Very good article.

#1, the name of the article is why liberals "may" dislike the rescue of the hostages, and #2, what liberal has come out criticizing the rescue operation?

I hope someone at The Huffington Post writes an article titled, "Republicans May Wish that 9/11 Killed Double The Amount Of People That It Did" so I can source it and use it on my blog as a shining example of how ALL conservatives are loons.

Wow. Tell me you're not serious.

I hope the Huffington Post writes an article like that, too, Rick; another shining example that although not ALL liberals may be loons, you certainly are.

Is it EVER possible for a liberal and a conservative to have a debate without name-calling?

Since liberals do not have the luxury of facts, it is very difficult for them not to resort to name calling, Cangrejero.

Personally, I do not mind the name calling since it is a sure sign that they have no other argument. It is their way of surrendering.

Alberto: I wasn't name calling. I was giving an example of what you did in your post. You sourced an article based on conjecture and turned it into fact to once again ridicule liberals.

Sheesh, you just gotta love those conservatives.

.

Rick, I'll let you read my post again and I want you to show me where I stated that the author's opinion was "fact." But then again, I doubt you will be able to see the inaccuracy in your accusation since facts seem to be Kryptonite to liberals.

You liberals, you crack me up.

Colombian-American, Gabriel Garnica, gives us five reasons why the liberation of FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt, along with three Americans and other hostages, is so disliked by liberals in the US.

These are conclusive, definitive, all encompassing statements of fact, Alberto, when, in fact, they are not facts, at least according to the article that you source.

I know you don't see it and even if you did you wouldn't care so....whatever. It's the way the game is played.

.

Rick, Rick, Rick...

Conclusive? Definitive? All encompassing? So if I were to post "Joe Blow gives us five reasons why aliens will invade the earth on Labor Day," it would be a conclusive, definitive, and all encompassing statement of fact?

The problem liberals have--you included--is that you get all emotional. And when you get emotional, you lose sight of reality and facts. The author of this article expressed an opinion that bothered you, so, instead of examining the facts, emotions get a hold of you and then you go off into a fantasy world of assumptions and conjecture.

I am not even going to get into the fact that Gabriel Garnica's "opinion" makes sense because then we delve right back into the realm of reality--a place you and your cohorts feel very uncomfortable in.

If you want to feel good, go read the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos where they are experts at feeding your emotional requirements. Leave the facts for those that are willing to live in reality.

Alberto: This isn't about Garnica's opinion, Alberto. It's about you turning a supposition into a reality. The article you linked to said the rescue "may" be disliked and you turned that into "is" so disliked. Is it that difficult to understand?

And please, enough with the liberal crap. I'm really just trying to point something simple out to you.

.

If you don't like the "liberal crap," Rick, then stop acting like a liberal. Get a hold of your emotions, dude; it's really not all that becoming. Whining gets tedious real fast.

If you want to parse my semantics, fine, but parse it elsewhere. Personally, I prefer to debate facts, not the "feelings" you get reading a simple post. Once you get control of your emotions you and I can discuss facts. In the meantime, save the drama and whining for your liberal friends.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to make you feel bad but I'm just trying to help you out. Look at it as constructive criticism.

Alberto: Here's another example:

A liberal blogger writes a post with the title "Alberto de la Cruz may be brain dead." I see this post and write, "Alberto de la Cruz is brain dead and this just shows how brain dead conservatives are."

You keep urging me to talk about the facts, and I am. It seems that you are the one that is content with misrepresenting them.

And, apparently, you're totally okay with that.

.

Rick:

There you go again, getting all emotional. What can I tell you? Unless I ignore reality and agree with you completely, you're just going to get more hysterical.

I'm sorry, Rick, but I'm not Phil Donahue, so I really don't care how you feel emotionally about my choice of words.

Stop shouting, Alberto. Just calm down and address the points I'm making. Quit getting so wound up.

Can you tell I'm getting the hang of it now, de la Cruz? This is great.

That's the trick, Ricky boy. As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to call you Tricky Ricky from now on.

Okay, now that you have your wits about you, we can talk like a couple of humans without you getting hysterically emotional.

As I recall, and upon review of your first remarks, you took issue with my segue into the opinion piece written by Colombian-American, Gabriel Garnica. I believe you felt that my choice of words for the introduction misrepresented the author's commentary. So, let us examine my choice of words and see if indeed I committed the unpardonable sin of injecting thought into the structure of a sentence.

Note: If there are young children around folks, please send them to play in another room or cover their eyes and ears for the next few moments for we will be delving deep into areas rarely seen in the media and even less seen on the left side of the street.

Are you still with me, Tricky Ricky?

Okay, here we go:

Alberto says:

Colombian-American, Gabriel Garnica, gives us five reasons why the liberation of FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt, along with three Americans and other hostages, is so disliked by liberals in the US.

Tricky Ricky says:

#1, the name of the article is why liberals "may" dislike the rescue of the hostages, and #2, what liberal has come out criticizing the rescue operation?

On your #1 point, Tricky Ricky, I see the difference in the words used by me to describe Garnica's commentary as opposed to his own. I do not see, however, in light of the content of his commentary how either forms, either mine or his would change the tone and the meaning of this piece. It is like arguing the size of the water droplets falling from the sky while you get drenched. Sure, some were small and some were large. But they all got you wet.

So on that one, Tricky Ricky, you are pretty much crap out of luck. Nice try, though. You have a good screeching whine going there and you should take care of it. Ask any woman how useful that can be to get someone to change the channel on the TV or take out the garbage.

Let us move on now to the second question you posed in that short statement.

#2, what liberal has come out criticizing the rescue operation?

To answer a question like this sometimes requires the interviewee to answer with a question themselves. Tell us, Tricky Ricky, what liberal would be fool enough to criticize a phenomenally successful rescue operation? Liberals are emotional, liberals can be illogical, but liberals are not necessarily stupid (that was a compliment from me to you, Tricky Ricky).

Now, hopefully, you can approach this issue with a teeny bit of logic and it won't hurt you so much. You can disagree, Tricky Ricky; that is what is great about our country. And I would love to discuss with you the finer nuances of politics in the US. But you have to shed that emotional albatross off your neck.

I think you can do it, buddy. And I want to take this moment to say to you that you can depend on me to help you find your way out of the dark recesses of emotion. I'm not asking you to think like me, I'd just like to see you join the rest of humanity in the light of truth and logic.

Well well well, Pope Pompous I, the self-appointed pope of all bloggers comes out to give one of his dictates. You see you are not permitted, Alberto, to blog as you see fit. Pope Pompous will excommunicate you. Notice that he doesn't pontificate on any of my threads, that's because I call him what he is, a malcontent lonely-ass loser that's living off of our tax dollars. And while he takes great care not to post while on the job you can bet your sweet bippy that he's doing nothing but surfing the net all day at his botella.

Well, Henry, it appears that Pope Pompous I (or Tricky Ricky like I like to call him) will be in for a rude surprise if he believes he can dictate to me what I can and cannot post. First of all, I am not even Catholic; and secondly, I only listen to people that make sense when they speak. The howling and screeching and whining just do not register for me.

Nevertheless, I will allow him his 15 minutes of Babalu fame--as long as it is not coming out of my tax paying pocket.

The Pope has added a widget that shows what he's blogging about most and of course Babalu has remained near the top if not at the top of that list since he implemented it. We've always known of his obsession but now he's making it clear for those who might not be so aware. To think that the pontiff will have almost nothing to pontificate about if it weren't for us.

That sounds like a familiar story, Henry. I love these pontificators in constant search for something to pontificate upon.