- Posts: 14290
- Thank you received: 153
RenegadeCJ wrote:
ZHawke wrote:
I think you know perfectly well who the "regressives" are in The Courthouse. As far as what a "regressive" might be, think of it as being opposite of a "progressive":
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=regressive
If he is not guilty the fact still remains that he took the life of another human being. To profit from same is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.
Why would I want to trade places with him? Sometimes, your logic appears to defy rational thought.
Per your definition: Regressive
Opposite of progressive. One who is opposed to women's rights, minority rights, universal civil rights, religious freedom, freedom of dissent, universal equality, and cares little to nothing for his fellow man.
In favor of widening the economic divide and eventual elimination of the middle class. In sum, one who believes society ought undo all progress made since 1920 and go back to the 19th century.
Currently in control of the federal government.
So, since Obama is in control of the federal govt, is he a regressive, per the definition you referred us to?
I don't believe anyone here believes in any of this stuff. Not sure why you are attempting to debate while first insulting those who just see the world a little differently than you to. Sometimes you can agree to disagree, but just calling names is childish.
Also, I don't consider him "profiting". He will likely struggle to ever work again without the threat of death. His life as he knows it is over.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I'd like to address the first question here, if I may, because I feel it's a valid point. First, ZHawke let me apologize, because I've recognized that you are the current lone voice for a more liberal point of view (though I know that you personally are not a hard-core liberal, and that you try very hard to consider all points of view and find evidence to back up your claims in order to make sound, logical arguments), and because I've not stepped in more and participated in discussions, I absolutely know that it can feel like you are being "ganged up on" because you've not had any others posting who identify with you to keep you from feeling as if singled out. I promise once the Christmas Parade is over this Saturday, I will be spending a lot more time here, plus I'm working on bringing more traffic to this site so we have a greater, more active audience with a wider range of beliefs!ZHawke wrote: Nope - not even close. Have you ever felt like you were being ganged up on? That's what it feels like in The Courthouse much of the time because many of the posters here are more conservative. The posts come fast and furious, and sometimes are difficult to even keep up with, much less provide a reasoned response. I try to do my research and provide links to same. That seems to be a problem for some here. If you want to re-provide your post, I'll consider another response. If I remember correctly, your post was one of those more confrontational responses that I do tend to dismiss out of hand. If I was wrong in that regard, I'll admit it and apologize.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
ScienceChic wrote:
ZHawke wrote: The posts come fast and furious, and sometimes are difficult to even keep up with, much less provide a reasoned response.
Yes, it's too long - expand your attention spans dammit. L
First to SC. WOW, just WOW. If you want to expand my attention span buy me some.
Second to Z. I submit it is not necessary to respond to each and every post. I certainly don't. If you try it, you might like it.
Third, I know I butchered the quote boxes of the two things I am remarking on. However I think I kept it pithy enough that even those of us with short attention spans can figure it out.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The difference here is that a "progressive" refers to him/herself as a progressive or liberal... Hillary does for example. Where as nobody I've ever heard of refers to him/herself as a regressive. To me the word is more in line with the word "retarded" or someone who is devolving.ZHawke wrote: In the "to be fair" category:
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
You know I meant it jokingly, right. I get a lot of sh** sometimes for how long my posts are, and I don't think there's anything wrong with long posts, even though it goes against all conventional wisdom and "recommended" marketing practices (I don't do things I'm supposed to just because others say to do it that way - being unique and doing things differently is an asset too). This is just who I am, and I'm not going to hold it against you if you don't want to wade through it, but I will give you crap for not just cuz I get crap for putting it out there that way.BlazerBob wrote:
First to SC. WOW, just WOW. If you want to expand my attention span buy me some.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
BlazerBob wrote: Second to Z. I submit it is not necessary to respond to each and every post. I certainly don't. If you try it, you might like it.
Third, I know I butchered the quote boxes of the two things I am remarking on. However I think I kept it pithy enough that even those of us with short attention spans can figure it out.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Rick wrote:
The difference here is that a "progressive" refers to him/herself as a progressive or liberal... Hillary does for example. Where as nobody I've ever heard of refers to him/herself as a regressive. To me the word is more in line with the word "retarded" or someone who is devolving.ZHawke wrote: In the "to be fair" category:
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
ScienceChic wrote:
You know I meant it jokingly, right. I get a lot of sh** sometimes for how long my posts are, and I don't think there's anything wrong with long posts, even though it goes against all conventional wisdom and "recommended" marketing practices (I don't do things I'm supposed to just because others say to do it that way - being unique and doing things differently is an asset too). This is just who I am, and I'm not going to hold it against you if you don't want to wade through it, but I will give you crap for not just cuz I get crap for putting it out there that way.BlazerBob wrote:
First to SC. WOW, just WOW. If you want to expand my attention span buy me some.
I agree on not needing to respond to every post as well. Good advice. Nor do we need to hold each others' feet to the fire should someone decide not to answer a question, or provide sources to back up their claims. If they don't, they just don't. It's their choice, we can't force each other to respond. It's telling when they do, I recommend leaving it at that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.