DescentBB

In Milwaukee County, WI the democratic sheriff was running for re-election. Since he was pro 2nd amendment and told the people in his jurisdiction that they would be well served to keep a firearm in the house and learn how to use it. Ex-mayor and mighty billionaire Bloomberg comes along and thinks here is a easy mark to score points for Bloomberg's quest to disarm America. Afterall the sheriff is in a solid blue county so should be easy pickings. Too bad Bloomberg wasn't smart enough to understand WI as a state is big on hunting and big on owning firearms. So after dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars to help defeat the "off the plantation" sheriff and get a more anti-gun sheriff to replace him, Bloomberg spirals out of control, crashes and burns in defeat. \O/ Mikey. So by stupidly not doing his homework, Bloomberg comes away looking the fool. So keep on trying to to disarm America Mr Bloomberg. If you are interested I have a few bridges you might be interested in.

Edited so some people can get beyond a lack of proof reading on my part.

Because liberals think gun free zones are gun free.

reaching a bit for that equivalence, Woody. Really.

No more than you do.

Anyone notice how this is supposed to mirror slick's previous post but does an incredibly poor job of it? No link for reference, and a hardly intelligible paragraph filed with wild assumptions. If anything, this adds weight to the notion that "'Conservative' has come to equal 'Ignorant'?"

I'm sorry vision, I didn't realize that you were one of the low information voters. That Bloomburg gave money to fund attack ads against the the incumbent Sheriff is well known. That the attack ads didn't work and the sheriff was re-elected is fact. I didn't realize someone like you needs a link to verify something I was merely commenting about. Too bad the real ignorance is so glaring.

So in your mind, Bloomburg didn't know people in Wisconsin were pro gun and that is the only issue they voted on? How likely do you think that is?

Evidently the attack ads that Bloomburg sponsored highlighted the gun issue as painting the sheriff as a pro-gun maniac. I'm sure there could have been a broader debate if Bloomberg didn't get involved.

and that invalidates vision's entire point about this thread, how?

They buy into the latest propaganda and believe whatever the "experts" tell them without any question or independent research.

callmeslick wrote:and that invalidates vision's entire point about this thread, how?

This has nothing to do with a need for Validation. you didn't like what Rush said so you came out with a thread Directly slapping conservatives.

Woody didn't like what Bloomberg said so he came out with a thread Directly slapping liberals. see the connection??

I guess its easy to dish out, but not so easy to take when they hit back huh?

Actually, I believe slick's point was to draw attention to the pattern of stupid statements from conservative mouthpieces, using Rush as an example, for which there is no liberal equivalent. As a rebuttal, this thread is a fail.

Do you mean that there are no liberal mouthpieces, or just no stupid ones…either choice is a laugh.

Vision, you mean the thread where slick cited a complete misrepresentation of what was said? Repeated it as if he believed it as true and then when corrected on his failure tried to maintain his ignorant position of 'look how hateful he was' by continuing to misrepresent what was said and who it was attributed to in that commentary he likely never listened to in the fist place else he wouldn't have been so wrong about it?
That thread?

vision wrote:Actually, I believe slick's point was to draw attention to the pattern of stupid statements from conservative mouthpieces, using Rush as an example, for which there is no liberal equivalent. As a rebuttal, this thread is a fail.

And this isn't a thread to point at attempts from liberal mouth pieces, using Bloomburg as a example, to use their millions and billions to stupidly attack pro gun candidates? The only fail here is certain people trying to conveniently fail to see the equivalency .

woodchip wrote:...to use their millions and billions to stupidly attack pro gun candidates?

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by fail. Every election has winners and losers and the money goes to lots of places, even when no victory is expected. Those ads probably get the expected results, if there is no expectation of winning. The people who play these political games have teams of strategists that rival the greatest war rooms. It's similar to how the US goes and bombs a country to destabilize it rather than conquer it. Now, I have no idea what Mr. Bloomberg's goal was, but you can be sure the use of every penny of that campaign was calculated against the return on investments. It's all business, guy.

When I read the OP, I felt like I was watching a bad parody of John Stewart.

Will Robinson wrote:Vision, you mean the thread where slick cited a complete misrepresentation of what was said? Repeated it as if he believed it as true and then when corrected on his failure tried to maintain his ignorant position of 'look how hateful he was' by continuing to misrepresent what was said and who it was attributed to in that commentary he likely never listened to in the fist place else he wouldn't have been so wrong about it?
That thread?

I listened to the whole of the commentary on which I posted BEFORE posting a written article about it.....which, I took some pains(likely not enough for this crowd) to point out was over the top. Still, the ignorance displayed by Rush in it was still sufficiently mind-numbing in its stupidity content. Especially for a man who has been to rehab. And, yes, any equivalence in this thread is lacking, to be charitable.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vision, you mean the thread where slick cited a complete misrepresentation of what was said? Repeated it as if he believed it as true and then when corrected on his failure tried to maintain his ignorant position of 'look how hateful he was' by continuing to misrepresent what was said and who it was attributed to in that commentary he likely never listened to in the fist place else he wouldn't have been so wrong about it?
That thread?

I listened to the whole of the commentary on which I posted BEFORE posting a written article about it.....which, I took some pains(likely not enough for this crowd) to point out was over the top. Still, the ignorance displayed by Rush in it was still sufficiently mind-numbing in its stupidity content. Especially for a man who has been to rehab. And, yes, any equivalence in this thread is lacking, to be charitable.

why is it that 'Conservative' has come to equal' Ignorant'?

no pains in that title....... you went right for the throat for every conservative member on this board..

and when Woody did the same in reverse, all the "Liberals" on this board got all pissy about it. ***Shrug*** if you don't like it. don't start it

Now that we have all settled it.

Conservative = Ignorant
Liberal = Stupid

so now we can move on here and "maybe" have some worth while discussion I wont get my hopes up.

CUDA wrote:Conservative = Ignorant
Liberal = Stupid

Now you are finally beginning to understand the viewpoint of moderates.

Krom wrote:

CUDA wrote:Conservative = Ignorant
Liberal = Stupid

Now you are finally beginning to understand the viewpoint of moderates.

Moderate= if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything

CUDA wrote:

Moderate= if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything

Why does the term "moderate" evoke the idea of "apathetic"?

Many folks describe themselves as "moderate" because they take strong issue with things on both sides. And people who genuinely don't care don't normally use that term (they just say "I don't care").

I

Foil wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Moderate= if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything

Why does the term "moderate" evoke the idea of "apathetic"?

Many folks describe themselves as "moderate" because they take strong issue with things on both sides. And people who genuinely don't care don't normally use that term (they just say "I don't care").

I take issues with lots of things on both the competing plantations.
But I don't consider myself a 'moderate'. I am enthusiastically invested in supporting common sense regardless of who it hurts.

There are people who seek out the 'middle ground' as it is defined by the ideological territory claimed by the R's and D's. These self proclaimed moderates think that makes them reasonable and thoughtful...intelligent...

They have fooled themselves into thinking they are on the correct side of everything. In reality they have, by neglect or wilful ignorance, perpetuated the status quo problem and are at least half way wrong more often than not.

Foil wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Moderate= if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything

Why does the term "moderate" evoke the idea of "apathetic"?

Many folks describe themselves as "moderate" because they take strong issue with things on both sides. And people who genuinely don't care don't normally use that term (they just say "I don't care").

missed the huh?

Moderate= Stupid half the time, Ignorant the other half.

Spidey wrote:Moderate= Stupid half the time, Ignorant the other half.

WTH why not! A moderate is someone who avoids all extremes and relies solely on their own investigation.

EDIT: Someone not afraid to say they don't know and to point out others do not either. A moderate allows for error.

Political tribalism is stupid.

If this one lack of success is a yardstick of stupid, I got to wondering where we put Karl Rove and the NRA political committee? In the 2012 election, Rove had a 3% success rate on campaigns he put money into, the NRA came in at a whopping 0.8%

one must ask the question.

Who cares?????

CUDA wrote:one must ask the question.

Who cares?????

frankly, beyond puzzlement at the whole logic behind this thread, no real reason to.

Which is it slick? The NRA is the all powerful lobby that is the only thing keeping all of America from getting the gun control you think they want and need...or the NRA is useless?

You flop around on that a lot.

Will Robinson wrote:Which is it slick? The NRA is the all powerful lobby that is the only thing keeping all of America from getting the gun control you think they want and need...or the NRA is useless?

the political lobby is powerful, the election campaign committee is useless. Nothing in life is all or nothing, someday you'll get that.

You flop around on that a lot.

no, I can see detail better than you, apparently.

callmeslick wrote:the political lobby is powerful, the election campaign committee is useless.

Yeah it seems to be a hell of a lot easier, cheaper, and more efficient to buy the elected rather than buying the public.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the political lobby is powerful, the election campaign committee is useless.

Yeah it seems to be a hell of a lot easier, cheaper, and more efficient to buy the elected rather than buying the public.

That depends on the constituency you are trying to buy. Some are smarter than others.
Some can be had for nothing more than a vague promise of 'hope and change'...

can't resist being ignnorant, huh, will?.....a classic low information voter, I see.

Considering how you spelled " ignnorant " I'd say Will is far more capable than you.

I think we're done here.