View Full Version : The neocons are getting more emotional!
Has anyone noticed that the postings made by Neocon Steve and his not so merry band of neoconites are becoming little more than emotional outbursts?
Sorry, I'm a little verklempt, talk amoungst yourselves.
W3MIV
02-26-2008, 05:02 PM
Has anyone noticed that the postings made by Neocon Steve and his not so merry band of neoconites are becoming little more than emotional outbursts?
When intellect fails, emotion must suffice. That is the theory, anyway; in practice, everything fails, as the briefest examination of those posts make clear.
KG4JYD
02-26-2008, 06:26 PM
When intellect fails, emotion must suffice. Wow, you just summed up modern day "liberalism" :D
W3MIV
02-26-2008, 06:38 PM
Wow, you just summed up modern day "liberalism" :D
No, as usual, you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Liberals, even when they are wrong, are usually quite tightly focused and unemotional, whereas, as you have clearly demonstrated in post after post of ad hominem deprecations of opponents to your posts, it is the libertarian fringers who wax overly emotional.
BTW, how's the Paulista campaign going? Above fourteen lost souls yet?
Wow, you just summed up modern day "liberalism" :D
Yeah, seems to be right on. Hillary is now doing exactly that to Obama (the muslim candidate).
K2WH
kc2orw
02-26-2008, 07:24 PM
Wow, you just summed up modern day "liberalism" :D
I recall Paul supporters throwing snowballs at a nitwit if that isn't emotionalism nothing is. :D
KG4JYD
02-26-2008, 08:28 PM
I recall Paul supporters throwing snowballs at a nitwit if that isn't emotionalism nothing is. Do you know for a fact they were Ron Paul supporters? :rolleyes:
When intellect fails, emotion must suffice. That is the theory, anyway; in practice, everything fails, as the briefest examination of those posts make clear.
Have you been reading the Democratic Party playbook again?
KG4JYD
02-26-2008, 08:29 PM
Liberals, even when they are wrong, are usually quite tightly focused and unemotional, You are clueless. Most modern day liberals have good intentions. Save the whales, feed the children, peace everywhere, etc.... Complete emotionalism.
kc2orw
02-26-2008, 08:34 PM
Do you know for a fact they were Ron Paul supporters? :rolleyes:
No but a number of them here seem to project that level of emotionalism here. At least they did until they finally succumbed to the idea that Ron Paul wasn't going to win :D
Now we barely see them around anywhere I suppose some might even be embarrassed at the emotionalism they displayed :D
Wow, you just summed up modern day "libertarianism" :D
Fixed that fer ya.
Notice how the Ronettes have been as catty as a spurned bride left at the altar lately??
Has anyone noticed that the postings made by Neocon Steve and his not so merry band of neoconites are becoming little more than emotional outbursts?
When you're running on fumes and it's still February, that's pretty bad. Worse yet, they're letting ex-Paulbot Matt hold the bag.
;)
ad4mg
02-26-2008, 09:37 PM
Has anyone noticed that the postings made by Neocon Steve and his not so merry band of neoconites are becoming little more than emotional outbursts?
It's a completely expected, human response. Frustration, impending defeat, and having to face the truth of the damage done this nation by neocons elicits this type of response.
Perhaps they will relinquish control of the republican party back to the real conservatives, and the country will again flourish. Long term prosperity is impossible with the fiscal irresponsibility shown by the neocons. It's as if they haven't a clue how to react to the results of their 7 year borrow and spend, spend, spend policies.
Remember when things get worse for middle class america to thank the neocons.
All lower case spellings above intentional to indicate the lack of respect our country has these days worldwide, and the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.
I see 4 years of democratic control coming up, which may moderate things, but they offer no solution either. I'm praying for the return of the real conservatives to the republican party. Real recovery is going to be painful, but that's the way it is.
See signature for further clarification.
N3ATS
02-26-2008, 11:17 PM
When you're running on fumes and it's still February, that's pretty bad. Worse yet, they're letting ex-Paulbot Matt hold the bag.
;)
How can Matt hold Obama? Is he strong enough?
You are clueless. Most modern day liberals have good intentions. Save the whales, feed the children, peace everywhere, etc.... Complete emotionalism.
If "save the whales" means caring about the environment, if "feed the children" means taking care of those who cannot help themselves, if "peace everywhere" means not invading sovereign countries based on lies, then sign me up. If you care to try to demean and degrade such things by putting pejorative labels on them such as “complete emotionalism”, then you are indeed a fool.
Bush's stupid war has had a terrible effect upon this country. He has caused the national debt to go out of sight, he has been directly responsible for the loss of life to thousands both in this country and Iraq, he has been directly responsible for the maiming and disfigurement of many more thousands. He has caused this country's respect in the world to reach never before lows. He has burdened our children and grandchildren with staggering debt that will continue to lower our standard of living for generations to come. He has preached fear over and over to the point where he has somehow hoodwinked Congress into trampling the Constitution. While there are those of us who are emotional about what he has done to damage this great country, to try and dismiss it with pejorative labels shows a complete lack of understanding.
W3MIV
02-27-2008, 12:17 AM
If "save the whales" means caring about the environment, if "feed the children" means taking care of those who cannot help themselves, if "peace everywhere" means not invading sovereign countries based on lies, then sign me up. If you care to try to demean and degrade such things by putting pejorative labels on them such as “complete emotionalism”, then you are indeed a fool.
He has proven that time and again.
Preserving a clean environment to pass on to future generations is a goal worthy of emotion. So, too, the assurance that every child has a chance to grow strong and healthy and achieve a solid education is another goal worthy of emotion. And of what use is a pristine environment for future generations of wholesome children if there be no peace in which they may prosper?
KG4JYD
02-27-2008, 12:39 AM
If "save the whales" means caring about the environment, if "feed the children" means taking care of those who cannot help themselves, if "peace everywhere" means not invading sovereign countries based on lies, then sign me up. If you care to try to demean and degrade such things by putting pejorative labels on them such as “complete emotionalism”, then you are indeed a fool.
"Saving the wales" is impractical.
"Feeding the children" is impractical
They are both very good ideas with good intentions. But neither can be done at the end of a gun which is how government would do it. Private charities and organizations are great for this sort of thing, but getting the government involved will more than likely make the problem much worse or even create other problems.
Many liberals want to legislate and regulate their good intentions into law. That's the same as the religious conservatives who want to enact their beliefs into law. Both are flawed ideologies.
Bush's stupid war has had a terrible effect upon this country. I agree that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and is a drain on the already indebted treasury.
He has caused the national debt to go out of sight,uhh - Congress has the ultimate purse strings.
he has been directly responsible for the loss of life to thousands both in this country and IraqAnd the military is volunteer. Everyone had a choice when they signed up.
he has somehow hoodwinked Congress into trampling the Constitution. They were doing that loooooong before GW was born. Lincoln was one of the first and worst followed by Teddy, FDR, Wilson, Johnson, GW1 Clinton and GW2.
n7rjd
02-27-2008, 12:40 AM
You are clueless. Most modern day liberals have good intentions. Save the whales, feed the children, peace everywhere, etc.... Complete emotionalism.
So to carry good intentions is to be overly emotional? You might want to hang onto that thought. You never know when you might need something to bring up at a group therapy session.
AE6IP
02-27-2008, 12:45 AM
You are clueless. Most modern day liberals have good intentions. Save the whales, feed the children, peace everywhere, etc.... Complete emotionalism.
Thank you for being an example of why there is no meaningful dialog in American politics.
KG4JYD
02-27-2008, 12:53 AM
So to carry good intentions is to be overly emotional?No, not at all. But to attempt to get those good intentions legislated, regulated and imposted onto others due to one's lack of emotional control is problematic.