Just for Fun

[bannination]

I'll leave it to rstrong to argue with you about the definition of "conservative" (he will win), my only point was that you screwed up (and are now running away from, as usual) in thinking he claimed an affiliation with Canada's Conservative Party.

Duh...running from what? I ain't run nowhere, I'm right here, 'moran'.

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative. I know/knew what that was/is in Canada (vs. politics); my post was to poke fun at rstrong ; you know, the thread name?
Now...go poke your self-righteous snoot somewhere else.

Yes, but what you view to be conservatism is actually fascism..... by the same token, most liberals today are the last centuries conservatives.

Can you imagine a president saying Christianity is a bunch of horse shit in today's world???

[Mr.B]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative. ....

You're undoubtedly more astute as identifying "liberal views" than I, so could you be a bit more specific in describing rstrong's "liberal views"?

Canada. Word on the street is they send you to the arctic if you don't accept their socialisms.

They don't have to send you far...they just turn the temperature controls to a higher number...

[Mr.B]

Duh, Mr.B, but you could have easily poked fun at rstrong without basing it on an imaginary affiliation with Canada's Conservative Party, a screw up you're still running away from, moron. Now, you're the butt of the joke, good one!

You got the gist of my meaning.

Just add this to your "Something Else to Piss About" list and move on.

[Mr.B]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative. ....

You're undoubtedly more astute as identifying "liberal views" than I, so could you be a bit more specific in describing rstrong's "liberal views"?

They're in line with yours, Vrede's (yes he is, too), Banni's, and the other remaining 3-4 here. You know well what I mean.

[O Really]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative. ....

You're undoubtedly more astute as identifying "liberal views" than I, so could you be a bit more specific in describing rstrong's "liberal views"?

They're in line with yours, Vrede's (yes he is, too), Banni's, and the other remaining 3-4 here. You know well what I mean.

Specifics, please? Rstrong supports the positions of traditional conservatives, US or Canada. I'm pretty sure neither Vrede nor I usually fit that description. The current crop that considers itself "conservatives" are badly mistaken and haven't looked up the definition of "fascist." I personally don't find "socialist" to be a four-letter word, and not to be in direct conflict with the US Constitution. I support broad-based governmental services for the benefit of all citizens. I don't personally find that to violate the "general welfare" clause. I don't care much for "states' rights". I think the rules should be the same for everybody, whether you live in Vermont or Wyoming. I think it's pretty apparent that a state legislature (like in NC) is every bit as capable of ignoring its citizens as Congress. Why double the misery? I don't think tax reduction is a noble goal in and of itself. I say let's decide what we want to spend money on, and then collect it. I don't think the US should consider itself the king of the world mountain, and certainly not the arbiter of the behaviour of other sovereign countries. I could go on, but let's give you a turn.

[JTA]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative. ....

You're undoubtedly more astute as identifying "liberal views" than I, so could you be a bit more specific in describing rstrong's "liberal views"?

Canada. Word on the street is they send you to the arctic if you don't accept their socialisms.

OK, so why are their "socialisms" considered "liberal"?
What is unreasonable or illogical (or politically lefty) about considering health care to be a right of citizenship, along the same lines as good roads, police and fire protection, central water and sewage, public schools, and other things funded through taxes?

Because if a man doesnt catch his own fish, milk his own cows, and build his own Ford F150 pickup truck from scratch he's a nothing short of a godless communist.

I'll have you know I've never once took advantage of any socialism. I got all my learnins about life and love from watching the Maury Povich on the TV set.

[O Really]

That's funny. It's pretty hard fall for a couple of somewhat tubby people. My wife thinks the woman is a gymnast wearing a fat suit. Says no real woman of that size could take that leap.

[Mr.B]

Love it! Sent that to #1 son; he works for UHC!

[Mr.B]

That's funny. It's pretty hard fall for a couple of somewhat tubby people. My wife thinks the woman is a gymnast wearing a fat suit. Says no real woman of that size could take that leap.

A leap of faith?

[rstrong]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative.

My views my not be 100% consistently conservative, but I'm a conservative. Your misunderstanding is based on your incorrectly equating American Religious Right Republican policy with conservative policy.

Supporting civil rights may be called "liberal", but it's also called "libertarian." Something many conservatives in the US also proudly call themselves.

Yes, supporting rights for gays used to be considered "liberal", just as supporting rights for women and blacks used to be considered "liberal." But now it's like how Republicans - many of them - consider rights for women and blacks to be part of THEIR values: As rights for gays became accepted by the general public - and didn't cause problems - the "non-conservative" nature of those rights evaporated too.

Back in 2001 the first national party leader to participate in a gay pride parade was the Conservative Party leader, Joe Clark. We've had same-sex marriage country-wide for a decade, and in some provinces years before that. None of the family-destroying, religious apocalypse stuff the hate-mongers like yourself claimed, has happened. It's been so problem-free that the issue was quickly forgotten. Conservatives, being conservatives, see no need to change it.

The largest Protestant denomination in the country - the United Church - endorses and performs same-sex marriage. As do some Anglican, Jewish and other congregations. Even the Quakers support it.

In Canada, conservatives like myself tend to be fiscal conservatives, and in favor of smaller government. As opposed to US Republicans who make vague noises about fiscal conservatism, but once in power spend like drunken sailors and expand government.

The push for theocratic policies by prominent Republicans are the opposite of conservatism. The same goes for their hysterics against executive orders, czars, immigration actions, cooperation on budgeting and a great many other things that have always been part of American government for Republicans and Democrats alike before Obama was elected.

I'm not affiliated with the Conservative Party. I'll be voting against our current Conservative Prime Minister, but for his anti-democracy and anti-science policies which have nothing to do with conservatism. And frankly, I think he's taken too much time after the 2008 recession to zero the deficits. But I certainly won't be voting for the Liberal leader. Or the NDP.

What "strong liberal views" of mine do you refer to?

I know/knew what that was/is in Canada (vs. politics);

Canada has been more conservative than the US for some time now.

Yes, we have partially socialized" health insurance. Compared to the British or French or other systems, it's barely "socialist" at all. And since it costs us 47% less per capita than the American system - we even pay less taxes per capita for it - conservatives tend to support it.

my post was to poke fun at rstrong ; you know, the thread name?.

It seems an honest mistake: In the past you've been "Schrodinger's douchbag": A guy who says offensive things and then decides whether he was joking based upon the reaction of people around him.

[Mr.B]

He has strong liberal views and claims to be a conservative.

My views my not be 100% consistently conservative, but I'm a conservative. Your misunderstanding is based on your incorrectly equating American Religious Right Republican policy with conservative policy.
No, my comment clarified means I know you have liberal views (such as those found in the liberal ranks in the US)
I knew you have said before you were a conservative, and I knew your version of conservative is opposite that of a US conservative. Again, my post was to poke fun at you; you know, the thread name. Vrede went all ape crap in his attempt to impress the others hoping to push my buttons. Fail.


"It seems an honest mistake: In the past you've been "Schrodinger's douchebag": A guy who says offensive things and then decides whether he was joking based upon the reaction of people around him."
Haven't heard that phrase in a while. I don't think there's anyone here who couldn't claim fame to that at one time or the other. Thanks, I knew you were mature enough to recognize a joke and move on. I've really gotta watch what I joke about when it comes to joking about other people. The baby-sitter here can be a real bitch.

[Mr.B]

Also, I've warned you before about altering my posts to make it look like I said things or included symbols that I didn't. It's sleazy and juvenile. Either make your additions clearly your additions or you've chosen a battle that you're guaranteed to lose miserably and hilariously. Your choice, either way is fine with me - a win-win.

Note from Vrede: Some people never learn. Evidently, ethics weren't beaten into them by their grandfathers.

PM to Mr.B: "Here are your own words, you are free to re-post them without altering my post:" . . .

... I knew your version of conservative is opposite that of a US conservative.

You're still failing. His point is that any accurate version of conservative is opposite that of a US conservative. Find a high school PoliSci student to explain it to you.

... Vrede went all ape crap

All I did was point out that, "claims to be conservative because of political party affiliation," was a screw up that you're still running away from.

in his attempt to impress the others hoping to push my buttons. Fail.

Ummm, the fact that you're whining about me in a response to rstrong when he didn't even hint at our tangent proves that I did push your buttons. Your oh so defensive denial is a fail.

... I knew you were mature enough to recognize a joke and move on. I've really gotta watch what I joke about when it comes to joking about other people. The baby-sitter here can be a real bitch.

Your obsessive, whiny, lying immaturity is the joke. I never said anything about your intended tease of rstrong, it was just your stupid linking of him to Canada's Conservative Party that I merely mentioned, which sent you into a complete foot-stomping tantrum. That's how you always are when you flub since you never have the stones for an "Opps".

Note from Vrede: Whaddaya know, that was fun.

[Mr.B]

You dumb, idiotic retard....you're pissing because I placed these ® © symbols in your quote! That is too funny! Obviously you don't have sense enough to know that the symbols means your goofy words are registered and copyrighted by you, for exclusive use by you, because those are the only words/phrase you know to use when you're slinging insults; until you learn new words or phrases....such as "this discussion is all about...yada, yada". You poor, insecure, half-wit. hee hee hee.... Vrede don't like ® & ©

(Note from Mr.B: Whaddaya know, that was even funner.)

BTW....why did you post this here and send me a PM....who are you trying to impress now? A.J.? Homerfobe?

[Mr.B]

You dumb, idiotic retard, I know what the symbols mean and you're delusional if you think your incessant and childish use of them bothers me an iota. The only issue - one you're running away from, as usual - is your insertion of them in my words without making it clear by one of many available mechanisms that they are your posts, not mine.
Are you so stupid to think that the others are stupid enough to think you actually inserted the symbols yourself when the symbols are only in my reply and not in your original post??? (Hint: The answer is yes.) As I said before, I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it's working. You poor, paranoid delusional!

Of course it bothered you, liar; or else you wouldn't have taken the pains to remove the symbols, then type a PM to me giving me hell, then reposting your post without the symbols! So who do you think you impressed with all of your effort? A.J.? Homerfobe?

You dumb, idiotic retard, I sent you a PM so that your own words wouldn't be lost and you can easily re-post them without altering mine, as I clearly explained both here and in the PM. It's no surprise that such ethical acts are beyond your comprehension.
Yeah, right...how sweet of you to think of me, you shining example of ethics.

Since you're whining so about it in lieu of manning up, I'm going to save my own words here lest you edit back your top of the page post here with the same dishonesty.
Manning up...? I haven't denied anything. So what's new about you "saving your own words?"

Some people never learn. Evidently, ethics weren't beaten into them by their grandfathers.
No, you've got that backwards. My ass-beatings taught me ethics; and at least I got ass-beatings; not coddled and cooed over and sat in a corner without a cookie.

PM to Mr.B: "Here are your own words, you are free to re-post them without altering my post:" . . .
"Altering your posts"....you are so full of paranoid, proud,

Note from Mr.B: Whaddaya know, that was funner.

[Mr.B]

Damn you're stupider than I give you credit for. Where/when did I "involve your family"? I said nothing about your family, you un-comprehendible, whiny, paranoid-delusional dummy.

Look again at what I wrote and try to comprehend what I said.....
"...at least I got ass-beatings; not coddled and cooed over and sat in a corner without a cookie."

I was referring to the "punishment" that kids today get, rather than getting a spanking; or what you and your ilk call "abuse".
Am I supposed to explain everything to you so as to not hurt your widdle feewings?

As far as Mrs.B is concerned, you will never be as principled, ethical, or honest as she is; she's a helluva lot more woman than you will ever be at being a man; and she is a much better person than you or I.
She would have never begun to involve herself in this petty pissing back and forth.; because unlike you, she doesn't have to constantly
attempt one-up-manship to impress anyone.

[Mr.B]

Odds are that you're being Shrodinger's Douchebag and did mean it in comparison to me, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and remove the references to Mrs.B.

Thank you.
Yes, it could have been a comparison to you; only if you're that paranoid.

[Mr.B]

Hmmm, same exact attack you did on my parents before and in a post replying to me. You are free to think it's my paranoia while I'll think it was either your intent or your sloppiness.

What I said before was NOT an attack on your parents; you took it as such.

[O Really]

I was referring to the "punishment" that kids today get, rather than getting a spanking; or what you and your ilk call "abuse".
.[/b][/color]

So, Mr.B - If a linebacker in the NFL grabs his girlfriend against her will, forces her over his knees and paddles her with a hairbrush (belt, whatever), he can be arrested and lose his job. Please explain why the exact same action is just considered a harmless "spanking" if the one paddled is a kid. Of course, one can make the point that for some, paddling is fun, but it's the "against ... will" part that matters. Have you ever known a kid to willingly participate in a paddling?

[Mr.B]

So, Mr.B - If a linebacker in the NFL grabs his girlfriend against her will, forces her over his knees and paddles her with a hairbrush (belt, whatever), he can be arrested and lose his job. Please explain why the exact same action is just considered a harmless "spanking" if the one paddled is a kid. Of course, one can make the point that for some, paddling is fun, but it's the "against ... will" part that matters.

A man has no business 'disciplining' his wife/girlfriend in a physical manner, for any reason. Parents do have the right to discipline their children either verbally or using corporal punishment. It's when punishment becomes violent, that it's abuse. My grandparents had 14 kids, plus they raised the 5 kids in my family. We got our spankings, switchings, (the media called a switch a tree limb), and many a lick with a belt. The kids we went to school with used to talk (and sometimes laugh) about whippings they got at home. But...you know what? We learned from those punishments. We learned values such as respect for our parents, teachers, each other, others in our neighborhood, on the playground, school bus, and classroom. I did not grow up in a religious family and I abhorred the Bible reading we had each morning in school. But I did learn from those readings.

Nowadays, there is no God or respect for each other mentioned in the classrooms. There is no God or respect for each other mentioned at home. There is (generally) only one parent in the home who has no time or patience to teach kids what we learned as kids. The only discipline many kids get today is cussing and/or threatening. Look at the crime rates....I'm not talking about religious zealots either; I'm talking about kids that grow up and leave home with no inkling of how to function in society; it's "gimme, gimme, gimme, or I'll take it and your life if I have to". And speaking of taking lives...kids are left at home with their own devices; video games, smartphones, anything to keep them occupied. Parents don't care what's in those games, as long as the kids are happy. I believe the violent games that feature killing, maiming, blowing up, etc are fueling their minds with violent tendencies, i.e. wanting to join terror groups so as to fulfill their killing fantasies. This society is moving further and further away from family values and any semblance of a sane society....and I believe it's because we have kicked God out along with discipline and any rational thinking.

Have you ever known a kid to willingly participate in a paddling?

The answer is no. I never did, but I honestly believe that the whippings, spankings, paddling or whatever I happen to get at the moment made me a better person than what I would have been had I been allowed to do or say what I pleased. BTW.....I NEVER stood up to my parents or grandparents and told them to shut up or tell them 'I don't want to'.

[O Really]

So, Mr.B - If a linebacker in the NFL grabs his girlfriend against her will, forces her over his knees and paddles her with a hairbrush (belt, whatever), he can be arrested and lose his job. Please explain why the exact same action is just considered a harmless "spanking" if the one paddled is a kid. Of course, one can make the point that for some, paddling is fun, but it's the "against ... will" part that matters.

A man has no business 'disciplining' his wife/girlfriend in a physical manner, for any reason. Parents do have the right to discipline their children either verbally or using corporal punishment. It's when punishment becomes violent, that it's abuse. My grandparents had 14 kids, plus they raised the 5 kids in my family. We got our spankings, switchings, (the media called a switch a tree limb), and many a lick with a belt. ...

The "right" to beat their kids in some places, maybe, although those places are getting fewer. But what would you consider "becomes violent" if not using something that - if used on an adult - would be considered a weapon? A belt? Seriously? Give me a belt and I can defend myself against George Zimmerman. "Switches" really are "tree limbs" although maybe with slight exaggeration. Anyway, they cause injury and leave scars. What would one have to do to be considered "violent"?

People can "learn from" or "get over" a lot that doesn't mean it was good for them.