Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Has Anyone Else Considered Leaving?

They are all welcome from my point of view.

You have hit on one of the most basic debating techniques. If you can't refute what someone is saying you attack the person personally. It is done all the time on here and is what so many have said drives them away. It seems these people have already succeeded in turning this thread into a discussion of the poster, not the issues raised by the poster.

Just for fun, let's keep a list of who has responded with direct attacks on mhr, the person, and who have not. Then others can draw their own conclusions. (One -- JBryan -- is on both lists, btw. He tried to stay on topic, then gave into his primal instincts)

Personal Attacks
SR
Trolly
Larry
John Moonlight
LB
JBryan
Apple

Discussed the Issues
Shantinik
Ariel
John Andrew
StanSteel
Renauda
KlavierBauer
BCarey
JBryan

Apple, agree with you on this one!

JB,

It is unlikely that you and I are going to agree on Bush's economic policy. Nor, are we likely to agree that Bush's manipulation of numbers that would make Inron's book cooking look like good accounting are impeding the ability of congress to make informed decisions.

Perhaps we can agree that M&H BB is a great piano?

Mr. Andrew,

I have posted precisely two responses to this thread, none of which have been addressed to mhr directly. Would you be so kind as to point out where I have attacked him personally. Frankly, your constant accusations in this regard are growing rather tiresome.

(How you include Apple in this category is also a mystery to me based on her responses).

Bcarey,

It is obvious that we will not agree but at least I back up my assertions with hard facts rather than hyperbole about Bush's budget numbers being comparable to Enron.

The facts have already been refuted. The problem isn't a lack of facts, the problem is, as evidenced by your own post, that liberals don't listen. You only hear what fits your liberal Democrat story line.


I did not vote for Bush primarily because of his economic policy, such as I could understand it, at the time.

No, you didn't vote for Bush because he is a Republican. I am very familiar with North Carolina's Yellow Dog Democrat base, and you wouldn't vote for a Republican if Satan himself was on the Democratic ticket. You didn't have a clue what Bush's economic policy was on election day. For example..... Did you vote for Jimmy Carter? Remember *his* economic policies?


I was right.


No, you were and are wrong. The first mistake you make in assessing economic policies is to blindly buy into the Democrat story of how Clinton gave us a surplus. That's wrong on two counts - that there even *was* a surplus, and that Clinton had something to do with it. Another trait of Liberals is the tendency to forget history.

It has been and will continue to be disastrous for this country for years to come if something isn't done to stop it.

I like you Bcarey, but you don't know jack about what you're talking about. Remember Jimmy Carter? He nearly destroyed our economy. Do you remember who turned it around? It sure wasn't a Democrat. In fact, your Democrat party was dragged kicking and screaming all the way. Clinton? HA! The economy was already turning around when he took office. You could have stuck a monkey in the white house and it wouldn't have made any difference in the economy. That's because Clinton not only didn't have anything to do with balancing a budget, or helping the economy, it's because the Republicans took charge of the Senate and forced it in *spite* of the Democrats. And you reveal the entire problem with today's Democrat party and liberals in general in your next statement:


The US government can't continue to flourish with the largest deficit that we have ever seen, even larger in percentage than California.

And who trashed California's finances? A Democrat. Who left the big surplus he got the pleasure of spending like a drunken sailor? A Republican. Now, you are concerned that the government won't "flourish". Thanks for the admission. Never mind the fact that thanks to your Democrat party those of us with jobs have half their income taken away from them, never mind that thanks to your Democrat party we are no longer a free country - just don't get in the way from letting all that machinery "flourish"!!

Geez.... when will you liberals get it....


Where are all those right-wing conservative Republicans who just a few years ago were yelling for a balanced budget?

We were busy balancing it.


Clinton gave us one!

Like I said, you don't have a clue, and like most liberal Democrats, you have a problem remembering history. Clinton didn't have a thing to do with the economy. All Clinton tried to do was to give up our sovreignty to the UN, and arm China..... in between cheating on his wife, of course. But then, please continue on to defend a man of no moral character.


Why can't Bush even come close?

Talk to me in a year. Now - I can and have refuted all your liberal claptrap with facts, and have done so again. Don't accuse me of not using facts when the problem is your inability to grasp them. I think you're an intelligent woman, so it can only be explained as you being the typical North Carolina Yellow Dog Democrat. And so you and everyone else will know, that isn't a derogatory term, that simply describes a Democrat who will vote for a Democrat no matter who he/she is and not matter what he/she says. Don't confuse them with facts, just point to the Democrat lever in the voting booth.

I will debate your liberal mistakes with all the facts you want. And you will lose. You will lose because like most liberals, you don't know what the facts are. And mhr is a moron. He came here looking for a fight, and he's got one. The fact that you not only don't see that, but actually jump in to defend him, simply proves my point.

Originally posted by John Andrew:

You have hit on one of the most basic debating techniques. If you can't refute what someone is saying you attack the person personally. It is done all the time on here and is what so many have said drives them away. It seems these people have already succeeded in turning this thread into a discussion of the poster, not the issues raised by the poster.

Just for fun, let's keep a list of who has responded with direct attacks on mhr, the person, and who have not. Then others can draw their own conclusions.


And now, let's examine another debating tactic - one used by brainless liberals.

One brainless liberal initiates a confrontation, making attacks, all aimed at provoking people. Then, people respond with about what you should expect. Once people have responded in kind, another brainless liberal jumps up to the plate, conveniently forgets that it was his kindred spirit who initiated things, and who had already made attacks. This second brainless liberal proceeds to revise history right in front of your eyes (of course, one should expect that, they are so accustomed to doing that already) and proceeds to try and take the focus off the initial attack, and redirect it to the response, and then portray it as being the initial attack. Then, they like to line up all those they don't like so they can't now paint them with this false paint.

So there you are in *your* little list.


Now..... do any of you left wing liberals see me quivering like jelly?

As I read throught the thread, the initial personal attack was by mhr in the 3rd post--ignoring the attacks on President Bush in the first post--yet mhr did not appear on Mr. Andrew's list.

To quote Dogbert,

Mr. Andrews,

Apple? JBryan? All other conservatives painted with the same broad brush?

All of our more liberal elements shining in their gold-plated armor?

And an attack post bemoaning lack of substance, when your post itself lacks substance?

Forgive me if I relegate your awesome attempt at elucidation, to just another "drive-by fruiting".

Have a nice day, life coach.

Thank you for bringing up lindseygirl/HRA, Johnny. I have found out irrefutably exactly who this "person" is. I was waiting for a good place to reveal his name, and this is it.

First, I ask that no one mention this outside this thread. My reason? I don't think he will read this thread, and I think that when the proper situation arises on the Piano Forum for this "gentleman" to respond with yet another attack, then *that* is the time for everyone to call him by name - *after* he has shown his butt.

Remember a few weeks ago when Lindseygirl made the comment that he hoped I'd die from my cancer? Well - his conscience got the best of him, and he emailed me to apologize. But he forgot and did so using his real name.....



Remember the Young Chang/Steinway dealer from Dallas...... Scott Anderson?

I agree with, Dwain, and ditto his "bye" to mhr. If mhr wants to leave instead of stay and vote and fight for what he/she believes in, I say don't let the door hit you on your way out. This is not intended as an insult. It's intended with very good wishes. Did Jolly, Dwain, JBryan etc.. leave when Clinton lasted two terms. No. They stayed and fought back.

And, no, JohnAndrew, I'm not a registered Republican. And I vote on issues and for candidates.

Also, mhr, admits he was trolling and inciting people purposely when he/she explained why he/she typed America with a k. That was insulting!

Now, I'm like KB in that, I don't follow all the issues therefore, I will not debate politics but I look forward to the day that mhr decides he wants to turn me into a "quivering bowl of jello."

So, add me to your list, JohnAndrew because IMHO mhr is an a******. But, that's okay, because we live in America and everyone has the right to be an a****** if they want to be.

JMHO,

Hmmmm....

Didn't Lazy Pianist say the reason she took a different name to post here was because she did not want her posts in other forums attacked because of what she said here. So many, including Trolly, told her this never happens. Trolly was even so insistent that she was so terrible, that he went after her on thread after thread after thread.

Seems like she was right.

May I offer Exhibit 1:

And what, exactly, did HRA/Lindsey Girl contribute to the political discussions which were the purported cause of LP's anonymity?

And your point, Mr. Andrews? Scott Anderson made an ass out of himself repeatedly. Then, he came back under various names, all with the intent to make trouble, all very crude and very nasty. The very things you keep claiming you don't like. And you jump to his defense. Yet you seem to think that by my identifying who this trouble maker is I have somehow done something wrong.

When I was in high school there was one kid in the band who, no matter how simple the band director made the program, would always walk the opposite direction from the way he was supposed to go. If you told him to turn left, he'd turn right. If you told him to stop, he'd go. No matter what the situation, he would be out of step, out of time, going in the wrong direction. It was as if his brain was wired upside down and backwards.

Are you him, by chance?

Go ahead and bleat like the sheep you are that what I say next is a personal attack. It is not, it is just a simple statement of fact - you're an idiot.

That's exactly right. Even as much as I hated the Clinton administration, and the direction they were taking the country, I never considered leaving the country, or even whining that I was considering it. While there are plenty of great places in the world, this country is the best place for me for a number of reasons ranging from family ties to economic opportunity to a host of other reasons. And if there's something about it that I don't like, I will work to fix it. I won't sit around whining about it and threatening people who could really care less with my impending departure. To tuck tail between legs and run away from a problem is the sign of a coward, no matter their previous military background.

Anyone who really thinks that they're better off somewhere else, should just go. If they don't, they're a fool. And if they don't really think they'd be better off elsewhere, but they're just saying so to get attention or to troll an argument, then they're a liar. Neither option is very flattering, I'm afraid.

While I would have more respect for mhr, if he felt as strongly as he claims, if he actually did move to another country based on principle, he still would be exhibiting less personal character than citizens of this country should exhibit. We need people of courage and character, and with political viewpoints across the full spectrum, to make this country strong. In light of my impression of mhr's character and courage based on his own words, resume notwithstanding, I don't think he's contributing much if anything of value to the strength and health of this country. That's why, despite my ability to string a sentence or two together when needed, I refused to give a him a lengthy response, and simply wished him well in his future endeavors in his new home.


Quoth mhr: "For me, the America I served for in the US Navy and the America we now live in is not the America I grew up to support and defend."


Well, mhr, whether you consider yourself patriotic or not, your stated beliefs show you to be a coward ready to run away from a country which, in your own words, you refuse to defend or fight for. Go have a nice life wherever you land, but since you've just rejected allegiance to the country, you don't deserve to stay here. So again, bye.

And *another* Republican who didn't turn to a quivering bowl of jelly!

Where'd ya go, mhr? Did you quiver so hard you slid off the table?

Don't worry, Larry, I'm sure he'll be back probably with bells on. Or, with yet another name.
:rolleyes:

Gosh -- all this bad karma! Why all this nastiness? MHR has a fit of anger, voices an opinion about thinking he might not like to live here any longer, and the knives come out! Ugh!

With the exception of African-Americans who were forced to be here, America is a nation made up of people running away from environments, political situations, and governments that they didn't appreciate. For some, it was the potato famine; for others, the Czar; for still others, the Anglican Church. And much the same can be said for Canada, Australia, New Zealand. People vote with their feet, worldwide. This has always been the case -- so what else is new?

There are lots of happy Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders (to name a few) who prefer where they are. Lots of satisfied Americans, too, who like it here. And probably lots of folks who would move (in both directions) if given the opportunity.

In some future world, "free" trade will extend to people, too (though by that point, where we are, economically, may not be so desirable anymore.) I have a friend who works for Microsoft in Bangalore, India. He used to work in Redmond, Washington. He makes $9K a year. His housing costs about $400 a year. He has decided to give up his green card, as in India he can live like a king. But there are plenty of others who are clamoring to go the other way.

Treason? There are all those American corporate capitalists who make their permanent homes in Paris, or London, or spend 9 months of the year on the coast of Spain. If 99 to 1 ever got to be a reality (fat chance), lots of them will go off to live in China with the Wal-Mart execs.

Separate out the anger from the politics (both sides). Come on, guys and gals, this is an Internet list! No need to get heart attacks over it.

So back to the topic at hand. I think it would be interesting to go to some country like Afghanistan or Iraq or even someplace like Poland. Offer anybody there the choice of one of three things, a meal, a thousand bucks or a green card to go to America. Guaranteed they would pick the green card, every time.

Its really pathetic when somebody says something like “if Bush gets re-elected I’m leaving the country”. But I have to say, we are much better off without them. Hopefully that person will head to someplace like New Zealand since that would place them well away from the continent of North America. Canada has enough government dependant anti-USA whiners as it is. Its interesting too that the Davis recall has become a “right-wing” thing. I wonder what it was when Arizona recalled Mecham who was an arch right-winger himself. That was probably just “democracy in action”, were all-equal you know, just some are more equal than others.

As to this argument about Bush abandoning his “no nation building pledge”, I just have to remind people that we were attacked on September 11th and if you have forgotten that already, please, New Zealand awaits you. From the perspective of most other Americans and myself, we are at war. We will continue to be at war until every Islamic terrorist is taking an eternal dirt nap or otherwise neutralized. If we compare this to WWII, the liberation of Iraq would put us right about at the battle of Midway. We still have a lot of ass kicking to do. You live in America so you have the right to say just about any silly thing you feel like it. You can criticize the president from everything to spending, defense policy, to the color of his tie. You also get the privileged of all American hypocrites of sleeping well at night, obese, well fed, on an expensive mattress, knowing that the adults are in charge now. I for one do not think Bush has a perfect record and am in outright opposition to some of the things he is doing. Lately though, the criticisms leveled at him just seem outright silly. There are some really good issues the opposition could use against him that would actually do some public good. Why the opposition keeps picking issues that place them at the long end of the branch of reality I fail to understand.

One point for the original poster, I’m sorry that you are out of work along with a lot of other pilots. It seems to me that had the airline unions been just a little more reasonable, the airlines might be in a bit better shape. That’s the problem with people who don’t understand basic economics (the unions and the Democratic party) somebody, eventually always has to pay the tab. I’m sure your former union representative still has a job though, if it’s any comfort to you.

Mr. Andrews,

In reference to LP's unfounded fears, the incidence in question concerned an attorney who posted on an internet board giving enough facts so that anyone with any experience in research could easily ascertain who he was.

If I remember correctly, even when it was made public his true persona, nobody "attacked" him based on that evidence. For business, and liability reasons, he left the board.

I fail to see where that is germaine to LP's assertions.

So far, you have a muddled perception of this event, based only on hear-say, and even that was in a passing reference by a person who you do not "know". You have accused TomK of being a sock-puppet based on similar murky evidence. You have lumped everyone together whose political views you find distasteful, and tried to paint them all with the same "attack" brush, while collecting everyone you do agree with, and setting them on a pedestal of reason and enlightenment.

You have even proceeded to psychoanalyze people whom you've never met, whom you surely know little about, and in some type of quasi-medical pronouncements, remarked about their psychological make-up, and subsequent behavior.

Quite astounding from a "life-coach", who makes his living telling other people how to modify their behavior, when their own could use a bit of polishing.

Don't you think that it would behoove you to back up, and examine your own prejudices a bit? Your liberal viewpoint is welcome, and may even be well received by some, if you'd at least come down from the mount.

If not, I'm sure you will find that which you avidly seek.

Have a nice day, coach.

Absolutely I do. The big difference is the balance and plan for tax cuts and spending. In grossly general terms the Bush admin is cutting taxes to allow workers to keep more of their own money. They are also trying to put more money in the hands of business. You know them, the people who create products and jobs. I've never once been hired by a poor person. They are also increasing spending which I don't like, but I think the goal of a war against terror is a good one. If they prove to have botched it and left us with a larger deficit I will not be a happy camper and those involved will probably pay with loss of their political careers.

The Democrat appraoch is to tax more, leaving us workers with less of our own money. After all we aren't capapble of good spending decisions, thats what Bill told us. They, as a large inneficient more regulatory government will then properly decide what we should have done with our money. It will doubtless include many social programs designed to take good care of those members of our society who don't contribute, at the expense of those who do. One of my favorite lines from any government official regarding government waste was from Texas Senator Phil Gramm, during the Hillary Care hearings. He said "Remeber the $800 hammers and $1200 toilet seats ? Thats what government ends up creating and spending. For God sakes don't put us in charge of your medical care."

Steve