Amazon 7 #26 February 28, 2010 Quote>What a non story Oh come on. It's at least as much fun as the "fake birth certificate" story. I am waiting for the "breaking" news on FAUX News about Obama desecrating the Oval Office by farting into the presidential chair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 February 28, 2010 Quote Quote >What a non story Oh come on. It's at least as much fun as the "fake birth certificate" story. I am waiting for the "breaking" news on FAUX News about Obama desecrating the Oval Office by farting into the presidential chair. Clinton did it first"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 February 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote >What a non story Oh come on. It's at least as much fun as the "fake birth certificate" story. I am waiting for the "breaking" news on FAUX News about Obama desecrating the Oval Office by farting into the presidential chair. Clinton did it first Uh actually that would be Taft did it first...... and he did not need to deal with Faux News. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 February 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote >What a non story Oh come on. It's at least as much fun as the "fake birth certificate" story. I am waiting for the "breaking" news on FAUX News about Obama desecrating the Oval Office by farting into the presidential chair. Clinton did it first Uh actually that would be Taft did it first...... and he did not need to deal with Faux News. Oh hell woman Stop being so damned serious"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #30 March 1, 2010 Once again they blame it on Bush.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #31 March 1, 2010 Quote Once again they blame it on Bush.. Clarify, blame what on Bush?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #32 March 1, 2010 The emblem was designed when Bush was prez. Do try and pay attention, there will be a test later.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #33 March 1, 2010 >Once again they blame it on Bush. I know! I mean, blaming on Obama is so righteous and vindicating - but blaming it on Bush just shows how partisan and narrow-minded people can be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #34 March 1, 2010 Quote>Once again they blame it on Bush. I know! I mean, blaming on Obama is so righteous and vindicating - but blaming it on Bush just shows how partisan and narrow-minded people can be. Well, it's incredibly important we blame this made up issue on someone, and fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #35 March 1, 2010 QuoteThe emblem was designed when Bush was prez. Do try and pay attention, there will be a test later. That's the thing, because if that's what he's talking about, then he's mad. No liberals are "blaming" it on Bush because: a) it really was designed while Bush was Pres, though no-one thinks he had anything to do with it and; b) there's nothing to blame. It's just a logo. It's not Islamic, Communist, Black power, Brand Obama or anything else sinister. just a logo.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #36 March 1, 2010 Quote b) there's nothing to blame. It's just a logo. It's not Islamic, Communist, Black power, Brand Obama or anything else sinister. just a logo. are you implying that Brand Obama is sinister? :)-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #37 March 1, 2010 Quote Quote b) there's nothing to blame. It's just a logo. It's not Islamic, Communist, Black power, Brand Obama or anything else sinister. just a logo. are you implying that Brand Obama is sinister? CheekyNo, I'm not, but the right wingers who either invented or bought into this story, or Ron's Nazi rubbish obviously think it is.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #38 March 1, 2010 Quote>What a non story Oh come on. It's at least as much fun as the "fake birth certificate" story. A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 March 1, 2010 Quote A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes. Parity - Dems can just watch the network news for attacks on conservatives in general or glorification of left wing causes. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #40 March 1, 2010 Quote Quote A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes. Parity - Dems can just watch the network news for attacks on conservatives in general or glorification of left wing causes. Of course you ignore the "bogus" part.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 March 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes. Parity - Dems can just watch the network news for attacks on conservatives in general or glorification of left wing causes. Of course you ignore the "bogus" part. No, there's plenty of 'bogus' in the MSM, too. Nice try.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #42 March 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes. Parity - Dems can just watch the network news for attacks on conservatives in general or glorification of left wing causes. Of course you ignore the "bogus" part. No, there's plenty of 'bogus' in the MSM, too. Nice try. Suggest you go to Snopes and count the bogus virals on each side. The ratio is around 10 to 1 with anti-liberal lies in the majority. Which suggests that conservatives are bigger liars, their supporters are more gullible, or both.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #43 March 1, 2010 QuoteWhich suggests that conservatives are bigger liars, their supporters are more gullible, or both. Why is it, do you suppose, that "conservatives" are so frequently against higher education? That they practically make it a badge of honor to be uneducated? That even if they actually are educated, they affect their own speech and behavior to appear uneducated? The "conservatives" want the masses to be just educated enough to work for minimum wage.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 March 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A quick survey of bogus viral email or bogus blog stories as identified by Snopes is interesting. They are overwhelmingly attacks on liberals in general, or Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. in particular, or they are glorifying right wing causes. Parity - Dems can just watch the network news for attacks on conservatives in general or glorification of left wing causes. Of course you ignore the "bogus" part. No, there's plenty of 'bogus' in the MSM, too. Nice try. Suggest you go to Snopes and count the bogus virals on each side. The ratio is around 10 to 1 with anti-liberal lies in the majority. Which suggests that conservatives are bigger liars, their supporters are more gullible, or both. Sampling bias, as I suggested above. Given your record in matters of veracity, you're the LAST person to be bringing the subject up.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 March 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhich suggests that conservatives are bigger liars, their supporters are more gullible, or both. Why is it, do you suppose, that "conservatives" are so frequently against higher education? That they practically make it a badge of honor to be uneducated? Looks at the poster being responded to.... "Quod erat demonstrandum" Quote That even if they actually are educated, they affect their own speech and behavior to appear uneducated? Would that be like Hillary's 'plantation' speech, or like Obama's "axe" speech? QuoteThe "conservatives" want the masses to be just educated enough to work for minimum wage. And the Dems want people on welfare and beholden to the gov't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #46 March 1, 2010 Quote And the Dems want people on welfare and beholden to the gov't. It must be so nice for you, that you actually believe the stuff you post Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #47 March 1, 2010 >And the Dems want people on welfare and beholden to the gov't. Just like the Repubs want gays killed (the topic of this thread, and just as accurate.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #48 March 2, 2010 Quote"Quod erat demonstrandum" Who the heck writes out "quod erat demonstrandum"? Do you also write out "exempli gratia" and "id est"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #49 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quod erat demonstrandum" Who the heck writes out "quod erat demonstrandum"? Do you also write out "exempli gratia" and "id est"? De gustibus non est disputandum.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuote"Quod erat demonstrandum" Who the heck writes out "quod erat demonstrandum"? Do you also write out "exempli gratia" and "id est"? Sometimes, when wanting to emphasize (as above). Why? Are only liberals allowed to know fancy phrases, now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
