe he is by-and-large fair and seems to be a smart guy. I also
do not dispute that Reagan did far more than Obama has done and is
likely to do. I believe I mentioned that I DO believe there was a
message being sent in the award of this prize beyond Obama's
accomplishments.

Still Respectfully,
Paul

On Oct 10, 1:26*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? *Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

Dumbass.

Pig.

g.

On Oct 10, 9:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

Hello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

Moron.

g.