Suzie. sm

Posted By: Brunson on 2005-08-07
In Reply to: What is going on? - Suzie

First, I enjoy your posts. Very much. As you can see, the vultures are gloating over the demise of three long-time posters. They got what they wanted. No respect for individual boards and blatant bait and switch routines. It's very obvious. I said it was my last post before, but I wanted to answer yours. Hopefully, once the gloating is over, they will find something worthwhile to talk about. Shameful.

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Suzie, it is no use. SM

No amount of conciliation can stem the virulent Bush hatred. While the posters on the conservative board afforded the respect to not post here for the most part, like a pack of starving wolves, posters from this board nipped at every post by the conservatives. It's plain to see but only for those who seek truth.

Here's a perfect example, Suzie:

American Girl: Yawwnnn.... you're boring me to death....

Nameless Troll: By all means.... RIP.

MT: See, THAT'S what I am talkin' about! SM boring and lame! I am telling you, you are lame girl.

American Girl: Did they just wish me dead? ....RIP is a term usually reserved for the dead, right?

They degenerate debate to name calling, calling us evil, and then wishing us dead....all the while preaching to us about how evil and intolerant we are....the irony is bewildering but not unexpected.

MT: Don't forget when they told Nan she was old and would die soon SM and wished for her to burn in hell. That was an especial highlight of the nature of how they "never" say anything hateful.

(No name, but I admit it was me, completely frustrated and having sunk to their level): I know it's difficult but close your eyes and try to FOCUS for a second or two. Take a deep breath. You can do it. The poster was directly responding in kind to YOUR post in which YOU wrote: you're boring me to death.... Now feel free to twist and mangle that any way that makes you look like poor little AG who is always picked on, but YOU are the one who started this. The person was wishing you a peaceful trip while on the destination YOU indicated you were headed.

American Girl: Admit it though... you still wished me dead....

Nameless Troll: Not true. I don't wish anyone dead. I don't harbor that kind of hatred inside me. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Nan: They'll never admit it. sm It has to be your imagination.

These were just a FEW in an entire thread of insults (including one from Nan calling the person a slimy bottom dweller.) Not ONE post in this entire thread added anything of intelligence to any debate (including my own).

Does anyone reading this SERIOUSLY think the poster wished AG dead? When I read it, I see it as a very sarcastic response to a very sarcastic post. I believe it�s shortly after this point in time (when those three were getting exactly what they gave, after repeated threats and "chances" and "strikes" by them to the poster or else they would tell the Monitor) that they all three posted that they wouldn�t be coming back here any more. Those posts are gone now, and as we can see, one of them is already denying ever saying she was leaving. (To those of you who actually did read these posts and know they were there, please continue to rely on the accuracy of your memory because it�s correct.)

Now, when the day comes that AG recalls someone on this board "wishing her dead," are you going to believe that that is what the person REALLY wished, given the entire context of these posts?

Very decent post, Suzie.
You obviously spent a lot of time and thought on it and I for one appreciate it, as well as your courtesy.

You raised so many pertinent points that are worth discussing. My time's running out for tonight (maybe can have more tomorrow) but would like to comment on one thing - I know that limiting the scope of the federal govt. is a truly a traditional Republican concern and I think it has merits in many ways. But, I think we have all gone to school these past five years and should be learning something about the dangers of limiting it too much. I think there is definitely a role for the federal govt. to play in business regulation. For so long we have heard that deregulation is a great thing - free market! Let the market adjust itself! - and that would be fine in Utopia where everyone acts with integrity, but let's face it, business run amok is not likely to regulate itself, and this is not an issue that state and local govt. can tackle effectively. If govt. serves any purpose at all, in my view, it should be to protect American citizens from blatant abuses of big business (not the good ones - just the bad ones) such as we see happening today with the credit industry, writing its own laws in the Republican Congress and behaving in a way that is simply outrageous.

Too often however, the cry of deregulation! and smaller govt.! is used by those who simply want the freedom to steamroll the public without pesky rules and scruples getting in the way. We have seen this happen before our own eyes during the Bush terms, over and over again. The American consumer has never before been so dangerously at the mercy of corporate abuse and only the federal govt. could be in a position to stop it.

So on that one point anyway, yes I agree we want to limit unnecessary federal intrusion into our lives and small businesses. However I disagree that shrinking the federal govt. so that it cannot perform its basic function of protecting and defending us from wolves and vampires of the corporate sort is a good idea.