People like this dictate the future of the planet.

[justanotherbozo]

Dude, I don't know where you get off telling people that everything they say that disagrees with you is either retarded or crazy. A lot of yours posts are equally if not more insane than half the posts you comment on. If you're going to say something at least have some merit to back it up.

you have to let it go man, some people are so convinced they're right,
they stop listening

[DaBudhaStank]

you have to let it go man, some people are so convinced they're right,
they stop listening

You do not fall in this category.




/sarcasm.

[bobthenuker]

You do not fall in this category.




/sarcasm.

Agreed, in my experience on this section of the board, this applies way more to the republicans than to anyone else. It's pretty funny they think that everyone else that does not agree with them is wrong and just a crazy "liberal." And don't try to deny that, it's been proven time and time again here.

[daihashi]

Agreed, in my experience on this section of the board, this applies way more to the republicans than to anyone else. It's pretty funny they think that everyone else that does not agree with them is wrong and just a crazy "liberal." And don't try to deny that, it's been proven time and time again here.

Both sides will try to insist they're right.. don't try to deny that :hippy:

[bobthenuker]

Both sides will try to insist they're right.. don't try to deny that :hippy:

Indeed, I was simply making a point. :thumbsup:

It's rather funny though how the word "liberal" just often flies around here, meant of course in a derogatory sense toward some Obama supporters.

That's politics for 'ya.

[Reefer Rogue]

I think the problem with the Ayers thing is that the McCain campaign is trying to make too much out of the connection. There just isn't much there. The notion that Obama "pals around with terrorists" is such an exageration, that you either buy it 100%, like McCain supporters seem to do, or you completely dismiss it out of hand. The truth is there is a little something there, but not much.

No one can excuse what Ayers did 40 years ago, and it would have been better if the prosecution had not blown it's case back then so the trial got thrown out. He should have served time for what he did.

Now it's 40 years in the past. Ayers may not be universally respected, considering his past, but he is certainly given a great deal of credit for the good things he has done in the past 40 years. He has enough credibility that he was asked to serve on the board of the Annenberg Project, funded by a strongly Republican family. He served on the board along with various diverse experts in education, including many prominent Republicans and Barack Obama. So I suppose if you want to say that Obama pals around with Ayers because they both served on this board, you might also have to admit that Obama pals around with the Annenbergs and a large number of prominent Chicago Republicans. And I guess those prominent Chicago Republicans also pal around with terrorists. And it makes sense too to conclude that the Annenbergs actually FUND the activities of terrorists. Perhaps Homeland Security ought to investigate the Annenbergs for their funding of terrorists!

The whole idea is stupid.

Does anyone believe in redemption? The idea that maybe someone could do something very bad, and then redeem themselves with a lifetime of good work? Apparently the Annenberg family does. Very Christian of them, if you ask me.

The idea that Obama is somehow stained by serving on the same board as Ayers is not only stupid, it is totally ineffective as a campaign strategy. No one seems to care except for those who are completely wrapped up in this election. Ordinary voters do not care. During the two weeks McCain spent hammering the topic, his poll numbers continued to drop. And from what I saw on the debate coverage on various news channels, people who watched the debate and were interviewed later felt like the Ayers topic was a waste of time, irrelevant, and confusing. It's a losing topic. With the economy burning to the ground, people look at this kind of BS and they think it is small and petty and irrelevant.

Even if it were relevant as a campaign issue, it is irrelevant to voters.

Couldn't have said it better. People want to hear about the real issues affecting their families, not fabricated claims that he 'pals around' with terrorists.

[daihashi]

Indeed, I was simply making a point. :thumbsup:

It's rather funny though how the word "liberal" just often flies around here, meant of course in a derogatory sense toward some Obama supporters.

That's politics for 'ya.

Well Majority of the people on this forum are liberal. That is undeniable also; furthermore the word liberal isn't derogatory.. it refers to people's approach to an issue. It is only offensive if you take it that way.

You don't see anyone getting upset when you call them conservative. Instead they eat it up with pride for the most part.

I am not a republican; well I would be if they actually followed the principles on which they were founded, but I would consider myself a conservative. Something which is important to differentiate.

Just as you can be liberal without being a democrat or an Obama supporter for that matter. Liberal wasn't considered negative in the 70's or early 80's.. It wasn't until people started taking offense to it that it became negative.

I say if you're liberal embrace it and be proud of it. By doing that you take power away from anyone trying to use it in a negative way.

[bobthenuker]

Well Majority of the people on this forum are liberal. That is undeniable also; furthermore the word liberal isn't derogatory.. it refers to people's approach to an issue. It is only offensive if you take it that way.

You don't see anyone getting upset when you call them conservative. Instead they eat it up with pride for the most part.

I am not a republican; well I would be if they actually followed the principles on which they were founded, but I would consider myself a conservative. Something which is important to differentiate.

Just as you can be liberal without being a democrat or an Obama supporter for that matter. Liberal wasn't considered negative in the 70's or early 80's.. It wasn't until people started taking offense to it that it became negative.

I say if you're liberal embrace it and be proud of it. By doing that you take power away from anyone trying to use it in a negative way.

buddy, buddy...we're on the same page, believe me, I just think you're really getting confused by what I'm saying. I Know that the term "liberal" isn't derogatory, just that I often see it being used in a negative connotation. Ex: liberal mumbo-jumbo, liberal jargon, etc... more often than conservative in fact...that's all I'm saying, nothing more.

[daihashi]

buddy, buddy...we're on the same page, believe me, I just think you're really getting confused by what I'm saying. I Know that the term "liberal" isn't derogatory, just that I often see it being used in a negative connotation. Ex: liberal mumbo-jumbo, liberal jargon, etc... more often than conservative in fact...that's all I'm saying, nothing more.

I understand what you were saying.. I was just I guess giving kindly advice at how to take away the negative connotation when someone tries to apply it in a negative way.

I don't particularly like when people try to attach negativity from liberalism even though I don't support that belief.. however I have no problem when someone labels another liberal when they really are.

what's really confusing is when a liberal denies he's liberal.

Screw it.. let's just be American's instead of this liberal/conservative crap. Makes things much simpler, lol.

[maladroit]

liberal is a dirty word in the united states...even democrat politicians scatter when they are accused of being liberal:

FactCheck.org: 'Lying' About Being Liberal?