ARRESTED development!. . .Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter's BF's mother arrested. . .

[Black Landlord]

kj wrote:
[quote=Doc]
> Who cares, I guess? It's clear Palin is a drug dealer.

Using her own logic against her yes, she's a drug dealer by association.

Happy now?

I figured it was payback. It's really not even close to the same situation, but I guess it's close enough for those who tend to be motivated by revenge. kj.
I want to agree with you kj but it's always so hard to watch you shoot yourself in the foot by overdramatacizing things. I think a fair descriptor here might be "turnabout", or maybe "satire"?-- but you had to take it to "payback" and "revenge."
Same with the anti-Does it Bother You mini-rant-- the whole thing may have started at "swampy's" expense but you had to go and characterize it as, I forget what-- devastating character assassination or some such. In principle I also want people to behave more civily towards each-other here, but the way to accomplish that is not by labeling the majority of posters. And you need to be careful to speak out whenever you see the behavior, not just when those you disagree with are demonstrating the behavior.

[Dennis S]

Doc wrote:
> Who cares, I guess? It's clear Palin is a drug dealer.

Using her own logic against her yes, she's a drug dealer by association.

Happy now?

kj, you have been, what the kids say, "pwned."

[Greg the dogsitter]

Dennis S wrote:
[quote=Doc]
> Who cares, I guess? It's clear Palin is a drug dealer.

Using her own logic against her yes, she's a drug dealer by association.

Happy now?

kj, you have been, what the kids say, "pwned."
Palin has. The rest of us are just bystanders. :-)

[AlphaDog]

billb wrote:
[quote=AlphaDog]
[quote=billb]
That's unfortunate for the mom. Hope she gets straight.

I'll bet no one here has ever had a parent with a drug or alcohol problem.

There is a a difference between having a parent (or spouse or partner) with an addiction and dealing illegal drugs. That difference becomes more pronounced when the person doing the dealing is the one that's supposed to be setting the example for the children they're raising.
So we blame the children for the sins of the parents ? Sweet of you.
In-laws too. Extra sweet.
Excuse me? How did you get that out of what I said? I was talking about the example being set by parents, and I said absolutely nothing about the child's behavior. I have no idea whether the kids use or deal, and I said nothing to indicate I thought they did. Learn to read with an open mind instead of seeing what you're expecting to see. I've seen many young people avoid falling into the same traps as their parents, but that still doesn't excuse the parents for not doing their job, which is teaching their children right from wrong, and illegal drug use is wrong.

[Grateful11]

MacGurl wrote:
OxyContin - niiiccceee....

Maybe Rush Limpbaugh had a few extras.

[Dennis S]

Everything around Sarah Palin is pretty much a cesspool. It hasn't all come out now. Be patient.

[kj]

Black Landlord wrote:

I want to agree with you kj but it's always so hard to watch you shoot yourself in the foot by overdramatacizing things. I think a fair descriptor here might be "turnabout", or maybe "satire"?-- but you had to take it to "payback" and "revenge."
Same with the anti-Does it Bother You mini-rant-- the whole thing may have started at "swampy's" expense but you had to go and characterize it as, I forget what-- devastating character assassination or some such. In principle I also want people to behave more civily towards each-other here, but the way to accomplish that is not by labeling the majority of posters. And you need to be careful to speak out whenever you see the behavior, not just when those you disagree with are demonstrating the behavior.

Well then don't agree with me. I actually think payback is a fair description. It's just like the "impeach bush" stuff that is payback for clinton's impeachment. Revenge _is_ laying it on a bit thick.

As for the rest, I'm a hot head. On a bad day, or week, I'm less tolerant. At any rate, I'll be without flaws when everyone else is, but until then I'll just keep trying. Two things though. I don't feel like I'm terribly preferential to anyone, so I don't know what gives you the impression I hold some people to a different standard than others. Another point that is a bit cliche, but seems to have been missed, is that I'm not labeling people. I'm labeling behavior. I can't think of anyone here I don't like. But that doesn't mean their behavior never pisses me off. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. I'm me, and sometimes I can't help it. kj.

[Black Landlord]

I think what happens is you are so averse to the "dogpack" mentality that you don't 'join the fray' by taking a stance against vicious, racist, aggressive communication from swampy, dakota, DP, freeradical and the like, but seem continually bothered by much more tempered communication from the rest, so it sure looks like you're taking sides, weakening what I think is a sincere call for everyone to behave more civilly.
"Labeling" maybe wasn't quite the right word, but maybe sending a friendly PM to the folks you think really cross the line would be more effective than what appears to be painting 2/3 of the users here with the same brush.

[kj]

Black Landlord wrote:
I think what happens is you are so averse to the "dogpack" mentality that you don't 'join the fray' by taking a stance against vicious, racist, aggressive communication from swampy, dakota, DP, freeradical and the like, but seem continually bothered by much more tempered communication from the rest, so it sure looks like you're taking sides, weakening what I think is a sincere call for everyone to behave more civilly.
"Labeling" maybe wasn't quite the right word, but maybe sending a friendly PM to the folks you think really cross the line would be more effective than what appears to be painting 2/3 of the users here with the same brush.

I'll give that some thought. You know, something to consider is that I'm obviously not going to share your views as to when they deserve to be attacked. Does that make sense? There are times where it's nearly universally accepted here that they deserve to be attacked, and I disagree. What do I do about that? The only option I have is to join a side, and I don't do that. Another issue is that I honestly don't think swampy, DP, or freeradical get much into the name calling. They merely hold views that most here don't find legitimate. At least that's my impression, but I'm open to info to the contrary. Also, I probably shouldn't be, but I'm confused about what you're referring to as far as me painting 2/3 of the users with the same brush. I would say that in almost any given thread there will be 4-5 liberal posters (not necessarily always the same ones) and about 1, maybe 2 conservative posters. I've come to believe that the "majority" is incapable of understanding the feeling of being ganged up on in this scenario. The conservatives feel it, and I don't think the liberals can recognize it in this situation. I guess it is the way it is, so whatever, but I got frustrated and lost my temper. One more issue is that I think there are people here who are clever in their approach to insults. They may not even realize how insulting they are being. Then there are others who are more literal with their insults, and they are the ones who take most of the heat. Anyway, I guess I feel guilty for complaining, but there you go. kj.

[mikeylikesit]

How kj equates the actual impeachment of Clinton for actions that were not the affairs of state to the call to impeach Bush for malfeasance in affairs of state really says it all.

He seems to think those calling for a Bush impeachment are all revengeful Democrats upset they weren't occupying the White House and has nothing to to with his actions, lies, missteps and plain incompetence as a chief executive.

Equivocation isn't a viable political or civil position to use as a life guideline.