Moderateman Moderateman

POOR babies, did I hurt your feelings?

▼

POOR babies, did I hurt your feelings?

Liberals just don't get it

from JoeUser Forums
I have been wondering what is it about my blog that seems to raise the ire of so many liberals.

I mean if you call me a racist, I care not one whit, because the truth is I am not one.

If you say I beat my wife, it bothers me not, why you ask? Because I don’t beat her.

Simple huh?

It seems to me when I post something about how whiney cry babyish you are, if the shoe doesn’t fit WHY are you responding in the negative?

Maybe on some level YOU are starting to see how YOU behave and me putting it out there for the world to see upsets your little feelings.

So when I post something that upsets you, stand back and LOOK AT YOURSELF, cause we all know that saying “truth hurts” huh?

Stop behaving like little girly men and I won’t have anything to blog about, simple huh? You can get rid of me just by simply stop being obstructionist people< rid yourself of this demon {me} by ridding yourselves of the demons within.

Face it you had your chance at changing America and all you did was weaken her.
Much as I loved bill Clinton, his weak ass foreign policy told the terrorist we were weak, and easy pickings for them.

Do you really think if we had a strong policy those little bearded men would have dared attack us?

When they bombed our embassies YOU did nothing, when they bombed the USS Cole, you did nothing except to embolden them to more and more destruction.

Now the enemy sees how you are at odds with My President, and are further empowered by your very words and behavior, they do not see anti war protesting as strength, the terrorist see it as WEAKNESS, why can’t you see it that way?

So when you see what someone here likes to call an “ad hominem” attack and it draws some blood, don’t blame me, blame your own behavior and attitude.

It’s kind of hard to make a point about what you consider MY bad or twisted views, when YOU resort to name calling on a PERSONAL level, while I just generalize. {Thank you to nj for pointing that out to me}, I have neither slandered nor libeled anyone here, just your party or political stances {as I see them}

SO if I hurt your little feeling, GET OVER IT! And get over my blog name too……….MODERATEMAN>>>
politics
11,893 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
and you wonder why I think you are full of hate. I will have my opinions, you have yours. I do not need to be horse whipped into agreement with you.


please feel free to think what you will while good men and women die to give you that right. and the horse whipping is to get you to think your actions thru... not to stop them or to think as I do.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would gladly lay my life down! would you?It depends on the conditions. Why die now to end a war if it will only start again tomorrow? I can do more good working for peace alive than dying for a five minute respite in war.


well of course you have conditions, all liberals love codicils, adendems, amendments. anything to stall AN ANSWERE of a simple question.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Clinton was critical to the Good Friday Agreement. He made a crucial call at the last minute before negotiations were finalized and sealed the deal. In addition, the negotiations would have gone no where if it weren't for George Mitchell. You can not deny a Clinton success here. The process was working through the end of the Clinton presidency. The fact that Bush did not engage the Troubles with the same vigor as Clinton did should not reflect on Clinton's foreign policy, but Bush's.

Shades, first, like you told Moderateman, I will tell you.  You cant tell me what to believe.  So while you may disagree with my assessment of clinton, you cant tell me I can not deny a sucess there. I can.  YOu just dont agree with me.

Next, I gave him a maybe.  I did not say anything about Bush, so I dont know where you got that from.  My Maybe is from the knowledge that NI had already made termendous strides towards peace, and I question (but note I do not deny) whether they could have made it without Clinton or not.  That is why he gets a maybe.

And finally, I did not call him weak assed.  I said his foreign policy sucked.  And I would even give you a sucess or 2 that he had, but that woudl not negate the scores of failures, blown deals, double dealing and lost secrets that he oversaw.

I dont like the man personally, and I think he tainted the office of president with his lying and sexcapadaes.  But I never said he was not a bad domestic president.  On the contrary, I think he did a decent job there.  But he also was a lousy foreign president. He saw how Bush I lost the presidency for ignoring the domestic side, while earning many accolades as one of hte better foreign policy presidents.  He knee jerked 180 degrees from that.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
if you think the seals, force recon, green berets and delta force are not trained in a form of terrorism, your much more unconcious than I thought.


You've missed my point--which is merely an argument in semantics--the US army would likely say that it is trained in warfare, and combatting terrorism, not engaging in it.

GOOD liberal non answere shades.


well of course you have conditions, all liberals love codicils, adendems, amendments. anything to stall AN ANSWERE of a simple question.


Moderateman, I am done. I tried to engage you in a debate where I honestly answered your questions. You might not likely my answer, but that doesn't mean that I didn't answer them. No, I would not die tomorrow if I wasn't assured that the peace would be lasting--how is that not an answer.

You have convinced yourself that you are 100% right and do no wrong. On this one thread, posters have suggested that I should "die in my sleep with my peace sign," and be "horse whipped,"--but you say I'm the one who doesn't know how to engage a debate.

please feel free to think what you will while good men and women die to give you that right.


May I add that while I am happy that you served your country in Vietnam, do not for one minute think that you are the only person to make a sacrifice for this country. You don't know me from Adam, yet you assume that those men and women who are fighting aren't my family, my loved ones, my sacrifices as well. You are wrong. My father served in the US Army to guarantee that his children had a certain type of life--what a dishonor to him if I were to sit idly by, biting my lip, keeping quiet, and failing to acknowledge that our family's sacrifices were for nought because we were too scared to voice our opinions.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have convinced yourself that you are 100% right and do no wrong. On this one thread, posters have suggested that I should "die in my sleep with my peace sign," and be "horse whipped,"--but you say I'm the one who doesn't know how to engage a debate.please feel free to think what you will while good men and women die to give you that right.


let me see from that statement if I agree I am obnoxious, If I disagree I am being hardheaded, great painting me in a corner shades I applaud you.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shades, first, like you told Moderateman, I will tell you


Fair enough point--my apologies--it was more a writing style than an actual belief that you couldn't deny it--sorry for the confusion.

My Maybe is from the knowledge that NI had already made termendous strides towards peace, and I question (but note I do not deny) whether they could have made it without Clinton or not. That is why he gets a maybe.


What strides toward peace are you talking about? (And I talked about Bush because that is when the peace process turned sour--I am allowed to bring new evidence into a discussion, am I not? )

And finally, I did not call him weak assed

No, that was the term used in the original article--the term I was trying to refute. Like I said, I don't think that Clinton was perfect, but I don't think he was "weak assed," or that all of his foreign policy sucked. Some if it did (Rwanda jumps to mind), but I think foreign policy is too intricite to say it either "sucked" or didn't. He had sucky aspects, but he also had some brilliant moments--that was the only point I was getting at.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
let me see from that statement if I agree I am obnoxious, If I disagree I am being hardheaded


I'm not painting you into a corner--I'm asking you to debate fairly. I don't name call or wish ill on people, and I don't enjoy debating with people who do.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Part of engaging in rational discourse is for al epople to answer the questions put forth, as is, not how you see it. It really was a simple question. here it is again if full.

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
will continue to honor the tradition of my country and voice my dissent when it occurs and you can continue to be afraid of terrorists.


good shades never stop. that's what being free is all about, just accept it has an adverse affect. ok?

I am not hardly afraid of terrorist, what are they going to do, kill a sick ol man, already tired. I have had my time in the sun, and the dark too, If my life would stop this war and the senseless destruction by religious maniacs and KEEP america safe , I would gladly lay my life down! would you?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005let me see from that statement if I agree I am obnoxious, If I disagree I am being hardheadedI'm not painting you into a corner--I'm asking you to debate fairly. I don't name call or wish ill on people, and I don't enjoy debating with people who do.


I have not name called any person here anything, just calling liberlas on their behavior and outcomes.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005


And finally, I did not call him weak assed. I said his foreign policy sucked. And I would even give you a sucess or 2 that he had, but that woudl not negate the scores of failures, blown deals, double dealing and lost secrets that he oversaw.


I called my guy bills policies "weakassed" and I stand by that.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

What strides toward peace are you talking about? (And I talked about Bush because that is when the peace process turned sour--I am allowed to bring new evidence into a discussion, am I not?

Fair, enough, you caught me in the same mis-writing style.  YOu did bring him in, and I will agree he has not paid Northern Ireland any attention.

As to the progress, the main one is in the diminished stature and resources that the terrorist organization, on both sides of the conflict are getting.  Peace does not come at the point of a gun, but in the hearts and minds of the people and that is a tremendous step in the right direction.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman--may I suggest you try re-reading?

here it is again if full.

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
will continue to honor the tradition of my country and voice my dissent when it occurs and you can continue to be afraid of terrorists.


good shades never stop. that's what being free is all about, just accept it has an adverse affect. ok?

I am not hardly afraid of terrorist, what are they going to do, kill a sick ol man, already tired. I have had my time in the sun, and the dark too, If my life would stop this war and the senseless destruction by religious maniacs and KEEP america safe , I would gladly lay my life down! would you?


My first response:
It depends on the conditions. Why die now to end a war if it will only start again tomorrow? I can do more good working for peace alive than dying for a five minute respite in war.


Since my language was unclear--let me translate--my answer is, I don't know, it depends. You might not like that for an answer, but it is still an answer.

Then, I answered your question again, here:

No, I would not die tomorrow if I wasn't assured that the peace would be lasting--how is that not an answer.


I have not name called any person here anything, just calling liberlas on their behavior and outcomes.


I'm sorry, when did "cry baby" stop being a name? When was it ok to say that someone should "die in their sleep" or be "horse whipped"? Or to imply that I am ungrateful for sacrifices made by US soldiers. Were those comments meant to be funny? Because they weren't.

You were calling people on their behavior, and I commented that it was illogical to blame dissenters for terrorists' actions--but you called that a nonanswer. You didn't respond to my comment about the destruction of Beruit either--but you dont' seem me running around screaming "typical conservative nonanswer."

Your blog, your right to run it as you see fit...and your right to pretend that is a bastion of moderate thinking. And my right to stop frequenting it.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
ludicris


Shades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005if you think the seals, force recon, green berets and delta force are not trained in a form of terrorism, your much more unconcious than I thought.You've missed my point--which is merely an argument in semantics--the US army would likely say that it is trained in warfare, and combatting terrorism, not engaging in it.


and from the point of a jihadis view they aRE PATRIOTS AND GOOD members of the muslim community, stopping america the great satan. get it yet?
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok shades we can agree to disagree. I respect your point of view and will fight unto death to let you have it.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005ludicrisShades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?


uh uh uh.... no correcting anybodies spelling here. its a spelling police freezone. lol
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
As to the progress, the main one is in the diminished stature and resources that the terrorist organization, on both sides of the conflict are getting. Peace does not come at the point of a gun, but in the hearts and minds of the people and that is a tremendous step in the right direction.


Agreed, but I would argue that Clinton's presence in the mid to late 90s is what helped to bring the hearts and minds around. They had to see that someone of stature was supporting the process for them to fully engage. There is a lot to be lost if a peace process fails--sometimes more than if the process hadn't been started in the first place. Clinton's presence assured people that the negotiations were going forward that the desire to reach a settlement was real. Sunningdale and the Downing Street Declaration both failed...so there was something unique about GFA that made it stick. I personaly think that it was the influence of an American presidency.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?


Thanks for pointing out my mistake--I am sure you've never made one in your life.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005As to the progress, the main one is in the diminished stature and resources that the terrorist organization, on both sides of the conflict are getting. Peace does not come at the point of a gun, but in the hearts and minds of the people and that is a tremendous step in the right direction.Agreed, but I would argue that Clinton's presence in the mid to late 90s is what helped to bring the hearts and minds around. They had to see that someone of stature was supporting the process for them to fully engage. There is a lot to be lost if a peace process fails--sometimes more than if the process hadn't been started in the first place. Clinton's presence assured people that the negotiations were going forward that the desire to reach a settlement was real. Sunningdale and the Downing Street Declaration both failed...so there was something unique about GFA that made it stick. I personaly think that it was the influence of an American presidency.


my guy bill is an engageing mo-fo, and yes he helped turn the worlds view of america around alot.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Peace comes from strength.. not weakness shades, you/me/they are only willing to be peacefull when the alternative is to horrendous to think about. and we still war....
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005Peace comes from strength.. not weakness Agreed.


see I am agreeing with you, you with me... we do have a common ground to work with.