=>Ex-Mo=>Liberal or Libertarian?

[_Kishkumen]

I also don’t view politics as a “Us versus Them” mentality, or in Droops’ case “The Gospel versus Satan”. Accurate criticisms are accurate criticisms despite their source, and since I’m not loyal to my party like I am to my mother or brother, I don’t feel any sort of compulsion to defend the party immediately, such as trying to distance ‘Real Republicans’ (people who think like me) from the loonies on the grass(people who think like Droops)

Yeah, I am with you. Perhaps this is why I respect you very much and find you delightful to talk to. What can I say?

Frankly, I don't see bcspace and Droopy as Republicans at all. I see them as fanatics. Every group has them, and they are a big part of "the problem."

Well, Hitler didn’t choose to be German and Saddam didn’t choose to be Iraqi. One does choose to be a Republican and a Mormon, and if you want those labels to mean anything, one has to take on the burden to policing those like Droops and taking them to task.

Yes and no. Many people are brought up with a particular point of view in such a way that it is difficult to consider anything else in a serious way.

However, I think in principle you are right. I think you are just trying to extend the principle of charity as far as you can while also recognizing the world is complex and ambiguous while I'm of the mind that my party affiliation isn't worth the effort.

Fair enough.

[_Kishkumen]

When are you people going to STOP LYING about people!!???

In ldsfaqs we have another idiot who is hardly worth engaging.

[_ldsfaqs]

When are you people going to STOP LYING about people!!???

In ldsfaqs we have another idiot who is hardly worth engaging.

Of course, the wicked take the truth to be hard.
And you people actually think your interested in "the truth".
Please.....

You told two direct lies about two people on this board, and you could care less.
That makes YOU the one with the problems and not worth engaging. But me, I like to engage fools, so those who are still objective can see which side is really on the side of right and truth.

[_Kishkumen]

Of course, the wicked take the truth to be hard.
And you people actually think your interested in "the truth".
Please.....

You don't know me.

You told two direct lies about two people on this board, and you could care less.
That makes YOU the one with the problems and not worth engaging. But me, I like to engage fools, so those who are still objective can see which side is really on the side of right and truth.

No, I didn't. I shared my opinion about them. You may not agree with it, but there is a difference between my genuine opinion and a deliberate falsehood.

But then, you would not understand that, because you are an idiot.

[_huckelberry]

banning ice cream cones? I must be living in another country. Is there an overbearing nurse Ratchet locking the ice cream up?

[Guest]

banning ice cream cones? I must be living in another country. Is there an overbearing nurse Ratchet locking the ice cream up?

Liberals in California have banned ice cream cones.... Haven't looked how wide-spread, but they did it.

[_ldsfaqs]

Of course, the wicked take the truth to be hard.
And you people actually think your interested in "the truth".
Please.....

You don't know me.

You told two direct lies about two people on this board, and you could care less.
That makes YOU the one with the problems and not worth engaging. But me, I like to engage fools, so those who are still objective can see which side is really on the side of right and truth.

No, I didn't. I shared my opinion about them. You may not agree with it, but there is a difference between my genuine opinion and a deliberate falsehood.

But then, you would not understand that, because you are an idiot.

I know your actions here.... such as your lying. Thus, I know you well enough to judge according to what I see.

Oh, and I understand well. But unlike you, I actually believe in being honest of things and people, and therefore I don't act the bigot and give "opinions" about people I know nothing about simply because I don't agree with their views.

They've never said or done anything "fascist", thus you lied.
They've never said anything "nutty" such as the fringe would like Alex Jones etc., thus you lied.

Let me tell you a secret.... Opinions are supposed to be based on something, these two little things called FACT and TRUTH. If they are not, then they are the imaginings of a BIGOT, a FOOL, a JOKER, a CHILD..... Understand??? I know you don't, because it is YOU who are the actual "idiot" who opens his mouth and lies about people making himself look the fool.

[_huckelberry]

banning ice cream cones? I must be living in another country. Is there an overbearing nurse Ratchet locking the ice cream up?

Liberals in California have banned ice cream cones.... Haven't looked how wide-spread, but they did it.

What, in local gradeschools? That could make some sense. You sound like they shut Baskin Robbins down without a wisper reaching the outside news. Hell I listen to ORielly and haven't heard of this travesty of the American way.

[_ldsfaqs]

What, in local gradeschools? That could make some sense. You sound like they shut Baskin Robbins down without a wisper reaching the outside news. Hell I listen to ORielly and haven't heard of this travesty of the American way.

No, it WAS "Baskin & Robbins" type stores. You are only allowed to get ice cream in a CUP....

Wow, that's so interesting, I can find almost no article on it. Only a couple of "brief mentions" of a town in California that has banned cones to be eaten in public sidewalks etc. I'm guessing that maybe some of the stores in that area were banned from even selling them since people might take the cones outside.

Wow, conspiracy theory almost no mention anywhere on Google...... :(

[_Chap]

banning ice cream cones? I must be living in another country. Is there an overbearing nurse Ratchet locking the ice cream up?

Liberals in California have banned ice cream cones.... Haven't looked how wide-spread, but they did it.

Let's see. In 1987, Clint Eastwood was elected mayor of the tiny little town of Carmel-by-the-sea, California, pop. 4,500. Part of his platform was to overturn a local ordinance that banned the eating of ice-cream cones on the street in that mainly residential community, where a 1929 city law declared:

Carmel is essentially, predominantly and primarily a residential city in which business and commerce have been, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character.

No source known to me gives information on the political character of those who brought in the original ordinance. But ldsfaqa says they were 'liberals', with no evidence cited. He also said.

Let me tell you a secret.... Opinions are supposed to be based on something, these two little things called FACT and TRUTH. If they are not, then they are the imaginings of a BIGOT, a FOOL, a JOKER, a CHILD..... Understand???

Yeah, I understand. The process by which ldsfaqs magnifies a local ordinance (of unknown political parentage) repealed 25 years ago into the claim that "Liberals in California have banned ice cream cones", looks a lot like

the imaginings of a BIGOT, a FOOL, a JOKER, a CHILD