Slate magazine attacks Bushs service dog, Sully.

[PaulS]

Who cares about a service dog in the grand scheme of things? If someone is so petty to talk about a dog (and I didn't read the article) I could care less.

I think you posted a picture of the Clinton's sitting in church - big deal. It would be like my posting the picture I saw of all the Pres/families reading aloud from the Bible or the program and Trump standing there like he is bored out of his mind. I couldn't be bothered doing that bc I'm not petty (or angry) enough to start a thread about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who cares about a service dog in the grand scheme of things? If someone is so petty to talk about a dog (and I didn't read the article) I could care less.

I think you posted a picture of the Clinton's sitting in church - big deal. It would be like my posting the picture I saw of all the Pres/families reading aloud from the Bible or the program and Trump standing there like he is bored out of his mind. I couldn't be bothered doing that bc I'm not petty (or angry) enough to start a thread about it.

once again, the character flaw is mine. and another diversion to Trump. How original.

apparently the Slate author cared enough about the dog, to feel obligated to put a stop to the goodwill we all felt because of the images of the dog. On my side, we like that stuff. your side calls it “demented.”. That’s why i like my side.

i do take it personally, i guess, i had an amazing golden retriever many years ago who was a certified therapy dog. I took him to Newtown a couple of times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Maybe that was ‘demented’ and ‘wasteful’ of me, Slate magazine would
say so, and none of the liberals here seem to have an issue with it.

Again, thankful for my side.

one of the best gifts of dogs, is that occasionally, they remind us what it is, to be human. I’d say liberals could use a reminder.

Here let me respond for you, save younthe teouble.

Why are you so angry? And did you see what Trump did yesterday?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and another diversion to Trump.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the whataboutismists do a lot of whataboutisming

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

the whataboutismists do a lot of whataboutisming

But it's brilliant and pertinent when THEY do it. Only a character flaw when we do it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

once again, the character flaw is mine. and another diversion to Trump. How original. The character flaw is yours in posting about the article. Trump really hasn't been discussed in this thread other than my giving you an example above.

apparently the Slate author cared enough about the dog, to feel obligated to put a stop to the goodwill we all felt because of the images of the dog. On my side, we like that stuff. your side calls it “demented.”. That’s why i like my side.isn't that what you did in the modified tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that. You did it in the very next post I believe. So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion to the Clinton. Pretty funny you complain about that here but just did the same exact thing in the other thread.

i do take it personally, i guess, i had an amazing golden retriever many years ago who was a certified therapy dog. I took him to Newtown a couple of times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Maybe that was ‘demented’ and ‘wasteful’ of me, Slate magazine would
say so, and none of the liberals here seem to have an issue with it.

Again, thankful for my side.

one of the best gifts of dogs, is that occasionally, they remind us what it is, to be human. I’d say liberals could use a reminder. I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich, run up the deficit and then propose to cut benefits like food stamps for poor people.

Here let me respond for you, save younthe teouble.

Why are you so angry? Why am I angry? And did you see what Trump did yesterday? You mean when he didn't read from what everyone else was reading and stood there looking bored?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

"isn't that what you did in the tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that"

The original tribute thread was my thread, so I'm not sure I see how I can be accused of hijacking my own thread. But if it makes you feel better, OK, that's what I did.

"So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion "

Sure. I did that, and I got criticized here by all the liberals for doing that. Yet those same liberals, cannot criticize a fellow liberal for doing that. It's only bad when I do it. Why? Can you tell me why that is?

"I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich"

And what happened to black unemployment, and Hispanic unemployment, after that tax cut? How come you left that out. I agree with you 100%, that the tax cut should have been more focused on middle class and below. Where you and I differ, is that I don't have to pretend that there was no benefit to the middle class and below.

You're saying the GOP tax cut was "inhuman". Interesting. I'd say it was imperfect, not aimed enough at the people you and I both want to help. But those people were helped by the tax cut, just not as much as they could have been. Is that true or false?

"run up the deficit "

And where was your concern over the deficit, exactly, from 09-16? I agree the deficit and debt is a MAJPOR issue. But again, the difference between us, is that my concern doesn't depend on the party of the sitting president. Yours does. Which means your concern is selective, which means it's fake.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"isn't that what you did in the tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that"

The original tribute thread was my thread, so I'm not sure I see how I can be accused of hijacking my own thread. But if it makes you feel better, OK, that's what I did. So ignore the mods. here bc why? It made you feel good to get one more dig on the Clintons?

"So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion "

Sure. I did that, and I got criticized here by all the liberals for doing that. Yet those same liberals, cannot criticize a fellow liberal for doing that. It's only bad when I do it. Why? Can you tell me why that is? It certainly is different doing it in a tribute thread than a thread about a dog.

"I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich"

And what happened to black unemployment, and Hispanic unemployment, after that tax cut? It pretty much continued on the same trajectory as it was going on before. I've said here many times lower unemployment (black or othewise) is good for all us How come you left that out. I agree with you 100%, that the tax cut should have been more focused on middle class and below. Where you and I differ, is that I don't have to pretend that there was no benefit to the middle class and below. The benefit was minor to the middle class and that is why the Repubs. didn't run on it in the elections.

You're saying the GOP tax cut was "inhuman"Tax cuts are not inhumane (I think that is what you mean - hopefully Scott won't read it) but when the deficit balloons as many people said and the reaction is to cut spending for the poor- that is inhumane. . Interesting. I'd say it was imperfect, not aimed enough at the people you and I both want to help. But those people were helped by the tax cut, just not as much as they could have been. Is that true or false?

"run up the deficit "

And where was your concern over the deficit, exactly, from 09-16? You mean when the economy was in the crapper? Different times need different measures. I agree the deficit and debt is a MAJPOR issue. But again, the difference between us, is that my concern doesn't depend on the party of the sitting president. Yours does. Which means your concern is selective, which means it's fake.

Just proved that last statement wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just proved that last statement wrong.

"It (black unemployment) pretty much continued on the same trajectory as it was going on before"

Ah yes, it was Obama's doing. How silly of me. When things continue on the same trajectory, it's because of the person who initiated that trajectory? It doesn't take work to maintain progress along that trajectory? Fascinating, simply fascinating.

"I've said here many times lower unemployment (black or othewise) is good for all us "

Have you ever said that the GOP tax cuts helped us in that goal?

"The benefit was minor to the middle class and that is why the Repubs. didn't run on it in the elections. "

$200+ a month for me, not minor, and they did run on it.

"You mean when the economy was in the crapper? "

The economy was in the crapper in the last couple of years of Obama's presidency? I missed that, I guess, lucky me.

"Just proved that last statement wrong."

No, you proved it true. Liberal=good, conservative=bad. that was your whole post.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"It (black unemployment) pretty much continued on the same trajectory as it was going on before"

Ah yes, it was Obama's doing. How silly of me. When things continue on the same trajectory, it's because of the person who initiated that trajectory? It doesn't take work to maintain progress along that trajectory? Fascinating, simply fascinating.I never claimed that did I? Trump can get credit for continuing if that will make you happy. Show me how the trajectory changed though?

"I've said here many times lower unemployment (black or othewise) is good for all us "

Have you ever said that the GOP tax cuts helped us in that goal?I don't think they did. Most of the tax cuts to corp. went to stock buy backs.

"The benefit was minor to the middle class and that is why the Repubs. didn't run on it in the elections. "

$200+ a month for me, not minor, and they did run on it.I'm glad you make more than the average carpenter, plumber and middle class person on this site. Most Repubs infact did not run on it.

"You mean when the economy was in the crapper? "

The economy was in the crapper in the last couple of years of Obama's presidency? I missed that, I guess, lucky me.Stick with #s (although sometimes I don't think you are that good with them). Was the deficit declining in Obama's later years from the earlier years?

"Just proved that last statement wrong."

No, you proved it true. Liberal=good, conservative=bad. that was your whole post.

I don't start threads that liberals good vs vs cons. bad I'm responding to your posts where you constantly blame liberals for everythiing and then when people point out the stupidity of the post you come back with.

"I get it Liberal=good, conservative=bad" even though your threads all imply that.

Who started this thread crying about what some mag. said about a dog?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Tax cuts are not inhumane (I think that is what you mean - hopefully Scott won't read it)

inhuman is a word dummy

inhuman
/inˈ(h)yo͞omən/Submit
adjective

1.lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric. synonyms: cruel, harsh, inhumane, brutal, callous, sadistic, severe, savage, vicious, barbaric; More

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

inhuman is a word dummy

inhuman
/inˈ(h)yo͞omən/Submit
adjective

1.lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric. synonyms: cruel, harsh, inhumane, brutal, callous, sadistic, severe, savage, vicious, barbaric; More

I know it is a word dummy. I thought inhumane should have been used.