POOR babies, did I hurt your feelings?

Liberals just don't get it

Published on February 15, 2005 By Moderateman In Politics

I have been wondering what is it about my blog that seems to raise the ire of so many liberals.

I mean if you call me a racist, I care not one whit, because the truth is I am not one.

If you say I beat my wife, it bothers me not, why you ask? Because I don’t beat her.

Simple huh?

It seems to me when I post something about how whiney cry babyish you are, if the shoe doesn’t fit WHY are you responding in the negative?

Maybe on some level YOU are starting to see how YOU behave and me putting it out there for the world to see upsets your little feelings.

So when I post something that upsets you, stand back and LOOK AT YOURSELF, cause we all know that saying “truth hurts” huh?

Stop behaving like little girly men and I won’t have anything to blog about, simple huh? You can get rid of me just by simply stop being obstructionist people< rid yourself of this demon {me} by ridding yourselves of the demons within.

Face it you had your chance at changing America and all you did was weaken her.
Much as I loved bill Clinton, his weak ass foreign policy told the terrorist we were weak, and easy pickings for them.

Do you really think if we had a strong policy those little bearded men would have dared attack us?

When they bombed our embassies YOU did nothing, when they bombed the USS Cole, you did nothing except to embolden them to more and more destruction.

Now the enemy sees how you are at odds with My President, and are further empowered by your very words and behavior, they do not see anti war protesting as strength, the terrorist see it as WEAKNESS, why can’t you see it that way?

So when you see what someone here likes to call an “ad hominem” attack and it draws some blood, don’t blame me, blame your own behavior and attitude.

It’s kind of hard to make a point about what you consider MY bad or twisted views, when YOU resort to name calling on a PERSONAL level, while I just generalize. {Thank you to nj for pointing that out to me}, I have neither slandered nor libeled anyone here, just your party or political stances {as I see them}

SO if I hurt your little feeling, GET OVER IT! And get over my blog name too……….MODERATEMAN>>>

Comments (Page 3)

shadesofgrey

on Feb 16, 2005

Shades, first, like you told Moderateman, I will tell you

Fair enough point--my apologies--it was more a writing style than an actual belief that you couldn't deny it--sorry for the confusion.

My Maybe is from the knowledge that NI had already made termendous strides towards peace, and I question (but note I do not deny) whether they could have made it without Clinton or not. That is why he gets a maybe.

What strides toward peace are you talking about? (And I talked about Bush because that is when the peace process turned sour--I am allowed to bring new evidence into a discussion, am I not?

)

And finally, I did not call him weak assed

No, that was the term used in the original article--the term I was trying to refute. Like I said, I don't think that Clinton was perfect, but I don't think he was "weak assed," or that all of his foreign policy sucked. Some if it did (Rwanda jumps to mind), but I think foreign policy is too intricite to say it either "sucked" or didn't. He had sucky aspects, but he also had some brilliant moments--that was the only point I was getting at.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 16, 2005

let me see from that statement if I agree I am obnoxious, If I disagree I am being hardheaded

I'm not painting you into a corner--I'm asking you to debate fairly. I don't name call or wish ill on people, and I don't enjoy debating with people who do.

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Part of engaging in rational discourse is for al epople to answer the questions put forth, as is, not how you see it. It really was a simple question. here it is again if full.

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
will continue to honor the tradition of my country and voice my dissent when it occurs and you can continue to be afraid of terrorists.

good shades never stop. that's what being free is all about, just accept it has an adverse affect. ok?

I am not hardly afraid of terrorist, what are they going to do, kill a sick ol man, already tired. I have had my time in the sun, and the dark too, If my life would stop this war and the senseless destruction by religious maniacs and KEEP america safe , I would gladly lay my life down! would you?

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005let me see from that statement if I agree I am obnoxious, If I disagree I am being hardheadedI'm not painting you into a corner--I'm asking you to debate fairly. I don't name call or wish ill on people, and I don't enjoy debating with people who do.

I have not name called any person here anything, just calling liberlas on their behavior and outcomes.

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005

And finally, I did not call him weak assed. I said his foreign policy sucked. And I would even give you a sucess or 2 that he had, but that woudl not negate the scores of failures, blown deals, double dealing and lost secrets that he oversaw.

I called my guy bills policies "weakassed" and I stand by that.

Dr Guy

on Feb 16, 2005

What strides toward peace are you talking about? (And I talked about Bush because that is when the peace process turned sour--I am allowed to bring new evidence into a discussion, am I not?

Fair, enough, you caught me in the same mis-writing style. YOu did bring him in, and I will agree he has not paid Northern Ireland any attention.

As to the progress, the main one is in the diminished stature and resources that the terrorist organization, on both sides of the conflict are getting. Peace does not come at the point of a gun, but in the hearts and minds of the people and that is a tremendous step in the right direction.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 16, 2005

Moderateman--may I suggest you try re-reading?

here it is again if full.

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
will continue to honor the tradition of my country and voice my dissent when it occurs and you can continue to be afraid of terrorists.

good shades never stop. that's what being free is all about, just accept it has an adverse affect. ok?

I am not hardly afraid of terrorist, what are they going to do, kill a sick ol man, already tired. I have had my time in the sun, and the dark too, If my life would stop this war and the senseless destruction by religious maniacs and KEEP america safe , I would gladly lay my life down! would you?

My first response:

It depends on the conditions. Why die now to end a war if it will only start again tomorrow? I can do more good working for peace alive than dying for a five minute respite in war.

Since my language was unclear--let me translate--my answer is, I don't know, it depends. You might not like that for an answer, but it is still an answer.

Then, I answered your question again, here:

No, I would not die tomorrow if I wasn't assured that the peace would be lasting--how is that not an answer.

I have not name called any person here anything, just calling liberlas on their behavior and outcomes.

I'm sorry, when did "cry baby" stop being a name? When was it ok to say that someone should "die in their sleep" or be "horse whipped"? Or to imply that I am ungrateful for sacrifices made by US soldiers. Were those comments meant to be funny? Because they weren't.

You were calling people on their behavior, and I commented that it was illogical to blame dissenters for terrorists' actions--but you called that a nonanswer. You didn't respond to my comment about the destruction of Beruit either--but you dont' seem me running around screaming "typical conservative nonanswer."

Your blog, your right to run it as you see fit...and your right to pretend that is a bastion of moderate thinking. And my right to stop frequenting it.

Rightwinger

on Feb 16, 2005

ludicris

Shades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005if you think the seals, force recon, green berets and delta force are not trained in a form of terrorism, your much more unconcious than I thought.You've missed my point--which is merely an argument in semantics--the US army would likely say that it is trained in warfare, and combatting terrorism, not engaging in it.

and from the point of a jihadis view they aRE PATRIOTS AND GOOD members of the muslim community, stopping america the great satan. get it yet?

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Ok shades we can agree to disagree. I respect your point of view and will fight unto death to let you have it.

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005ludicrisShades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?

uh uh uh.... no correcting anybodies spelling here. its a spelling police freezone. lol

shadesofgrey

on Feb 16, 2005

Agreed, but I would argue that Clinton's presence in the mid to late 90s is what helped to bring the hearts and minds around. They had to see that someone of stature was supporting the process for them to fully engage. There is a lot to be lost if a peace process fails--sometimes more than if the process hadn't been started in the first place. Clinton's presence assured people that the negotiations were going forward that the desire to reach a settlement was real. Sunningdale and the Downing Street Declaration both failed...so there was something unique about GFA that made it stick. I personaly think that it was the influence of an American presidency.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 16, 2005

Shades: "Ludicris" the singer, or "ludicrous", the real word?

Thanks for pointing out my mistake--I am sure you've never made one in your life.

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005As to the progress, the main one is in the diminished stature and resources that the terrorist organization, on both sides of the conflict are getting. Peace does not come at the point of a gun, but in the hearts and minds of the people and that is a tremendous step in the right direction.Agreed, but I would argue that Clinton's presence in the mid to late 90s is what helped to bring the hearts and minds around. They had to see that someone of stature was supporting the process for them to fully engage. There is a lot to be lost if a peace process fails--sometimes more than if the process hadn't been started in the first place. Clinton's presence assured people that the negotiations were going forward that the desire to reach a settlement was real. Sunningdale and the Downing Street Declaration both failed...so there was something unique about GFA that made it stick. I personaly think that it was the influence of an American presidency.

my guy bill is an engageing mo-fo, and yes he helped turn the worlds view of america around alot.

Moderateman

on Feb 16, 2005

Peace comes from strength.. not weakness shades, you/me/they are only willing to be peacefull when the alternative is to horrendous to think about. and we still war....

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!