On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:14:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:35:46 -0400, BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:22:44 -0700, jps wrote:
Rachel: Do you think that calling the President a "nazi"...calling the
President "Hilter"...is an implicit call for politically motivated
violence?
Didn't we just have 8 years of democrats calling Bush a nazi and
worse? I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
We are constantly ratcheting down the acceptable level of dialog.
I have noticed it is funny how people's attitude changes when it is
their guy getting attacked.
I really think this started in the 60s but it continues to get worse.
Yes, Gene and I have been saying the same thing. I didn't like it (still
don't) when Harry is completely one sided on everything, and I don't
like it now that the conservatives of the group are doing the same exact
thing with Obama.
If you see behavior you do not like, speak up. But, when you only speak
up when it is being performed by those whose views you are in opposition
with you are viewed as a hypocrite.
No, you are labeled a hypocrite, regardless, by the *other* or the
*other other* self-righteous side.....
Gene it is too bad that you have never asked me my views on organized
religion, you would be surprised by my views. When I question your rabid
views of religion you make the assumption that I am a fundie. You like
to come across as a live and let live type of person. Yes, when people
question your authority or your positions your behavior is often worse
than a fundie.
He does like to make assumptions about the religious beliefs of
others. He's never queried me either, yet he assumes I have beliefs he
knows nothing of.
--
John H
All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.