How was this little shot apropos to the post you were responding to, Neocon?
Maybe Daniel is Kendall, after he's been drinking and is looking for a fight. Has anyone ever seen them together? Message 8128633
Neither you or JBL ever saw fit to explain how alleged contra drug running through Mena was all Clinton's fault. Funny how that works. But it was on the op-ed page of the WSJ, it must be true, right?
We're all a bunch of Clinton Haters anyway, caught in the grip of an irrational animosity. . . Schuh is right to use such a tone!
Message 8123949
How about Christine Todd Whitman, Neocon?
Assessing blame for public fatigue with the impeachment process, Whitman said, ''I think I have to start with my own party, the Republican Party. Republicans emerged with a popular image rivaling that of Kathy Bates in Stephen King's 'Misery' -- a perception that we are mean-spirited, vindictive and obsessed.''
How about George Will, Neocon?
Finally, "values." Many Republicans, cross about public support for Clinton, seem to think American values need protection from . . . Americans. As an electoral appeal, that needs work.
Granted, Clinton's silken charm makes one long for honest rancor. But Republicans who think people support him only because they have been irrationally charmed resemble Democrats who ascribed Reagan's popularity to his smile. A party in denial is in danger.
I could dig up more like that, of course, but what's the point? All Clinton hatred, all the time, is what the Republican party needs, right? Everybody you cheer on here seems to agree, it must be the truth.
Daniel doesn't answer anything he can't address with a sneer. Message 8130771
I sneer in your vicinity, Neocon, with your perpetual smug statements of conservative dogma in 25 words or less. The kind of political "dialog" Clinton haters everywhere can appreciate.
Silly, Michelle. I won't go over the Matthews terrain, but Daniel's ordinary mode is sarcastic, although he is capable of dropping it. If you cannot recognize sarcasm, I have no idea what to say. https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7783069
I have no idea what to say either, about lectures on sarcasm from such a civil saint as you. Who of course doesn't hate Clinton, although he despises him.
"He's obsessed with hating republicans"...Apparently so... And yet, he continually asserted that he was a disinterested party, with no great love for Clinton (possibly true), merely offended by the excess of it all... Message 8168566
Oh, sure. Like I said, I sort of like GWB, he of the conventional Christian theology, and I've expressed admiration here for John McCain. You and your buddies here insist on labeling all Democrats as socialists, but that's different, right Neocon? The decline of the west is due to Clinton/Capone too, right?
Actually, I was beginning to think that Schuh actually expected his daughter to appear on tv. I am relieved that he explained. Message 8171442
Another example of restrained irony (as opposed to bald sarcasm) from the ever civil Neocon, eh?
John, sometimes you come through with an intelligent comment, and I cherish those moments. But mostly you seem to think that being snide suffices as witty repartee. Compared to Daniel's recent comments about me, both directed at me and to others, my comments and complaints are mild, and certainly not defamatory. Message 7770337
Once more, poor baby Neocon, he can dish it out but he can't take it. Somehow, this seems to be not exactly an unusual characteristic among the righteous right. Did I defame you by saying I was tired of your two sentence assertions of conservative dogma as "debate"? Sorry. You're so witty, Neocon.
Since I only skimmed Schuh's post, I missed this one... I work at home, and therefore have a certain latitude in my schedule, and my sleep patterns have been erratic for the last couple of months... Besides, I have had the enthusiasm of someone who has not bothered with a thread before, and therefore to whom it is a novelty...Anyway, it is probable that no one would have derided Schuh were he not sarcastic, and prone to invective, as you say...
Sarcasm, boo hoo. As far as invective goes, perhaps you'd enjoy this post, which may explain why I hold Rev. Pilch in such high esteem although I've managed to ignore the reformed version. This predated the pus pot saga by quite a bit, in case you're wondering. Message 6850329
Actually, I think your response is reasonable, and I had an earlier post or two that indicated I thought that the President might have learned something from his ordeal. But there has been, in fact, a fair amount of anticipative gloating on this thread, and some post- game too. (Since Dipy and Daniel have flown the coop, the gloat factor is less, granted). https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7842297
Right, Mr. smug moral superiority. On "gloating", before the final vote came down, you ever so politely taunted:
Out of politeness, I have ignored your references to Singapore, since they are so ludicrous, I was embarrassed for you, https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7755761
What a noble guy.
Sorry to "butt in", I thought this was a conversation that everyone could participate in. I have no doubt that you are right about Singapore, I objected to the comparison, so your substantiation is irrelevant. . . .
I told you that I did not think you were stupid, and I don't know you to be immoral. If you are winning, why are you so defensive?
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7759510
My references to Singapore, which at that point were "no doubt right", are nevertheless irrelevant. On the gloating thing, here's how I responded to that little "winning" jab.
As to winning, I don't think anybody's won in this mess. The Republicans just seem to be intent on doing their utmost to lose as much as possible. That's their right. http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/s-22539/reply-33300
To paraphrase the unreformed Rev. Pilch, I think you should nullify your own filth before whining about being uncivilly, unfairly maligned. I do hope you continue to commune with the Clinton haters here, though, I wouldn't want you or any of the "rational Republicans" here to notice what George Will said about a party in denial. |
