No, see, this is where you're wrong. It's not a false charge. I took my comments about your position DIRECTLY from your own words, Sean. YOUR words. Unedited, and uncut, and IN CONTEXT. A "lie" is something that is provably false, as my charge is NOT. Apparently you have as much trouble with English as you do with Latin.



Again, that's NOT what you said. You said Social Security WILL NOT BE PRIVATIZED. Were you lying then or were you lying now? As for the "exception for our children", it sounds noble enough, except how do you expect children to learn not to expect a government handout when you RAISE THEM on government handouts?

I never realized that Sean actually thought he was anything but a far-left ideologue.

Sean, you can call yourself whatever you'd like. You can say you're the King of Scotland but that doesn't make it so.

God, Sean, you're like Lucas with a slightly higher IQ!

1. We have an individual moral responsibility to care for the poor and needy. It's not the government's job. Redistributing the wealth to care for the poor is called SOCIALISM, Sean. If you're a socialist, that's fine. JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT

2. We do not reduce government spending by increasing it, Sean. You are 100% right when you say we can't do these things overnight (or, even, within a decade, in my opinion). But increasing spending on social programs doesn't work us towards that goal, it works us away from it.

and don't think it was lost on me that ya'll had to change the subject and hijack the post for your own agenda.

this isn't a 7 year old story baker. the orig. 37 years was. but the new 18 years isn't. you just don't like the fact that this scumbag happens to be a republican and it was pointed out. but it's ok for the right to paint everyone else with stereotypical brushes and declare "there they go again!" with your generic brushes.

Yeah, Baker and I secretly conspired in a back room to bring you down, Sean.

Here's a clue: Baker and I never even communicate via email. And while we agree on a number of issues, we're hardly close enough to join together on something like THIS. The Latin thing (which, I realized, was the end result of a badly misfired joke) keyed all of this off, and that was a GLARING mistake.

that's not socialism. that's what Christ taught. socialism was what Marx taught. throwing that at me is just trying to put me down. "socialism" might as well be "dumbfuckism" in this context. you all think you are being eloquent with these backhanded insults, you are not.



that might be the 1st actual germaine and "pro discussion" thing you may have said to me in 6 months gid (but who's counting, lol) .

if you would speak to me more like that, instead of the way you and the right does to me on here and elsewhere, we might get back to having some decent discussions and i think you would find my "attitude" or ataleast the perception, not so hostile.

i think ya'll forget that there is an actual "3 dimensional" person behind this keyboard sometimes. am i guilty of that at times? sure. but i do try to "back off" and settle things down when they get out of hand.

and when i was allegedly "out of line" with tex and asked not to post there...i stopped. i also repeatedly apologized to her. has whip stopped to this day? compare that gid.

and one that was immediately corrected

Good grief, sean. Learn to READ! I said it's not the GOVERNMENT'S JOB! Making it the GOVERNMENT'S job is socialism. When did Christ advocate stealing property from the rich to feed the poor? Please show me the chapter and verse, because that IS what YOU are advocating.



It goes both ways, Sean. I find it telling that you see nastiness from the other side but you don't see it from yourself.

Would I have retracted my snide comment the other day had you asked me, or simply said "man, that's over the top"? Probably. It was deliberately hyperbolic, and I won't apologize for that. But the fact that you ORDERED me to do it only reinforces exactly what I've said. I don't take ORDERS; if you want a kind response, you OFFER a kind response.

The fact is, I DON'T agree with much of your politics. But you have as much right to them as I do to mine.

I've enumerated the issues that set me off where you're concerned, Sean. I don't think I'm being unfair in my analysis. Maybe, just maybe, if you want to see certain behaviour from others, you want to MODEL that behaviour FOR others.

i don't think it is either. but the govt is the best vehicle we have to do certain things. i'd like to see another...but haven't. i look at it like former late chief justice spoke about democracy... it's not the best form of govt. it's just that every other one is worse. (paraphrase)



actually i know when i'm nasty. most of the time, like anyone else. but when several like minded cronies come after me and parrot each other when many times, i know who threw the 1st stone, don't think i will ever accept that b.s.



well, for us gid,,,i think a lot of things have layered themselves upon one another. and like the mid east, sometimes it's hard to tell just exactly what preceded what. you know as well as i that we have, in the past, been discussing one thing cordially on one thread and at the same time are arguing or debating on another. and i think we are both "adult" enough to handle that most of the time. but lately, it hasn't worked.

i know that the incident with tex set you off back in march. and you felt compelled to "defend" her. i probably wasn't your favorite person at the time, so you got extra nasty. and yeah, i fired back. and since then, you have had a hard-on to try to paint me as a socialist, cause i guess that makes you feel more libertarian or something.

and in texas, maybe the party is much more conservative. but round here, there is a good mix of conservative and more moderate libertarians. but unfortunately, like in texas, the party round here can't get it's act together beyond being a bigger protest vote than the other "3rd parties." that probably frustrates both of us very much.

but where you would call bill maher a liberal, i'd call him a libertarian, and he is. i'd call tucker carlson a libertarian, as does he call himself that. and all of us are in lock step on the war, taxes and other issues. yeah, even marijuana. an issue i have hardly mentioned in 3 years, but you seem to want to cling to it and paint it as my only issue. do we disagree on others, sure. just like we do with each other.

with issues like SS and health care, i repeatedly state that my views are more pragmatic than philosophical. show me the private system that can deliver health care (and the issue has so much more to it that we never even get to cause we get caught up in this crap). show me a SS plan that can do it without turning over trillions to wall street fat cats. some of the same ones that ripped off all those pensions years ago and today.

i'd like to keep goin on this "diatribe novel" but my wife is pestering me to take her to go get her car that just got some work done on it. so, i'll catch ya later. i hope we can have some more reasonable discussions down the road (on both sides).

Petty & nitpicky, the Right is, huh? And the article's not?

if you think sex with 8 and 10 year old girls is that, then sure.

Under that standard, any scandal circa, say 100ce, would be news. Wanna write an article condemning Roman debauchery, go ahead. 'Bout as pertinent.

i disagree with your absurd analogy, but it's your dime daiwa,,,thanks for the comments:)