Used to be a Republican

[freedombecki]

I'm a veteran of the 3d Battalion 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division. I worked first as an 82C (forward observer) then I worked in Military Intelligence where I received the Army Commendation Medal.
I attended Roosevelt University on the GI bill and I have been designing labratory testing equipment for the last 15 years. I have three patents and one piece of equipment I designed is used by companies all over he world to test and rate the flammability of plastics.

The first time Bush ran I voted for him. During his administration, time and time again, he attempted to force scientists to change their data to match administration policies. This is well documented. Top government scientists quit.

Even Kathleen Parker, Chicago Tribune conservative columnist, a hardcore Republican for many years, now refers to the Republican Party as the Confederate Party.

Anyway, this is my first post. Let's see what shows up.[/quote [MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION]

Does your plastics flammability equipment measure toxicity so as to be useful in determining how poisonous the air is in a house fire? Seems that would save not only lives during a house fire, but also could save firefighters' lives who charge into a fire to put it out. It would be helpful to know how many seconds they have to get in and out without damaging lungs. How hard would that be to manufacture if every fire truck in the US were equipped with such monitoring equipment?

 

[Mertex]

Yeah, that was some first rate bullying. And gang mentality. To a newbie at the time in his intro thread no less. I'm not sure how many would of stuck around.

Yeah, some of them have even been pinked! I'm glad [MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION] stuck around.

 

[Pogo]

The point is that Rdean is a mental patient and a pathological liar to boot

Apparently the point is to create that image, even when the record says otherwise.

What record?

The first couple of pages of this thread, Dave. They're still back there; that's what I summarized yesterday.

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs did turn on rdean immediately w/ his hi-de-ho introductory thread. Good commentary on the insularity of today's repub party- NO DISSENT TOLERATED!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow.. talk about skeletons in the closet.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, If rdean was ever a Republican, I was tinker bell once too

 

[Lumpy 1]

Repubs did turn on rdean immediately w/ his high-de-ho introductory thread. Good commentary on the insularity of today's repub party- NO DISSENT TOLERATED!!!

Republicans can spot a phony.. Democrats embrace them to the point of stupidity..

 

[Pogo]

Repubs did turn on rdean immediately w/ his high-de-ho introductory thread. Good commentary on the insularity of today's repub party- NO DISSENT TOLERATED!!!

Republicans can spot a phony.. Democrats embrace them to the point of stupidity..

It's kinda like Voltaire said... if a phony does not exist, it is necessary to invent one.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Repubs did turn on rdean immediately w/ his high-de-ho introductory thread. Good commentary on the insularity of today's repub party- NO DISSENT TOLERATED!!!

Republicans can spot a phony.. Democrats embrace them to the point of stupidity..

It's kinda like Voltaire said... if a phony does not exist, it is necessary to invent one.

Voltaire was French, so no wonder..

 

[daveman]

Apparently the point is to create that image, even when the record says otherwise.

What record?

The first couple of pages of this thread, Dave. They're still back there; that's what I summarized yesterday.

Did he post his DD214? Or are you just taking his word for it?

 

[daveman]

Apparently the point is to create that image, even when the record says otherwise.

What record?

The first couple of pages of this thread, Dave. They're still back there; that's what I summarized yesterday.

Yeah. I saw it.

There is no record. There is Rderp making spurious claims, and there is you blindly swallowing it.

My favorite part was where he claimed Harvard stopped publishing grades when Bush said he went to school there.

 

[Pogo]

What record?

The first couple of pages of this thread, Dave. They're still back there; that's what I summarized yesterday.

Yeah. I saw it.

There is no record. There is Rderp making spurious claims, and there is you blindly swallowing it.

My favorite part was where he claimed Harvard stopped publishing grades when Bush said he went to school there.

Uh, no dear, I didn't "swallow", I analyzed the logic in the dialogue and found it obviously wanting. That's got nothing to do with what the claims are; it's about a fair exchange of dialogue. Or in this case, lack thereof. Can't be justified. I haven't seen that many strawmen since I was a wee sprout growing up in the cornfield.

 

[daveman]

The first couple of pages of this thread, Dave. They're still back there; that's what I summarized yesterday.

Yeah. I saw it.

There is no record. There is Rderp making spurious claims, and there is you blindly swallowing it.

My favorite part was where he claimed Harvard stopped publishing grades when Bush said he went to school there.

Uh, no dear, I didn't "swallow", I analyzed the logic in the dialogue and found it obviously wanting. That's got nothing to do with what the claims are; it's about a fair exchange of dialogue. Or in this case, lack thereof. Can't be justified. I haven't seen that many strawmen since I was a wee sprout growing up in the cornfield.

Yeah, whatEVER you do, DON'T criticize a fellow lefty's ridiculous claims! You'll burst into flame!

 

[Pogo]

Yeah. I saw it.

There is no record. There is Rderp making spurious claims, and there is you blindly swallowing it.

My favorite part was where he claimed Harvard stopped publishing grades when Bush said he went to school there.

Uh, no dear, I didn't "swallow", I analyzed the logic in the dialogue and found it obviously wanting. That's got nothing to do with what the claims are; it's about a fair exchange of dialogue. Or in this case, lack thereof. Can't be justified. I haven't seen that many strawmen since I was a wee sprout growing up in the cornfield.

Yeah, whatEVER you do, DON'T criticize a fellow lefty's ridiculous claims! You'll burst into flame!

Once again Madge, it has nothing to do with the "claims"; it was about a gang making faulty arguments. And in an intro thread no less. It says a lot about the gangbangers.

I said nothing about the claims themselves, nor do I care now.

 

[daveman]

Uh, no dear, I didn't "swallow", I analyzed the logic in the dialogue and found it obviously wanting. That's got nothing to do with what the claims are; it's about a fair exchange of dialogue. Or in this case, lack thereof. Can't be justified. I haven't seen that many strawmen since I was a wee sprout growing up in the cornfield.

Yeah, whatEVER you do, DON'T criticize a fellow lefty's ridiculous claims! You'll burst into flame!

Once again Madge, it has nothing to do with the "claims"; it was about a gang making faulty arguments. And in an intro thread no less. It says a lot about the gangbangers.

I said nothing about the claims themselves, nor do I care now.

What about rderp's faulty arguments?

You need to get that blind spot checked out.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, whatEVER you do, DON'T criticize a fellow lefty's ridiculous claims! You'll burst into flame!

Once again Madge, it has nothing to do with the "claims"; it was about a gang making faulty arguments. And in an intro thread no less. It says a lot about the gangbangers.

I said nothing about the claims themselves, nor do I care now.

What about rderp's faulty arguments?

You need to get that blind spot checked out.

For the third time now Not-Holmes, the arguments themselves are not the point. It's how they were met.

Let's run the tape again for those with sieve memories...

RD, intro: Here's my background, blah blah... I voted for Bush, he pulled some shit.

Post 2: So you voted for O'bama?​

RD: McCain's education credentials are poor.

Gang: That means have Obama's college transcripts! (non sequitur)​

RD: O'bama edited the Harvard Law Review.

Gang: Hey dick weed, where does the Constitution provide for education? (<< red herring)​

Gang: But...but.. education doesn't mean smart. Words on a piece of paper. And where are those Obama transcripts?​

RD: didn't say I had them. Isn't education important?

Gang: You're dancing, you're losing, you're lame. You're moving goalposts! (<< Danth's Law)​

Gang: par for the course for "used to be Republican" types (<< poisoning the well)​

Gang: but..but.. you said you couldn't vote for poor academic credentials.
Therefore, prove you have Obama's credentials. (<< affirming the consequent)​

Gang: Not arguing against education, but a college degree means nothing.​

Gang (next post): nobody's arguing against education, that's your strawman. ​

Gang: Hey, you spelled Laboratory [sic] wrong!​

Gang: you've been bitch slapped! Can't swim with the sharks! Feeble minded!​

RD: you guys never took Bush to task for "nucyulur".

Gang: Liar! Fraud! Baiter! Personal problem! Meltdown!​

---- all this in an Intro to the Board thread.

That's indefensible.
But rather than deflect off to DD214s and other "claims", go ahead and try to defend it.

 

[Dot Com]

Once again Madge, it has nothing to do with the "claims"; it was about a gang making faulty arguments. And in an intro thread no less. It says a lot about the gangbangers.

I said nothing about the claims themselves, nor do I care now.

What about rderp's faulty arguments?

You need to get that blind spot checked out.

For the third time now Not-Holmes, the arguments themselves are not the point. It's how they were met.

Let's run the tape again for those with sieve memories...

RD, intro: Here's my background, blah blah... I voted for Bush, he pulled some shit.

Post 2: So you voted for O'bama?​

RD: McCain's education credentials are poor.

Gang: That means have Obama's college transcripts! (non sequitur)​

RD: O'bama edited the Harvard Law Review.

Gang: Hey dick weed, where does the Constitution provide for education? (<< red herring)​

Gang: But...but.. education doesn't mean smart. Words on a piece of paper. And where are those Obama transcripts?​

RD: didn't say I had them. Isn't education important?

Gang: You're dancing, you're losing, you're lame. You're moving goalposts! (<< Danth's Law)​

Gang: par for the course for "used to be Republican" types (<< poisoning the well)​

Gang: but..but.. you said you couldn't vote for poor academic credentials.
Therefore, prove you have Obama's credentials. (<< affirming the consequent)​

Gang: Not arguing against education, but a college degree means nothing.​

Gang (next post): nobody's arguing against education, that's your strawman. ​

Gang: Hey, you spelled Laboratory [sic] wrong!​

Gang: you've been bitch slapped! Can't swim with the sharks! Feeble minded!​

RD: you guys never took Bush to task for "nucyulur".

Gang: Liar! Fraud! Baiter! Personal problem! Meltdown!​

---- all this in an Intro to the Board thread.

That's indefensible.
But rather than deflect off to DD214s and other "claims", go ahead and try to defend it.

^ that

 

[daveman]

Once again Madge, it has nothing to do with the "claims"; it was about a gang making faulty arguments. And in an intro thread no less. It says a lot about the gangbangers.

I said nothing about the claims themselves, nor do I care now.

What about rderp's faulty arguments?

You need to get that blind spot checked out.

For the third time now Not-Holmes, the arguments themselves are not the point. It's how they were met.

Let's run the tape again for those with sieve memories...

RD, intro: Here's my background, blah blah... I voted for Bush, he pulled some shit.

Post 2: So you voted for O'bama?​

RD: McCain's education credentials are poor.

Gang: That means have Obama's college transcripts! (non sequitur)​

RD: O'bama edited the Harvard Law Review.

Gang: Hey dick weed, where does the Constitution provide for education? (<< red herring)​

Gang: But...but.. education doesn't mean smart. Words on a piece of paper. And where are those Obama transcripts?​

RD: didn't say I had them. Isn't education important?

Gang: You're dancing, you're losing, you're lame. You're moving goalposts! (<< Danth's Law)​

Gang: par for the course for "used to be Republican" types (<< poisoning the well)​

Gang: but..but.. you said you couldn't vote for poor academic credentials.
Therefore, prove you have Obama's credentials. (<< affirming the consequent)​

Gang: Not arguing against education, but a college degree means nothing.​

Gang (next post): nobody's arguing against education, that's your strawman. ​

Gang: Hey, you spelled Laboratory [sic] wrong!​

Gang: you've been bitch slapped! Can't swim with the sharks! Feeble minded!​

RD: you guys never took Bush to task for "nucyulur".

Gang: Liar! Fraud! Baiter! Personal problem! Meltdown!​

---- all this in an Intro to the Board thread.

That's indefensible.
But rather than deflect off to DD214s and other "claims", go ahead and try to defend it.

Don't you get frustrated when reality doesn't conform itself to your wishes?

You complain about conservatives not meeting arguments.

But not one single word about Derp not meeting his.

I'll let you have the last word now. I know how important it is to your fragile ego to pretend you "won" against random anonymous strangers on the internet.

 

[Pogo]

What about rderp's faulty arguments?

You need to get that blind spot checked out.

For the third time now Not-Holmes, the arguments themselves are not the point. It's how they were met.

Let's run the tape again for those with sieve memories...

RD, intro: Here's my background, blah blah... I voted for Bush, he pulled some shit.

Post 2: So you voted for O'bama?​

RD: McCain's education credentials are poor.

Gang: That means have Obama's college transcripts! (non sequitur)​

RD: O'bama edited the Harvard Law Review.

Gang: Hey dick weed, where does the Constitution provide for education? (<< red herring)​

Gang: But...but.. education doesn't mean smart. Words on a piece of paper. And where are those Obama transcripts?​

RD: didn't say I had them. Isn't education important?

Gang: You're dancing, you're losing, you're lame. You're moving goalposts! (<< Danth's Law)​

Gang: par for the course for "used to be Republican" types (<< poisoning the well)​

Gang: but..but.. you said you couldn't vote for poor academic credentials.
Therefore, prove you have Obama's credentials. (<< affirming the consequent)​

Gang: Not arguing against education, but a college degree means nothing.​

Gang (next post): nobody's arguing against education, that's your strawman. ​

Gang: Hey, you spelled Laboratory [sic] wrong!​

Gang: you've been bitch slapped! Can't swim with the sharks! Feeble minded!​

RD: you guys never took Bush to task for "nucyulur".

Gang: Liar! Fraud! Baiter! Personal problem! Meltdown!​

---- all this in an Intro to the Board thread.

That's indefensible.
But rather than deflect off to DD214s and other "claims", go ahead and try to defend it.

Don't you get frustrated when reality doesn't conform itself to your wishes?

You complain about conservatives not meeting arguments.

But not one single word about Derp not meeting his.

I'll let you have the last word now. I know how important it is to your fragile ego to pretend you "won" against random anonymous strangers on the internet.

I've never really followed RDean's arguments, nor are anybody's arguments the point here.
I just read this thread and observed the dynamics.

What's your diaper rash? You weren't even one of them. This doesn't even have anything to do with you.

 

[CandySlice]

I'm a veteran of the 3d Battalion 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division. I worked first as an 82C (forward observer) then I worked in Military Intelligence where I received the Army Commendation Medal.
I attended Roosevelt University on the GI bill and I have been designing labratory testing equipment for the last 15 years. I have three patents and one piece of equipment I designed is used by companies all over he world to test and rate the flammability of plastics.

The first time Bush ran I voted for him. During his administration, time and time again, he attempted to force scientists to change their data to match administration policies. This is well documented. Top government scientists quit.

Even Kathleen Parker, Chicago Tribune conservative columnist, a hardcore Republican for many years, now refers to the Republican Party as the Confederate Party.

Anyway, this is my first post. Let's see what shows up.[/QU

Do I know you from AOL? I think I do.