Bigdogg;683351 wrote:I love the little devils, actuality friends with one of them.

I'm related to many of them, as well as a few Marxist bleeding hearts on the opposite side of the spectrum. Family functions are awkward.

CenterBHSFan;683118 wrote:The press keeps Sarah Palin relevant. They have the option of totally ignoring her, but they don't. They can't get enough of her so she's in the spotlight pretty often. I say BRAVA! to her

Also keep in mind that there's ALOT of Americans who like her and what she stands for.
Times they are a changin'.

There's a lot of American's that love Big Macs. Doesn't mean we should put it on the food pyramid.

I Wear Pants;683504 wrote:There's a lot of American's that love Big Macs. Doesn't mean we should put it on the food pyramid.

I think they should! They've got... let's see.... veggies, meat and breads! Throw in condiments for the win!
(did I miss anything? i don't like bigmacs lol)

Bigdogg;683282 wrote:Speaking of the Tea Baggers, here is one entertaining the masses in Columbus yesterday. He is Cincinnati attorney Jack Painter, who lives in the high-income neighborhood of Indian Hills near Cincinnati. He’s the head of the Indian Hills Tea Party, on the Advisory Board of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and on the Board of Directors of the Ohio Liberty Council which has claimed as its mantle as being the statewide organization of the so-called “Tea Party” movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veHkhfE5Ndw&feature=player_embedded

Really? Painter "hates children"? He is dripping with sarcasm just to get the screaming ranting woman to blow up even more. He's actually enjoying winding her up. Why? Because she won't listen...she's full of talking points...her brain is turned off and her mouth won't follow. He's hoping to waken her so she can think on her own...but clearly, it's going to take much more than him. I find it sad the the Ohio Progressives, that took credit for the video, took him at face value. How sad...maybe these dolts should go back to school because they don't have a friggin clue what he was trying to do. Do you?

O-Trap;683411 wrote:I'm related to many of them, as well as a few Marxist bleeding hearts on the opposite side of the spectrum. Family functions are awkward.

When you make comments like this it shows your lack of intelligence. I doubt you have ever met a "Marxist" in your life. I am sure most of your family functions are awkward.

BGFalcons82;683673 wrote:Really? Painter "hates children"? He is dripping with sarcasm just to get the screaming ranting woman to blow up even more. He's actually enjoying winding her up. Why? Because she won't listen...she's full of talking points...her brain is turned off and her mouth won't follow. He's hoping to waken her so she can think on her own...but clearly, it's going to take much more than him. I find it sad the the Ohio Progressives, that took credit for the video, took him at face value. How sad...maybe these dolts should go back to school because they don't have a friggin clue what he was trying to do. Do you?

Yes as a matter of fact I do. One of them was there to peacefully protest a bill they don't agree with. Painter was there to cause trouble. I think the lady played him. If you are proud of the way he represented you and the rest of the teabaggers then this says something about you also.

Bigdogg;683723 wrote:When you make comments like this it shows your lack of intelligence. I doubt you have ever met a "Marxist" in your life. I am sure most of your family functions are awkward.

I actually had a professor who was a self-professed Marxist.

In truth, my point was that using terms deemed by most to be derogatory to describe an ideological group is ignorant, no matter who you're talking about. It bugs the hell out of me what has happened to the 'Tea Party' movement, but calling the current crop "tea-baggers" makes anyone saying it sound ignorant as well.

None in my family are actually Marxists, to my knowledge. I actually started out with just "bleeding heart," but I didn't know if that would get the point across. That was intended to be sort of tongue-in-cheek.

In serious discussions, throwing inaccurate or berating names around makes anyone doing it sound like they don't belong in the conversation, regardless of what party or group they're targeting.

Bigdogg;683726 wrote:Yes as a matter of fact I do. One of them was there to peacefully protest a bill they don't agree with. Painter was there to cause trouble. I think the lady played him. If you are proud of the way he represented you and the rest of the teabaggers then this says something about you also.

He wasn't being peaceful? He was there to cause trouble and she wasn't? Was he packin heat? Did he physically threaten her or anyone else? She couldn't get her scripted talking points out of her flappin jowls fast enough. He was poking fun at her script. Sorry you can't see it. It's really kind of obvious.

By the way, O-trap is spot on with the namecalling. Why don't you follow suit and quit using the term, "teabagger"?

BGFalcons82;683736 wrote:He wasn't being peaceful? He was there to cause trouble and she wasn't? Was he packin heat? Did he physically threaten her or anyone else? She couldn't get her scripted talking points out of her flappin jowls fast enough. He was poking fun at her script. Sorry you can't see it. It's really kind of obvious.

By the way, O-trap is spot on with the namecalling. Why don't you follow suit and quit using the term, "teabagger"?

Did you see the other Teabagger bump into her? What do you mean flappin jowls? Talking points? What was she suppose to say? She said what she felt. I have been to a tea party demonstration in Lima. I respected their rights to protest without engaging a single one. Painter, who is apparently a wealthy business man and head of the Ohio teabaggers, looked like an idiot.

Bigdogg is trolling. Looking to get a rise and he got one. Perhaps he needs a cigarette now.

CenterBHSFan;683828 wrote:Bigdogg is trolling. Looking to get a rise and he got one. Perhaps he needs a cigarette now.

Or an enema.

Guys, leave him alone. Geez.

It's a topic that people take seriously, and that's a good thing. If someone gets ugly from time to time, that's just part of being human.

I, for one, did not take anything Bigdogg said to heart. Even the "Teabagger" moniker, crude and infantile as it is, shouldn't be grounds for picking on him individually.

When the movement started, and the Tea Party was about people from ALL parties who were tired of the excessive spending (which has been done by BOTH parties in recent history), I was on board. However, when I went to a rally, and guy who saw the most cheers was a guy speaking on abortion, I knew that any effectiveness it had once had to cross party lines had died. It has now become just another utility of one of the major two parties, essentially making it useless.

Having said all that, resorting to infantile name-calling (whether "Teabaggers," "bleeding hearts," "socialists," "fascists," etc) serves no purpose and only makes you look like you're simply regurgitating what you're being proverbially fed ... that you're not taking the issue seriously, weighing the conclusions before deciding on them.

O-Trap;683908 wrote:Guys, leave him alone. Geez.
It's a topic that people take seriously, and that's a good thing. If someone gets ugly from time to time, that's just part of being human.
I, for one, did not take anything Bigdogg said to heart. Even the "Teabagger" moniker, crude and infantile as it is, shouldn't be grounds for picking on him individually.
When the movement started, and the Tea Party was about people from ALL parties who were tired of the excessive spending (which has been done by BOTH parties in recent history), I was on board. However, when I went to a rally, and guy who saw the most cheers was a guy speaking on abortion, I knew that any effectiveness it had once had to cross party lines had died. It has now become just another utility of one of the major two parties, essentially making it useless.
Having said all that, resorting to infantile name-calling (whether "Teabaggers," "bleeding hearts," "socialists," "fascists," etc) serves no purpose and only makes you look like you're simply regurgitating what you're being proverbially fed ... that you're not taking the issue seriously, weighing the conclusions before deciding on them.

1. If I thought that he was serious, I would have said something else.

2. I agree with whoever that guy was and disagree with you in so far that I do not believe that federal tax dollars should not have ANYTHING to do with abortions at all. Actually, I would rather that none of MY MONEY went to pay for abortions.
Don't know if he brought that up, just my two cents.

3. The people I usually call names are the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden tribe. They are seven kinds of honey roasted.

I agree that Doggie is trolling. Anyone using that pejorative is just looking to get a reaction -- or their IQ is that of a 12 year old. Not sure which. Maybe both?

CenterBHSFan;683950 wrote:1. If I thought that he was serious, I would have said something else.

See? This time, I was the one that missed the jest, just like Bigdogg missed that I was speaking facetiously. Sometimes it's difficult on a message board.

I like Bigdogg, though. I've had some good conversations with him, so I don't want to see him get the digital curbstomp.

CenterBHSFan;683950 wrote:2. I agree with whoever that guy was and disagree with you in so far that I do not believe that federal tax dollars should not have ANYTHING to do with abortions at all. Actually, I would rather that none of MY MONEY went to pay for abortions.
Don't know if he brought that up, just my two cents.

No, it had to do with the ethics of abortion.

Now, I don't categorically disagree with him, but the Tea Party itself was not about social issues. It was started to be about fiscal responsibility, or the lack thereof which we've seen from presidents in recent history, whether they've been Republicans or Democrats.

If he was railing against the fact that the HCR Bill will be designating tax dollars toward paying for abortions, I would have sided with him, as I think that is an irresponsible use of my (and others') tax dollars. That wasn't the case, though, and it pissed me off, quite frankly.

CenterBHSFan;683950 wrote:3. The people I usually call names are the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden tribe. They are seven kinds of honey roasted.

Tribe? Do you mean those people or the people who support them?

I know supporters of one who aren't supports of the others in more than one scenario.

Writerbuckeye;683960 wrote:I agree that Doggie is trolling. Anyone using that pejorative is just looking to get a reaction -- or their IQ is that of a 12 year old. Not sure which. Maybe both?

He's not unintelligent. He's probably just trying to get a rise.

I disagree with the Tea Party about as much as anyone on here but I thought that youtube link was excellent and thought the Tea Party attorney guy was hilarious. Bravo.

CenterBHSFan;683950 wrote:The people I usually call names are the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden tribe. They are seven kinds of honey roasted.

I found bits and pieces of those mixed nuts in my Christmas fruitcake. Yummy!

Otrap,

See? This time, I was the one that missed the jest, just like Bigdogg missed that I was speaking facetiously. Sometimes it's difficult on a message board.I like Bigdogg, though. I've had some good conversations with him, so I don't want to see him get the digital curbstomp.

Let me clarify more. I was only partially jesting. I've seen bigdogg clown too much on this forum to take him totally seriously. You may not like to see him get the rebuttals that he gets, but to a very large degree that's his decision on whether he gets them.

No, it had to do with the ethics of abortion. Now, I don't categorically disagree with him, but the Tea Party itself was not about social issues. It was started to be about fiscal responsibility, or the lack thereof which we've seen from presidents in recent history, whether they've been Republicans or Democrats. If he was railing against the fact that the HCR Bill will be designating tax dollars toward paying for abortions, I would have sided with him, as I think that is an irresponsible use of my (and others') tax dollars. That wasn't the case, though, and it pissed me off, quite frankly.

I understand and agree with what you're saying. There are other places and times to go over all of that other stuff. I have never taken the time or rounded up enough interest to go to a tea party myself, but I respect the hell out of people who do, no matter who is speaking or what they're speaking about. At least they're out there doing what most can not/will not, including myself.

Tribe? Do you mean those people or the people who support them?

Not only am I talking about the people who zealously support them, I'm talking about the namers themselves. Now I do not quantify Obama as being bipolar nuts or even emotionally unstable nuts. BUT, I do wonder about about some of his actions (or un-actions lol) that I don't think have so much about to do about political ideology as I think it has to do with ... something else. Perhaps it is just political immaturity that is shining through, I don't know. Maybe it's my own bias that expects a President to respond, act, and portray themselves like a President to ALL AMERICANS - pay attention, please, to those two words - that I just don't see in him. I have listed my thoughts on that in various threads, and I won't get into it on this thread.
Now, Reid, Pelosi, etc. are really just macadamias in nice clothing.

O-Trap;684192 wrote:See? This time, I was the one that missed the jest, just like Bigdogg missed that I was speaking facetiously. Sometimes it's difficult on a message board.

I like Bigdogg, though. I've had some good conversations with him, so I don't want to see him get the digital curbstomp.



No, it had to do with the ethics of abortion.

Now, I don't categorically disagree with him, but the Tea Party itself was not about social issues. It was started to be about fiscal responsibility, or the lack thereof which we've seen from presidents in recent history, whether they've been Republicans or Democrats.

If he was railing against the fact that the HCR Bill will be designating tax dollars toward paying for abortions, I would have sided with him, as I think that is an irresponsible use of my (and others') tax dollars. That wasn't the case, though, and it pissed me off, quite frankly.



Tribe? Do you mean those people or the people who support them?

I know supporters of one who aren't supports of the others in more than one scenario.



He's not unintelligent. He's probably just trying to get a rise.

Aww trap, thanks but most of the idiots on here I have the ignore feature on so I really don't need your help. It is fun pulling their chains once in a while though What you and most people on here don't understand is that 95% of all politicians are whores that only have their own self interest in mind. They will tell the masses anything to get elected. The days of doing the right thing for everybody are long gone. I am at the age that I really don't lose sleep over it. Hey, even the Roman Empire failed after awhile. Most people on here can't think on their own and have to watch MSNBC or Fox and believe everything they are told. That's OK if you believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy and think WWF is real.

I post on here to try to get people to look at both sides of the issues and use common sense. Unfortunately it's an uphill battle. I can respect people with different opinions, I have lots of friends and family with diverse opinions and can be civil with disagreements. There are a few people on here that I respect and I think are very intelligent. As a whole I think this site doesn't represent the average person in their political beliefs and is way to far right. It is a good reflection of whats wrong in American politics today. In the old days it was OK to disagree on ideologies and you could still get the business of the people done. Those days are gone I fear for ever. I don't think it's good for the country.

Bigdogg;684439 wrote:Aww trap, thanks but most of the idiots on here I have the ignore feature on so I really don't need your help.

Rest assured, you boob, I wasn't helping. I just don't like seeing that happen.

Bigdogg;684439 wrote:It is fun pulling their chains once in a while though What you and most people on here don't understand is that 95% of all politicians are whores that only have their own self interest in mind.

I actually do think that, and have for most of my voting life (admittedly, only 10 years). It's why I refuse to try to vote for "the lesser of two evils" in an election. To me, while they might be polar in their positions, I think they're not that different in terms of usefulness to the country.

Bigdogg;684439 wrote:They will tell the masses anything to get elected. The days of doing the right thing for everybody are long gone. I am at the age that I really don't lose sleep over it. Hey, even the Roman Empire failed after awhile. Most people on here can't think on their own and have to watch MSNBC or Fox and believe everything they are told. That's OK if you believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy and think WWF is real.

But, but, but ... you mean the WWF isn't REAL???

I kid. You're preaching to the choir on this topic, really.

Bigdogg;684439 wrote:I post on here to try to get people to look at both sides of the issues and use common sense. Unfortunately it's an uphill battle. I can respect people with different opinions, I have lots of friends and family with diverse opinions and can be civil with disagreements. There are a few people on here that I respect and I think are very intelligent. As a whole I think this site doesn't represent the average person in their political beliefs and is way to far right. It is a good reflection of whats wrong in American politics today. In the old days it was OK to disagree on ideologies and you could still get the business of the people done. Those days are gone I fear for ever. I don't think it's good for the country.

I agree with this as well, or at least, that it is damaging.

I'm both relieved, and yet scared scatless, at the political apathy of the younger generation. On one hand, they seem to get along across political lines a lot more. On the other, I think they treat the administration of the country with too little gravity.

At this point, I'm just voting as I believe (which, in a nutshell, is a "leave me alone as much as possible" belief) and watching to see how it plays out.

See Otrap? You gotta sorta take bigdogg like Gibby. Whatever they ask for is generally what they get

Oh come now. Bigdogg lacks the meltdown potential of the Gibber, as does bonelizzard.

Getting worked up with you guys is like getting worked up over my kids crapping their pants. Last time that happened was twenty years ago. Can't hold it against either one of you, you just don't know any better.

O-Trap;683908 wrote:I, for one, did not take anything Bigdogg said to heart. Even the "Teabagger" moniker, crude and infantile as it is, shouldn't be grounds for picking on him individually.

Having said all that, resorting to infantile name-calling (whether "Teabaggers," "bleeding hearts," "socialists," "fascists," etc) serves no purpose and only makes you look like you're simply regurgitating what you're being proverbially fed ... that you're not taking the issue seriously, weighing the conclusions before deciding on them.

Couple corrections: "teabagger" has a sexual connotation that has been discussed ad infinitum. It has a specific meaning that I, and many others, find offensive and has NOTHING to do with a political discussion.

"Socialist" and "fascist" are labels assigned to those that believe in socialistic/fascist principles. Nothing to do with sexual connotations. In fact, we have at least 1 socialist party member in Congress (there used to be more, but I'm not sure for 2011). To equate a label for someone's idealogy with someone wanting a human sausage placed across their face is not in the same realm.

Let's see...what's another name for a dogg? How about a male dogg? Would it be appropriate for me to call bigdogg by another canine name that we would all recognize? Sure it wouldn't, but he continues to use rotten epithets to describe those that don't agree with him, even AFTER he's been asked a couple times to cease and decist. Therefore, is civility for everyone else NOT named, "bigdogg"???

BGFalcons82;685066 wrote:Couple corrections: "teabagger" has a sexual connotation that has been discussed ad infinitum. It has a specific meaning that I, and many others, find offensive and has NOTHING to do with a political discussion.

"Socialist" and "fascist" are labels assigned to those that believe in socialistic/fascist principles. Nothing to do with sexual connotations. In fact, we have at least 1 socialist party member in Congress (there used to be more, but I'm not sure for 2011). To equate a label for someone's idealogy with someone wanting a human sausage placed across their face is not in the same realm.

Let's see...what's another name for a dogg? How about a male dogg? Would it be appropriate for me to call bigdogg by another canine name that we would all recognize? Sure it wouldn't, but he continues to use rotten epithets to describe those that don't agree with him, even AFTER he's been asked a couple times to cease and decist. Therefore, is civility for everyone else NOT named, "bigdogg"???

Back in the day tea bagging was something that was given to a underclassmen football player as a form of initiation (not by me personally but I witnessed) It was also called an atomic setup. I think the Republicans are now doing the same thing to the group of people now calling themselves the Tea Party. Pretty funny as a 17 year old kid back then and mostly harmless. The jokes on you all now. You are all being used and have no idea whats going on. I think the analogy is appropriate. The Tea Party will not be around long.

If it makes you feel better I only use the term metaphorically.