Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: AKogler <akogler@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 25, 9:29 am, "Jill" <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We do, its just our conclusions are different from yours.
Diatribes like this do not support your cause. Quite the opposite.
Grow up and accept it.
You are not the mastermind or the intelligensia of the world, people are
allowed to disagree with you.
And it is just as possible that you might be wrong.
Abby, stop being so arrogant, stop being so rude.
Jill, you misunderstand me. My fault. But please read what I am
actually writing. I will try to be clearer. I am often in a hurry so
just type away and press send. I will be more measured.
I do not care if people agree with me. I am not saying 'read! so that
you will see things my way!' I am sorry that it appears that way. It
is not how I feel at all. I do not have any 'cause'. I dislike the
double standards that many of my democrats seem to have about Obama
policies that they give a pass and Bush policies that angered them.
But that irritation at the double standards that I see, and being
called a Totalitarian by association, are what triggered my response
in this thread. I do not like bigotry. Political stereotypes can be
very bigoted. On both sides! I tell my tea bagging friends the same.
Some of my friends were so surprised and often critical of my brothers
really left wing views. I didnt let them get away with that either. He
had good reasons for them and could argue intelligently and with lots
of factual info. He always taught me alot.
I do care, and strongly, which is why I am sure my posts appear so
strident, that many people do not seem to read anything other than
what supports their view already. I am saying 'read!' so that other
people, of any stripe, cant put things over on one. Read, so that one
really understands both sides. How can anyone form an independent
opinion if one does not read that with which one might not agree?
When one sees a headline, one can usually find the source and see the
actual report or study. This can be surprisingly different from what
is represented in the headline. Or by the network. Or by the party.
And what is the difference between your posts and mine? honestly? You
first spoke of 'The World'. I said that you cant speak for it. What if
I took my relationships, most of whom have come to different
conclusions than yours, and called them The World? Wouldnt you call me
on that? I certainly defer to your experiences but then you must defer
to mine. I have great respect for many democrats. Most of my democrat
friends cant name a single republican, period. I think thats laziness.
Better now?
Abby
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: JC Dill
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- References:
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Ocean of Nuance
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Hunter Hampton
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Ocean of Nuance
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: AKogler
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Bill Kambic
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Ocean of Nuance
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Bill Kambic
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Ocean of Nuance
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: AKogler
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Jill
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Bill Kambic
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Jill
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Grizzly
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: AKogler
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- From: Jill
- Re: More on the Selleck case
- Prev by Date: Re: More on the Selleck case
- Next by Date: Re: More on the Selleck case
- Previous by thread: Re: More on the Selleck case
- Next by thread: Re: More on the Selleck case
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|