Dixie, who do you predict will win in November?

Dixie said:
Why don't you tell us what 'right wing extremist' viewpoints I have then?

Here is the deal, you and your liberal cabal have villainized conservatism to the point that any mention of anything remotely conservative is deemed as radical right wing extremism. Unless someone espouses the extreme leftist views, they can't even call themselves a moderate. Basically, those who are allowed to call themselves "moderate" are those who have kissed liberal ass enough, and sold out conservative principles enough to be accepted by the radical left. And of course, liberal radicals who don't like being seen as extremists, and call themselves "moderate" to make themselves look better, like the 'progressives'.

The vast majority of America being Moderate, is a myth, and one propped up by the left. We are predominately conservative, with a fairly large contingent of left wing radicals, some of which like to refer to themselves as "moderates" or "progressive". By keeping this myth going, and constantly pounding on conservatism, villainizing any and all conservative views, you have managed to convince some stupid people they want to be liked more than being conservatives. You stretch your big liberal umbrella over the area you call "moderate" and welcome them in. And they go, because they don't want to be called names anymore, they do have moderate views as do most conservatives, but you've convinced them they can still be liked again, if they just step away from the 'radical right wing' and embrace your liberal goofball ideas. These idiots comprise the "Moderates" and most of them are Conservative in their personal views.
Click to expand...

LOL, this is the most delusional shit I've ever read in my life. You are so retarded that you see a moderate and condemn them as ultra-left wing. You are also so retarded that you think just because everyone at your church in buttfuck, Alabama wants to kill gays, hates freedom, wants to invade + kill every non white person in the world, and wants to kill atheists or force them to be Christian, does not mean that there is a majority of Americans who share your ignorance.
 
Your definition of Conservative is quite different from the real definition though.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is different from the real version in your little world, Beefy, no fuckin doubt!

You embrace failed politicians who have raided the coffers and engaged in imperialistic and liberal nation building.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I have soundly criticized Bush for his spending, over and over again, for 8 fucking years. It's the single biggest problem I have with Bush. If you have read any of my posts regarding this subject, you know what a fucking lie you just told. As for imperialistic nation building, I have no idea what you mean. Imperial would imply we are currently flying a US Flag over Iraq, and that is just not the case. We are also not "nation building" in Iraq, we are helping the new Iraqi government build their own nation.

You praise and defend politicians who spend far more than any other entity in history, who have expanded entitlement programs more than any other entity ever, and who have grown the reach of government socially, fiscally, and internationally more than any other entity, EVER.
Click to expand...

Again, see my countless posts railing on Bush AND Congress for out of control spending and expansion of government in size and scope. The fact that I didn't vote for John-lets-tax-the-fuck-out-of-the-rich-and-paygo-Kerry, doesn't mean I supported runaway government spending.

Your definition of conservative is not what gels with the country, and you can sit back and boot lick these political hacks all the fuck you want, but you're not damned conservative when you defend, embrace, and work to keep these fucknuts in power.
Click to expand...

I'm not currently working to keep ANY fucknut in power!
 
Dixie said:
The fact that I didn't vote for John-lets-tax-the-fuck-out-of-the-rich-and-paygo-Kerry, doesn't mean I supported runaway government spending.
Click to expand...


No, but you did write this 6 months after W was inaugurated the 2nd time:

I LOVE GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!



And I don't give a shit what YOU think about it!

I love the way he talks, I love his honesty and integrity... I love the plain-spoken demeanor, and the confident swaggar. I love like hell, the way he always makes the democrats eat dirt, and look like the jackasses they are!

I love to see him working on his ranch like Reagan did, I love to see him do an interview in blue jeans, I even love when he managels his salybals. I love his chuckle, and his wit. I love his jokes, I love to just listen to him talk about his ideas.

I love his wife, I love his accent, I love her accent... I love the way they look at each other like two people genuinely in love! I love the comfort of knowing Dubya ain't cheating on her and getting blowjobs on the side, and I love the lack of rumors that she is a lesbian. I love not having 'bimbo alerts' and an endless stream of women accusing him of sexual misconduct. I love not having to hear about cigars, cloakroom sex, and splooge on blue dresses.

I love the fact that when George W. Bush says he is going to do something, that is damn well what he does, and will not back down. I love the fact that he has a strong moral constitution and does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. I love that he doesn't mince words or hide behind focus grouped phrases. I love the way he isn't afraid to tell France to fuck off, and will lead regardless of who in the UN wants to follow.

Did I mention I love the way he continually makes fools of the Democrats who underestimate him? I really LOVE that!

I LOVE GEORGE W. BUSH!

THERE!
 
Beefy said:
Stoning women who have abortions?
Click to expand...

No, I never argued that should be the law. You misunderstood a rhetorical point I made in response to another statement, and continue to believe something totally inaccurate. I can't help that, you are stupid that way.

My view on abortion is: Legal in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life only.
As opposed to the right-wing wacko idea of stoning those who have abortions.

According to Oncie, this makes me Middlin' :cool:
 
Beefy, why don't you post the contents of the 50,000,000,000 I HATE BUSH threads which permeated and spammed the board at the time, and that was intended as a sarcastic response to?

Let me answer, because you are a worthless piece of dog shit who likes to try and get attention by pulling this kind of thing out of the database at an opportune time. You apparently think it makes you look brilliant and don't realize what a total jerk you really are in stooping this low. Sorry, carry on with your pleas for attention, jerk.
 
Dixie said:
Beefy, why don't you post the contents of the 50,000,000,000 I HATE BUSH threads which permeated and spammed the board at the time, and that was intended as a sarcastic response to?

Let me answer, because you are a worthless piece of dog shit who likes to try and get attention by pulling this kind of thing out of the database at an opportune time. You apparently think it makes you look brilliant and don't realize what a total jerk you really are in stooping this low. Sorry, carry on with your pleas for attention, jerk.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Dixie said:
No, I never argued that should be the law. You misunderstood a rhetorical point I made in response to another statement, and continue to believe something totally inaccurate. I can't help that, you are stupid that way.

My view on abortion is: Legal in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life only.
As opposed to the right-wing wacko idea of stoning those who have abortions.

According to Oncie, this makes me Middlin' :cool:
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Now if you included, the health of the woman with health being defined, as the Clinton administration did, as the serious and permanent physical disability of the woman, you would be moderate on this issue. As it stands, you're view on this issue is right of center, which is shockingly close to moderate for a well known reactionary like you Dixie.
 
"According to Oncie, this makes me Middlin'"

Like I always say, you can't read.

And you truly are delusional. Get help.
 
Dixie said:
Not so, it's up to the Supreme Court, and they don't really give a shit what the public wants. Go check up on it, I think you will find in survey after survey, Americans are not pro-choice, they are slightly pro-life, when it comes to abortion. Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of "partial birth" abortion, it is overwhelmingly in favor of the "right to life" side, like 80-something percent.
Click to expand...

How many appointments have been made to the supreme court since R v. W was decided? I understand that sitting members of the S.Ct. do not care about public opinion, and rightfully so. But appointees are appointed based on many factors, a big one being public opinion.
 
Dixie said:
Oh... sorry about that... You have stereotyped a whole entire group of people based on your bigoted and wrong viewpoint which is based on you living somewhere for 4 years. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Where did I sterotype a whole group of people?
 
Dixie - 12-12-06

"Why because a "child"'s father is a rapist should it be legal to "kill" that child.

I never said that I believed it should be legal. If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion under any circumstance. If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament.
That said, we do not live in a society where Dixie is the King, and Dixie gets to mandate the law of the land. Aren't you glad for that? In any event, I understand that we live in a society where people think and believe differently, and have different parameters regarding morality and life. Because I am willing to participate in this sharing of views and opinions we call democracy, I can be tolerant enough to listen to others and accept their viewpoints in some instances, with regard to certain circumstances.

I don't agree or condone abortion under any circumstance, however, a woman who becomes pregnant through no fault or action of her own, deserves to have the right to a different view than myself, and I understand it. That is all I am saying, and nothing more. You are trying desperately, to twist my view into some hypocritical acceptance of abortion under certain conditions, and I have not articulated that point of view. This is why I have refused to respond further to you, because you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion, you just want to stick it to Dixie.

Now, I have answered your question yet again, and you are about one post away from going back on the ignore list, if you can't grow up and join the adults in a reasonable dialogue. Understood?"


DIXIE IS A MODERATE???
 
Dixie 12-12-06 -

"If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion under any circumstance. If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament."
 
Dixie said:
No, I never argued that should be the law. You misunderstood a rhetorical point I made in response to another statement, and continue to believe something totally inaccurate. I can't help that, you are stupid that way.

My view on abortion is: Legal in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life only.
As opposed to the right-wing wacko idea of stoning those who have abortions.

According to Oncie, this makes me Middlin' :cool:
Click to expand...

Compare that to...

12-12-06
"Why because a "child"'s father is a rapist should it be legal to "kill" that child.

I never said that I believed it should be legal. If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion under any circumstance. If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament. That said, we do not live in a society where Dixie is the King, and Dixie gets to mandate the law of the land. Aren't you glad for that? In any event, I understand that we live in a society where people think and believe differently, and have different parameters regarding morality and life. Because I am willing to participate in this sharing of views and opinions we call democracy, I can be tolerant enough to listen to others and accept their viewpoints in some instances, with regard to certain circumstances.

I don't agree or condone abortion under any circumstance, however, a woman who becomes pregnant through no fault or action of her own, deserves to have the right to a different view than myself, and I understand it. That is all I am saying, and nothing more. You are trying desperately, to twist my view into some hypocritical acceptance of abortion under certain conditions, and I have not articulated that point of view. This is why I have refused to respond further to you, because you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion, you just want to stick it to Dixie.

Now, I have answered your question yet again, and you are about one post away from going back on the ignore list, if you can't grow up and join the adults in a reasonable dialogue. Understood?"


Is your head spinning yet? He merely argues what is good for him at the time. No internal consistancy.
 
DIXIE TODAY...

My view on abortion is: Legal in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life only.
As opposed to the right-wing wacko idea of stoning those who have abortions.

DIXIE 12-12-06...

If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion under any circumstance. If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament.
 
Jarod said:
DIXIE TODAY...

My view on abortion is: Legal in cases of rape, incest, and mother's life only.
As opposed to the right-wing wacko idea of stoning those who have abortions.

DIXIE 12-12-06...

If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion under any circumstance. If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Thread killer aint it!
 
Anyone who thinks a being like God would be down w/ a punishment like stoning someone to death is a f**king imbecile.

Dixie is an idiot on a lot of levels, but I had no idea he was also in w/ the Taliban...
 
Jarhead, read the complete statement carefully. I know it has some big words you may not understand, but your mommy can help you with those. The biggest problem with pulling one of my posts out of your ass, is you don't see what was posted before or after, and have no reference for context. This is called parsing. When you parse my statements, you often draw a different conclusion than the intended meaning.

The point of the statement in question was to illustrate that I am not the Imperial King, and I don't personally get to decide this issue or what to do, rather, it is a societal issue in a democratic society, where we all get to decide what to do. In order to drive home this point, I told you what the law might be if I were the King and what I said was the law of the land and no one else had a say. The point that seems to have flown completely over your head, I am not the King, will never be the King, and so what I would do as the King is completely irrelevant. In other words, it doesn't matter what my personal viewpoint is, it could be as stated, that I believe women should be stoned, but it doesn't matter because I am not the King! Can you comprehend the point? There is a vast difference between what we would personally rule as kings, I would fucking hate to see what kind of shit you would impose on your subjects, but thank God, you will never be King either! We are a society of people who are free to decide as a group, therefore, my personal viewpoint has little to do with what I support in a public sense, as the law of the land that we all have to live by. Maybe that is too deep for you to understand, but that was the point, not that I condone or advocate stoning of women who have abortions. I can certainly understand how that is the meaning you gathered in parsing my comments, but you are incorrect as to my position on abortion. And for the record, that particular comment was in response to someone who was bashing me for being "too liberal" on my abortion viewpoint, and claimed I was a hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top