Jeff - Have Right Wing Nuts Taken Over Your Blog Lately???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey PP, what does the comment at the top of the page say again?

Sign. I did not say you were a racist. How would I even know, the subject of skin color hadn't even come up. I illustrated my point by using as example from history, one which I imagined we both agree on. It's called an analogy.

I am saying that your objection to change was similar to that of those opposing integration. And to make the point crystal clear, I'm sure we can both agree that the discomfort felt by those people was not enough of a reason to put the brakes on addressing racial segregation in America. Likewise, your feeling that society is moving too fast is not enough of a reason to stop progress in these other areas. You need a better reason than that.

A) I'm not the poster
B) You can put whatever spin you want on it; your statement called that poster a racist.

I'm sorry that the educational system failed you. But no, I did not.

Pretty words don't change the implication of your statement.

If your elbow hurt and I told you that baseball pitchers have elbows that hurt, did I just call you a pitcher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to note that the adults on this thread clearly are conservatives/Republicans.

While the other side chases its tail in circles and name-calling.

Forward.....

Spoken like someone still inside the bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go over to the thread about the at-large council race and try to post something unfavorable about the democratic candidate. Jeff will instantly "out" you. Post something unfavorable about the republican candidate and your anonymity is safe.

Yes, to to that thread and see that this poster has not been "outed". He, as well as every poster in the thread other than me, is anonymous. I simply asked what candidate he was supporting. He volunteered the information.

Republicans are supposed to be manly men who shoot bears and eat them raw. But, they turn out to be the biggest cry babies I've ever seen.

So true! They are the touchiest bunch you ever saw. They act so wounded when someone calls them on some bullshit. I guess that's what happens when you live in a protective bubble where everyone agrees with you and no one dares to think for themself.

Really? You think all of them are like that? Well, personally, I agree with a lot of liberal positions, specifically the social ones. But I'm fiscally conservative. I believe government should have less involvement in our lives. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe we need to help people get off the welfare system. But does this mean I'm a right-wing nut job? Also, I've never shot a bear and ate it. But there are certain aspects of my belief system that are conservative. You may be shocked to find out that in this world, there are many conservative thinkers that don't fit into this box that you've created.

Interesting - I would describe myself exactly the same as you (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and I agree with OP about the right-wing nut jobs. To me - the Republicans have lost the right to call themselves fiscal conservatives after their spending spree under W. Democrats are not any better (trillion dollar deficits year after year and we can't even breathe on entitlements). I would describe myself as an independent leaning libertarian. I think of the right-wing nut jobs as the ones who are obsessed about Obama and pointing out every negative attribute no matter how mundane, are anti any type of gun regulations (even background checks) and want to poke their nose into everyone's personal affairs (ban abortions, prohibit gay marriages, etc.) I have friends who are both Republicans and Democrats and we may disagree on many things but at least our debates are more productive than arguing about whether Obama is a US citizen...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go over to the thread about the at-large council race and try to post something unfavorable about the democratic candidate. Jeff will instantly "out" you. Post something unfavorable about the republican candidate and your anonymity is safe.

Yes, to to that thread and see that this poster has not been "outed". He, as well as every poster in the thread other than me, is anonymous. I simply asked what candidate he was supporting. He volunteered the information.

Republicans are supposed to be manly men who shoot bears and eat them raw. But, they turn out to be the biggest cry babies I've ever seen.

So true! They are the touchiest bunch you ever saw. They act so wounded when someone calls them on some bullshit. I guess that's what happens when you live in a protective bubble where everyone agrees with you and no one dares to think for themself.

Really? You think all of them are like that? Well, personally, I agree with a lot of liberal positions, specifically the social ones. But I'm fiscally conservative. I believe government should have less involvement in our lives. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe we need to help people get off the welfare system. But does this mean I'm a right-wing nut job? Also, I've never shot a bear and ate it. But there are certain aspects of my belief system that are conservative. You may be shocked to find out that in this world, there are many conservative thinkers that don't fit into this box that you've created.

Interesting - I would describe myself exactly the same as you (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and I agree with OP about the right-wing nut jobs. To me - the Republicans have lost the right to call themselves fiscal conservatives after their spending spree under W. Democrats are not any better (trillion dollar deficits year after year and we can't even breathe on entitlements). I would describe myself as an independent leaning libertarian. I think of the right-wing nut jobs as the ones who are obsessed about Obama and pointing out every negative attribute no matter how mundane, are anti any type of gun regulations (even background checks) and want to poke their nose into everyone's personal affairs (ban abortions, prohibit gay marriages, etc.) I have friends who are both Republicans and Democrats and we may disagree on many things but at least our debates are more productive than arguing about whether Obama is a US citizen...

Well said pp. I'm the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe I answered this a few back. Viagra treats a medical condition - sexual dysfunction. If my female colleague has a medical condition that requires the pill and her insurance company pays for it? That's fine with me.

If you can tell me what I've done to become indebted to someone else to the degree that I have to pay for their sexual behavior, I'd be interested in knowing.

impotence is a natural process that happens with age. Viagre was not invented to treat impotence. It was invented to treat pulmonary hypertension of the premature infant. Men had teh political power to leverage the insurance industry into reimbursing MD's for diagnosing and treating old age induced male impotence with it. All of our insurance premiums went up to pay for 60 year old men to be able to continue to feel "vital".

Young women who don't have access to birth control often get pregant. That is a real financial cost taht involves a lot more tahn just how soem 60 year old man "feels" about himself and whetehr or not he is " still a man" . It involves potential costs of welfare, subsidized child care, higher prison rates of people born to teen moms, on and on and on.... so, yes, spreading teh cost of covering birth control out among all insurance policy holders just like we do for Viagra for geriatric men, serves the public good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe I answered this a few back. Viagra treats a medical condition - sexual dysfunction. If my female colleague has a medical condition that requires the pill and her insurance company pays for it? That's fine with me.

If you can tell me what I've done to become indebted to someone else to the degree that I have to pay for their sexual behavior, I'd be interested in knowing.

impotence is a natural process that happens with age. Viagre was not invented to treat impotence. It was invented to treat pulmonary hypertension of the premature infant. Men had teh political power to leverage the insurance industry into reimbursing MD's for diagnosing and treating old age induced male impotence with it. All of our insurance premiums went up to pay for 60 year old men to be able to continue to feel "vital".

Young women who don't have access to birth control often get pregant. That is a real financial cost taht involves a lot more tahn just how soem 60 year old man "feels" about himself and whetehr or not he is " still a man" . It involves potential costs of welfare, subsidized child care, higher prison rates of people born to teen moms, on and on and on.... so, yes, spreading teh cost of covering birth control out among all insurance policy holders just like we do for Viagra for geriatric men, serves the public good.

How do women get pregnant?

[Anonymous]

With rights come responsibility. I'm sure you'll all agree that this is true when it comes to gun rights, correct? So I can ask for y'all to pay for gun safes, gun storage, gun training? Nope, y'all want to take AWAY those gun rights.

Again, with rights come responsibility. Stop screaming 'get out of my womb' and simultaneously demanding other people pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With rights come responsibility. I'm sure you'll all agree that this is true when it comes to gun rights, correct? So I can ask for y'all to pay for gun safes, gun storage, gun training? Nope, y'all want to take AWAY those gun rights.

Again, with rights come responsibility. Stop screaming 'get out of my womb' and simultaneously demanding other people pay for it.

We can't even mandate gun training. Opposed by the NRA. We can't mandate trigger locks. Opposed by the NRA.

I think if you want to be part of the solution, set your own house in order first. I would happily pay my share to be sure that each gun owner is trained and licensed with recertification every 3 years. OMG would I jump on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With rights come responsibility. I'm sure you'll all agree that this is true when it comes to gun rights, correct? So I can ask for y'all to pay for gun safes, gun storage, gun training? Nope, y'all want to take AWAY those gun rights.

Again, with rights come responsibility. Stop screaming 'get out of my womb' and simultaneously demanding other people pay for it.

Fine. Then refuse the insurance coverage for your brood of children so I don't have to subsidize your sexual choices with my group plan. While you are at it, make sure not to take any tax credits for any child so I don't have to subsidize that with my taxes. And no public school at all; if I don't have children, I shouldn't have to pay taxes to send YOUR kids to school. I also don't want to help out as a tax payer with federal financial aid for student loans.

It's your right and responsibility to have children; you pay for them fully and don't expect the rest of us to support your lifestyle choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe I answered this a few back. Viagra treats a medical condition - sexual dysfunction. If my female colleague has a medical condition that requires the pill and her insurance company pays for it? That's fine with me.

If you can tell me what I've done to become indebted to someone else to the degree that I have to pay for their sexual behavior, I'd be interested in knowing.

impotence is a natural process that happens with age. Viagre was not invented to treat impotence. It was invented to treat pulmonary hypertension of the premature infant. Men had teh political power to leverage the insurance industry into reimbursing MD's for diagnosing and treating old age induced male impotence with it. All of our insurance premiums went up to pay for 60 year old men to be able to continue to feel "vital".

Many parts of the body degenerate with age via natural processes and we treat them as the diseases they are. Trying to spin impotence as something other than a medical problem is just a political talking point. Are you opposed to treating dementia, hearing loss, or heart failure? All can equally be described as the result of "a natural process that happens with age."