Off Topic

[cajun]

With "G" and Engels not wanting to come out and play, we will be needing a devils advocate. Who will it be? Who can step up to the plate and assume the roll of a good socialist liberal? :rofl

[Johnny Dangerously]

With "G" and Engels not wanting to come out and play, we will be needing a devils advocate. Who will it be? Who can step up to the plate and assume the roll of a good socialist liberal? :rofl

Perhaps I should create a "sock puppet" account named "Engels Jr." to take his side of things.

I'm not sure that I have quite the command of the English language that he does, but I can at least try... :D

[cajun]

Don't sell yourself short buddy,you have quite the command of the english language.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Don't sell yourself short buddy,you have quite the command of the english language.
Perhaps, but not quite the "colorful" side if you know what I mean...;)

[Remphoto]

Go for it Johnny; Huffingtonpost and the Dailykos will provide a litany of wacky ideas and conservative putdown names. Not sure they have anything as creative as fobbit and moonbat. Maybe we ought to run a "help wanted" add on 1130cc for liberals to come out and play.:D

[nelson]

When emotion is your underlying guide, real debate is tedious. Eventually you get fed up when your opponent doesn't understand or agree - because you have no real way to explain it to them. They should just "know." And when they don't, the discussion ends in your frustration. To avoid this frustration, you end up shying away from confrontation, instead taking comfort in numbers - groups of people who "feel" the same way you do. Maintaining your beliefs is so much easier and more comfortable that way. You actually resent having to try to explain your feelings, and denigrate those who expect you to do so.

This is why it's difficult to get liberals to really debate or defend their beliefs. Every disagreement becomes personal because your principle challenges what is, for the liberal, a very personal emotion. When there are great numbers of liberals, they are strengthened, and no single person among them really needs to define anything - each person simply takes the next guy's back.

[Remphoto]

When emotion is your underlying guide, real debate is tedious. Eventually you get fed up when your opponent doesn't understand or agree - because you have no real way to explain it to them. They should just "know." And when they don't, the discussion ends in your frustration. To avoid this frustration, you end up shying away from confrontation, instead taking comfort in numbers - groups of people who "feel" the same way you do. Maintaining your beliefs is so much easier and more comfortable that way. You actually resent having to try to explain you feelings, and denigrate those who expect you to do so. This is why it's difficult to get liberals to really debate or defend their beliefs. Every disagreement becomes personal because your principle challenges what is, for them, a very personal emotion. When there are great numbers of liberals, they are strengthened, and no single person among them really needs to define anything - each person simply takes the next guy's back.

That was abundantly clear during the election when liberals were asked numerous times what specifically BO had accomplished during his tenure in the Illinois legislature and as a Senator. Of course they could not answer that question, so reverted to meaningless, non-specific "feel-good" verbiage such as "change", he cares, etc.

[Remphoto]

In case you missed it there's a thread over on the VRod site with some interesting info on who is responsible for the financial crisis. A number of names in addition to W's (including Bill Clinton?). I invited the folks from 1130cc.com to come over and discuss the political aspects of this article.

http://www.1130cc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115672

[The G]

You guys don't have the heart to do the job right.

To the link you posted this is the bill the Republicans wouldn't let be voted on and cause the mess we have today.