Lamar Alexander to Barack Obama: Please, no 'enemies list'

[DealMonkey]

There is no enemies list. /thread

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Hell, I don't always agree with what I post!

PJABBER's Guide to success.

Step 1: Post bullshit.
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
There is no enemies list. /thread

I though you were the resident commissar. Don't tell me you aren't up to the job!

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Hell, I don't always agree with what I post!

PJABBER's Guide to sucess.

Step 1: Post bullshit.
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit.

That reminds me, have you ever seen the old TV series "Profit?"

That something seems like BS to you just means you don't get it. Yet.

:laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
There is no enemies list. /thread

I though you were the resident commissar. Don't tell me you aren't up to the job!

Well, where's the enemies list? Eh? Let's see it.

Hitting back at critics who spread lies and disinformation isn't an enemies list. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Alexander fails. And you fail.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: bfdd
you guys are funny, I don't really agree with most the stuff PJABBER posts, but you guys are hilarious. He posts something he's read gives his opinion on the matter then asks you guys do to the same, INSTEAD of debating the point or talking about the article you resort to just blasting him in the most idiotic ways possible.

PJABBER in response to your post and article, I have to agree with the Congressman. Obama should be trying to be different than previous presidents and not have an enemies list. That's change I can believe in.

Hell, I don't always agree with what I post! I just like to explore different topics. If the argument encourages someone to think more deeply, then the discussion has served enough purpose.

I think too many here are trying their darnedest to convince the small group of participants to adopt positions exactly opposite to what they believe. Good luck with that and the marginal brownie points you will earn for the attempt. After all, what do people say of the liberals, they accept rewards for attempts and intentions, not results?

I started off here a couple of months ago as pretty much of a centrist. The opposition and the stratified position taking has really made me come to think the opposite of what the leftish advocate. I can't imagine they are convincing anyone else with the constant diatribes and poorly crafted arguments. I guess I just don't have respect for weak arguments.

something tells me you wouldn't recognize a "weak argument" if it was knawing on your ankle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
There is no enemies list. /thread

I'm completely agnostic on the existence of an "enemies list". I can't know one way or the other.

How can anyone make a claim one way or another absent facts, unless it's a matter of faith?

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can quite get my arms around this thread. Here we have the Fox network, owned by a foreign individual, namely Rupert Murdock, pulling rather out outrageous stunts in being slanted, unfair, and biased in the way they slant the news. Something really the job the FCC should be doing with the fairness doctrine.

Then to really guild the lily, republirats like Dick Armey sponsor tea baggers and town hall meeting where they shout down all rational discussion of national issues.

And when the dimocrats call a spade a spade and state Fox news is doing things no publically regulated national network should be allowed to do under existing law, suddenly the white house is running an enemies list.

Hate to tell you PJABBER and friends, that simply does not compute.

We desperately need an honest national debate, and Fox news can claim no part of HONEST. Nor can much of the GOP. Right now the GOP is the number one enemy of the truth. And the GOP can't lead, can't follow, and will not get out of the way.

Who wants to go back the days of GWB&co???????????????????????

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We desperately need an honest national debate, and Fox news can claim no part of HONEST. Nor can much of the GOP. Right now the GOP is the number one enemy of the truth. And the GOP can't lead, can't follow, and will not get out of the way.

Want a few ovens to fix that?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
There is no enemies list. /thread

the enemies list was fueled by the on going GOP paranoia.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: SiddharthaThey called Mr Obama a socialist, communist, Nazi, now they are calling him Nixonian.

This is all the Republicans can do; they are intellectually bankrupt.

They have a golden opportunity to introduce a bill to end the H-1B and L-1 visa programs and then proclaim that they opened up hundreds of thousands of often knowledge-based, college-education-requiring jobs for Americans. Instead, however, they wholeheartedly accept if not welcome the loss of American jobs. The Republicans don't have anything to do then to trot out this kind of bullshit.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see if I can quite get my arms around this thread. Here we have the Fox network, owned by a foreign individual, namely Rupert Murdock, pulling rather out outrageous stunts in being slanted, unfair, and biased in the way they slant the news. Something really the job the FCC should be doing with the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcasts, cable news would not be affected.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fox news is doing things no publically regulated national network should be allowed to do under existing law

You are more paranoid than even the birthers :Q Do you honestly believe the crap you spew?

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We desperately need an honest national debate

Yep. That's why health care is being formed by a small group of Democrats behind closed doors, on the assumption that WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE THE SKY WILL FALL!!! NO TIME TO READ THE BILL, JUST VOTE FOR IT!!! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO DO IT FAST THAN TO DO IT RIGHT!!!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Arkaign
lol. Obama is a failure in many ways in my mind, but by NO means is this even remotely equivalent to the Nixon 'enemies list'.

Calling out Fox news publicly as a very real purpose-driven shill for the GOP is not like having an internal document created and expanded for the purposes of destroying said enemies with the use of "tax audits from the IRS, and by manipulating ?grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc".

Hyperbole on this only makes one look ridiculous.

They called Mr Obama a socialist, communist, Nazi, now they are calling him Nixonian.

They call me girl, they call me Stacy, they call me her, they call me Jane. That's not my name, that's not my name, that's not my name, that's not my name.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I've always liked Lamar Alexander. There is some pandering here for sure but nevertheless Obama may be wise to listen.

Obama is happy to listen if you seriously want to work out a compromise. Witness the response to Olympia Snowe.

Now, if you're just an obstructionist tool, be prepared to be marginalized. With behavior such as cheering Chicago's loss of the Olympics simply because Obama made an effort to help Chicago, it's become abundantly clear where Republicans stand. Their attitude is that they want Obama to fail, even if the price of that failure hurts the U.S. If Republicans and their minions are treated like enemies it's because they act like enemies.

Aren't you a perfect example of a minion?

Wow, talk about NOTpracticing what you preach. Let's analyze your latest response:

I addressed Alexander's statement. I pointed out how the "opposition" can - if they choose - be included as a non-enemy in Obama's world, and provided an example of a person who has made that choice. I also pointed out how, given the actual behavior of the right, they've marginalized themselves by BEHAVING like enemies, and should therefore expect to be TREATED like enemies.

My points may be wrong or right or somewhere in between. If you think I'm wrong, you COULD have written: "I disagree because . . . ." But how did you IN FACT respond? You called me a name.

Good job.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I've always liked Lamar Alexander. There is some pandering here for sure but nevertheless Obama may be wise to listen.

Obama is happy to listen if you seriously want to work out a compromise. Witness the response to Olympia Snowe.

Now, if you're just an obstructionist tool, be prepared to be marginalized. With behavior such as cheering Chicago's loss of the Olympics simply because Obama made an effort to help Chicago, it's become abundantly clear where Republicans stand. Their attitude is that they want Obama to fail, even if the price of that failure hurts the U.S. If Republicans and their minions are treated like enemies it's because they act like enemies.

Aren't you a perfect example of a minion?

Wow, talk about NOTpracticing what you preach. Let's analyze your latest response:

I addressed Alexander's statement. I pointed out how the "opposition" can - if they choose - be included as a non-enemy in Obama's world, and provided an example of a person who has made that choice. I also pointed out how, given the actual behavior of the right, they've marginalized themselves by BEHAVING like enemies, and should therefore expect to be TREATED like enemies.

My points may be wrong or right or somewhere in between. If you think I'm wrong, you COULD have written: "I disagree because . . . ." But how did you IN FACT respond? You called me a name.

Good job.

hes pushing your buttons like a keyboard my friend

you are dancing to his tune

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Another espresso break, another chapter put to bed. I steel myself. Time to read the news, time to check out AT P&N. Yup, more name calling and more call outs. More partisanship and less intelligent debate. Ad hominem attacks, check.

I guess you'll need to make your posts less partisan and more intelligent.

As to "name calling," if (for example) you, . . ., er, . . . someone makes a moronic point, it's entirely appropriate to add the address, "you moron."

Finally, as to what you refer to as ad hominem attacks: "Fairness" does not require that all points of view be given equal time or equal consideration. For some points of view, it's entirely appropriate to completely ignore them based on the pedigree of the source. For example, if someone here posted a link to an article that purported to prove that the holocaust never occurred, it would be entirely appropriate to note that the article was written by a notorious holocaust denier (as opposed to a respected historian), and to therefore (1) show the pedigree of the author of the article, and (2) ignore the article.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled partisan bickering.

I have no idea what is "fair," the concept does not apply in the world I live in.

I guess you can deny that Lamar Alexander ever said what he did, but is that entirely rational? You can the deny the point he is trying to make, but that would make you a partisan hack. You can deny that Obama et al are going down the road to demonizing any and all opponents, I guess that makes you "unfair"?

I wasn't responding to Alexander's statement here. I was responding to your prefatory paragraph. My other (second) post addresses Alexander's thesis.

My opening statement is just to set the stage for a tie in with the quoted article. It is literary license and just a tiny bit of a personalization. I did not think it merited any response whatsoever. Alexander's statement, however, does.

No it didn't. Your first paragraph was a commentary on ATPN. You were making assertions. You were characterizing ATPN behavior. A lot of what you wrote was incorrect, and therefore subject to challenge.

You SAY you want rational discourse? Then be rational. You SAY you want non-partisan discourse? Then be non-partisan. You SAY you don't want name-calling? Then don't call people names, and don't make false or idiotic statements that will justly earn you the appellations "liar" and "idiot."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I've always liked Lamar Alexander. There is some pandering here for sure but nevertheless Obama may be wise to listen.

Obama is happy to listen if you seriously want to work out a compromise. Witness the response to Olympia Snowe.

Now, if you're just an obstructionist tool, be prepared to be marginalized. With behavior such as cheering Chicago's loss of the Olympics simply because Obama made an effort to help Chicago, it's become abundantly clear where Republicans stand. Their attitude is that they want Obama to fail, even if the price of that failure hurts the U.S. If Republicans and their minions are treated like enemies it's because they act like enemies.

Aren't you a perfect example of a minion?

Wow, talk about NOT practicing what you preach. Let's analyze your latest response:

I addressed Alexander's statement. I pointed out how the "opposition" can - if they choose - be included as a non-enemy in Obama's world, and provided an example of a person who has made that choice. I also pointed out how, given the actual behavior of the right, they've marginalized themselves by BEHAVING like enemies, and should therefore expect to be TREATED like enemies.

My points may be wrong or right or somewhere in between. If you think I'm wrong, you COULD have written: "I disagree because . . . ." But how did you IN FACT respond? You called me a name.

Good job.

hes pushing your buttons like a keyboard my friend

you are dancing to his tune

How is providing a plain-as-day example of PJ's dishonesty dancing to his tune?

But I agree with you that it's pointless to continue here or in any of his threads. PJ has no interest in "rational discourse." He's just a troll. From now on, I'm boycotting his threads.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I've always liked Lamar Alexander. There is some pandering here for sure but nevertheless Obama may be wise to listen.

Obama is happy to listen if you seriously want to work out a compromise. Witness the response to Olympia Snowe.

Now, if you're just an obstructionist tool, be prepared to be marginalized. With behavior such as cheering Chicago's loss of the Olympics simply because Obama made an effort to help Chicago, it's become abundantly clear where Republicans stand. Their attitude is that they want Obama to fail, even if the price of that failure hurts the U.S. If Republicans and their minions are treated like enemies it's because they act like enemies.

Aren't you a perfect example of a minion?

Wow, talk about NOTpracticing what you preach. Let's analyze your latest response:

I addressed Alexander's statement. I pointed out how the "opposition" can - if they choose - be included as a non-enemy in Obama's world, and provided an example of a person who has made that choice. I also pointed out how, given the actual behavior of the right, they've marginalized themselves by BEHAVING like enemies, and should therefore expect to be TREATED like enemies.

My points may be wrong or right or somewhere in between. If you think I'm wrong, you COULD have written: "I disagree because . . . ." But how did you IN FACT respond? You called me a name.

Good job.

How should an "opposition" behave? By abandoning its ideals, its ideas and its perspectives and becoming exactly like those they oppose? The Republicans did just that, didn't they? After the Republican Party reneged on its "Contract With America" it was all downhill as they became more and more a mirror image of the Democrats. I am not talking about the radical "nationalize everything, re-distribute wealth" Democrat "Maoist" fringe that helped propel Obama into power and now is fully represented in the Executive branch of the federal government, but the typical big government/big spending mainstream Democrats.

The only way someone will be treated as a "non-enemy" by the Obama camp is if they join the Obama camp. All others will be sent to whatever equivalent of the Gulag the Obama camp devises. That is why and the wherefore of radicalism - the purity of the dogma cannot be sullied by compromise.

You as an advocate buy into the Democrat propaganda and support it by refusing to acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments to be made against the Obama/Democrat programs. Serious, well thought out and valid arguments and alternatives. But such arguments and alternatives will not be heard and certainly not considered due to partisan blinders, such as you have on and such as many don here in this forum.

Everyone understands that there is now only one Party in power, and that is the Democrats. Though they are pitifully at odds with each other due to the extremely self serving nature of the group, there is no viable Republican opposition. Does that also mean there are no good ideas coming from the Republican camp? Or the unaffiliated independents?

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right? Well that is the current situation in the U.S. To think otherwise is to be absolutely naive. And that is the point of Lamar Alexander's statement - he has seen the way this corruption evolves up close and he sees it coming again, but now it is the Democrats that are corrupted by a power they have not tasted in so many years and never expected to come to so easily.

The Democrats watch the polls and they also know that their proposals are not acceptable to the majority of Americans, that their stay in power will be short if Americans learn what they fully intend to do in re-making America into some variation of failed European socialism, hence the rush and the secrecy violating all campaign promises to the contrary. 2010 will likely see many Democrats thrown out of office, but there will be much damage done until then.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Another espresso break, another chapter put to bed. I steel myself. Time to read the news, time to check out AT P&N. Yup, more name calling and more call outs. More partisanship and less intelligent debate. Ad hominem attacks, check.

I guess you'll need to make your posts less partisan and more intelligent.

As to "name calling," if (for example) you, . . ., er, . . . someone makes a moronic point, it's entirely appropriate to add the address, "you moron."

Finally, as to what you refer to as ad hominem attacks: "Fairness" does not require that all points of view be given equal time or equal consideration. For some points of view, it's entirely appropriate to completely ignore them based on the pedigree of the source. For example, if someone here posted a link to an article that purported to prove that the holocaust never occurred, it would be entirely appropriate to note that the article was written by a notorious holocaust denier (as opposed to a respected historian), and to therefore (1) show the pedigree of the author of the article, and (2) ignore the article.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled partisan bickering.

I have no idea what is "fair," the concept does not apply in the world I live in.

I guess you can deny that Lamar Alexander ever said what he did, but is that entirely rational? You can the deny the point he is trying to make, but that would make you a partisan hack. You can deny that Obama et al are going down the road to demonizing any and all opponents, I guess that makes you "unfair"?

I wasn't responding to Alexander's statement here. I was responding to your prefatory paragraph. My other (second) post addresses Alexander's thesis.

My opening statement is just to set the stage for a tie in with the quoted article. It is literary license and just a tiny bit of a personalization. I did not think it merited any response whatsoever. Alexander's statement, however, does.

No it didn't. Your first paragraph was a commentary on ATPN. You were making assertions. You were characterizing ATPN behavior. A lot of what you wrote was incorrect, and therefore subject to challenge.

You SAY you want rational discourse? Then be rational. You SAY you want non-partisan discourse? Then be non-partisan. You SAY you don't want name-calling? Then don't call people names, and don't make false or idiotic statements that will justly earn you the appellations "liar" and "idiot."

You give me too much credit in attempting to discredit me for my use of creative and entertaining language. I express an opinion in all of my openings but the openings are just introductions to the quoted subject matter. I am fascinated by the absolute need people here have to attack the messenger.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I've always liked Lamar Alexander. There is some pandering here for sure but nevertheless Obama may be wise to listen.

Obama is happy to listen if you seriously want to work out a compromise. Witness the response to Olympia Snowe.

Now, if you're just an obstructionist tool, be prepared to be marginalized. With behavior such as cheering Chicago's loss of the Olympics simply because Obama made an effort to help Chicago, it's become abundantly clear where Republicans stand. Their attitude is that they want Obama to fail, even if the price of that failure hurts the U.S. If Republicans and their minions are treated like enemies it's because they act like enemies.

Aren't you a perfect example of a minion?

Wow, talk about NOTpracticing what you preach. Let's analyze your latest response:

I addressed Alexander's statement. I pointed out how the "opposition" can - if they choose - be included as a non-enemy in Obama's world, and provided an example of a person who has made that choice. I also pointed out how, given the actual behavior of the right, they've marginalized themselves by BEHAVING like enemies, and should therefore expect to be TREATED like enemies.

My points may be wrong or right or somewhere in between. If you think I'm wrong, you COULD have written: "I disagree because . . . ." But how did you IN FACT respond? You called me a name.

Good job.

How should an "opposition" behave? By abandoning its ideals, its ideas and its perspectives and becoming exactly like those they oppose? The Republicans did just that, didn't they? After the Republican Party reneged on its "Contract With America" it was all downhill as they became more and more a mirror image of the Democrats. I am not talking about the radical "nationalize everything, re-distribute wealth" Democrat "Maoist" fringe that helped propel Obama into power and now is fully represented in the Executive branch of the federal government, but the typical big government/big spending mainstream Democrats.

The only way someone will be treated as a "non-enemy" by the Obama camp is if they join the Obama camp. All others will be sent to whatever equivalent of the Gulag the Obama camp devises. That is why and the wherefore of radicalism - the purity of the dogma cannot be sullied by compromise.

You as an advocate buy into the Democrat propaganda and support it by refusing to acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments to be made against the Obama/Democrat programs. Serious, well thought out and valid arguments and alternatives. But such arguments and alternatives will not be heard and certainly not considered due to partisan blinders, such as you have on and such as many don here in this forum.

Everyone understands that there is now only one Party in power, and that is the Democrats. Though they are pitifully at odds with each other due to the extremely self serving nature of the group, there is no viable Republican opposition. Does that also mean there are no good ideas coming from the Republican camp? Or the unaffiliated independents?

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right? Well that is the current situation in the U.S. To think otherwise is to be absolutely naive. And that is the point of Lamar Alexander's statement - he has seen the way this corruption evolves up close and he sees it coming again, but now it is the Democrats that are corrupted by a power they have not tasted in so many years and never expected to come to so easily.

The Democrats watch the polls and they also know that their proposals are not acceptable to the majority of Americans, that their stay in power will be short if Americans learn what they fully intend to do in re-making America into some variation of failed European socialism, hence the rush and the secrecy violating all campaign promises to the contrary. 2010 will likely see many Democrats thrown out of office, but there will be much damage done until then.

interesting how you think the "Fringe" got elected to the White House...

 

[OrByte]

PJABBER, if there are "serious, well thought out and valid arguments and alternatives" put forth by any of the resident "conservatives" I haven't seen any in a loooooong time.

I think you are just blowing hot air and I wish I was wrong.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: OrByte
PJABBER, if there are "serious, well thought out and valid arguments and alternatives" put forth by any of the resident "conservatives" I haven't seen any in a loooooong time.

I think you are just blowing hot air and I wish I was wrong.

I did not say they were being put out HERE, now did I? :laugh:

 

[shadow9d9]

Did he out a CIA agent for political gain or something?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Another espresso break, another chapter put to bed. I steel myself. Time to read the news, time to check out AT P&N. Yup, more name calling and more call outs. More partisanship and less intelligent debate. Ad hominem attacks, check.

You have some serious denial issues. You frequently call people "partisan hacks" and refer to Obama as an "empty suit". You adore Glenn Beck who called the president a racist who has a deep seeded hatred of white people and white culture. But you're the only rational voice in the wilderness. Christ help us.

I thought he was fucking nuts but this confirms it

Another one line ad hominem attack from the master of the inane!

You just threw out an ad hominem yourself, Jackass.

See how easy it is?