also disappointed

• What a disappointment - me/Kaydie
  • I said the exact same thing - Me to a tee!
  • I'm sorry - gourdpainter
    • Even "that guy" . . . - sm
      • It probably wasn't the best thing - Chele
        • I didn't miss the point - I have been a McCain supporter - me/Kaydie
        • If you thought it was funny, I see why you are a fan - nm
          • I didn't think it was funny - gourdpainter
            • barely controlled temper - sm
              • Wrong on both accounts. - TskTsk
              • It wasn't condescending, and the man in front of him was nodding... - sam
              • I took him to mean that - Chele
                • I think it was condescending - gourdpainter
                  • Of course you did.... - Chele
                    • One thing you say is correct s/m - gourdpainter
              • McCain leaving the hall - gourdpainter
                • That "my friends" phrase, so oft-repeated, made him - sound like a snake-oil salesman. - nm
                  • And Obama's constant 'uh...uh...look...uh...uh..you know..uh...uh' makes him look like a EE - revwrong
                    • ...EEDJIT! - revwrong
  • There are other choices. I find Obama and McCain equally offensive, so I am voting for Ralph Nader. - anon
    • Ralph Nader - gourdpainter
      • Let's face it, he stands no chance of winning. However, with the - anon
        • tell me a bit about him - ?
          • Each candidate has to have a - Chele
            • Here are some other parties and their candidates. - Chele
              • While this is true - gourdpainter
                • We have talked about this before - Chele
                  • And that is exactly what can happen - gourdpainter
          • Here is a link to a page regarding his take on the issues. - anon
          • There in lies the problem - gourdpainter
            • Exactly right. It is a duopoly. sm - LVMT
              • Basically we do only have 2 choices s/m - gourdpainter
                • I agree with doing away with the electoral college.... - sam
                • My question is why - Chele
                  • You have to look at who owns the media. sm - LVMT
                  • They only cover 2 candidates because - gourdpainter
  • Old man - sm
    • Thank you, Superficial Sally! - revwrong
    • I was wondering about that myself.... nm - BacktotheFuture
    • rude you are. Calling - sm
      • If he's a man, and he's old, what else would - you call him? "Antique homo sapiens?" -nm
        • and you work with words all day? sad. - nm
  • well i too - sm
    • what substance - wowzer
      • That's because you don't want to...NM - Nanaw
    • I wish there was a rule that the candidates HAVE TO - answere the questions, not - (sm)
    • Well said. - Chele
      • also disappointed - dnh
        • What sitting president doesn't run for a second term? nm - Much ado about nothing
          • he isn't a sitting president - dnh
            • That's nitpicking - gourdpainter
        • yeah, i caught that too. - nm
        • no kidding! - nm

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

a day without being talked down to is like....a good day.

I was hoping to see a reply like....oh..for the love of Pete or Michael...whichever brother struck your fancy.  Instead we just get a red angry face. 

We may not agree on political issues, but I'm still sending ya some love. 

Cheers, my friend. 

I tried to have an exchange of ideas with you some time ago.  I had hoped that maybe you were someone who was sincere, reasonable and truly were here to debate.  You indicated you would answer my post *more in depth later.*  That was on May 13 -- a month ago tomorrow.  You have yet to respond, outlining your own views as I had outlined mine in an attempt to have an honest debate.

Instead you have elected to hijack threads to bring conflict to this board.  You pretend to be *respectful* when in fact you are not.  This post was clearly addressed to Liberals, but why should you have to respect that?  You should control everything, shouldn't you?  All the boards on the internet.  Which religion I should believe in.  Who I am allowed to love.  When I'm allowed to die.  Every single thing in my life (and in all Americans' lives) that is simply none of your business should be controlled by YOU and those who share your beliefs.

You have numerous posts repeatedly beating up Democrat because she posted a post with a *bad word* in it, yet the *bad spirit* of the words written by Ann Coulter is far worse than any one curse word. 

And your very own President described the Constitution as a piece of paper, using God's name in vain.  What kind of honest devout Christian President would refer to the Constituation (which he swore to uphold and protect) as *only a G**D***** piece of paper*? 

I admit to being nowhere near as perfect as you are, Lila, but sometimes I get angry and a curse word will escape my lips.  But regardless of how angry I get, I can't ever bring myself to *damn God* in my speech.  It's just something I've never done.

And since I'm not near the perfect Christian that you are, Lila, I won't be going to heaven, as those of certain Christian beliefs keep telling me.  These superhumans hold the *key* to heaven, and if don't believe EXACTLY as they demand I must, then I am doomed to eternal hell and damnation.

The original article posted by Lurker, that has been littered by your posts and those of your gang, is about Ann Coulter's self-professed *superiority* to ALL LIBERALS.  She refers to liberalism as a religion, and by doing so, she is belittling every single religous liberal in America.  It's about her uncontrollable hatred and mean spiritedness, and I must say that you and your friends on this board do an excellent job of mimicking her.  They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Ann would be very pleased. 

You're a fraud, Lila.  I had hoped you would be different, had hoped you were a genuine and honest person.  But instead, you're just another Ann Coulter when it comes to the motive behind your presence here.  You're only here to create discomfort for others.  You have nothing positive to offer.  The only difference between you and Ann is that SHE'S the one with the book and book tour, TV appearances and is making millions of dollars off the pain of people.  But if there IS one thing I have faith in, Lila, it's that you're made of the *same stuff* as Ann Coulter, and that should certainly take you somewhere in life.

You pretended to be someone who, a month ago, claimed to want to answer my post *in more depth.*  Why did you lie about doing that, Lila?  And why did you instead choose to just be like all the other snipers who insist in inserting themselves on this board?  You're choosing hollow, meaningless, childish swipes over thoughtful reasoned communication.  I'm very disappointed in you, Lila.  I had hoped your heart was pure and your character authentic.

As far as *bad language* is concerned, I think I'd rather be told the truth by someone who curses like a sailor than to be lied to repeatedly by someone hiding behind a Bible.  The *badness* is in the spirit and the deed, Lila, not in the words.  And to repeatedly attack Democrat for making a human error regarding a word, after she apologized repeatedly to you, isn't a good thing, Lila.  There's no substance or intelligence there.  Just plain old nastiness.

But you and Ann already knew that, didn't you?