Newt loses it on FOXNEWS

[Jaxinjersey]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Do you think I am a troll?  

GO RV, then BV

There you go again... now quoting my post, but not addressing it.  So now, again, I'll invest further time and substance in attempting to read your mind.  I'm a better friend than you'll ever know!  Perhaps you should answer the question yourself.... I have more than enough shared my perspective about you.  With my observations and frustrations in my attempts to respectfully communicate with you (as I do very easily with others), there is still an ever-present discourse.  I haven't presented any obstacles to navigate... to the contrary, I go out of my way to provide pathways.  You dismiss them.  So, you tell me...  are your methods that of a troll (whatever that really is)... or are they of a cooperative, respectful nature?  Perhaps it's time to stop hiding behind ambiguous, fence-sitting sarcasm?

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

[Shabibilicious]

28 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

There you go again... now quoting my post, but not addressing it.  So now, again, I'll invest further time and substance in attempting to read your mind.  I'm a better friend than you'll ever know!  Perhaps you should answer the question yourself.... I have more than enough shared my perspective about you.  With my observations and frustrations in my attempts to respectfully communicate with you (as I do very easily with others), there is still an ever-present discourse.  I haven't presented any obstacles to navigate... to the contrary, I go out of my way to provide pathways.  You dismiss them.  So, you tell me...  are your methods that of a troll (whatever that really is)... or are they of a cooperative, respectful nature?  Perhaps it's time to stop hiding behind ambiguous, fence-sitting sarcasm?

Something tells me True or False questions are not your forte.  It's interesting how you demand concise, to the point answers from me, yet, you just ambiguously admitted being "a better friend than you'll ever know".  What are you trying to say, Jax?  What is it you know about me, that I haven't figured out for myself?  Please, enlighten me.    

And the only reason I'm quoting you now is because the catfisher is quick on the trigger and gets between our posts.   

GO RV, then BV 

[Jaxinjersey]

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Something tells me True or False questions are not your forte.  It's interesting how you demand concise, to the point answers from me, yet, you just ambiguously admitted being "a better friend than you'll ever know".  What are you trying to say, Jax?  What is it you know about me, that I haven't figured out for myself?  Please, enlighten me.    

And the only reason I'm quoting you now is because the catfisher is quick on the trigger and gets between our posts.   

GO RV, then BV 

Once again, what is your premise for suggesting that?  You provide no correlation or context... and expect me to just roll into your mindset.  Don't you see WHY I'm demanding of such clarity, that you scoff at?  But to indulge you... They are my forte... actually, I wish every question was answered with "Yes" or "No" first, followed by reasoned support.  Very objective in its premising.

Once again, I'm not sure what you mean?  How is my phrase ambiguous?  I admitted assuredly, to you... that I've been going above and beyond my considerations towards you as a friend.  For you to not understand that, unambiguously, is on you... and I guess that's what I mean... "... you'll ever know".  I'm not sure how else to even address that further,  BUT, it does also validate, that if that's all you're focusing on from my previous message... there certainly is a serious disconnect in your thinking... either through duplicity (troll-like behavior) or Ineptness.  It seems neither is a desired description.... BUT, I give you the benefit of the doubt toward the latter, as you've self-admittedly dismissed any attempts to engage with more depth.  That's your choice.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Just to add some clarification and objectivity let me show what an Internet troll is a definition.

n Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,^[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,^[3] often for their own amusement

in my opinion 2 people who are nurses to a former member that don't even have the honesty and integrity to get their own screen names would fall under the description above.

2 hours ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

****///

JAX for Captain of the Troll Patrol !

Very fairly, soundly and eloquently stated, Sir !

as an honest and objective Observer let me offer some advice.

A promise is an easy thing to give, it is difficult to keep, but once broken the pain that it creates will last forever.

To Shabbs I would say you are using Blue Collar communication with an Ivy League White Collar person. May I suggest that you use a more intelligent communication skills that we all know you are capable of.

And to the former sergeants nurses I would ask once again that you please follow Forum rules and refrain from calling members names.

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

[Synopsis]

11 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

If I may be so bold my friend, a prudent man would make sure to fully understand the parable of the ten virgins and teach that to his family. Because as I love to say to my beloved wife, "you don't wanna be here for what is coming". 

But, and if, in the off chance I'm wrong the point you make is one of the main reasons try as I might I can't leave this well enough alone. I like to think," how can I do business on a post rv level with someone that I don't know"? And like Shedagal I know that God has plans for me post rv, the difference being that may include those I've come to know here. 

I understand your thought process and do not disagree. But please keep,"Gods will", your first goal. Remember, sister, "Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of Heaven". 

Thank You for your comments, LGD!

[Synopsis]

1 minute ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

Oh, Oh, SgtFuryUSCZ, somebody has been negging you with rubies so I balanced you out with emeralds!

By the way, I enjoyed your posts this morning (as usual) and hope you have a great rest of your day and weekend!

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Just to add some clarification and objectivity let me show what an Internet troll is a definition.

n Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,^[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,^[3] often for their own amusement

in my opinion 2 people who are nurses to a former member that don't even have the honesty and integrity to get their own screen names would fall under the description above.

as an honest and objective Observer let me offer some advice.

A promise is an easy thing to give, it is difficult to keep, but once broken the pain that it creates will last forever.

To Shabbs I would say you are using Blue Collar communication with an Ivy League White Collar person. May I suggest that you use a more intelligent communication skills that we all know you are capable of.

And to the former sergeants nurses I would ask once again that you please follow Forum rules and refrain from calling members names.

I appreciate the sentiment, LGD.....but I think I'll stay in my common sense lane, especially when it comes to all things Trump.  You're still a good egg though....thanks for your efforts, always.  

GO RV, then BV

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Our Thanks be to ye, Friend SYN !

Yer a Gentile & a Schooner !  

(Seems your not a fan of senior abuse either ! )

Glad you enjoy our posts... good or bad such as they are !

 

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

Oh, Oh, SgtFuryUSCZ, somebody has been negging you with rubies so I balanced you out with emeralds!

By the way, I enjoyed your posts this morning (as usual) and hope you have a great rest of your day and weekend!

Plussed (+) you Synopsis for doing the right thing.  

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

2 minutes ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

Our Thanks be to ye, Friend SYN !

Yer a Gentile & a Schooner !  

(Seems your not a fan of senior abuse either ! )

Glad you enjoy our posts... good or bad such as they are !

 

Now is the perfect time for some honest objective clarity. How is it that you call people names, Mock people's post and do so under your deceased friends screen name not abusive?

Furthermore, how is it that you see my pointing out your violation of forum rules as something abusive? It was not my intention to call you any names. It was only my intention to point out the definition of an Internet troll and your actions. Objective honesty!

[Jaxinjersey]

3 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Now is the perfect time for some honest objective clarity. How is it that you call people names, Mock people's post and do so under your deceased friends screen name not abusive?

Furthermore, how is it that you see my pointing out your violation of forum rules as something abusive? It was not my intention to call you any names. It was only my intention to point out the definition of an Internet troll and your actions. Objective honesty!

The Gals have earned their Position here in DV, and do not need to "re-qualify" due to Sarges passing.  And, they have the rights to express their objective observations as they seem fit.  None of us want to call others names... but, I'd say "troll" is more of an accurate descriptive label, than a derogatory one... same as using "Libtard" as a useful description.  It's not my way... but it has purpose.  If such a label fits... I'd say, it's that much more reason to attempt to communicate better, to dispel or alleviate it... as you suggested.  I will also say, that my personal level of communication seems widely understood and accepted by most here... and that there is no need to suggest it is any better, or worse, than another's.  Objectivity will distinguish such, as a conclusive arbiter  We ALL have that to employ...  In the free market of thoughts and ideas.

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Thank you Friend JAX....

Appreciate you checkin' our 6 !

And with such sane eloquence, too.  Refreshing change in this thread to be sure !

Sorry We're outta Plus+1's this mornin'... so here's a 'uge one for ya  ====>   +1... !

 

.

Edited October 28, 2016 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[Shabibilicious]

Well then, looks as if "Conservtard" is also now in play as a useful description, when used objectively and honestly, of course........though it's not my way to use such inflammatory terms......normally.  

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

15 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

The Gals have earned their Position here in DV, and do not need to "re-qualify" due to Sarges passing.  And, they have the rights to express their objective observations as they seem fit.  None of us want to call others names... but, I'd say "troll" is more of an accurate descriptive label, than a derogatory one... same as using "Libtard" as a useful description.  It's not my way... but it has purpose.  If such a label fits... I'd say, it's that much more reason to attempt to communicate better, to dispel or alleviate it... as you suggested.  I will also say, that my personal level of communication seems widely understood and accepted by most here... and that there is no need to suggest it is any better, or worse, than another's.  Objectivity will distinguish such, as a conclusive arbiter  We ALL have that to employ...  In the free market of thoughts and ideas.

As you wish, my friend. I only stepped in because my overprotective personality feared something bad was about to happen.

[Jaxinjersey]

5 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Well then, looks as if "Conservtard" is also now in play as a useful description, when used objectively and honestly, of course........though it's not my way to use such inflammatory terms......normally.  

GO RV, then BV

Sure, it's in play, if you choose!  Nice recognition... that's the easy part, and as objective as it gets!  Congratulations!  Now, you just have to back up the label with the same mindset... that's the hard part!  OR, do the same "work" without the labeling!  Your choice!  You've just opened a door that I doubt you'll go through.  I'd love to see ANYONE'S objective analysis of "Conservtard"!  Good luck!

[Jaxinjersey]

11 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

As you wish, my friend. I only stepped in because my overprotective personality feared something bad was about to happen.

Your observations are impressive and welcomed!  Objectivism does not need a "safe space"... so, it needs no protection.  There was no criticism attached to my response... 

[Shabibilicious]

19 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Sure, it's in play, if you choose!  Nice recognition... that's the easy part, and as objective as it gets!  Congratulations!  Now, you just have to back up the label with the same mindset... that's the hard part!  OR, do the same "work" without the labeling!  Your choice!  You've just opened a door that I doubt you'll go through.  I'd love to see ANYONE'S objective analysis of "Conservtard"!  Good luck!

Ted Cruz speaking directly to the cameras and more than just insinuating that there is a historic precedent that exists which could give conservatives all the fuel they need to never confirm a Supreme Court nominee of H. Clinton's, should she become President of the United States  =  Conservtard

That is as in your face as it gets....I don't need to delve further, whether you disagree or not.  

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

You know exactly where I stand my brother. But I think we need a more clear definition of your word. I don't know about the reference your making with Ted Cruz however I can assure you the precedent anyone would be making in that regard is the fact that Hillarious Clinton is a known criminal. And while not convicted of any crime her guilt of passing top secret emails outside of proper channels admitted by her prevents her from choosing a Supreme Court Justice to uphold the law. I say this because anyone she chooses to be a Supreme Court Justice could be biased in their opinion of constitutional law based on their  being beholden 2 Hillarious Clinton.

[Jaxinjersey]

5 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Ted Cruz speaking directly to the cameras and more than just insinuating that there is a historic precedent that exists which could give conservatives all the fuel they need to never confirm a Supreme Court nominee of H. Clinton's, should she become President of the United States  =  Conservtard

That is as in your face as it gets....I don't need to delve further, whether you disagree or not.  

GO RV, then BV

Haha... that's it?!!  That's your premise to further analyze?  Delve further? Yes, of course you do... but of course, you won't... YOU JUST SAID SO!  Conservatism is not just political... which is why it's not purely Republican... as Liberalism is not purely Democrat.  They are easily viewed more so as lifestyle choices.  See?  Lots to discuss... Context.  Honest Premise... you know, all that "crap" you avoid.  Your word, not mine.  

[Shabibilicious]

19 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Haha... that's it?!!  That's your premise to further analyze?  Delve further? Yes, of course you do... but of course, you won't... YOU JUST SAID SO!  Conservatism is not just political... which is why it's not purely Republican... as Liberalism is not purely Democrat.  They are easily viewed more so as lifestyle choices.  See?  Lots to discuss... Context.  Honest Premise... you know, all that "crap" you avoid.  Your word, not mine.  

My God good man, do you not understand how the 2 party system works.....checks and balances?  The pieces will not always fall in ones favor and therefore concessions must be made to further the agenda be it conservative or liberal.  But, what happens when the baby steps are taken out of the give and take equation is gridlock.  Exactly where we find ourselves today.  Sure the numbers in congress are in the Republicans favor, but it won't always be that way.  So one must look at the big picture and decide what must I do now to get some of what I want with the option of further goodies down the road.  The prize might not be as tasty today, but exercising the proper amount of deal making may provide an even sweeter dessert.  I know you know all of this, I just don't understand why you make me say it.....just to cramp my fingers?    So Yes, Ted Cruz, in my very humble opinion, falls under the moniker of "conservtard".....for as valiant as it is to NEVER stray from the constitution as it was written 240 years ago....it's unrealistic to believe in this day and age that it's remotely possible.  

GO RV, then BV

Edited October 28, 2016 by Shabibilicious

[Shabibilicious]

24 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

You know exactly where I stand my brother. But I think we need a more clear definition of your word. I don't know about the reference your making with Ted Cruz however I can assure you the precedent anyone would be making in that regard is the fact that Hillarious Clinton is a known criminal. And while not convicted of any crime her guilt of passing top secret emails outside of proper channels admitted by her prevents her from choosing a Supreme Court Justice to uphold the law. I say this because anyone she chooses to be a Supreme Court Justice could be biased in their opinion of constitutional law based on their  being beholden 2 Hillarious Clinton.

I believe Ted Cruz to be the type of conservative constitutionalist who would never accept a Supreme Court nominee from ANY Liberal.  I have no facts to back this up, only his words put forward during his short political career.  

GO RV, then BV

[Jaxinjersey]

16 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

My God good man, do you not understand how the 2 party system works.....checks and balances?  The pieces will not always fall in ones favor and therefore concessions must be made to further the agenda be it conservative or liberal.  But, what happens when the baby steps are taken out of the give and take equation is gridlock.  Exactly where we find ourselves today.  Sure the numbers in congress are in the Republicans favor, but it won't always be that way.  So one must look at the big picture and decide what must I do now to get some of what I want with the option of further goodies down the road.  The prize might not be as tasty today, but exercising the proper amount of deal making may provide an even sweeter dessert.  I know you know all of this, I just don't understand why you make me say it.....just to cramp my fingers?    So Yes, Ted Cruz, in my very humble opinion, falls under the moniker of "conservtard".....for as valiant as it is to NEVER stray from the constitution as it was written 240 years ago....it's unrealistic to believe in this day and age that it's remotely possible.  

GO RV, then BV

Sorry you cramped your hands, Shabs.  It's hard work, that sometimes cramps the brain too!  But, it is necessary... now you know how it feels, perhaps?

I referenced lifestyle... but you focused on politics.  It sounds as if you're saying, compromise is the answer, as checks and balances to a two-party system?  That's not how the Constitution works... so you're starting with a (popular) false premise.  The Declaration and The Constitution do not recognize "parties". That may be the political acquiescence, but to most Conservatives... compromise is a dirty word.  In fact, there never is any true compromise to the "right", because the demarcation for the Constitution begins at the right... so any concession is ALWAYS left.  This is why I am of the "NO" Party (kNOw)... and "anti-kumbaya".  As an Individual, I reserve my right NOT to join... NOT to participate... with freedom to CHOOSE how I pursue happiness... not what others choose for me.  You concede that the Constitution is today, unrealistic in its original intent...  I'm sure then, that you probably believe it is malleable as a "living and breathing" document to be interpreted by the Judiciary, and changed without Amendments...  

From a lifestyle standpoint, the Constitution defaults to the Individual first... then the "collective" as a natural civil society byproduct.  The perspectives in that are starkly different.  The "Individual" most closely identifies with Conservatism, and then a "Party" affiliation.  A Liberal most closely identifies with a "Collective" philosophy, and then a "Party" affiliation.  As an individual, I depend on the lifestyle guarantees of the Constitution... not collective association, and not political assignments, and not governmental intrusions.  Of course, they interact... but politics is just a necessary arbiter, not an end-all judge over individual sovereignty.

Your analysis above is working on more of a political AND collective premise.  Of course, I reject that... in favor of the default lifestyle AND individual premise.  So, Ted Cruz, or even Donald Trump aside...  I (we) need to be vigilant toward the least intrusive, smallest government possibilities... THAT is the bigger picture!  

This brief analysis, is an understatement to what most Conservatives feel identifies conservatism.  There is much, much more to the distinctions of it, as well as the contrasts to modern day progressives...

 

[Synopsis]

7 hours ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

Our Thanks be to ye, Friend SYN !

Yer a Gentile & a Schooner !  

(Seems your not a fan of senior abuse either ! )

Glad you enjoy our posts... good or bad such as they are !

 

Thank You, SgtFuryUSCZ - It's all good!