Monday, February 8, 2010 9:04:02 PM
I'm sure you won`t read this, but I felt compelled to say something. I feel like I stated what I meant pretty clearly, you just misinterpreted it. But that`s really beside the point. I can`t leave my house because of the huge blizzard on the east coast. This argument has taken up a fair amount of my time, so thanks for staying with it this long, Ollie.
Monday, February 8, 2010 8:41:02 PM
ElDavo, arguing with you is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. You can's say what you mean, and you don`t mean what you say. I give up. Have a good life, and remember, voting isn`t cool.
Monday, February 8, 2010 1:39:37 PM
And finally: Liberals agree with liberals on every issue. I agree with liberals only on some issues. Liberals disagree with conservatives on every issue. I do agree with conservatives on some issues. How in the hell does that make me a liberal? You keep trying to lump me in with liberals because I have no convictions, but if that were true, why would I keep coming back to argue with you? I think the real reason is that it stems from your own ignorance (surprise!). I'm not with you HERE, so I must be against you EVERYWHERE. I`m not saying only Republicans do that, it`s an issue that plagues both sides of the aisle. I`m an independent because I know when good ideas are good, whether they`re right or left. That doesn`t make me a liberal, it makes me a logical thinker. The "courage of my convictions" comes in resisting the urge to lean one way or the other on every issue without thinking first. Unlike you, I know neither side is right all the time.
Monday, February 8, 2010 1:28:51 PM
Part 3: GJ said the members of the teabag movement are sheltered. Yes, that's an insult. He said they wouldn`t have pick the teabag as a symbol if they were in touch with the common people and knew what "teabagging" was. He didn`t say the teabag was a bad symbol of freedom or civil disobedience or whatever. You thought he did instead of reading his actual post and then defended the symbol against attacks that weren`t made. The argument was started when you began yelling about liberals and insults and slanders and circle jerks and whatever. Then you tried to blame GJ for starting it. He said something that was true and you didn`t even try to deny it. How COULD he have started the argument? I wouldn`t have said anything but when theos ask to "chill on the political rants" you blamed GJ for everything. I`m just tired of people trying to blame their way out of responsibility for everything. It happens on both sides, and I`m only defending GJ because you did it this time