• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Understanding Disagreeable

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
A few days ago, I said I'd stop discussing the Iraq war with Disagreeable, since the conversation was extremely circuitous and was obviously going nowhere. However, as I've read his posts since then, it's become painfully clear that his/her motivations have really nothing to do with Iraq, the Bush administration, or any of the other things he/she claims to be passionate about.

I don't mean this as a personal attack against the particular individual who choses to be called Disagreeable. He/she is entirely allowed to have opinions that do not reflect mine or anybody elses at this site. Quite frankly, Bush's handling of the Iraq war hasn't been perfect and his conduct is open to criticism. I personally chose to support the Iraq war, but understand those who have differing opinions.

However, I'm troubled by the fact Disagreeable has chosen a website dedicated to ranchers to spread his views. There are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of websites devoted to politics - both conservative and liberal. Disagreeable could easily preach to people who have made politics their hobby, as it appears he/she has.

So, this points to an entirely different motivation than political discourse. Why a ranching website? I contend that Disagreeable believes his intellect, morality, and understanding of the world to be superior to people involved in agriculture. In his/her mind, ranchers are the ignorant proletariat that secretly desires to learn from individuals who are more enlightened -meaning Disagreeable and his ilk. It's the same thought process actors and rock stars have when they try to tell us who to vote for.

Rather than political debate, Disagreeable is merely engaging in a show of his self-perceived superiority. He/she hopes to accomplish nothing but to feel better than those who he/she sees to be ignorant, uneducated, and inferior. Even the fact he fails to convince anybody helps solidify his feelings of infinite superiority.

Admittedly, I myself am a suburbanite who has grown up in a subdvision and not a ranch, and know as much about baling hay or tending to a sick calf as I do about rocket science. However, after writing about agriculture for the past few months, I've come to realize how much intellect it takes to work in this field. Agriculture is a science and an art - it's the basis of all human civilization. Not a cop-out occupation for lazy rednecks.

The problem with Disagreeable is about more than one individual. There's a general perception among people outside agriculture that is completely unfair. Just because someone lives in a "red" state and works with cattle doesn't mean they are ignorant.

Of course, it's also likely that Disagreeable him/herself comes from a rural background. Rather than disqualify my previous observations, it strengthens them and renders them more disturbing. It points to a self-loathing that is nothing short of pathological, while still maintaining an air of superiority.

But, as I stated earlier, I don't mean this as an attack against Disagreeable, who is more than likely a thoughtful individual, and not consciously aware of his/her bias. Rather, I am troubled by the collective mentality of so-called "blue-staters" who think hardworking Americans who happen to work in agriculture are somehow less rational and, quite frankly, less human than they are. While in college, I often heard extremely prejudiced comments about so-called "red-staters." Particularly after Bush was re-elected, I overheard statements that people in middle America who voted for him were likely to engage in incest and were probably borderline retarded. While Disagreeable himself has never come close to making such sophomoric claims, his/her attitude is just a more mature version of the same mentality: if you don't agree with him/her, there must be something seriously wrong with you.

But we have to remember: there's blue-staters in every red state, and vice-versa. We're all Americans, and we have to get through these problems together, as we have in the past. Unless of course, we want two countries - one that consists of two coasts and other thats a huge swath of land in the middle of them. Is it too late?

This concludes my pseudo-psychological / philosophical rambling.

MP
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
51
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Good post, mp.freelance. Disagreeable might be a congenial enough person, but for sure is a typical liberal. The very name "Disagreeable" fits most liberals, because they do exude negativity. Any good news of positive happenings is "bad news" to them. Their whole platform depends on bad news of America. They have more fun saying, "I told you so" than they ever do in making a positive worthwhile contribution to society.
 

Mudhen

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Location
SW Oklahoma
You know there are different types of people in this world. You have the ones that say it wouldn’t work and do everything to make it fail. You have the ones that say it will fail and do nothing at all. You have the ones that just don’t care. You have the ones that say it will work but don’t do anything. You have the ones that want it to work and do what they can to make it work. It is fun to me how just about every time you have the one that wants it to work and does everything it does work. Then you have Disagreeable fighting the daylights out of it just trying to make it fail just so they can say “I TOLD YOU SO”. Could all of you Disagreeables get up and stop criticizing everything and do something to fix it??
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
A few days ago, I said I'd stop discussing the Iraq war with Disagreeable, since the conversation was extremely circuitous and was obviously going nowhere. However, as I've read his posts since then, it's become painfully clear that his/her motivations have really nothing to do with Iraq, the Bush administration, or any of the other things he/she claims to be passionate about.

Of course they're going no where. There's no defense for this war in Iraq.

I don't mean this as a personal attack against the particular individual who choses to be called Disagreeable. He/she is entirely allowed to have opinions that do not reflect mine or anybody elses at this site. Quite frankly, Bush's handling of the Iraq war hasn't been perfect and his conduct is open to criticism. I personally chose to support the Iraq war, but understand those who have differing opinions.

Sure you mean this as a personal attack. That's what people like you, Cal, Katria, Faster Horses, etc., do, personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Look at the Bush White House. When Joe Wilson came back with information that Saddam hadn't bought uranium for Niger, they didn't defend their position, instead they outed his wife as a CIA agent and tried to paint his trip as a boondoggle set up by her. Today some Republicans are starting to talk about the Grand Jury looking into the leak might be getting into national security matters. Translation: that investigation is starting to hurt Bush. When a professional soldier told Congress it would take several hundred thousand troops several years to win Iraq, Rumsfeld named his replacement without giving him a new job, effectively forcing him to retire. When Bush's first Sec of Treas spoke out about the budget deficit, they asked him to resign. It's a tried and true method for Republicans, but it can be done by both sides. There are starting to be reports of Karl Rove's secret affair in the newspapers these days.

However, I'm troubled by the fact Disagreeable has chosen a website dedicated to ranchers to spread his views. There are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of websites devoted to politics - both conservative and liberal. Disagreeable could easily preach to people who have made politics their hobby, as it appears he/she has.

Get over it. I'm a rancher; I was posting on the Bull Session and stopped by here last year. I found that I totally disgreed with everything being put out on this page and, thus, chose my screen name.

So, this points to an entirely different motivation than political discourse. Why a ranching website? I contend that Disagreeable believes his intellect, morality, and understanding of the world to be superior to people involved in agriculture. In his/her mind, ranchers are the ignorant proletariat that secretly desires to learn from individuals who are more enlightened -meaning Disagreeable and his ilk. It's the same thought process actors and rock stars have when they try to tell us who to vote for.

LOL! I certainly believe my intellect is higher than some people on this board. But I know too many smart people in the cattle business to feel superior to ranchers and farmers in general.

Rather than political debate, Disagreeable is merely engaging in a show of his self-perceived superiority. He/she hopes to accomplish nothing but to feel better than those who he/she sees to be ignorant, uneducated, and inferior. Even the fact he fails to convince anybody helps solidify his feelings of infinite superiority.

My focus on this board has always been and will continue to be the war in Iraq and Bush's dishonesty that led us into the war.

Admittedly, I myself am a suburbanite who has grown up in a subdvision and not a ranch, and know as much about baling hay or tending to a sick calf as I do about rocket science. However, after writing about agriculture for the past few months, I've come to realize how much intellect it takes to work in this field. Agriculture is a science and an art - it's the basis of all human civilization. Not a cop-out occupation for lazy rednecks.

Yes, when people actually start looking into ag, they find it's much harder work and more complex than they realized. To be a successful rancher takes brains, as well as hard work. A good education and willingness to change set ways also helps.

The problem with Disagreeable is about more than one individual. There's a general perception among people outside agriculture that is completely unfair. Just because someone lives in a "red" state and works with cattle doesn't mean they are ignorant.

When you read this board, you should be understand why many people have a low opinion of ag people, in general. Look at Oldtimers joke about Hillary. He'd allow another human to drown if he disagreed with her politics. Look at Steve's rants aginst Muslims. I'm engaged in ranching because I like it and my dad did it, too. But unlike many of these folks, I've been off the farm.


Of course, it's also likely that Disagreeable him/herself comes from a rural background. Rather than disqualify my previous observations, it strengthens them and renders them more disturbing. It points to a self-loathing that is nothing short of pathological, while still maintaining an air of superiority.

Let's see now, did you get your phd in mental health? If so, you should take it back because you didn't learn much.

But, as I stated earlier, I don't mean this as an attack against Disagreeable, who is more than likely a thoughtful individual, and not consciously aware of his/her bias. Rather, I am troubled by the collective mentality of so-called "blue-staters" who think hardworking Americans who happen to work in agriculture are somehow less rational and, quite frankly, less human than they are. While in college, I often heard extremely prejudiced comments about so-called "red-staters." Particularly after Bush was re-elected, I overheard statements that people in middle America who voted for him were likely to engage in incest and were probably borderline retarded. While Disagreeable himself has never come close to making such sophomoric claims, his/her attitude is just a more mature version of the same mentality: if you don't agree with him/her, there must be something seriously wrong with you.

:roll: I don't think Americans who "happen to work in agriculture" are anything. Like any other industry, there is a great deal of variety in the people. But I know many folks on this board and their basis for supporting the war in Iraq is a lie. There were no WMDs. There is oil.

But we have to remember: there's blue-staters in every red state, and vice-versa. We're all Americans, and we have to get through these problems together, as we have in the past. Unless of course, we want two countries - one that consists of two coasts and other thats a huge swath of land in the middle of them. Is it too late?

See my second response. The Bush Bunch has trashed everyone and everthing that stood in their way for political power. They're selling us out to big oil, big drug companies, big media. Today he said Congress needs to pass his energy plan to help with gas prices. But every expert says there's nothing in that plan that will affect gas prices in the near future. You see how he does it? He often doesn't out and out lie, just fudges the truth a bit. Like Saddam and 9-11, Bush probably never said Saddam was involved with 9-11, but every time he mentioned 9-11, he metioned Iraq in the same sentence. When finally forced to face the question, Bush admitted there is no proof Iraq had anything to do at all with 9-11.

This concludes my pseudo-psychological / philosophical rambling.

MP

:D "pseudo" is very correct. If you're making your living in psychology, you remind me of Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo on the floor of the Senate.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Indeed, Disagreeable, I'm not making a living in psychology nor do I have a Phd in mental health, but your response proves my pseudo-observations were on the mark. Your air of superiority and arrogance reigns supreme. Ironically, you probably would not be as vehement about your positions if you were speaking to another rancher face to face. If you do, I don't think you're too popular in the real world either.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Indeed, Disagreeable, I'm not making a living in psychology nor do I have a Phd in mental health, but your response proves my pseudo-observations were on the mark. Your air of superiority and arrogance reigns supreme. Ironically, you probably would not be as vehement about your positions if you were speaking to another rancher face to face. If you do, I don't think you're too popular in the real world either.

Even though the CIA had told him otherwise, George W. Bush told the American people that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger. That was a cornerstone in his push to invade Iraq. We know now that he knew that wasn't true, yet he used it in his speech to justify the war. So tell me, mp, how can you support a war based on lies? I'll be watching for your answer.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Disagreeable wrote:
I'm engaged in ranching because I like it and my dad did it, too. But unlike many of these folks, I've been off the farm

I'm engaged in ranching because I like it and my dad did it, too. But unlike many of these folks, I've been off the farm


So if you say you believe ranchers and farmers are of equal intellectual savy, how can leaving a farm made you better? or for those who stayed "less" of a person? even the implication is insulting,,,,

thus proving the original post,,,how sad,,,but then liberals have a problem when we catch them insulting US folks...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Look at Steve's rants aginst Muslims.

not all muslums, Just Radical Islamic terrorists, those that think we must convert, or wish to force thier religen upon US or think it is acceptable to chop our heads off, or blow up our buildings, killing thuosands and those that support them....you know people like you...dis...
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Even if this is a "war based on lies," as you call it, I can still support it. One of my childhood friends did two tours in Iraq as a marine sniper, and another served as a firefighter in Afghanistan. The one that went to Iraq had his best friend's head blown off right in front of him, and quite frankly he hasn't been the same since he's come back.

If they can both still believe that what they did over there was right (which they do), and the sacrifices they and other soldiers made were worth it, I'll support them even if Bush really is the borderline retarded pathological liar you make him out to be.

I'll beat you to the punch: you're going to say that you support the troops too, that's why you want them out of Iraq. But that's no longer a viable argument considering what so many men and women have lost in this war: lives, limbs, and intact psyches. It's too late to give up.

I think that's what you don't get: supporting this war isn't about supporting your arch-nemesis Bush. It's about supporting the soldiers that have given part (or all) of themselves in this effort. Pulling out and saying the war was a mistake would be akin to saying they sacrificed their lives for nothing, which I can't do. When it boils down to it, this is a question of loyalty not politics.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
Even if this is a "war based on lies," as you call it, I can still support it. One of my childhood friends did two tours in Iraq as a marine sniper, and another served as a firefighter in Afghanistan. The one that went to Iraq had his best friend's head blown off right in front of him, and quite frankly he hasn't been the same since he's come back.

I'm sorry about your friends. War is hell and anyone who has been through one will never be the same. That's especially true, I think, of a war like Iraq and VietNam. The public is turning on this war, just like they did on VietNam. I'm hoping we can get all the troops out before it gets that bad. But even if they all came home tomorrow, it would take years before the American people would trust the Army/National Guard with their sons and daughters again. That you can look at yourself in the mirror every day and know innocent people are dying because George W. Bush coveted Saddam's oil and say it's ok tells me a lot about you.

If they can both still believe that what they did over there was right (which they do), and the sacrifices they and other soldiers made were worth it, I'll support them even if Bush really is the borderline retarded pathological liar you make him out to be.

Keep telling yourself that it's OK. Obviously you don't think it's important enough to put yourself in danger.

I'll beat you to the punch: you're going to say that you support the troops too, that's why you want them out of Iraq. But that's no longer a viable argument considering what so many men and women have lost in this war: lives, limbs, and intact psyches. It's too late to give up.

ROTFLMAO! Are you not paying attention? Bush is giving up. Our military leaders in Iraq say we cannot defeat the insurgency. Even though Bush has claimed over and over that "freedom is on the march" and that there will be no withdrawal until Iraq can defend itself, they are laying out a timetable for withdrawing some American troops! Pay attention. The group framing the Constitution have asked for a 30 day extention because they can't agree on some important issues. The proposed constitution today calls for rolling back women's rights. It doesn't allow exiled Jews to come back to the country, but exiled Arabs are welcome. Is this the sort of country that your friends were fighting for?

I think that's what you don't get: supporting this war isn't about supporting your arch-nemesis Bush. It's about supporting the soldiers that have given part (or all) of themselves in this effort. Pulling out and saying the war was a mistake would be akin to saying they sacrificed their lives for nothing, which I can't do. When it boils down to it, this is a question of loyalty not politics.

They have lost their lives for nothing. To allow another American soldier to die or be mained for life won't bring back the ones already dead. Iraq is not getting better, it's getting worse every day. You can spin all day, but the facts are coming out that this ain't going to be the free, democratic country that George W. Bush has promised us over and over.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Disagreeable said: "They have lost their lives for nothing."

Do you realize how despicable this sounds? Do you care?

It's ironic how much Disagreeable says he/she cares about the soldiers, and yet self-indulgently gloats about every single perceived setback. Your heart-break over the soldiers is a thinly veiled pretense for what is your real goal: feeling like you are better than other people and then trying to rub their faces in it. You WANT their sacrifice to be in vain - even if it needn't be - so you can keep gloating.

I'm through trying to convince you, though... I just can't help pointing out your motivations. In all honesty, you've probably deluded yourself to the point that you really believe you support the troops. But if your concern was genuine, you'd look for every possible good thing that's come from their sacrifice rather than denigrating it on a daily basis.

The Iraqi people are free of a vicious, genocidal dictator. Yes, there were no WMD found, there are other bad men in the world, etc. I'm even willing to concede that this whole affair could turn uglier than it already has. But to say that our soldiers died for nothing? Disagree with Bush all you want, but that's going over the line. The fact they shut down the rape rooms, prevented years of mass graves being filled, and stopped any more people being fed into meat grinders, proves that American blood was not shed for no purpose.

I already know what you'll say: the rape rooms, mass graves, etc. weren't the stated cause of the war. Maybe they weren't, but that doesn't mean our soldiers wasted their lives in bringing down this tyrant.

You can't support the troops if you aren't proud of them. Virtually every post you've written demonstrates that not only are you not proud of what they have done, but that you think they are little more than minions of an evil overlord.

Feel free to keep gloating, though... I'm sure you'll get a lot out of it.
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
2
Location
East north east of Soapweed
YOu are so right mp freelance. And it's people like disagreeable that will bring this country down. The only way we will loose the war on terror is from with in this country ..sad, sad, sad.......
 

Latest posts

Top