The US Election...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 10 2004, 11:07 PM
Actually I wasn't calling the Guardian in particular the "fringe" but some of the other stuff you've posted that has no real anchor in proven reality.

Have you noticed you're pattern yet buddy?

I point out the article you posted had a fairly sharp axe to grind ... you rub O'Reilly in my face.

I point out that you always rub O'Reilly in my face regardless of the situation and you come back with "your hero O'Reilly"

I suggest you grow up and you take a run at Fox News.

I've heard of one trick ponies, but I'm not sure you're even that.

I honestly don't care if we agree Lanny, in fact I think I'd sleep better at night if we were held appart by a lot of real estate on the old opinion pole, but I don't feel the need to take a run at you or make pathetic jokes if I disagree with your opinion.

Why don't you try the same with me?

Well Bingo, here's the rub. I don't like your politics just as much as you don't like mine. You claim the stuff I post has no real anchor in reality, yet yours are so well grounded. The funny thing is that my stuff ends up being the reality while yours ends up being a complete pack of lies. You seem to believe that because a lot of people watch something that it makes it more credible. That is one of the most laughable positions I've seen. You seem to think that FoxNews is grounded in reality, which I do not. I think (and so do a lot of other people) FoxNews is the mouthpiece for the Republican party, taking their daily marching orders and talking points from scumbags like Karl Rove, and that the Bush Administration has bullied their way with the rest of the media in the past four years, controlling the amount of negative press they get on the premise of labelling something as unAmerican.

I bring up O'Reilly because you seem to think you have the right to call someone's opinion fringe. You are a big supporter of Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is a joke. Plain and simple he is a joke. He has no credibility. This is the guy that created himself through "A Current Affair" and "Inside Edition", the lowest of lows that investigative reporting has ever seen. He promotes himself as being an independent, yet he has registered as a Repulican (documentation has proved this). He likes to tell people that he is a "best selling author" but he garners that honor by selling his books for a dollar a copy to right wing book sellers. They guy is a creation of his own making and has zero credability. If it were not for his bombastic nature that Rupert Murdock loves, he would still be doing tabloid TV on some third rate cable station. O'Reilly, the creation, is as fringe as anyone else trying to scratch a living out in the media game. The difference is that he has a multi-billionaire media mogul giving him (and his like) air time across America.

Trust me, I'm glad we're on opposite extremes of this spectrum as well. I would never want to be associated with following the flock like you do. You seem to take great satisfaction at being part of the majority when it comes to what you think and wear it as a badge of honor. You've always been that way and have always gone which ever way the majority of the crowd went, straddling that fence as tightly as possible. I've bever known you to stand up on an issue. That isn't me and never will be. I have strong convictions and will stand up for them. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but that's the way it is. I try and respect your views, but when you come out and question one mine as being "fringe", yet hold FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly in such high regard, well that just isn't kosher IMO.

Oh, and speaking of growing up, you might consider doing some of that yourself. We live in a really complex world were people in power will normally abuse that power to their greatest advantage. You have to stop being so gullible and believing everything the media tells you, especially a certain media source and a self made media mouth piece. When the media starts using "talking points" to outline the days news, its time to start looking for "fringe" sources of information. Walk a mile in this "conspiracy theorists" shoes and see how different the world looks. You get to see, well in advance, that Bush and Company are pack of liers, that the excuses to get into Iraq are crap , that its all about money and power and that we are pawns in a game that we will never win. Of course you'll never hear that in the mainstream media but, as it turns out, its all true. Respect my "fringe" sources and I'll respect yours.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Five-hole+Oct 10 2004, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ Oct 10 2004, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 10:14 AM
I particularly enjoyed the posing of this question.....

"What should the world make of America and Americans if Bush wins?"

Yep, nothing like a bunch of people who don't live in your country generalizing about all of us based on the outcome of a single election.

Yes, how offensive for another country to impose on you like that. [/b][/quote]
Well I think we will be; if not generalizing, at least judging. It's not just a single election either is it. The past didn't exactly go smoothly, but not all do so that can be ignored. But, if knowing what you know about Bush and his team and the way he runs things, which is without the facts at best and at worst lying about them...if with heads up he is voted for, the world will be very judgemental. But then like Bush, his supporters probably won't care, likening that to weakness.
How do you expect the 350 million people of Europe to react when he derogatorily uses the term "appealing to the halls of Europe"?
Or Canadians when called (supposedly by mistake) third world in it's pharmacuticles (sp?)?
It's funny that what you might respect as being resolute and not sending mixed messages is looking to others like being a blood-thirsty war monger. If that's chosen, that is something to judge is it not? At the least 5-hole sumed it up nicely with his sarcastic remark, which this time I won't pounce on him for!

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 10 2004, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 10 2004, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Oct 10 2004, 11:07 PM
Actually I wasn't calling the Guardian in particular the "fringe" but some of the other stuff you've posted that has no real anchor in proven reality.

Have you noticed you're pattern yet buddy?

I point out the article you posted had a fairly sharp axe to grind ... you rub O'Reilly in my face.

I point out that you always rub O'Reilly in my face regardless of the situation and you come back with "your hero O'Reilly"

I suggest you grow up and you take a run at Fox News.

I've heard of one trick ponies, but I'm not sure you're even that.

I honestly don't care if we agree Lanny, in fact I think I'd sleep better at night if we were held appart by a lot of real estate on the old opinion pole, but I don't feel the need to take a run at you or make pathetic jokes if I disagree with your opinion.

Why don't you try the same with me?

Well Bingo, here's the rub. I don't like your politics just as much as you don't like mine. You claim the stuff I post has no real anchor in reality, yet yours are so well grounded. The funny thing is that my stuff ends up being the reality while yours ends up being a complete pack of lies. You seem to believe that because a lot of people watch something that it makes it more credible. That is one of the most laughable positions I've seen. You seem to think that FoxNews is grounded in reality, which I do not. I think (and so do a lot of other people) FoxNews is the mouthpiece for the Republican party, taking their daily marching orders and talking points from scumbags like Karl Rove, and that the Bush Administration has bullied their way with the rest of the media in the past four years, controlling the amount of negative press they get on the premise of labelling something as unAmerican.

I bring up O'Reilly because you seem to think you have the right to call someone's opinion fringe. You are a big supporter of Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is a joke. Plain and simple he is a joke. He has no credibility. This is the guy that created himself through "A Current Affair" and "Inside Edition", the lowest of lows that investigative reporting has ever seen. He promotes himself as being an independent, yet he has registered as a Repulican (documentation has proved this). He likes to tell people that he is a "best selling author" but he garners that honor by selling his books for a dollar a copy to right wing book sellers. They guy is a creation of his own making and has zero credability. If it were not for his bombastic nature that Rupert Murdock loves, he would still be doing tabloid TV on some third rate cable station. O'Reilly, the creation, is as fringe as anyone else trying to scratch a living out in the media game. The difference is that he has a multi-billionaire media mogul giving him (and his like) air time across America.

Trust me, I'm glad we're on opposite extremes of this spectrum as well. I would never want to be associated with following the flock like you do. You seem to take great satisfaction at being part of the majority when it comes to what you think and wear it as a badge of honor. You've always been that way and have always gone which ever way the majority of the crowd went, straddling that fence as tightly as possible. I've bever known you to stand up on an issue. That isn't me and never will be. I have strong convictions and will stand up for them. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but that's the way it is. I try and respect your views, but when you come out and question one mine as being "fringe", yet hold FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly in such high regard, well that just isn't kosher IMO.

Oh, and speaking of growing up, you might consider doing some of that yourself. We live in a really complex world were people in power will normally abuse that power to their greatest advantage. You have to stop being so gullible and believing everything the media tells you, especially a certain media source and a self made media mouth piece. When the media starts using "talking points" to outline the days news, its time to start looking for "fringe" sources of information. Walk a mile in this "conspiracy theorists" shoes and see how different the world looks. You get to see, well in advance, that Bush and Company are pack of liers, that the excuses to get into Iraq are crap , that its all about money and power and that we are pawns in a game that we will never win. Of course you'll never hear that in the mainstream media but, as it turns out, its all true. Respect my "fringe" sources and I'll respect yours. [/b][/quote]
What in the hell are you talking about?

I like to be with the majority? On what? American politics? I was never a Clinton fan for the 8 years he was in office, if I liked being with the majority I guess I couldn't count for the better part of a decade.

I come by my slight (it is slight believe it or not, I'm actually pretty leftist when it comes to social issues, but more right when it comes to governmental choices) right leanings naturally.

University professors, both for and against various issues, things I've read, people I've talked to. Bottom line, I've never swayed.

To say I've always sat on the fence, and never stood up to anyone or anything just shows you how wrapped up in yourself you must be. To anyone that knows me at all, including probably a 100 from this web site. That comment is just laughable.

Way to lay off the personal attacks amigo. A lesson I guess you've just never learned.

Not a thing in your last post rings true. Not a thing. I've barely posted on the off topic site when it comes to this stuff. I leave it alone for the most part because I've learned that when someone is left or right, they generally stay there (accept me of course, as you've pegged me as a fence sitting majority chaser - still shaking my head at that one).

Get a grip man ... I know you hate to be challenged, but if you can't keep it rational maybe you should just stay clear of people that don't cower in the midst of your childish 'net bullying.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 10 2004, 05:14 PM
I particularly enjoyed the posing of this question.....

"What should the world make of America and Americans if Bush wins?"

Yep, nothing like a bunch of people who don't live in your country generalizing about all of us based on the outcome of a single election.

"What should the world make of America and Americans if Bush wins?"

The world is certainly waiting for the USA election. Its like there's a sort of limbo land thing going on.

It seems clearly in the interests of the global community, even if it disagrees with the rationale of war with Iraq, to help stabilize it, as per the comments of the German secret service head a few days ago.

But the election has to happen first before anyone is going to lift a finger to help GW Bush in Iraq but after the election, even if he's the guy, the frost might necessarily have to thaw a bit for everyone's interests. Maybe.

If John Kerry is elected . . . . all might be forgotten in an instant. I don't think he would run into huge opposition if he made a genuine attempt to internationalize Iraq. Republican commentators seem to be fond of saying lately that France and Germany have already said they wouldn't send troops to Iraq no matter who the President is.

But he has his own prickly points. Kerry seems to be in favour of halting outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and those countries, which include Canada, might not look on that with amusement. He seems to be in favour of crippling cheap drugs for Canadians by opening the border and driving demand through the roof. He appears to be likely to be more of a protectionist president than GW Bush and one wonders how that would wash with some key allies.

He might not even be able to put together a "Coalition of the Coerced and the Bribed" himself by the time he's done!!

My rambling thoughts.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 11 2004, 02:11 AM
What in the hell are you talking about?

I like to be with the majority? On what? American politics? I was never a Clinton fan for the 8 years he was in office, if I liked being with the majority I guess I couldn't count for the better part of a decade.

I come by my slight (it is slight believe it or not, I'm actually pretty leftist when it comes to social issues, but more right when it comes to governmental choices) right leanings naturally.

University professors, both for and against various issues, things I've read, people I've talked to. Bottom line, I've never swayed.

To say I've always sat on the fence, and never stood up to anyone or anything just shows you how wrapped up in yourself you must be. To anyone that knows me at all, including probably a 100 from this web site. That comment is just laughable.

Way to lay off the personal attacks amigo. A lesson I guess you've just never learned.

Not a thing in your last post rings true. Not a thing. I've barely posted on the off topic site when it comes to this stuff. I leave it alone for the most part because I've learned that when someone is left or right, they generally stay there (accept me of course, as you've pegged me as a fence sitting majority chaser - still shaking my head at that one).

Get a grip man ... I know you hate to be challenged, but if you can't keep it rational maybe you should just stay clear of people that don't cower in the midst of your childish 'net bullying.

Sure thing Bingo. What ever you say. You never sit on the fence, you always take sides and you always fight the good fight. What ever lets you sleep at night. You have always, even as far back to Slam days, been on the fence. When ever it came to a controversial subject, like firing a coach or trading a player, there you would be, sitting with that now famous fence picket lodged in your ass. You've always been "a middle of the road" guy when tough subjects come up. You've always argued from a middle position and taken middling posityion when possible. Look back at any of the discussions about firing coaches and GMs for proof. I can't comment on your habits politically because we've only discussed politics a couple of times. I guess that is wy I was so shocked to hear you pick a right wing wacko like Bill O'Reilly as your favorite pundit. He is as far from center as you can get without knocking Ann Clouter off the right side of the teeter totter. And yeah, I'm just a big 'net bullie. I just muscle my way through arguments. I never bring a plethora of reasoning nor present evidence to support my argument (no matter how "marginal" or "fringe" you like to categorize it). I just engage and attack. What ever you say big fella.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 10 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 10 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Oct 11 2004, 02:11 AM
What in the hell are you talking about?

I like to be with the majority? On what? American politics? I was never a Clinton fan for the 8 years he was in office, if I liked being with the majority I guess I couldn't count for the better part of a decade.

I come by my slight (it is slight believe it or not, I'm actually pretty leftist when it comes to social issues, but more right when it comes to governmental choices) right leanings naturally.

University professors, both for and against various issues, things I've read, people I've talked to. Bottom line, I've never swayed.

To say I've always sat on the fence, and never stood up to anyone or anything just shows you how wrapped up in yourself you must be. To anyone that knows me at all, including probably a 100 from this web site. That comment is just laughable.

Way to lay off the personal attacks amigo. A lesson I guess you've just never learned.

Not a thing in your last post rings true. Not a thing. I've barely posted on the off topic site when it comes to this stuff. I leave it alone for the most part because I've learned that when someone is left or right, they generally stay there (accept me of course, as you've pegged me as a fence sitting majority chaser - still shaking my head at that one).

Get a grip man ... I know you hate to be challenged, but if you can't keep it rational maybe you should just stay clear of people that don't cower in the midst of your childish 'net bullying.

Sure thing Bingo. What ever you say. You never sit on the fence, you always take sides and you always fight the good fight. What ever lets you sleep at night. You have always, even as far back to Slam days, been on the fence. When ever it came to a controversial subject, like firing a coach or trading a player, there you would be, sitting with that now famous fence picket lodged in your ass. You've always been "a middle of the road" guy when tough subjects come up. You've always argued from a middle position and taken middling posityion when possible. Look back at any of the discussions about firing coaches and GMs for proof. I can't comment on your habits politically because we've only discussed politics a couple of times. I guess that is wy I was so shocked to hear you pick a right wing wacko like Bill O'Reilly as your favorite pundit. He is as far from center as you can get without knocking Ann Clouter off the right side of the teeter totter. And yeah, I'm just a big 'net bullie. I just muscle my way through arguments. I never bring a plethora of reasoning nor present evidence to support my argument (no matter how "marginal" or "fringe" you like to categorize it). I just engage and attack. What ever you say big fella.

[/b][/quote]
Like I said ... I guess the just proves you've been too busy blustering to really pay attention to what anyone else is doing.

Why don't you look in the old index and read my scathing article the day Button was fired and replaced by Sutter. Don't think you'll find much fence sitting in that one. Too funny that your big example can be easlity refuted with a link that took me about 10 seconds to find.

Flames Going in Circles

When it comes to other hockey topics how can you miss not being somewhat central in issues when you've got Chicken Littles like yourself on one extreme and others to be held nameless that think all is for ever more rosy. The middle is all that is left.

Some other issues ...

When have I ever named a favourite pundit? That's just you putting words in my mouth again. I don't know if I have a favourite pundit, but if I did he would have to be somewhat right of center, agreed.

Just because you have links doesn't make you any less of a bullly man ... I've never had a disagreement with you without your tissue drive by or other personal attacks. That's you ... if it doesn't go your way or if someone disagrees with you ... insults.

Your history is there for everyone to see.

The funny thing in this is for a guy that claimed to be conservative but has spouted leftist drivel for months calling anyone a fence sitter.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 11 2004, 07:34 PM

The funny thing in this is for a guy that claimed to be conservative but has spouted leftist drivel for months calling anyone a fence sitter.

When you look at the evolution of liberal and conservative ideology, at least when it comes to foreign policy, modern liberals, classic conservatives, and even libertarians have more common ground than with neo-conservatives.

This is also why many classical conservatives are finding it hard relate to Bush, whose foreign policies are not traditionally viewed as "conservative". Ironically, it were "liberals" back in the 19th and early 20th century that subscribed to nation building and instilling societal values in foreign cultures. Somewhere along the lines, the two ideologies traded off and now there is a branching in conservative ideology.