Why you talk strange?

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

• 34 major scandals during bush's first term - gt
  • Mostly accusations - Rep
    • Well, NORMAL people don't perceive them to be so. Nuff said. - TM
      • Hello, unless there has been a verdict in a trial, it IS only an accusation. - Have you forgotten our laws?
        • This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial. - Zauber
        • I was agreeing with you. - TM
          • Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board. - Suggestion
            • Don't ask them to leave. - Libby
              • It'd be useless anyway - they can't help themselves. - Zauber
              • Our hatred? Please refer to post above by your compassionate left - about the Bush drinking article. Spare me.
              • Not really, those are plants. Not hard to stop. Probably is you. - Yeah
                • This is getting better every minute, MT. You claim to know who's AGAINST you when you can't - Libby
                  • And you keep posting LIbby..er..gt...er Dixie Doo. I would like to say you are entertaining but sm - sm
                    • LOL, three different posters, I assure you - gt
                  • Unfortunately, you are not. - Entertaining
                • Invasive tropical plants? - Yup-yup
            • No, but thanks for asking. It appears liberal kiddie garden has let out and they are at play - TM
              • yeah, you are sure right about that. - Yup-yup
                • No, only the ones made by liberals. - TM
                  • So you are psychic? - Yup-yup
                    • Need new insult. Yours getting old. Look up on internet. Do better. - ?
                      • Why you talk strange? - Huh?
                        • English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate. - Me
                          • Have much love, too. - Huh
                            • Is good, but not see here. Sad for all both sides. - Yes
                              • True that is. - huh
                                • thank you, Yoda - x
    • You have to excuse them, after Bill and Hill, scandal is just part - of normalcy for them. nm
      • Talking about scandolous...There's nothing more scandolous...sm - Democrat
        • Should be *wipe* not whip... :) - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

He received a Christmas card when he was recovering in the VA Hospital.  The card said it hoped he died.  A picture of the car and the article are on the conservative board.  Lots of GIs got spit on coming home during Vietnam.  I don't call that strange. I call it abominable and unforgivable.

That it will all come down to us.

I certainly hope that's true because we hate Hillary AND McCain.

First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC?  Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals?  How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?   

Small business.  Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear.  Go here:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business.  Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers.  For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax.  Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation.  Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount.  Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point.  Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim.  I'm not finding that in O's plan.  The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.    

On the plight of the struggling rich.  Define rich, please.  From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right.  From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder).  The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo.    Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden.  An accurate argument would include these facts as well.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth.  In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.  Let's say that one more time.  Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%.  Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax.  Got the picture?

There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas.  Greed.  They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing.  Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply.  Greed is not a universal American value.    

There you go again.  Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans.  You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets.  What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election. 

Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week.  I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history.  Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing."  Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors.  Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea.  http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503.  You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal.  My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party? 

Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with.  So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one.   Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course.  JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly.  I see O has one. 

JM hate war?  LMAO.  So what was all that military service orgie this week all about?   The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war.  Where is his war prevention strategy?  Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance?  Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates?  Am laughing too hard to comment further on this. 

Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy.  Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation.  I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism?  The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday.  Far mongering does not a justification make.  O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution. 

There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state.  Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong.  Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body.  Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US.  That is the freedom the cons overlook every time. 

The link to this video is somehow automatically rerouted to a different one so every time I cut and paste it, it goes to the other video. 

If you search for "I invented the Internet Obama" that is the correct video that I was trying to share.

socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards.  Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable.  It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes.  The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country.  In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets.  Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket.  That is why they have been put in the closet.  Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin. 

And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing.  Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage.  For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue.  I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.

It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult.  I think that was obvious to most people.  Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that.  As I said it was an example.

Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant.  And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few?  ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.

You said:

There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board. 

As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board.  Liberals post on the conservative board as well.  I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.

You said: 

You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience. 

 On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience.  Pot calling the kettle black, I would say.  You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it.  If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.

You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery.  At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then.  Could you share your facts?  Just the facts, ma'am. 

I again refer you to history.  History is full of the people who opposed slavery.  We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war. 

The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country.  Try twisting that one.  That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery.  But I think that was obvious to most folks.

Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it.  Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it.  That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them.  But I do not condone it, nor do many others.  I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone.  And I think that is obvious to most folks as well. 

Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's.  Well, we know that is not true either.  It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11.  There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.

I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense.  Erroneous evidence presented to Congress?  The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had.  And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them.   What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything?  None, because there is none.  As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.  

  If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence.  However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? 

I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.

There you go again.  First, my friend, I do not feel guilty.  I have nothing to feel guilty about.  I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism.  I do not readily forget 3000 people dying.  I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what?  Simply because they were Americans.  How easily you seem to blow that off.

And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.  I did not defend slavery.  Both were wrong.  Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW.  There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples.   Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year?  Why don't you get involved to stop that?

My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country.  I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long. 

Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said.  The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that.  But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values.  What set are you talking about?

 The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run.  Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power.  I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.

I never said questioning was unpatriotic.  What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain.  What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing.  Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean.  Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it.  I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home.  Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.

It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool.  Playing right into their hands.  And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.

proves my point.  To believe that all media except Fox is biased and that they were forced to chose the LEAST biased is franky cult-talk  He did not try to trick her.  he asked her straight out "what do you thank about the Bush Doctrine?" This is the definine doctrine of the Bush years that will be remembered in history.  She did not know it.  If she where honest, she would have said "I am not familar with it." Instead, she squirmed in her seat, thrust out her chin and tried to bluff him into giving her a hint. 

He had his glasses on the end of his nose because he is over 40 and wears reading glasses like most older men.  You knew that.  You are trying to distract from the point again. 

You never have anything good to say about McCain.  You are focused on your hatred for Obama and frankly, it is creepy.