So, what ahppened to He who must not be named?

[rjmacs]

swampy wrote:
The question was posed as follows, Ted

[quote=Ted]
I'm curious, can you name five substantial issues where you mostly disagree with conservatives and mostly agree with liberals.

• Abortion=disagree with conservatives
• Ron Paul is a jerk = agree with liberals
• Obama did a good job on Bin Laden = Agree with liberals
• Obama did a good job on Anwar al-Awlaqi= Agree with liberals
• OWC demonstrators have a right to protest = agree with liberals

Clearer, now?
Well, not really, because you answered an "OR" question whereas Ted asked an "AND" question.

I mean, i think that

• America is a great nation
  
• Freedom of religion is good
  
• Dogfighting is evil
  
• Rape is wrong, and
  
• Richard Simmons should wear longer shorts
  

but that doesn't mean that i'm independent. It just means that i agree with a lot of stuff that lots of people agree with.

Where's the list of things (other than abortion), wherein you mostly disagree with conservatives AND mostly agree with liberals?

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
The question was posed as follows, Ted

[quote=Ted]
I'm curious, can you name five substantial issues where you mostly disagree with conservatives and mostly agree with liberals.

• Abortion=disagree with conservatives
• Ron Paul is a jerk = agree with liberals
• Obama did a good job on Bin Laden = Agree with liberals
• Obama did a good job on Anwar al-Awlaqi= Agree with liberals
• OWC demonstrators have a right to protest = agree with liberals

Clearer, now?
Logic wise, no. There is a difference in meaning between "and" and "or". But there is a little bit of wiggle room for interpretation so I'll restate it with as little potential for ambiguity as possible. Name five substantial issues where each issue is one where you both: (1) disagree with conservatives AND (2) you mostly agree with liberals on the same issue.

[swampy]

What does all this have to do with Dak being banned?

[RgrF]

He wasn't banned, he was sent to the corner and told to take a time out. Surely as a "teacher" you've used such tactics with unruly students.

[wave rider]

mick e wrote:
[quote=Rick-o]
I suspect this particular troll has been paid to trash the forum. They're out there folks, please don't feed them. :nono:

Paid by whom? The Koch Brothers? bLimpbaugh? Goodwill Employment for the Mentally Disabled?
Or paid by one of Dick Army's astroturf-roots organizations.

I thought Cat$hit Pete was a paid operative as well although he did admit it was for "sport."

=wr=

[wave rider]

Black wrote:
If you guys are going to talk about him I think it only fair his account be re-activated so he can defend himself.

:ban:

Defend himself or attack others? Take a guess...

=wr=

[RgrF]

My own sense is that layfayettepete has long since joined the land of Jobs. He was educated and far too passionate to willingly walk away from verbal jousting under his own power. He loved the battle.

He did have a number of meltdowns but usually returned to the fray afterward.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
What does all this have to do with Dak being banned?

Nothing more or less than it did the first time I asked and you answered.

[$tevie]

Is it me, or is this the most worthless thread ever?

[swampy]

To me it's the typical you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Some here are not as offended by Dak's point of view as they are by the fact that he can come in here and speaks his mind.