Dude, you bring a knife to a gunfight when you try to argue politics with me.  Every time you post a picture and start with the name calling you are admitting you've lost the point again.

Posted By: Priapus53

Maybe if Rush weren't around, perhaps GWB wouldn't have been elected & maybe we wouldn't be in current mess that you listed.

But, then again, OC, what can be expected from a lobotomized dittohead like yourself ?----



-- Modified on 7/4/2011 9:38:09 AM

I love Duck Soup.  Freedonia, the country that Groucho is the Pres of, is named after a street in L.A., over the hill from the Hollywood Bowl.  (The street is "Fredonia," but they used "Free" as poetic license.)

One of the great things about life in L.A. is the side story to entertainment. Street names that become places in movies, etc.

That said, your comment is not true. I have disagreed with the right a lot of times.  I have supported Obama in his early education efforts. I praised him when he first spoke of parental responsibility.  I gave modified praise to his initail Afghan policy, but the modified was because I wasn't sure if he would carry through with his view that it was a War of Necessity.  (No more)

Likewise, I thought Bush's attempted nomination of what's-her-name (his legal counsel) was stupid. There were other things I didn't like, but I am getting old and my brain is bad.

Now, that said, how many times have you said anything good about The Evil Bush. Or is he just pure bad?

How many times have you castigated the left?  And I am partisan.

This was subject of my 1st posting here, but it bears repeating.

We hear all this bemoaning about polarization,but
hasn't the country been polarized since the start of the Civil War ( 1861 ) ?

Others say the polarization started during the upheavals of the turbulent 1960's. IMO, the beginning of MODERN polarization started in 1987 with the repeal of the "Fairness doctrine".

Thoughts on when polarization started ?



-- Modified on 7/4/2011 7:52:42 AM

Of course, ALL the abuses you listed came from  the left-----LOL.

Lemme state something premptively : as 1st ammendment fantic, I am NOT in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Once "the toothpase is outta the tube, it can't be put back in". If it were reinstated, would probably force Limbaugh off of the air , but also do same to Olbermann, which is one of reasons I'm against reinstating it.

That being said, original '87 decision was AWFUL, which has led to TERRIBLE consequences for this country.

Phil, your friend had every right to be depressed about 2000 election; quite prescient on his part. GWB turned out to be one of the  worst POTUS's this country has had to endure.  Pity, Phil, you're too obtuse to see that.

Before you label partisan crack at me, Phil, keep in mind I also regard LBJ & Carter as among the worst of U.S. POTUS's.

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 8:52:52 AM

I implied that the beginnings of polarization was subjective by listing various "starting dates"

Reread the post,doofus.

Maybe if Rush weren't around, perhaps GWB wouldn't have been elected & maybe we wouldn't be in current mess that you listed.

But, then again, OC, what can be expected from a lobotomized dittohead like yourself ?----



-- Modified on 7/4/2011 9:38:09 AM

then you're being "divise" yourself. Btw, why do you conveniently fail to mention the harassing, often illegal & violent tactics that the far right "pro-life" side often engages in ?

Note that I only denigrated your ideas on this reply, not you-----

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 9:53:38 AM

I see abuses coming from both sides of the spectrum. You don't.

As for calling you "obtuse", if I offended you, my sincerest apolgies.

Btw, if the worst insult I received on this board was being called "obtuse", I'd be sailing free here----

Lastly, Phil, ever see The Marx Bros classic movie "Duck Soup" ?! A war starts in that movie over the word "upstart"-------

I'm too lazy to do an archive search on that, but believe me, I've done it. Being honest, since I'm left of center, I have castigated right more than left , but that's my "bias". I admit it.

Also, being honest, have I ever praised GWB on this board ? Sincerely doubt it, but I'd have to look it up.

As for the childishly volatile Officer Cartman,
he's too "dense" to realize that I'm a registered indpendent that voted for a GOP Tea party Congressman in my district.

As for the next election, have NFC as to who I'm voting for.

You know, Phil, OC is FAR more deserving of "obtuse" label than you are-------

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 11:30:32 AM

Actually Phil, absent of eloquent conspiracy theories ,  you are the most even handed coherent  debater on P@R.
Without mentioning names, the person most likely to not notice your even handed debate skills is the worst debater.

because only a "jerkoff" ( most likely the dimitted Quad ) would hide behind behind a chickenshit alias & think himself the "ultimate arbiter of debating skills"

Speaking on a subjective basis ( which of course is the main gist of this thread ),I think the most evenhanded board debaters, respectively, from left & right, are inicky & GaG.

But, I suppose my opinion has as much crediblity as the "judge"-------however, on second thought--------

posts here, perhaps you will realize why there is polarization in the country. It most likely was well entrenched when the tories and the whigs were debating, but you continue their traditions in fine fashion. Your consistent name calling with those in disagreement with your "non-partisan outlook", coupled with the stupid fucking cartoons, are such puerile bullshit. Perhaps that is why not many here, including me, take you seriously.

This condescending asshole posted this OP just so he could get reaction from the right and then get into a pissing match with them. Followed up, of course, by more junior-high mentality photos and cartoons.

But hey, he once voted for a Tea Party follower so he must be the level-headed, non-partisan independent that he claims to be.  LOL!

"Phil, what seperates me from you is"

It's spelled separates.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/misspelled.html

who, of course don't show their partisanship on this board---RIGHT----lol Does the fact that both of you voted for GWB TWICE, enhance your "touching bromance?"----LOL

Btw, I merely stated an opinion about the " fairness doctrine"---why does it enrage you so ?
You were free to make your own opinions about when polarization started----could it be you're as partisan as you claim I am ?!

Take a look at ini's post for guidance; articulate , erudite  & well thought out, something you 2 uneducated clowns are incapable of.



-- Modified on 7/4/2011 1:39:51 PM

Ini, you can also put PW & JF in the "arrogant clown category".

They also neglect to mention that I hve namecalled lefties on this board as well.

I merely gave an OPINION on the  "Fairness Doctrine". Is it SUCH a Holy Grail to conservatives that it enrages them when I speak
critically about its repeal ? They were free to offer calm & reasoned alternatives to a polarization starting date, but failed to do so.

3 arrogant clowns indeed.

I apologized for calling you "obtuse", but not to PW, Jersey & Officer Cartman.

Oh, wait------I called them "arrogant clowns"---an additional apology------for initially "mislabelling" them-------

First, the repeal of the Fairness doctrine has nothing to do with it.  Okay. The left lost radio. But they still have ABC, MSNBC, CNN , CBS, The S.F Chronicle, Boston Globe, The NY Times, The L.A> Times, 80% of the newspapers, 85% of the university platforms, 75% of TV broadcast, th vast majority of Hollywood and Broadway.
If the polarization is caused because they lost one medium, they really are fascists who can't stand dissent.  I would be glad to give money to reinstate the Fairness Doctrice if it were expanded to every other media.

People used to be allowed to have differences and they were  respected.  Today, if you have a view, you get economically boycotted and people try to destroy you.  There was a restauarant in W. Hollywood that gave money to the Prop 8 campaign and there were protests out in front.  

I know it is emotional, but in the 60's when there were civil rights protests, no one's business had boycotts merely because they gave money to one side or the other.

Likewise, the left has protests at people's houses.  Union thugs have gone to private homes and picketed.  The left has gone to the Koch Bros house and picketed outisde a private residence.  30 years ago this was unheard of.  (BTW, no protests are ever reported outside of the Soros humble abode.)

When states or cities had a difference in policy, they didn't urge boycotts of the other cities states.  NY never urged a boycott of the entire state of Alabama, like SF does to AZ.

Also, after Bork, the test became not qualification but politics.  You may not like Bork, but he was qualified.  (Without doing the research, I would bet a larger number of GOP voted for Ginsberg and Dems voted for Alito.  Ditto more GOP for Kagen than Dems for Roberts.  I may be wrong. That is just my feeling.)

Politics has become very personal.  The day after the Bush/Gore election, I had to call a friend about a case we were working on.  Now this is before Bush even took office.  He answered the phone, and I asked how he was.  He said he had never been so depressed in his life. I asked why, and he said the election.  

It is not politics, per se.  It has been personalized.

My comment had nothing to do with your polarization theme. It went straight to the heart of your point for posting anything on this board. You are arrogant and you make every attempt to draw people into a pissing match with you so you can deflect all the points being discussed and throw an insult and a buffoonish cartoon or pic at them.

There can be no "calm and reasoned alternatives" to dealing with you.  It takes two adults to have that kind of discussion and your maturity level got stuck at 13 years a long, long time ago.

And, yes, you ALWAYS point out that you name call lefties on the board as well. You don't have to keep telling us that. Believe me, we all know how much you like to cover your own ass.

Learn how to read a post.  And then maybe you will learn how to spell the word "separate."

The Fairness Doctrine was ridiculous.  All it did was squash political discourse on the airwaves since the logic was every programmer had to put on 3 hours of liberal talk for every 3 hours of Limbaugh even if the audience didn't want to hear it.  So they all avoided getting into the muck. Limbaugh was the first to benefit from its repeal but people were starving for points of view different from Walter Cronkite's.  Limbaugh's presence didn't create polarization.  His success was proof that it always existed.

We live in a very self-centered time where people can't imagine that the universe existed before us.  So everything that happens now is "The Worst" and "The Most".  Polarization existed in this country before the Revolution.  There was already a divide between parts of the country based on economy, culture, etc..  It was always here and it will always be here.  But according to Priapus and Bill Clinton it's all Rush Limbaugh and AM radio's fault.

Rather, he is clearly the most knowledgeable and interesting poster on any issue in the airline industry, and I don't think I've ever read anything but an intelligent post by the guy (even though he does not support my plan to repeal the Second Amendment LOL). And that's not counting the PMs I've received from him in response to some of my  OPs where he tells some really amazing stories.

       Come on, Priapus, be fair - you are only adding him to the Pitching Wedge list because he criticized you today. And time for you to bury the hatchet with PW as well.

"Modern Polarization"- WTF does that mean?

My point that you didn't comprehend was that polarization always existed with or without the Fairness Doctrine.  Your idiotic point was "Modern Polarization" started with its repeal.  We would all be singing "Cumbaya" and praising 9% unemployment right now if Rush Limbaugh didn't tell us it was bad.

does not understand.  

I know that I am at fault in prolonging this feud as well but I did try to make the effort in the last week or so. But, today I slipped and publicly applauded Jersey for his assessment of Pri.  Should have passed along my kudos to Jersey in a less public way.

Enough of this, on to more important matters. Besides, Pri has to go hit that special Fourth of July buffet before the dinner rates take effect.  

(Damn, slipped again!!!! LOL!)

the following quote from you :"This condescending asshole posted this OP just so he could get reaction from the right and then get into a pissing match with them."

Instead of addressing the OP thoughtfully like Ini & Phil ( who I disgreed with ) you engage in a childish, name calling vendetta & pointing out my typo, because you seem to lack the intellectual wherewithal to reasonably debate the issues. Also, I find your censoring impulses
( you don't like posts about the ME or religion )
to be troubling. Imagine----a Religion post on a Politics & Religion board-----LOL.

Pw, I think you need "intellectual training wheels"; perhaps TER will furnish a new " P&R 101
board" so you won't "fall off the bike so often"

if my OP were thoughtfully responded ( which it was ) to, instead, they behaved like a pair "bromance" partisan pussies .

What goes around,comes around Mari.

Btw, I take it that your 2d ammendment idea was "tongue in cheek'

Yes I am partisan, but having said that, you didn't address my issues.

First, the insult. I am obtuse because we disagree on Bush and I am too dumb to see it.  

THAT IS WHY THERE IS DIVISIVENESS.  It isn't that we disagree. No. It's that I am too obtuse to not see you are right.  Yup.  So much for opinion.  There is you and then there is dumb, and anyone who doesn't see it as you do is obtuse.

And you ask why there is divisiveness.

I think Obama is will go down as worse than Bush, but I don't know any who said "they had never been so depressed in  their life." And anyway, his ultimate rating is irrelevant.  He hadn't been sworn in, and the mere thought of a conservative (a moderate one, at that) threw my friend into the blues.  Had it not been for 9-11, you don't know what would have happened, so my friends depression was not based on the ultimate record.

Yes, I am partisan, but that mere label ignores a possible explanation of divisiveness.

How many times does the right urge a boycott of private businesses?  How many times does the right to to a person's family home and prostest outside with bullhorns while his wife and kids are there?  How many times does the right urge a boycott of other cities?  Did Salt Lake City ever urge a boycott of SF?

You bring up the Fairness Doctrine as a possible cause of the Divide, but then you ignore every point I make about how that is not such a big deal.  And I ask again, "Why is the left so upset that it lost control over one medium?  Do they have to control everything, or it is divisive?"

What "Terrible consequences?"  The right got a voice in one area. WOW.  That is terrible. To have one medium where it is not controlled by the left. TERRIBLE.  

It was terrible because before that commentators were rarely vilified, mostly because the right only had a small audience.  Not one in 1,000 read Buckley.  While Buckley was a gadfly, Rush - who I don't listen to - is The Evil One.

The only reason I want Olberman off the air is because his ratings will fail.  If he can attract an audience, let him speak.  THAT is a First Amendment fanatic.

The terrible consequences of the repeal of the doctrine were that a minority view got a big platform in one area.  

For someone who is a First Amend "fanatic," it is funny how the competition of ideas leads to terrible consequences.  The "marketplace of ideas" is the core of the First Amendment.

Oprah, Spielberg, and 1090 other billionaires on the entertainment left can have their own radio and if they make money, God bless them (or god bless them, as Willie would spell it).  

We found the answer>

Look at this.

"you need a course in reading comprehension" "I fully comprehended your stupid point"  The lobotomized OC":

Three insult posts in a row.  

And people wonder why there is divisiveness

Even though I am "obtuse, " I think if you will look at my posts, I am trying to address things people said.  

Can anyone find a post where I denigrated the person, and not the idea?  (Yes, I think some ideas are stupid, but smart people can have dumb ideas.)



Priapus53 | 7/4/2011 2:23:14 AM (4 reads)

I see those abuses as coming from one side, and there is nothing wrong with saying the other side does things you think are wrong.  Really, tell me the left never says it thinks the right is doing bad stuff.

Yes, I mentioned the things they do.  I reallly am sorry, but I just don't see it from the other side.
That is why I asked. I asked in the first post, and in the next one.  

To say what I see, or think I see is not "divisive," even if my observations are of things that the other side does, if it is done in a respectful tone and asks a fair question.

The response is not "You are obtuse." Rather the response is "Yes, the right does that. In 1989, the city of Richmond urged a boycott of Oakland........" Or "Yes, the right does it.  In May, Tea Party activists protested outside the house of XXX when his kids were there."

It is not unfair to say what you see the other side doing and ask if it is both sides.  Feel free to tell me where I am wrong, and I will modify my views.

And calling me "obtuse" is not denigrating my idea.  It is denigrating me.

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 9:59:03 AM

You say it is one percent of the left that does it.

It is true that for any side, you have a small percent of "activists."  However, when an entire city like SF urges a boycott, it is not 1%.

Likewise, the entire city of Los Angeles - throught the city counsel - also voted for a boycott of AZ.  1% - ?????  No that is a major trend.

The boycott at the private homes were done by unions and were official union activities.  That was not a fringe group.  The union never said, "They are not speaking for us and they are mis-using our name."  It was not 1%, but the organization.

You have a point with the pro-life, but there are a few things:  First, their protests are much rarer than anything on the left.  I don't know when the last time I heard that an abortion clinic was being picketed.  Has there been one in the past 2 years?  (Just asking)

Second, in the extreme majority of cases, they protest at the location of the perceived offense, namely clinics.  I never heard of pro-life people picketing a private restaurant because the owner gave money to Planned Parenthoood.  AGAIN, and again, I am just asking. Do they ever do that?  I never heard of it.

As to the nut who shot the doctor, there are always violent nuts.  You will not that I never mentioned a violent act by a bongo individual.

Leftist mobs are a bunch of fucking savages.  They are violent and destructive.  There is no arguing that.  So there response is always the evil "Pro Life" mobs.  Give me a break.  What a stereotypical liberal BS argument.  Along with you blaming Limbaugh for polarization and playing the race card every chance you get you are a liberal cliche'.

Your entitled to it but please stop pretending you are anything but a partisan Democrat who will be voting for Obama due to his stellar record of achievement.

with certain exceptions of course. There used to be another left of center poster that possessed a similar mindset to us here named FastEddie, who regrettably passed on over a year ago.


He was also quite a film buff; BIG loss to this board, IMO.

And we are laboring under the mis-aprehension of prior "unity."  Why?  Because there was a sense of unity during WWII, after which most of us were born.  It began to slip away by the mid-50s as the inevitable pressures took hold.
But the original colonies had such divergeant goals that it was difficult to put the country together to begin with.  Political differences quickly led to the rise of parties, lamented by the Founders.  Discourse was vicious before 1800, to the point where today it would provoke libel suits.  There was North v. South, East v. West, property owners v. the working man, etc.  Waves of immigration provoked nativist backlash like the "Know Nothings."  Then there was the Civil War and Reconstruction.  More waves of immgrants and the Industrial Revoltion led to the rise of unions and class warfare.  And we're not even to the 20th century yet!  Need I go on?
The great thing about this country is that, despite all the polarization, we continue to innovate and grow.  But don't expect the polarization to end.  It's an old phenomenon.  And it's human nature.

Wow!  Think much of yourself dude?  Do you really think telling us all how badass you are helps your argument?  Reminds me when you tried to end an argument with me by saying you "owned" me.  Do you really think saying it makes it so?  I guess that works in South Park.
Sorry, Pri, I know you don't need me to defend you from this arrogant clown.

I am sure you noticed that I pointed out OC's rhetoric as non-productive as well.

I really think that is thet type of rhetoric that is the cause of your original question, why are we so divided.

When I was a kid, I never remembered my parents saying the nasty things about the other side, and I never remember the other side saying nasty things about our side.  (By kid, I mean up to 16. In the late 60's terms like "pigs" started appearing)

And here is your bipartisan example - blaming both sides.  I HATE the terms Demorats and Repukelicans (or any of the 100 variations).  That is something that I know both sides do, and it does not help from either side.

And one last thing. I hate work. I have to get some stuff done, and I am trying to avoid it, which is why I have posted so many times.  

It would be a far less polarized world if everyone in the United States decided to give me $20.

Posted By: Priapus53

I'm too lazy to do an archive search on that, but believe me, I've done it. Being honest, since I'm left of center, I have castigated right more than left , but that's my "bias". I admit it.

Also, being honest, have I ever praised GWB on this board ? Sincerely doubt it, but I'd have to look it up.

As for the childishly volatile Officer Cartman,
he's too "dense" to realize that I'm a registered indpendent that voted for a GOP Tea party Congressman in my district.

As for the next election, have NFC as to who I'm voting for.

You know, Phil, OC is FAR more deserving of "obtuse" label than you are-------

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 11:30:32 AM

Although robust at times, the Brits have rules about the limits of parmlimentary debate, and iwhile it is fair to mock positions, t is not proper to engage in personal insults.

I forget who it was, but one politician was censured for saying that half of the House of Commons were a bunch of idiots.  Realising he may have crossed the line, he aplogized, saying he withdrew his prior statement and half of the house WERE NOT idiots.

Saying "have of you are idiots" is the same thing as saying "half of you aren't"

I realize you apolgized, and it is noted.  By cleverly phrasing it, he reiterated the insult, pretending to be chastized.

It's why I love the Brits.  No one else does it that well.  

Posted By: Priapus53

I apologized for calling you "obtuse", but not to PW, Jersey & Officer Cartman.

Oh, wait------I called them "arrogant clowns"---an additional apology------for initially "mislabelling" them-------

Let's not drag me into this any deeper, Pri. While it's true I rarely agree with jersey and PW, my discussions with each of them have always been civil and respectful.  There are actually a few areas where we do agree.  Hell, I even agree with Cartman on occasion.  It's just that arrogant bloviating like in the post I referred to that went too far.

Censoring?

C'mon Pri, wake up.

I have more important things to do than care about the thousands of years of wars in the Middle East. I also think it is none of my business to discuss religion with anyone.

To each his own. I like discussing politics. You like getting your money's worth at the buffet line . . .

Imagine---your first college class while you're in your 60's----a late bloomer who will finally be able to communicate with the "cool kids" here-------it will also finally give you the opportunity to hike up your skirt along with the other old maids who attend the course-----

-- Modified on 7/5/2011 12:20:31 AM

I agree with your assessment except in the cases of Jersey, PW & mrnotrouble---they are inflexible,hysterical,overly sensitive, uneducated, predictable, partisan hacks who have been brainwashed by right-wing media. Perhaps not trolls, but crashing partisan bores.

As for the rest of your thread, you were right on the $.


-- Modified on 7/5/2011 12:27:20 AM

Phil, I should point out that, despite their rules of civility, the Brits in Parilament didn't always play bean-bag.  Viz this exchange between John Wilkes and the Earl of Sandwich (yes, the guy who invented the sandwich)
The Earl to Wilkes: "Egad sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox."
Wilkes to the Earl: "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

No problem, pri.  I enjoy having guys like you just to the left of me and Willy even father to the left!  Considering all the right-wing flamers here, I also don't mind having someone to the left of me flaming even more than I do!  LOL!

I can't speak for the others, but Pri you are way off in your assessment of me.  Let's just say my level of education is significantly higher than you hoped it would be.

Dude, Why would you bring up that time I made a fool of you?  Reread that if you feel like laughing at yourself as hard a I was laughing at you.  I'm actually not arrogant or full of myself at all.   You lose your marbles and Priapus starts posting cartoons the moment your arguments falls apart.  Anyone with an IQ over 75 can outwit you two buffoons.

Once again, OC proclaims himself the winner!  See a pattern here anybody?  Loser re-writes history. If you really read any of these threads of late, you'd have found yourself referred to (serially) as one of the least respected posters here -- by both left and right.  But I'm under no illusions.  You will keep re-writing history on this one, too.  If you can't re-read your post and see what a fool you are, well, it's hardly a surprise.  So, please, keep making a fool of yourself and we'll all keep laughing.  No doubt you'll decide we're laughing with you when we're actually laughing at you.
PS:  In case you're too stupid to understand me:  no, I'm not still hurting from "that one."  But I'm still laughing.

-- Modified on 7/4/2011 11:43:20 PM

While I appreciate the praise, I still don't agree that PW and jersey are "partisan hacks."  I think that category was made up for Cartman and it applies only to him.  I'd say the right's resident sage is phil, who also has put OC in his own "special place" as a right-wing troll with no credibility, as has Gambler.  I'd say phil, Gamber and St. Croix are the "rational" right of center.  Jersey, PW and mrnotrouble are a long step to the right of that,  but they are still capable of non-flaming debate.  Then you have to raving loonies who are so pissed they'll flame irrationally: snowball and OC.  Then there are the lefty versions.  Willy at least doesn't flame, but AF does, along with xfean and mrnogood.  At either end of the spectrum they have no credibility and just should be ignored.  Along with the Arch Conspiracy Theorists, who, at least, have not been heard from lately.  I will not name the latter, as he could re-appear like BeetleJuice.

more on the order of a TJlooneytunes or a MadisonOhare, not a left wing nut. I think we are all in agreement that he's a fucking loon however.

I don't have any real disagreement with anything else you've said, except that Willy doesn't need to "flame" he makes posts that are just so far out fucking outrageous, that he doesn't need to actually flame anyone to be considered irrational.

Well more like her apology to the gay people she might of offended instead.

Hey if you give me enough time, I bet you I can think of something that I like about Michael Moore or Bill Maher too, just give me a really long time in their cases. lol

i.e., brain got taken over by babblers on on the news media and came full circle with Blogs and Internet, You Tube, Twitter, etc. Soon we will be back to the stone age.

"inflexible, hysterical, overly sensitive, uneducated, predictable, partisan hacks who have been brainwashed by the right-wing media. Perhaps not trolls, but crashing partisan bores."

priapus, you kill me, lmao. You don't know dick about me other than what you've read on P&R. Per your usual tactics...you attack the messenger, not the message.

Btw, there's only two 'm's in Second Amendment, not three. Your supposed to be the spelling police here???

My OP was emminently reasonable----I said that repeal of Fairness doctrine being start of polarization was my OPINION; also stated that would be MISTAKE to reinstate it. Also called
for those to thoughtfully respond ( which some did ) for their own ideas about when polarization started. This caused you to launch
an ad hominem attack against me & bringing up my typos & you talk about ME "attacking the messenger" ?!------LMAO ! Dude, there are reasonable conservatives on this board to be taken seriously. By your actions, you're not acting like one of them. PW made step in right direction when he gave a reasonable reply to my OP at top of the page; if you want to be taken seriously , it would behoove you to do likewise.

I have seen that as attributed to various sources.  

It must be remembered that since they didn't have recorders or reporters, may "quotes" aren't.

It is like the person who heard a good line and said, "I wish I had said that," to which the author replied, "Don't worry. You will."

Now Pri thinks we all take our marching orders from him!!!

Well, I guess I'd rather have him be delusional than his usual spelling-police demeanor . . .   LOL!

GaG, as long as it is not retroactive, you should probably start a Pri-Anonymous donation bucket for me.  

But, it has to not be retroactive. Hell, if I had to pay for every one of his inane posts that I have responded to in the past, it would make the national debt look like a mere pittance.

PW, that sounds a little---errrr---"you know"-----------

There ARE NO bosses or mods here,PW, in case you've forgotten.

Btw, stick to politics & dispense with your "inane humor" else you turn into what you're accusing me of-------

The ONLY two posters that refer to me at all when not directly debating me are you and Priapus.  In your advanced years you still haven't learned not to talk out of you ass.  tisk...tisk

PS- You have this PATHETIC habit of repeating everything I say back to me when we argue.  " No, I'm laughing at you!!... No, I own you!!....No, you're the doggy following me!!!". You do it "serially". Try to come up with some new material kiddo.  (too easy)

Most people cannot carry on an objective political discussion. There is one political position in the US and it is the capitalist political position. Its like belief in god and religion. If you are christian then your religion in many ways defines your perspective of both other religions and god. Most people in the US are not members of the capitalist class so they have a warped perspective of US politics.