A report describing a possible attack by unknown persons on an unknown date versus a direct report about a specific person (by his own father no less) who was allowed to board a plane. Geez, it's amazing how similar those two really are! 

What a moron!

It's easy for you to sit where you're at and presumptiously claim we're being arrogant and not look at your own faults. Why don't you either explain how I'm being arrogant (because I'm always open for self improvement - see: concession, open minded) - or get of your damn high horse.

You may claim you're an adult Doc, but your actions have shown immaturity and intolerance. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but perhaps you should stop and take a look at yourself - 'cause you're coming across as a hypocrit.

Yes, I respect the individual who can examine things from both sides. While he naturally has his bias, he's been able to be more unbiased than most here (save a few). then again, I guess that isn't hard.

Why thank you, despite your intention, your words imply that apparently you do believe that I think. Glad you caught on. Now, mind explaining why y'all are frustrated?

....

Whatever...

Nitro, quit it. You damn well know I meant the concept - which you have yet to grasp - of having the ability to concede points and think critically. Unfortunately, you've yet to show that you can think outside your narrow view of things, i.e. talking points.

If we're gonna get any shit done in this country, we need to start practicing that - NOT partisan bullshit. THAT is what got us here.

Glad you're again supporting the freedom of speach and belief. \s  >_>  (See, this...is why I am cynical...people. ) Nitro, it's a free net, and unless Brad kicks me off of here - I am free to express myself, just as you are allowed to express yourself. It's a free country, remember?

As usual, you don't listen...why am I not surprised? Nitro, just don't bother talking to me if you're going to be willfully close midned, and childishly point out and twist my comments. (Ex: Oh, you said XYZ...must mean you hate...ABC. When clearly it isn't true)

There's a difference in having educated and critical thought based opinions - I would rather debate/discuss with someone who is going to look past the label/partisanship, and to the issue. Can you do that?

*bows mockingly* Oh yes s'ah massah, yes s'ah. Praise the lord, the high and mighty masa' be giving me the freedom to be myself.  

Boy...do I feel priviliged. Thank you, really. \s

>_>

When you say partisan, do you mean like this example: "I'm a red assed baboon democrat because I'd vote for a baboon in estrus before I'd ever vote for anyone with an R after their name." -MF

Perhaps he just didn't get your Cum by ya lyrics sheet and you should re-send it. But you respect is duly noted:

I guess "both" must be the new "my" side. Read on for another "unbiased" example, worthy of your respect.

BTW I would challenge you to find any similar statement from anyone, myself included, that has posted to this article whom you claim to be partisan.

...and who is telling you not to? Express away. Just don't don't expect that just because you say it makes it so for anyone but you. Need a tissue?

You mean like the enlightened fellow that might say something like this: "You could also reasonably argue that I have seen enough of how republicans act over the course of my lifetime to have made the decision that no republican will ever represent my viewpoint." -MF

There's your open mind. I suppose the 80% GOP (vs  60% Democrat) vote in favor of the 1964 civil rights bill didn't conform to his viewpoint.

To be partisan, as you believe, I suppose I would have to support all republican initiatives, which is hardly the case. Of course minor stupidity in government will always take a backseat when major stupidity is in action. If they Democrats can come up with an idea that doesn't socialize something, nationalize industries, or waste taxpayer money I'd be happy to listen. Would I vote for a Democrat? If his/her actions were consistently conservative enough, sure just as quick as I wouldn't support a tax and spend Republican.

Don't worry Barry knows you love him.

Nitro.....See, you failed to agree with the child, so of course you are trying to stiffle his speech!  If you agree with  him, then you promoting free speech!  Any child can see that!

BUt most people do grow up and put away their childish things.  AJ and MF (Ommm!  There goes that curse word again) have yet to mature past the tit suckling stage.  Fortunately for them, there is no maturity test for voting so they will continue to vote as children.  Spoiled self important all knowing children.

Amazing that learning stops in the second grade for some people.

Now, we can wait for the obligatory "and so are you" childish retorts that waste space and add nothing.

LOL!  I would never have guessed MF is a racists, but as you point out by quoting him, he must be!

I can't find the exact quote but perhaps Nitro can since he's clearly up to date on quotes from threads that he's even unable to respond to, I know that must really annoy him but we all have our crosses to bear.

JU is a self selected set of rabid right wing nut jobs to whom anyone to the left of Ann Coulter is a socialist.

As I said I admit my biases and in fact revel in them. I have come to them over a lifetime of experience and I do in fact believe that I have earned them in each and every case.

There's nothing wrong with being a rabid right wing nut job, there's no real shortage of people fitting the stereotype. I'm sure you can phrase it in a far less derogatory way, that's fine, but you are lying to yourself if you think that your biases are any less fixed than mine.

wow!  As long as you guys are all having fun! 

I wonder if this is what the guys at the corner store talk about each morning warming their hands around  their cups of coffee? 

I slum for entertainment from time to time. Closed (to some) blogs are a great place to pick up some laughs so I'm hardly annoyed, quite the opposite in fact. Liberal elitism is all about exclusion after all.  Of course some might believe me a hypocrite, close minded or partisan if I only read conservative ramblings

Ah, appreciate the offer, but you'll have to do your own research.

More pscho-babble... I stated I'm a pompous, close minded liberal, you haven't written such, therefore you hide your rabid partisan beliefs!!! LOL You can't buy this kind of humorous material. A right-wing (nut) demon behind every corner! Confess to cleanse your soul, right? I'd call that paranoia.

BTW your quotes were for AJ's open mindedness lesson, since he respects yours so much. But thanks for bloviating.

I personally don't consider this original topic as slumming, , but you go ahead and slum your heart out since that's what you are here for.

Yet I believe you HAVE in the past, or at least have made mention of supporting one.

Not surprisingly that was not what anyone "here" wanted to hear, hence the vitriol in the responses that I have received notwithstanding how open minded and unbiased everyone "here" claims to be.

I'm sure all of Maddows's 26 viewers appreciate your post.

show it.

What would you expect when you compare apples and oranges. I believe the differences between the two events were pointed out. Second if the author referenced Hanity or some conservative opinion show, your video might have been warranted (if not for the flawed comparisons). You just wanted to stir the pot, I believe everyone here knows that.

I beleive he stated as much (slumming).  That is why I do not take him seriously, or factually.  Neither of them are capable of critical thought, just talking point rhetoric.

In posting that video, Mumblefratz, all you have done is shown that both sides are being hypocrites to which I agree.  I haven't seen you state in this forum that you also see the left being hypocrites as well.  Heck I remember the left screaming bloody murder about Bush because he continued to read from the book he was reading to a group of school children on 9/11 after being told about the plane crashes. 

Maybe it's just me but it seems to me that you are more interested in defending Democrats rather than admitting that really both parties have a bunch of hypocrites in them.  Am I right?

RE: On the matter of MF's "open-mindedness."

MF, like anyone else, has his/her share of bias, partisanry, and so on - he's human. (Welcome to the club man! \s) I did not intend to imply that MF is the be all and end all of open mindedness; no one can be, because bias is a fact of life.

Unfortunately, both due to my lack of detail on my original comment, and, I would venture to say, some folk's bias and "openmindedness," my comments were taken/understood contrary to what I meant.

My point, simply, is that MF has shown in what little I've seen here, to be more openminded than others. Again, I am not saying he/she is "the most openminded man in the world!!!" as a few have taken it. I guess in some ways it wasn't hard to not be more openminded, but then again - this is just my opinion.

~AJ

What if - hypothetically - there is a problem in the US ( ) and all options have been laid out. That said, with all the options looked at, and option A is found to be the best one - would you then reject it as a matter of ideology - versus accepting it because it will indeed solve the problem we face, if it had elements of socialilsm, or was totally socialistic.

Abstractly/hypothetically: I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's bugging me so I'm going to get it out. Purely based on hypotheticals, abstract, and wide, open thinking - lets look at the concept of socialism.

Is it only the concept of socialism that is bad, or more so the government's implimentation of it? We are mixed economy, which has socialism in it (fact). History has shown that when the government manages things well (oxymoron right?), things work. It's when government gets corrupt - that problems happen. (We saw it in the USSR with their attempts at communism; we saw it with various other events) Again, history has shown that pure socialism cannot work due to human nature.

Purely in a hypothetical world - where socialism would work - would you support it? What I'm getting at is looking at whether you are an individual who is soley an idealogue (i.e. I will only support what I believe is right, my way is the only right way, etc.), or someone who is willing to truly work (i.e. bend) toward the common goal of the management of america. My assumptions are pointing me towards the former.

Me? I'm the type of person who - while I have my principles and areas where I just will not bend - I am more than willing to compromise (give/take) in order to work toward (real) solutions; I'm willing to take a little bit here (conservativism), a little bit there (liberalism), and a dash of this (libertarianism) - if the end goal is something that will work.

I'm not sold on blind ideaology. (I try...)

Isn't one of the basic tenents of conservatism a balanced budget where taxes are low and spending is down - so as to balance the budge and be fiscally responsible? I  believe it is. That said (and I'm not intending to bash him or go with talking points ) - but didn't you support Bush?

As far as I know, Bush spent a lot of money, raised the natl. debt, which totally seems contrary to conservative ideaology.

(And yes, Obama has increased the national debt and so on - but the point is NOT to point fingers, pointing fingers gets us nowhere. I'm trying to look into the principles of the matter.)

~AJ

To be partisan, to me, is to completely and blindly accept your party (or ideaology's) beliefs and not: 1) Think outside the box you live in. 2) Be willing to work together (Not: I want it this way (90% their way) before I accept it - which would lead to the other party's support to bail...etc. Ex: I want a health care reform bill that has reform taken out of it...). The opposite of that, what I believe in - means essentially, that your loyalty and duty is not to idealogy, party politics, re-election, etc. - but to managing the US and doing what it takes to really make it work. Not, work the "republican" or "democrat" way.

I'll finish replying to the other points later; I have to head to bed so I can get up for classes tomorrow.

Nite and take care, ~AldericJourdain

I (big, dark-haired, bearded) always get searched when leaving Tel Aviv, probably because of my broken Hebrew (I don't live in Israel and rarely speak Hebrew in normal life).

I also have a talent for being searched in German airports. But they are trying to avoid searching Muslims and I now start each search with showing them my prayer book. Once they see a foreign-looking prayer book, the search ends. Every time. Weird.

How do Muslims feel in an aircraft when they haven't been searched and EVERYBODY thinks they are potential terrorists?

Yes socialism is bad because there is always someone that doesn't play nice, by the rules. They don't want equality, they want power. When this occurs, the peons have no say and usually no way to force the issue with their elitist overlords. This administration is making you dependent on it in order to survive, or have any semblance of a decent living.  The hypothetical you describe is not possible due to human nature. The only way to keep an alcoholic from getting drunk is to keep him from getting any or at least enough alcohol to succeed. You're optimistic to the point of naivety. Be optimistic, it's a good trait, but keep the whiskey out of the hands of the drunk. It's too late once he's loaded and beating your ass.

Bush lowered taxes. Those cuts will expire this year (the bottom tax rate will increase from 10% to 15%, so much for Obama not taxing the poor). I and many conservatives here, did not support the TARP payments (half of the 700 billion was given to the Obama administration) I believe you do not understand what tax and spend means. It's when money is raised via new taxes to increase the size of government through entitlement programs. Bush did allot of spending when the Democrats gained power in 2006, because they attached earmarks to everything that went before him. Democrats don't mention that now, it's all a revisionist history. Democrats wanted TARP badly (and the first stimulus, remember that one?), now they blame Bush for starting the spending, as they surpass what he spent like it was nothing. Bush was wrong then and the current madness is wrong now.

I supported Bush's foreign policy, the wars. certain education initiatives, including vouchers (look up the program that was removed in DC so kids have to go back to public schools, unlike the Obama children). BTW You might be surprsed to know, I never voted for Bush.

That's politics, and it is effective. We are seeing this administration making identical mistakes (in addition to new ones) to the last administration. Unfortunately shame and embarrassment seem to be the only way to get their attention, because they are not listening to the public.

That depends if they can detonate their bomb or not.

I did - both times.  I recognized Gore for what he was back then (why are all dem VPs such assholes?) and of course would never vote for Kerry because of his lies.  I voted enthusiastically the first time, but grudgingly the second.

Yeah, didn't vote for Gore or Kerry either.