Wednesday, you confuse me.

You complain that I post responses that are too long, and
then you say I've falsely labelled you "hostile", with a
very long post of your own, that solicits a 5000
word response, just to minimally answer all the questions
and requests for specific examples you raise.

And this, after you imply that my prior posts were too long
for you to bother reading in the first place.

Truly: WTF ?!?!?!?!?!?

Here's what I described as you and Jim Jackson baiting me
into a flame-war I didn't want (again, this is a Raegan
tribute, NOT a Bush/Iraq topic) here:

Quote:

Wednesday said#287534 - Fri Jun 18 2004 04:38
.
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.



Then how do you know all this?





Quote:

Jim Jackson said:#287551 - Fri Jun 18 2004 05:41 PM
.
Quote:

Wednesday said:



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
The Democrats have exploited far more. Far more divisively,
far more bitterly, and with far less evidence.


.

Then how do you know all this?


.
He got it from the same intelligence that linked al-Qaida
and Iraq, pre-9/11.

--------------------
George W. Bush: born on 3rd base, thinks he hit a triple



Okay this is one that rankled my fur because:

1. Again, this is a REAGAN TRIBUTE, and Jim Jackson is
taking special pleasure in ruining it for the people who
like Reagan. You don't like Reagan?
Okay: WE GET IT ! So start your FUCK REAGAN topic
already and get out of my face. No one is shutting you
up, just take it to an appropriate place, not his eulogy,
and nostalgic reflections of those who like the guy.
And you've been doing this in the topic for
several pages. So.. take it elsewhere.

2. I just got through with an exchange that took the topic
further off Reagan than I wanted it to go, and I tried to
ignore you here, and take it back on-topic (my post about possible Reagan images on currency) but you just wouldn't let it go.

3. I've detailed "How do [I] know this", in probably
hundreds of posts ober the last year, and I feel it's
redundant and pointless to re-hash what I've said a vast
number of times, just because others want to ignore and
not read what I've already posted, chapter and verse
examples.
Just read my posts in the most recent pages of
the "It's not about oil or Iraq.. topic. I mean,
GEEZ ! I've explained myself in detail many times, and
what I see as Democrat party manipulation of the facts
is not exactly a mystery here !!

4. In retrospect, your post simply asks for a response,
Wednesday. Jim Jackson's is the snide one that really
pissed me off, and compelled me to show that there is
definite Senate intelligence that shows an Osama-Saddam
link. You're right, you didn't ask me. But it's pretty
clear that I posted in response to Jim Jackson's remark.

5. I think I'm on the record saying previously that when I
field several posters, some inquiring and some attacking
me, I find it difficult without re-reading the page to
remember who said what. Until I re-read it, I remember it
as several liberal posters jumping on me at once, and
forget which said specifically what. And it's only on re-
reading that I see one was polite and one was more
confrontational.
Initially, you were much more polite than Jim Jackson.

But in your lengthier second post, while you, deep into the
post, became more balanced in criticizing both sides,
also made some remarks I found partisan and insulting.

I'll go through the second post of yours, that
follows the opening shots on me by both you and Jim
Jackson (quoted above), and detail the examples you ask for:


Quote:

Wednesday said:

Honestly, I don't care enough to have a personal vendetta
against you or anyone else here. A lot of mean ol' nasty
things have been said on this board about liberals, but,
though I'm the most liberal guy here according to G-
man's "how conservative are you" questionnaire, I haven't
really given a gosh darn about 95% of it.



Here you imply that all the "mean ol' nasty things" are
initiated by conservatives against the liberals here on
RKMB.
When in truth, it's the reverse! Liberals attack, bait,
make snide remarks, and conservatives respond to disprove
the allegations, or at least give something resembling
equal time.
You say you're equally critical of Whomod. But your
comments here don't reflect that. They are solely
directed at conservatives on the boards here.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
.
Truth is, most of the arguments you, JLA, and G-man, have
with Whomod end in immature, overly general name-calling
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence. Do liberals hate America?



Again, your comments here are directed solely at
conservatives. You list G-man, Me, and Mr JLA (all
conservatives) in your "immature" list. I don't see
Whomod (or the name of any other liberal posters) listed
specifically by you and criticized for their antagonistic
banter and "immature, overly general namecalling,
geared at every person on the other side of the political
fence." You say that you criticize both sides,
but your comments clearly single out only one side:
CONSERVATIVES.

Your comment clearly singles out conservatives for lashing
back at Whomod (and at other liberals, like yourself)
while giving liberals a free pass, while conservatives
here, for simply responding to liberal baiting and
condescension, are labelled as "immature"
and engaging in "overly general name-calling geared at
every person on the other side of the political fence".

This, despite the fact that I repeatedly make
it very clear, across many topics, that my comments don't
apply to more civil liberals who respectfully discuss the
issues, such as Chant and JQ. Llance has identified
himself as liberal also, and you don't see me make
comments toward him either, of the kind that I do toward
you, and Whomod, and Jim Jackson, and a few others.
Doesn't happen !
As Whomod often accuses me also, of "hating" all liberals,
that's not even true of the liberals in Washington. I've
many times said that Democrat Senator Joseph Biden and
Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman are two whose opinions I
value, who don't lower themselves to the scorched-earth
partisan rhetoric of Kerry, Dean, Gore, Ted Kennedy,
Hilary Clinton and others.

I haven't said it before, but Clinton generally
is supportive of President Bush, and respectful in his
dissent when he voices it as well.
While Hilary Clinton is far more biting and partisan.

Again, except for the Bill Clinton part, I've said this all
many times, and across many topics. So it's a bit
annoying to have to repeat it.

But again, I'm not angry toward "all" liberal posters, or
all liberals in general. I enjoy having a friendly
exchange of ideas with liberals, when I don't have to deal with the usual "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "blind
supporter of Bush" "Republican extremist", etc, etc.,
labels that liberals like to slap on me here to discount
my point of view.
So, like I said, Chant, JQ and others who can discuss the
issues in a more civil way, while often disagreeing with
me, still disagree respectfully, and I respond in kind.

Because they don't lower the bar like others do, and lash
out with such abrasiveness and rude condescension that I
have to respond.

Your topic "examples" appear more
directed at, possibly solely at, conservatives:

Quote:

Wednesday said:
"Do Liberals Hate America?"


That's G-man's topic, a branch off of the "Do liberals hate
the President?" topic. And that has been answered
abundantly within those two topics. The liberal venom and
prejudice toward Bush and conservatives in general by the
usual liberal partisans, is clearly on display.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
It's all about the oil!



This is what liberals constantly say about conservatives,
not the other way around. Possibly your including
it in the list is criticizing Whomod and other liberal
partisans (un-named in your comments)for sniping at
conservatives here. But it's vague, and seems directed
solely at admonishing conservatives.
Again, you name conservatives specifically, and it's
questionable whether you're criticizing liberals too, or
just solely criticizing conservatives for their part in
the topic.


Quote:

Wednesday said:

The [other side] controls the media, and uses it to
opress the people!! Stupid. No softer name for it.



Again, I've backed this up a hundred times, with statistics
that show the media is about 80% liberal, and that to
even get truly conservative opinion in this country,
you have to go to a very select group of publications and
media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, New York
Post, Weekly Standard and The National Review,
and arguably Fox News.

It's not "stupid". It's how you partisanly dismiss my
opinion about liberal media coverage, without any facts to
dispute it, just, "it's stupid".
See the Liberal Media topic, if you want some
statistics. In the 1984 Presidential election, every
White House correspondent voted for Mondale and ZERO
voted for Reagan. How do you think that affected
media reporting?
The existence of media bias is "stupid"?
Give me a freaking break.

And similarly issues like AIDS, homelessness, gay rights,
abortion, hyping white-on-minority crime, and downplaying
minority-on-white crime. And just generally downplaying
anything that portrays liberal-favored minorities
(gays, pro-abortionists, feminists, atheists, muslims) in
a negative light. While simultaneously hyping anthing
negative about Christian or conservative groups.

Or just more broadly blaming all social problems and the
misfortune of minorities on the Republicans.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

Sometimes it's the left that starts it, sometimes it's
the right. Sometimes it's funny, most of the time it's
kinda annoying. Whatever. I don't take it seriously. I
might snap now and then, but I won't hold any grudges.
I'm a Scorpio leaning on Libra, man. I just don't give a fuck.




This is the first fair and balanced statement you've made
in this post.

Quote:

Wednesday said:

DtWB, if I met you on the street, I'd probably offer to
shake your hand and buy you a beer. Not the expensive
stuff, though, and you're responsible for tip.



Again, I'd like to be conciliatory, but there have been
some rather harsh things said over the last year. Maybe
I'm taking things overly personal, but some of the remarks
directed at me have seemed overly harsh and
personal. I'm a pretty friendly guy generally, and I'd
really like to tone down the rhetoric here, on both
sides. As I've said, some of the things said here (not
necessarily by you, Wednesday), it's hard not to take
offense.


Quote:

Wednesday said:
Sweet Zombie Reagan, man!



?!?
I don't want to sound humorless, because I think you meant
this to be light and funny. But it's a bit ambiguous.
I felt this was a rather odd thing to say about Reagan,
in a tribute to widely admired former President who just
died.

Some here have gone out of their way to express contempt
for Reagan.

For those who feel the burning need, if it were earlier on
and the ugliness were not already here, I'd suggest you
start a "FUCK REAGAN!" topic, to get it out of your
systems. But the damage is already done, to the
attempt at an affectionate tribute to Reagan here, and
it's already somewhat tainted for those, like myself, who
admire and have affection for Reagan.

Further evidence of liberal bitterness, from my
perspective.

For God's sake, The man is dead !! Why do you
(liberals in general) have to urinate on a tribute to
him? Couldn't you (those liberals who despise Reagan)
just as easily dump on Reagan in a new topic devoted
specifially to that?

To me, that's typical of the liberal mentality I despise.
A complete lack of respect, and antagonism, toward those
who don't share liberal views. A burning, gleeful
malicious pleasure in getting in the face of someone who
doesn't share your liberal views.

A mindset for which Whomod is the poster boy.
And Jim Jackson is just a step behind.



Quote:

Wednesday said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you people post
too long. Call me ignorant, lazy, and uneducated, but do
all of you long-winded fellows really think what you have
to say is so important that it deserves a dissertation?



Again: you solicited it, and there is no short way
to respond to the issues you raise. But I'll try and work on being more concise.

In the earlier post I responded to with the "Saddam-Osama
link" article, the issue is personalized toward me (by Jim
Jackson) implying I'm ignorant for somehow not buying the
liberal notion that Bush went to war "solely for WMD's".

Well, that liberal notion is wrong, and rather than just me
saying: "You're wrong" and go through 10 rounds of "Fuck you
Wonder Boy, you don't know what you're talking about", I
find it logical to back what I say with an article from
the New York Post, and point out what Bush actually said
(as opposed to the partisan liberal myth of
what Bush said) my documenting Bush's actual comments in his
speeches on the eve of war.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
I know most of that's quotes, but, man, I really hope you
posted all that for the benefit of the Partisan Family,
cuz I'm pretty darn sure most ain't gonna sit down and
actually read all that. Jim Jackson, grab yourself a
chair, cuz I'm sure all that's cuz of your 9/11 crack, and
it's gonna be a while.



It seems to me this is overly snide too, and directed at
conservatives only.

The "Partisan Family" remark seems squarely directed at me
and conservatives. And this is further confirmed by your
offering Jim Jackson to "grab a chair" and watch the show
that conservatives (me in particular) are obligated to
give in response.
I find this especially annoying, since Jim Jackson is among
the most partisan and insulting liberals I have the
displeasure of exchanging posts with. If you offer Jim
Jackson a chair, then there's clearly no liberal you'll
honestly criticize. Which means you've chosen partisan
sides, in giving his abrasiveness a free pass.

You say that your comments are "annoyed maybe" but "not
angry". Well, either way it's rude and insulting.

One example was on page 1 of the "Islamic Ignorance"
topic, which I believe is the first time we crossed paths
and you insulted my opinion with a flippant remark
about "using the Bible to rationalize any foolish notion"
or something to that effect. Which insulted my opinion,
without any kind of factual basis. Whether "annoyed"
or "angry", the comment, and similar ones, are
condescending and hostile, and definitely rub me the wrong
way.

Again, you asked for examples, I tried to provide them. I
apologize for the lengthy response. This is a discussion
of what I think and what you think, and how we perceive
each other's comments.
And I'm reluctant to post this, because I really don't want
to dredge up and prolong this. But neither do I want to
ignore your request for examples.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal, and you don't
need to respond if you don't want to. I'm talking in this
post about my personal perceptions, and I don't want to
say or imply that you absolutely did this or that. Just
my interpretation, which could be not what you actually
intended.

And Jim Jackson, same thing. If you'll ease up, I'll do
the same.