PDA

View Full Version : A question for the superlibs, err... progressives. ;-)



Paul Pless
05-13-2010, 03:16 PM
Are there any conservative political or economic commentators or editors that you respect and take seriously? If so who?

katey
05-13-2010, 03:24 PM
Although I disagree with almost all of his answers, I find that Pat Buchanan has a knack for asking the right questions.

TerryLL
05-13-2010, 03:27 PM
Yup. Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

ccmanuals
05-13-2010, 03:29 PM
Just to name a few "progressive" (there are others)

Richard Wolffe of Newsweek
Chuck Todd of NBC news
Eugene Robinson of thw Wash Post
Howard Fineman of Newsweek
Jonathon Alter of Newsweek

bobbys
05-13-2010, 03:36 PM
Are there any conservative political or economic commentators or editors that you respect and take seriously? If so who?.

I never miss Ann Coulter!!:D

Captain Blight
05-13-2010, 03:41 PM
I really miss Wm F Buckley. Christopher Hetchins offers a point of view I particularly like, that of a fiscal conservative without the religio-hysterical point of view.

I'm not a "Superlib," Paul, any more than you're Grand Dragon of the local Klan.

Paul Pless
05-13-2010, 04:11 PM
I'm not a "Superlib," Paul, any more than you're Grand Dragon of the local Klan.I know that. My 'progressive' comment was aimed at Messieurs Wilson and Bernstein; 'superlib' was of course directed at a certain gentleman from Hyannis and a certain lady from Cape Cod - neither of which would find being described as liberal derogatory I think, nor should they. . .

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-13-2010, 04:18 PM
Lets face it, most of the 'opposition' whether it be liberal or conservative at the time, tends to be media fashionable types... Rush, Anne Coulter, etc are not serious pundits of anything. They are tabloid pundits, that combine a small amount of fact with a large amount of sensationalism. The only sad thing is how many people jump on the bandwagon. The percentage of people who know how government works, and how public policy implements, and base their vote on it, is probably about 20% of voters. I might be generous in that estimate.

Captain Blight
05-13-2010, 04:26 PM
I know that. My 'progressive' comment was aimed at Messieurs Wilson and Bernstein; 'superlib' was of course directed at a certain gentleman from Hyannis and a certain lady from Cape Cod - neither of which would find being described as liberal derogatory I think, nor should they. . .
Neither Ian nor Emily are "super-liberals" from what I can see. They do,, state their beliefs more forcefully than most; but their points of view aren't significantly further left than, say, Mr Wilson's or my own. Mssrs Wilson and Bernstein are no more than a very light shade of pink, I should say, and I have heard Mr Wilson state, publicly, on no fewer than two occasions that he has a lot of hope for the capitalist system. And of course wishing for the betterment of society isn't either Left or Right point of view, it's a human point of view. Just because it comes from the Left doesn't automatically make it evil or destructive.

elf
05-13-2010, 05:03 PM
Andrew Sullivan.

Glen Longino
05-13-2010, 05:35 PM
I like to hear Pat Buchanan's views on MaLaughlin Group on PBS Sunday mornings.
I also listen to Monica Crowley on that same show just to watch her. She's hotter than a two dollar pistol.

elf
05-13-2010, 06:16 PM
I know that. My 'progressive' comment was aimed at Messieurs Wilson and Bernstein; 'superlib' was of course directed at a certain gentleman from Hyannis and a certain lady from Cape Cod - neither of which would find being described as liberal derogatory I think, nor should they. . .

All of that depends on your definition.

ahp
05-13-2010, 06:26 PM
I don't think I am a super lib, maybe limited lib. I respect George Will, although I don't usually agree with him. I agree with Buchanan sometimes. He is always interesting. Ann Coulter is a nut case.

As for William Buckley, I probably never agreed with him, but the problem was that I couldn't understand him. They teach people to write funny at Yale. But then I went to a public university and probably didn't deserve to understand him.

Hwyl
05-13-2010, 06:31 PM
Dutch

Paul Pless
05-13-2010, 06:32 PM
All of that depends on your definition.Well the thread title was tongue in cheek, however I do respect the left believe it or not, and I am interested in your answers to the question.

Paul Pless
05-13-2010, 06:35 PM
As for William Buckley, I probably never agreed with him, but the problem was that I couldn't understand him. They teach people to write funny at Yale. But then I went to a public university and probably didn't deserve to understand him.> :D

Chris Coose
05-13-2010, 06:38 PM
I take them all seriously.
Problem is, my average tollerance attention is about 12 seconds.
The reason to pay them any more time is to pick up on the latest lie to be repeated over and over again so I'll know what the tea drinkers are talking about.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-13-2010, 06:42 PM
I listen to Chris Coose. Does that count for anything?:D

John Smith
05-13-2010, 06:48 PM
Lets face it, most of the 'opposition' whether it be liberal or conservative at the time, tends to be media fashionable types... Rush, Anne Coulter, etc are not serious pundits of anything. They are tabloid pundits, that combine a small amount of fact with a large amount of sensationalism. The only sad thing is how many people jump on the bandwagon. The percentage of people who know how government works, and how public policy implements, and base their vote on it, is probably about 20% of voters. I might be generous in that estimate.

My tv was full of serious pundits, politicians, and economists (conservatives) in '93 predicting the end of the world if Clinton's budget passed. Considering how wrong they were, why would I have any faith in any of them?

To be fair, Jon Stewart did quite a piece on the MNBC pundits, which got Jim Cramer angry, which led to the best interview, IMO, ever.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-12-2009/jim-cramer-pt--1

elf
05-13-2010, 06:59 PM
Well the thread title was tongue in cheek, however I do respect the left believe it or not, and I am interested in your answers to the question.

Oh yes. I read and enjoy Kathleen Parker, too.

John Smith
05-13-2010, 07:00 PM
If we are to take an honest look at the USA, economically, we would see clearly that capitalism cannot function without an infrastructure socialy created.

There is a blend that needs to be achieved wherein the infrastructure; highways, reservoirs, electricity grids, record keeping court systems, police and fire departments, and on and on, allow private industry to flourish.

We also need to be cognizant of the need to manufacture goods here, as the money, IMO, ends up in the country of manufature. This is why we export as much money due to trade deficits as we export for oil.

Trickle down has proven to be backwards and non workable. Trickle up is what is needed. The middle class, having good jobs and health care, consumes. The money it spends consuming trickles up to those who own the companies whose products/services are consumed.

When the middle class is hurting from high gas prices, unemployment, outrageous interest rates on credit cards, medical bills, etc. they cease to consume as much, and all businesses suffer, which causes layoffs, business closings, and the problem is exacerbated.

If you take an HONEST look at our history, Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 92% to 35%. The wealthy didn't need to create jobs to avoid taxes, so they just invested the money and collected dividends.

I remember Donald Trump saying the higher tax rate caused him to find ways to get around the taxes, and most of those ways created jobs for the public. With the lowered rate, it wasn't worth it, so he just paid the taxes.

How did we create an atmosphere where GM could take the Buick plant in Michigan, when it was making record profits, and move the plant to Canada to make even MORE money?

The "greed factor" took off big time in the 80's. Our national debt and our deficits went wild in that decade, and I was told they didn't matter; by conservative pundits.

Nicholas Scheuer
05-13-2010, 07:04 PM
Comentators? Not a god dammed one.

Politicians? Sen Righard Lugar.

Moby Nick

Paul Pless
05-13-2010, 07:08 PM
If we are to take an honest look at the USA, economically, we would see clearly that capitalism cannot function without an infrastructure socialy created.

There is a blend that needs to be achieved wherein the infrastructure; highways, reservoirs, electricity grids, record keeping court systems, police and fire departments, and on and on, allow private industry to flourish.

We also need to be cognizant of the need to manufacture goods here, as the money, IMO, ends up in the country of manufature. This is why we export as much money due to trade deficits as we export for oil.

Trickle down has proven to be backwards and non workable. Trickle up is what is needed. The middle class, having good jobs and health care, consumes. The money it spends consuming trickles up to those who own the companies whose products/services are consumed.

When the middle class is hurting from high gas prices, unemployment, outrageous interest rates on credit cards, medical bills, etc. they cease to consume as much, and all businesses suffer, which causes layoffs, business closings, and the problem is exacerbated.

If you take an HONEST look at our history, Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 92% to 35%. The wealthy didn't need to create jobs to avoid taxes, so they just invested the money and collected dividends.

I remember Donald Trump saying the higher tax rate caused him to find ways to get around the taxes, and most of those ways created jobs for the public. With the lowered rate, it wasn't worth it, so he just paid the taxes.

How did we create an atmosphere where GM could take the Buick plant in Michigan, when it was making record profits, and move the plant to Canada to make even MORE money?

The "greed factor" took off big time in the 80's. Our national debt and our deficits went wild in that decade, and I was told they didn't matter; by conservative pundits.your reply really ain't got much to do with with the question, but i love the stanza form rant:D

Candyfloss
05-13-2010, 07:11 PM
No.

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-13-2010, 07:38 PM
Only one. David Brooks of the NY Times. He can defend his turf without denying the facts presented by his opposition. And his intelligence seems to go far beyond parsing out the political winds.
What I see here by some rightwingers is an attempt to argue a point from an alternate universe. Brooks is smart enough not to have to go that route.

elf
05-13-2010, 07:57 PM
Yeah, but even his thought breaks down into cant a some point. Not as bad as George Will, who starts out reasonable but then can't get past some Republican nostrum or other. But still. Brooks has trouble with logic.

That's one reason I like Andrew. He struggles all the time to reconcile his foregone conclusions with the facts and his basic humanity. And often is forced to confront some ugly truths about his foregone conclusions.

People like George Will seem to me to be lacking in the basic humanity part. Just look at the man - sour puss all buttoned up like he's afraid someone will find he has no hair on his chest and he'll be embarassed.

As though having hair on ones chest is necessary.

paladin
05-13-2010, 09:33 PM
Just as an aside, having hair on one's chest is not a generally pleasant experience, especially if they are ripping off bandages, cleaning the area, repositioning the catheter in my neck, then cleaning the area and sticking down another patch for 24 hours, the repeat....it gets ripped out in patches.

Keith Wilson
05-13-2010, 09:53 PM
Are there any conservative political or economic commentators or editors that you respect and take seriously? If so who?David Brooks. Peggy Noonan. George Will about half the time; sometimes he goes completely off the rails. Dinesh D'Souza is interesting sometimes, and no fool. Buckley was very good, but not quite as clever as he though he was. Pat Buchanan is dangerous, because about 70% of what he says makes eminent sense, and the rest is purest poison. Ann Coulter is an idiot - no, that's unfair to idiots.

Gonzalo
05-13-2010, 10:42 PM
I've often agreed with George Will. He can be nasty and partisan, but he can be pretty hard on both parties.

David Brooks, because he seems pretty analytical in reaching conclusions. When liberals say and do dumb things, he says so, and explains why they're dumb, but he doesn't let conservatives get away with much, either.

David Frum, along the lines of David Brooks.

Kathleen Parker, likewise.

I don't read Peggy Noonan often because my local paper doesn't carry her, but I like much of what I've read in her columns, and I've read at least one of her books.

When they were active, my local paper printed William Safire and James Kilpatrick regularly. I used to look forward to Mondays and Thursdays, when their columns would appear. I read them, if not with agreement, then with respect.

My local paper never carried Wm F. Buckley, but for a while our Public Radio Station carried the audio of "Firing Line." I seldom missed it because the discussion was usually interesting and respectful, even though I agree with Keith that he thought himself more clever than he was.

There is a local columnist named Rick Martinez who used to make my skin crawl, but lately I've been agreeing with him astonishingly often. I've even saved a few columns for my wife to read. To put him in perspective, he is the news director of the local radio station that plays Rush Limbaugh clones pretty much all the time. Martinez's wife works for a conservative/libertarian think tank called the John Locke Society; they do a political radio program together on Sundays. I catch it fairly often.

What ties most of these conservatives together is that generally they discuss the ideas behind economics, government and politics and don't just parrot Republican talking points and slam Democrats. Most of them are willing to say so when their party gets it wrong and their opponents get it right. They are also willing to argue respectfully and (sometimes) persuasively about why the Democrats are wrong, not just take pot shots at them.

I read Charles Krauthamer regularly, but with some distaste. He doesn't seem as bitter as he used to be, though, and sometimes he makes good points.

Tom Montgomery
05-14-2010, 07:07 AM
Keith Wilson took the words out of my mouth.

MiddleAgesMan
05-14-2010, 07:19 AM
Only one. David Brooks of the NY Times. He can defend his turf without denying the facts presented by his opposition. And his intelligence seems to go far beyond parsing out the political winds.
What I see here by some rightwingers is an attempt to argue a point from an alternate universe. Brooks is smart enough not to have to go that route.

Yep. Brooks is in a class by himself.

Pat Buchanan can appear to be sensible, at times, but his high-pitched voice makes everything he says sound, well...shrill!

MiddleAgesMan
05-14-2010, 07:28 AM
....Buckley was very good, but not quite as clever as he though he was. Pat Buchanan is dangerous, because about 70% of what he says makes eminent sense, and the rest is purest poison....

Agree about Wm. F. but no one has mentioned his son Christopher. He doesn't affect the phony patrician manner of his father and has enough sense to have endorsed Obama which cost him his job on his father's paper. You don't see him on the tube very often but I always read anything he writes whenever I can find it.

BTW, very astute analysis about Buchanan, Mr. Wilson.

Joe (SoCal)
05-14-2010, 07:58 AM
http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/x1/x6958.jpg

Osborne Russell
05-14-2010, 09:07 AM
Keith Wilson took the words out of my mouth.

Elf and Keith said it better than I could, regarding the current scene.

If dead people are eligible, I like Edmund Burke.

Yeadon
05-14-2010, 09:35 AM
Andrew Sullivan.

pefjr
05-14-2010, 09:52 AM
From an ol country boy try this here site:

http://www.americanthinker.com/

Andrew Craig-Bennett
05-14-2010, 10:04 AM
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus.

Here is a sample, a British description of the Romans:

Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

To ravage, to slaughter, to steal under colour of false titles they call making an empire, and when they have made a desert, they call it peace.

Gerarddm
05-14-2010, 10:09 AM
Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks

William Buckley in latter years, if only because he had a coherent worldview that evolved, AND was a hell of a sailor.

John Smith
05-14-2010, 12:09 PM
your reply really ain't got much to do with with the question, but i love the stanza form rant:D

I think I addressed the thread question in post 20.

The "rant" is my view that everyone has it wrong.

LeeG
05-14-2010, 12:13 PM
Are there any conservative political or economic commentators or editors that you respect and take seriously? If so who?

not really, if they're smart I don't understand them and if they're not it's obvious they're blowing smoke so I prefer to listen to the voices in my head when I take the foil cap off. Going through a lot of foil these days.

katey
05-14-2010, 01:11 PM
not really, if they're smart I don't understand them and if they're not it's obvious they're blowing smoke so I prefer to listen to the voices in my head when I take the foil cap off. Going through a lot of foil these days.

Did somebody call for a tinfoil hat? You can't be too careful:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=212729&l=689107961d&id=100000555176326

Osborne Russell
05-14-2010, 03:52 PM
Here is a sample, a British description of the Romans:

Knee-jerk liberal Roman-hater.

C. Ross
05-14-2010, 04:40 PM
Pat Buchanan? Seriously? Maybe his rabid trade protectionism and opposition to the Iraq invasion? Both those positions, as far as I can tell, come from an isolationist, anti-immigrant, possibly anti-Semitic, know-nothing nostalgia that 99% emotion and 1% logic.

So Sullivan, Brooks, Will, and Noonan are good choices, but so is The Weekly Standard (Kristol and Barnes write less frequently nowadays but are good) and also Marc Ambinder, David Frum and, for laughs, P.J. O'Rourke and Christopher Buckley.

Osborne Russell
05-14-2010, 04:54 PM
If someone should hold a gun to your head and force you to turn off Fox News and go to the library, I hope you won't be too disappointed to learn that conservatism is based on a specific view of human nature, to wit, that most people, all the time, and all people, at one time or another, are intrinsically evil-minded and so must be kept under strict control by their betters. Whereas liberalism is based on the view that enlightened self-interest is more powerful than the best government, not to mention the average government. Man can choose enlightened self-interest and deal with things on that basis, or reject it and be guaranteed slavery. Either way there's no one else to blame it on.

Thomas Jefferson remains the super liberal. He and like-minded people invented the rationale of the United States. The conservatives were people like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted the Federal Government to control banking (and I don't mean maybe, as in the twittering paranoia of the Fox Right); and of course the Tories.

But you wouldn't know that because it runs counter to your mythology. Oops, duh, so what, shut up, support the troops, No King But Jesus.

Paul Pless
05-14-2010, 04:56 PM
But you wouldn't know that because it runs counter to your mythology. Oops, duh, so what, shut up, support the troops, No King But Jesus.you are a funny little man mr. entry level:rolleyes:

C. Ross
05-14-2010, 04:57 PM
That is without a doubt one of the best crafted but least accurate characterization of conservatism that I've read in a while.

pefjr
05-14-2010, 08:18 PM
Thomas Jefferson again. A super liberal. hmmm....... Well, yeah, that does run counter to my ...uh..enlightenment. But, nevermind, I ain't in the mood to argue that one anymore, you TJ idolers are too hard headed, and there is too many of you. In fact you seem to be multiplying rapidly. Don't yall practice any kind of birth control?

Uh.... I would have thought a super liberal would free.......ah....#$%^& nevermind.

elf
05-14-2010, 08:29 PM
Well, no one's denying that he had a lot of trouble with his sinful nature!

And that he was able, like Mr. Obama today, to push his contemporaries only so far before their willingness to go along disintegrated.

And, on the other hand, no one's denying that he made great effort to do more than was acceptable by his house "slaves" - freeing them at age 21, allowing them to learn trades, to hire themselves to others and keep their pay, to travel as freely as it was possible in that day, to marry whom they pleased and keep their families intact.

Just that list would make him a super liberal for his age.

Gonzalo
05-14-2010, 08:29 PM
...Kristol and Barnes write less frequently nowadays but are good...Gosh, I didn't even know Kristol was considered a conservative. I read him whenever he is in the local paper. I usually like his work.

elf
05-14-2010, 08:34 PM
Bill Kristol is not only conservative, he's reactionary.

Gonzalo
05-14-2010, 08:58 PM
...conservatism is based on a specific view of human nature, to wit, that most people, all the time, and all people, at one time or another, are intrinsically evil-minded and so must be kept under strict control by their betters. Whereas liberalism is based on the view that enlightened self-interest is more powerful than the best government, not to mention the average government....Your point may be of historical interest, but it has darn little to do with the way "liberal" and "conservative" labels are used in the U.S. today. It was the failure of enlightened self interest to regulate behavior that so disappointed Alan Greenspan a couple of years ago. Today it is (usually) liberals who believe a cop on the beat and a little paternalistic regulation will promote everyone's interests in the long run.

pefjr
05-14-2010, 10:18 PM
Just that list would make him a super liberal for his age.In a country with legal slavery and open season on Natives, yet claimed equality? I think he fit right in. Mighty kind of him to be nice to the property, while accumulating and taking more. We Americans have done such a great job clouding History.

Osborne Russell
05-15-2010, 10:59 AM
Your point may be of historical interest . . .

Why would a conservative be interested in history? To decide what to conserve, I would think.

The modern conservate wants to conserve what never existed, except in myth.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
05-15-2010, 11:55 AM
Thomas Jefferson may have been a talented spin doctor but I can hardly consider a man who mortgaged his own children as any sort of a role model, thank you.

Yes, he manumitted them in his will, but since he had mortgaged them, and did not redeem the mortgages, the manumission was invalid and they remained slaves.

tigerregis
05-15-2010, 12:07 PM
John Smith, that Buick plant has been in Canada since the 30's. GM makes their plants bid on new models and the plant with a good record and a good proposal will usually get the job. FYI

Osborne Russell
05-26-2010, 09:41 AM
Thomas Jefferson may have been a talented spin doctor but I can hardly consider a man who mortgaged his own children as any sort of a role model, thank you.

Very problematic as a role model. But his philosophy is vital to America.

Dane Allen
05-26-2010, 11:11 AM
[QUOTE=Captain Blight;2592705I'm not a "Superlib," Paul, any more than you're Grand Dragon of the local Klan.[/QUOTE]

The Klan is a Democrat institution, are you saying democrats and liberals are separate groups?

purri
05-26-2010, 07:36 PM
Knee-jerk liberal Roman-hater.
Romanae exeunt domus!

BA.Barcolounger
05-26-2010, 09:04 PM
The Klan is a Democrat institution, are you saying democrats and liberals are separate groups?

Since the 60s, yes. They are very different groups.




On topic:

Frum, Brooks and Will are OK in my book.

Osborne Russell
05-28-2010, 08:56 AM
Romanae exeunt domus!


Romans leave the house -- ?

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 09:01 AM
... Today it is (usually) liberals who believe a cop on the beat and a little paternalistic regulation will promote everyone's interests in the long run.

Now that's projection!

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 10:46 AM
The Klan is a Democrat institution, are you saying democrats and liberals are separate groups?

Nice try, Pocahontas.

The only thing between what you wrote and libel, is your 'ignorant' misuse of the word Democrat.

The overt meaning of your statement is that the KKK is an institution of the 'Democrat[ic]' Party.

That's a calumny of the first order, Sir.

What you don't know about the KKK could, and has, filled volumes. Likewise, your ignorance of the makeup of the Democratic Party would be astounding, if it weren't so stale.

Then you proceeded to refer to members of the Democratic Party as 'democrats' with the lower-case 'd', a less-than-subtle disparagement. What you chose to ignore is that, spelled with a lower-case 'd', democrats are all those who live in a democracy. That means you, bub.

Many, many men have died so that you can still go and vote. They made you a 'democrat'. Likewise, many men met in Philadelphia one Summer to create our Constitution, and they made you a 'republican'.

Captain Blight
05-28-2010, 12:06 PM
This may or may not be the place to point this out: I guess it's better than most, so here goes:

The day after Paul started this thread, I started another one, worded exactly the same, but asking conservatives if they were listening to anyone on the Left.

The silence was deafening, the thread sank quickly and is probably resting on the bottom. What does this tell me? That the liberals here, far from being stupid, libtarded, Marxist extremists (as alluded to by Big Woody) are actually thoughtful people who make a point of listening to dissenting points of view. It also tells me that the Conservatives don't much care about viewpoints other than their own, and don't go out of their way to seek that. In fact, they go out of their way to shout down opposing viewpoints.

Real American, guys. Real patriotic. I'm sure that Baby Jesus is so proud of you.

pefjr
05-28-2010, 12:26 PM
That the liberals here, far from being stupid, libtarded, Marxist extremists (as alluded to by Big Woody) are actually thoughtful people who make a point of listening to dissenting points of view. It also tells me that the Conservatives don't much care about viewpoints other than their own, and don't go out of their way to seek that. In fact, they go out of their way to shout down opposing viewpoints.

Real American, guys. Real patriotic. I'm sure that Baby Jesus is so proud of you.Do you even know the definition of patriotism? You have never shown any evidence that you have the faintest idea of patriotism. You are sure about the baby jesus being proud? or having anything to do with patriotism? And what's your idea of a REAL American. Nevermind........ I have heard it too many times before.

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 12:29 PM
This may or may not be the place to point this out: I guess it's better than most, so here goes:

The day after Paul started this thread, I started another one, worded exactly the same, but asking conservatives if they were listening to anyone on the Left.

The silence was deafening, the thread sank quickly and is probably resting on the bottom...

Dude... I hate to tell you this...but... That thread does not exist anymore.

I went looking for it, but no joy.

Sorry. :o

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 12:31 PM
Do you even know the definition of patriotism? You have never shown any evidence that you have the faintest idea of patriotism. You are sure about the baby jesus being proud? or having anything to do with patriotism? And what's your idea of a REAL American. Nevermind........ I have heard it too many times before.

So Peffles starts out with derision and insults, then clamps his blinders on tight, just like a good boy. :rolleyes:

Captain Blight
05-28-2010, 12:36 PM
I cannot read this message because PEFJR is on my Ignore List.


Shoo, y'little twerp. Shoo.

BA.Barcolounger
05-28-2010, 12:41 PM
Dude... I hate to tell you this...but... That thread does not exist anymore.

I went looking for it, but no joy.

Sorry. :o

Lots of threads go poof around here.

Kaa
05-28-2010, 12:44 PM
Lots of threads go poof around here.

In more ways than one, too :D

Kaa

Paul Pless
05-28-2010, 12:50 PM
Dude... I hate to tell you this...but... That thread does not exist anymore.

I went looking for it, but no joy.

Sorry. :orofl:D

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 12:52 PM
rofl:D

Well...:rolleyes::p;):)

Somebody hadda tellim, eh?

oznabrag
05-28-2010, 03:16 PM
...That the liberals here, far from being stupid, libtarded, Marxist extremists (as alluded to by Big Woody) are actually thoughtful people who make a point of listening to dissenting points of view. It also tells me that the Conservatives don't much care about viewpoints other than their own, and don't go out of their way to seek that. In fact, they go out of their way to shout down opposing viewpoints.

...

It seems as though Woody may have taken your thread with him when he went 'poof'.

It may be pushing the envelope a little too hard to try a re-post, but I think it's a very, very good question.

Do the right have any interest in anything being said by the center, or are they off to la-la land?