So... Bernie Sanders

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:20 am

What's up with him?

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:25 am

Never heard of 'im, but according to Wikipedia he's an American politician, so he must be an asshole.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:22 am

Who's he?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:29 am

He's some politician from Vermont who decided he's gonna run for President about a month or so ago. Liberals like to claim he's a socialist even though he's only a social democrat or welfare capitalist at best. They seem to think he's going to radically reform the system and shake things up even though there's nothing really in his record to indicate that. (Sounds familiar.) As Bruce said, he's just another asshole.

But he does have the potential to make things interesting. He's going to be running against Hillary Clinton and there's reason to believe she feels genuinely threatened by him. Even though most pundits are saying he has no chance of getting anywhere, he's doing far better in the polls than anyone thought he would by this point and a lot of people like him, while Hillary Clinton has shitty favorability ratings and her support is about an inch deep. If he gets anywhere he will almost certainly ask her some difficult and awkward questions during the primaries, which I'm looking forward to because I really want someone to challenge that evil vile bitch and make her answer for at least some of the awful things she's done. So I'm temporarily sort-of-supporting him solely for that reason. It's also not particularly unlikely he'll win the Democratic nomination, which means Hillary Clinton will lose. Again. And I really want that to happen.

Ptolemy_Banana · Post by **Ptolemy_Banana** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:29 pm

I took one of those 'who should you vote for' tests and he was the one that came out on top, followed by Hillary, then Martin O'Malley with Jeb Bush leading the Republicans. So let's hope he gets elected now that we know he's objectively the best candidate.

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:21 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:He's some politician from Vermont who decided he's gonna run for President about a month or so ago. Liberals like to claim he's a socialist even though he's only a social democrat or welfare capitalist at best. They seem to think he's going to radically reform the system and shake things up even though there's nothing really in his record to indicate that. (Sounds familiar.) As Bruce said, he's just another asshole.

But he does have the potential to make things interesting. He's going to be running against Hillary Clinton and there's reason to believe she feels genuinely threatened by him. Even though most pundits are saying he has no chance of getting anywhere, he's doing far better in the polls than anyone thought he would by this point and a lot of people like him, while Hillary Clinton has shitty favorability ratings and her support is about an inch deep. If he gets anywhere he will almost certainly ask her some difficult and awkward questions during the primaries, which I'm looking forward to because I really want someone to challenge that evil vile bitch and make her answer for at least some of the awful things she's done. So I'm temporarily sort-of-supporting him solely for that reason. It's also not particularly unlikely he'll win the Democratic nomination, which means Hillary Clinton will lose. Again. And I really want that to happen.

Hillary Clinton is already being funded by terrorists. She's an evil witch bitch and you guys should start a #it'snotyourturn campaign against her.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:06 pm

She's an abomination. If she's elected President I think the world might literally end.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:29 pm

I just took it. Got 80% Rand Paul followed by 74% Bernie Sanders. 43% Hillary. That site seems to only include candidates from the 2 major parties.

Pope Bucky · Post by **Pope Bucky** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:50 pm

Gendo wrote:The US seems to only include candidates from the 2 major parties.

Fixed.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:57 pm

I got 95% for Bernie Sanders, then 68% for Clinton and some Republican at 18%.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:56 pm

Gendo wrote:I just took it. Got 80% Rand Paul followed by 74% Bernie Sanders. 43% Hillary. That site seems to only include candidates from the 2 major parties.

Rand Paul? The I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-doing Rand Paul? The guy that thinks the Fed is a conspiracy that has made the U.S socialist Rand Paul? Really?

Ok.

I'll allow it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:22 am

I got 93% for Bernie Sanders, 66% for Martin O'Malley whom I know nothing about, and 65% for Hillary Clinton. Lol.

Post by **Gendo** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:17 am

Dr_Liszt wrote:
Gendo wrote:I just took it. Got 80% Rand Paul followed by 74% Bernie Sanders. 43% Hillary. That site seems to only include candidates from the 2 major parties.
Rand Paul? The I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-doing Rand Paul? The guy that thinks the Fed is a conspiracy that has made the U.S socialist Rand Paul? Really?

Ok. I'll allow it.

I know very little about Rand Paul, but I thought he was way more conservative than I am. But I dunno.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:54 am

Yeah, he is. He's the crazy man after the Fed.

Ptolemy_Banana · Post by **Ptolemy_Banana** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:18 pm

Gendo wrote:
Dr_Liszt wrote:
Gendo wrote:I just took it. Got 80% Rand Paul followed by 74% Bernie Sanders. 43% Hillary. That site seems to only include candidates from the 2 major parties.
Rand Paul? The I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-doing Rand Paul? The guy that thinks the Fed is a conspiracy that has made the U.S socialist Rand Paul? Really?

Ok. I'll allow it.
I know very little about Rand Paul, but I thought he was way more conservative than I am. But I dunno.

His name is Rand Paul. I'm trying to think of a name that's less likely to make me vote for someone. I dunno, maybe Cunt Hitler?

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:50 pm

Why don't you like about him DA?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:47 pm

Well, to start with, he's a war-monger. He voted for Clinton's war in Yugoslavia, he voted for the war in Afghanistan, he continuously voted for military appropriations for the war in Iraq even though he voted against it initially, and he supports all the wars in Libya, in Pakistan, in Somalia, Yemen, and in Ukraine, etc. He also never questions our government's support of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Apparently his support of workers and the poor doesn't extend to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who are currently being economically strangled by Israel's blockade. As far as I know he never says a word against the military industrial complex at all in any of his speeches, the thing which is currently doing the most to drain the country of all the resources needed to pay for the all grand new visions he keeps laying out. That by itself says quite a lot.

He also supports restrictions on immigrant rights, as he showed when he sponsored an anti-immigration amendment to the 2009 stimulus bill. He supported the Law Enforcement Bill in 1994 which gave the government about sixty new pretexts to kill someone, as well as proving billions of dollars in funding for prisons. His record on the environment is completely atrocious, despite his talk on climate change. Etc. None of this is the record of a socialist who has a love of the poor and the working class.

Those are just the big ones.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:57 am

You just pretty much destroyed Bernie Sanders.

I just dream for the day everyone realizes that voting doesn't matter and remove the system in its entirety.

ANARCHY FTW!!! Or not.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:39 am

Voting does matter a small bit. The recent Supreme Court case proved it. That would never have happened had Romney won.

But if what we want is substantive structural change, that's never going to happen through elections.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:09 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Voting does matter a small bit. The recent Supreme Court case proved it. That would never have happened had Romney won.

But if what we want is substantive structural change, that's never going to happen through elections.

I thought the SC proved voting doesn't matter with handing the win to the second Bush

.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:07 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Voting does matter a small bit. The recent Supreme Court case proved it. That would never have happened had Romney won.

But if what we want is substantive structural change, that's never going to happen through elections.

It really pisses me off to some extent that the first world thinks they are either socialist (aka Sweden and Norway) or they can have or vote for socialist leaders. Socialism in the first world is nothing but Capitalism with welfare, which is not socialism. That's all there is to it.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:18 pm

On immigration, he is not against immigration. He voted no on the immigration reform deal because it would allow corporate agriculture to bring in millions of immigrant works on work visas with little regulation to the wages they'd be paid. He believes we cannot allow this because immigrant workers would make bupkus and would rather farmers to pay legal US citizens minimum wages which will help those without jobs/income earn some kind of living rather than living in poverty. He acknowledged food prices would increase but the food industry is already price regulated so we can use already in place regulations to ensure AG companies with incomes over a certain amount could not increase prices on their product etc...

I'm not sure calling him a warmonger is accurate? In 1999 he did vote for the attack on Yugoslavia but the rest of his record has been pretty consistent in voting no on military actions. While he has sympathies to Israel he hasn't and will not vote for any offensive measures against the Palestinians. He has made that pretty clear both his his record and his commentary.

Is there anything else you do not agree with him on? He's pretty adamant about wanting to fix the US internal issues and has voted no on many of the military spending budgets that have come up as he wants to reduce military spending and instead focus that money on education etc...He voted no on every measure that would have prolonged our stay in the Middle East and even drafted his own bill to expediting the training of native militaries so we could withdraw our troops.

There sure is a lot of cynicism displayed in this thread...a whole lot NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN blah blah blah. With that kind of tude, you're right, nothing will happen.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:24 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:
There sure is a lot of cynicism displayed in this thread...a whole lot NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN blah blah blah. With that kind of tude, you're right, nothing will happen.

Since the Facebook discussion on this didn't seem to continue... I'm confused by this whole thing. Just about ever liberal I know is a huge fan of Sanders, and doesn't much like Clinton. Yet at the same time they almost all agree that Clinton is more likely to win. Now obviously I don't know most liberals in the country, but this still seems like a contradiction. If the majority of liberals like Sanders, then how would Clinton be more likely to win? Where are all these Clinton supporters who plan to vote for her instead? I haven't seen them.

Is it just because she's a bigger name, so the average non-informed voter will be more likely to vote for her?

sikax · Post by **sikax** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:41 pm

Sanders sounds nice, I suppose. I just don't trust any politician, so I don't vote. Everyone fell in love with Barack because he promised a lot of nice things that he didn't do. I mean, that doesn't necessarily make him dishonest because I grasp that Congress and whatnot have more to do with war plans than the President, but that means that whoever is President is essentially arbitrary.

Hillary, Sanders, Trump....who gives a shit.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:25 pm

Gendo, I think it's just plain outright apathy. The US government is fucked seven ways to Sunday and fixing it seems impossible so even if a candidate comes along that seems to be more than just a talking piece they just don't care. I mean, I do get it and can empathize with that kind of mentality but I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic. And to be honest, there are many more like me. Sanders has managed to raise an impressive amount of campaign funding without a SuperPac and these contributions are coming from the American people themselves which means word is getting around about him.

The media isn't helping his case though. There was a "suggested posts" link below that one FB post. I wish I had saved it because it was eye opening. It was a sympathetic article about how Sanders will start to lose momentum and while he is liked he just won't win; basically saying the same thing with the Clinton/Sanders deal. I did a bit of research on the author and found out he is a member of some conservative group (can't remember name) that supports teaching the bible in classrooms, abstinence only education, and allowing Creationism to be taught.

What this tells me is that some conservative groups are trying sway public opinion by posting what seems to be sympathetic articles about progressive politicians and how great they are but that there's just no way they can win. I'm going to check every single article I find like this, find out who wrote it and if it follows the same pattern as this one, I'm going to post it with those details to help derail this particular BS ploy.

This is why Facebook and other social media outlets are so important. They are not controlled by mediamoguls which allows us to have honest discussions and to post the facts as well as discredit the bullshit. Bernie stated he was turning to such outlets to get his ideas out there and so far it seems to be helping.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:37 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:On immigration, he is not against immigration. He voted no on the immigration reform deal because it would allow corporate agriculture to bring in millions of immigrant works on work visas with little regulation to the wages they'd be paid. He believes we cannot allow this because immigrant workers would make bupkus and would rather farmers to pay legal US citizens minimum wages which will help those without jobs/income earn some kind of living rather than living in poverty. He acknowledged food prices would increase but the food industry is already price regulated so we can use already in place regulations to ensure AG companies with incomes over a certain amount could not increase prices on their product etc...

If that was his intention, he shouldn't have couched it in language of right-wing chauvinism and ugly economic nationalism. His stated reasons for calling for the suspension of federal visa programs is to "protect American jobs", not to protect the well-being of immigrant workers, because he thinks it's important that immigrants don't come over and steal jobs from Americans. This was the stated reason he co-sponsored the Nonimmigrant Reform Act, which would have barred corporations from hiring immigrant workers unless they certified that they had not displaced "a U.S. worker". His stance on immigration is so right-wing that he once actually got approval from racist anti-immigrant pundit Lou Dobbs, who called him "one of the few straight talkers in Congress". Just think about that for a minute. Lou Dobbs praised him on immigration. That says enough.

It should go without saying that this type of nationalist rhetoric is at complete adds with socialism and thus with any genuine solidarity with workers, as class solidarity should know no national boundaries.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:I'm not sure calling him a warmonger is accurate? In 1999 he did vote for the attack on Yugoslavia but the rest of his record has been pretty consistent in voting no on military actions. While he has sympathies to Israel he hasn't and will not vote for any offensive measures against the Palestinians. He has made that pretty clear both his his record and his commentary.

What record are you looking at? He voted for almost every damn war the US got involved in since 1990, which was not coincidentally the year he got elected to Congress. He supported the attack on Yugoslavia. He supported the US intervention in Somalia. He supported the genocidal blockade against Iraq, the death toll of which is now over a million and a half people, over half a million of which are children, which is by far the worst crime the US ever engaged in. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and supported the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which essentially launched the war on terror. He continuously voted for the war budgets to finance the occupation of Iraq. He supported the America-initiated disasters in Libya and Syria. Most recently he approved an aid package to the coup government in Ukraine which is currently busy impoverishing and oppressing their citizens. What does it to take for you to call someone a warmonger if this isn't?

He hasn't voted for any offensive measures against the Palestinians? What do you call the resolution he helped pass during Operation Protective Edge, which claimed support for Israel defending itself against unprovoked rocket attacks by Hamas, even though it was proven by human rights organizations and Israel's own intelligence that Hamas was simply responding in that instance to Israeli aggression? Which, btw, was public record before the Senate passed the resolution?

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:Is there anything else you do not agree with him on? He's pretty adamant about wanting to fix the US internal issues and has voted no on many of the military spending budgets that have come up as he wants to reduce military spending and instead focus that money on education etc...He voted no on every measure that would have prolonged our stay in the Middle East and even drafted his own bill to expediting the training of native militaries so we could withdraw our troops.

You'll need to provide references for all these, because from what I can tell they're simply false. He voted no on every measure to prolong our stay in the Middle East? That's simply not true.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:There sure is a lot of cynicism displayed in this thread...a whole lot NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN blah blah blah. With that kind of tude, you're right, nothing will happen.

If you'll read what I said, I said there's a fairly solid chance right now that Sanders will beat Clinton for the nomination, which is wildly optimistic and far more optimistic than even the vast majority of hardcore Sanders supporters, so I don't know where you're getting this "never going to happen" stuff.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:38 pm

I wasn't talking about you DA in regards to your last comment.

Wars and immigration:
I was going off this:
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-vote ... aQY-WpFAuQ

Going through his entire history since taking a seat in govt seems pretty clear he really isn't a war monger.
As for the middle east, to clarify I'm talking about the war on "terror" campaign. He tried to pass an amendment that would force the president and staff to provide a plan for an expeditious troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. He co-sponsoered a similar bill for Iraq. His statement on the amendment basically says we need to get our butts out of places that don't want us and where we are causing more harm than good (there's a link on each bill outline that takes you to speeches he made at that time). The amendment didn't pass of course but props to him for even getting it as far as he did.

And per that same history, the claim he's not interested in immigrants welfare is pretty weird. He voted yea on many things that had immigrants interests in mind such as granting citizenship to children who were brought in illegally. And he voted nay on things like that colossal piece of crap bill to finish the "fence" on our southern border. And yes, he is worried about American jobs but that doesn't mean he wouldn't protect the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. He voted nay on the initial immigration reform "Dream something or other" but once an amendment was added that would help young America also be protected he voted Yea. He voted against a bill that would fund billions to send 6000 national guard troops to the southern borders to "assist" border controls

I think most notable is his voting history when it comes to the social and economics issues of the US. It is undeniable that his focus has been and will continue to be on things like sexism, racism, bigotry, wealth gap, the failure of trickle down, and every other issue under the sun. He has stated he wants to reduce military spending and use those funds to fix our country. He has been consistent in his voting history to prove this.

He's not perfect but the very fact that he said we needed to fix our own country before we tried to fix others is telling.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:05 pm

I sort of looked at the link and what I saw was a decidedly mixed bag on most of the issues I care about. That's not surprising; in fact it's mostly what I expected. He voted for some war budgets while voting against others. He opposed some appointments to certain agencies while supporting appointments to others. He supported some resolutions friendly to immigrant workers while some not-so-friendly. He opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security at the time while voting for its continued funding in later years. He voted against the Patriot Act originally while helping to strengthen it in later years. Etc.

None of that is very surprising. I don't need someone to vote for every single military appropriations bill that they come across for me to label them a warmonger. The fact that he's voted for essentially every single war we've engaged in since 1990 - and helped fund all the ones he didn't vote for - is more than enough. The fact that he keeps bragging about how he didn't vote for the war in Iraq in his speeches shows how shrewd and dishonest he is - he probably refrained from voting just so he could use it as bragging rights later, as anyone at the time could see that it would be viewed as a catastrophe down the line. The fact that he kept funding it is far more consequential, and not something he mentions very often, and not something his fans know about or care about.

You say he has a good record when it comes to sexism, racism, the wealth gap, etc. You know, that's probably true, but all of that was completely undercut by his decision to ally himself with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a capitalist, pro-business party funded and controlled by the political elite. None of the change he keeps talking about will come about from cooperating with the wealthy business interests and oligarchs that rule the country and running as one of their wholly-owned political parties. If he really wanted change in the system, he would have established a real electorate alternative to the two corporate factions which monopolize our political choices right now and run as an independent. That is the only way to ensure actual change and resistance to capitalism and militarism, two things which socialists oppose. But he didn't; he threw his hat in with the Democratic party, thereby violating the very first principle of socialist politics (class independence). And when he loses, he'll endorse Hillary Clinton and exit stage left as per the script. Nothing will change.

That's primarily why I'm against him. Because nothing he says he wants to change will change within the corporate-financial nexus in which he's purposely embedded himself. That's, like, one of the most basic principles of American governance right now. He almost certainly knows it. So his intentions are not honest. The case is probably that the Democratic Party is using him right now to shore up all the disaffected voters that have been disappointed by Obama and Hillary with populist "radical" speeches and whatnot and then draw them into the Democratic Party again by throwing his hat in the ring for Clinton.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:07 pm

I think you need to do more than just take a look to be honest. As I mentioned, there is commentary quotes under each link to gives context to his votes. Just looking at the titles of the proposed bills/amendments will not do any good. You'd have to open the link, read the text of the proposal to know what it is all about.

I think you are being way to cynical about him. We are all aware that in todays political field compromises will have to be made and it sucks but just because he is forced to compromise doesn't mean that he isn't capable of making great changes within the government. The people are tired of our crackpot government and get us riled up enough we too can make things happen.

Either way, he has my vote...and yes, voting in the primaries is very important regardless of what Lizst thinks.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:48 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:She's an abomination. If she's elected President I think the world might literally end.

Certainly haven't heard that one before in every previous Presidential election

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:27 pm

It's like you're skipping over everything I'm saying.

Oh well, nothing out of the ordinary. At least I tried.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:37 pm

I don't know where I stand on Bernie Sanders in general, so I'm not going to flat-out agree with DA. But I will say that I agree with his being wary of anyone who is being held up as person who will finally end political corruption and fix our broken system. Bill Hicks said it well:

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:25 pm

"Nothing out of the ordinary"

Well, I was being civil but you can now go fuck yourself.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:31 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:"Nothing out of the ordinary"

Well, I was being civil but you can now go fuck yourself.

You really should have expected that.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:44 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:"Nothing out of the ordinary"

Well, I was being civil but you can now go fuck yourself.

Maybe we're reading it differently, but it sounded to me like he was saying that he's used to people not reading what he writes carefully, not that he was accusing you specifically of ignoring him.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:20 pm

Nah, it was directed at me because he dislikes me quite a bit (feeling is mutual of course) and we've both made it very clear.

I regret wasting time talking to someone who bases their conclusions on just "sorta looks at the link". There's 30 some odd pages of voting history, I actually went through the first 23 pages link by link so I'd have a firm grasp on the man. Oh well, my bad.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:22 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:"Nothing out of the ordinary"

Well, I was being civil but you can now go fuck yourself.

Yep, you too. It's not out of the ordinary for you to ignore almost everything I say when I try to discuss something with you, it happens every single time. Not only with me, but with multiple other people you've tried to discuss something with as well. I have no desire to be civil with people I think are dishonest. Sorry.

If you at least tried to respond to some of my points, I'd be nicer, but judging from experience that's not going to happen.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:26 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:I regret wasting time talking to someone who bases their conclusions on just "sorta looks at the link".

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:13 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:
Gypsy-Vanner wrote:"Nothing out of the ordinary"

Well, I was being civil but you can now go fuck yourself.
Yep, you too. It's not out of the ordinary for you to ignore almost everything I say when I try to discuss something with you, it happens every single time. Not only with me, but with multiple other people you've tried to discuss something with as well. I have no desire to be civil with people I think are dishonest. Sorry.

So....you do think everyone is dishonest then?

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:15 pm

Monk, I liked your post better before you changed it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:27 pm

Is there a perception that I'm uncivil with everyone? I'd be willing to change if there is.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:29 pm

Well, now I want to know what his original post was.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:31 pm

He chose to change it before (he may have thought) anyone saw it. If he wishes to repeat it that's his choice.

Ptolemy_Banana · Post by **Ptolemy_Banana** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:20 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Is there a perception that I'm uncivil with everyone? I'd be willing to change if there is.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:23 pm

Well, I'm disliked by Ptolemy_Banana, so I must be doing something right.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:41 pm

I dislike you when you comment about GoT and some movies. You are generally wrong about movies.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:03 pm

There's also no cure for a total lack of self-awareness.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:39 pm

I've ignored everything you've said?

Well, you brought up immigration and so I addressed his stance on immigration. I gave examples of his stance on immigration both from his voting history and from personal statements and as such, those facts show that your opinion on his stance on immigration is somewhat flawed. So you dropped it but not without a personal gripe about how he "couched" it.

You labeled him as a warmonger claiming he voted for all these acts against all these countries. That confused me because I went pretty far back in his voting history and I wasn't seeing it. I said as much and gave you the link...you know that link that you just sorta looked at?

I mean, to know what most of those things were you have to actually click on the link and read it. And yeah, I didn't deny his sympathies to Israel but if we go back to the website with his voting history...or wait, that's right.

And I'm the one being dishonest here.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:58 pm

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:I've ignored everything you've said?

Yes, mostly.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:And I'm the one being dishonest here.

Yes, you are.

Gypsy-Vanner · Post by **Gypsy-Vanner** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Ok there Sparky. Whatever floats your boat.