mnealtx 0 #51 March 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 March 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 March 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #54 March 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I wasn't. But, as I said, spin your fantasy whichever way gets you your 'cookies' - just make sure you wipe off the keyboard, afterwards, so Mom doesn't ground you from the computer again. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 March 20, 2010 QuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 March 20, 2010 Quote Quote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. No, your unwillingness to simply state an answer defines you. You rarely post supporting data and when you do, you post an image and not a website. Mike, you are nearly alone if you think you're fooling anyone. And to think you likely called Kerry a flip-flopper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #57 March 20, 2010 As I thought, you claiming 8 tie-break votes was minimal, Cheney's 8 puny votes as you referred to ranks him 11 of 47 as most to least tie-break votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Vice_Presidents%27_tie-breaking_votes So once again you're wrong in your mitigation of Cheney's tie-break claiming it was minimal, hence more eating away your theory that the Dems had control of congress. Oh wait, you're still undecided as to whether you want to answer that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #59 March 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered?... 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
Airman1270 0 #60 March 21, 2010 Lucky: You can spew your bigotry for hours without coming up for air. Neither political party is perfect, and our side has not been shy about criticizing our guys when they were wrong. Republicans not only are not perfect, but at times have been pretty damn gutless. However, the fact remains that when Democrats win elections and get what they want, we all lose more money & more freedom. When liberals (in either party) are in charge, it becomes illegal to do things we were previously free to do. This is the issue. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #61 March 21, 2010 Quote Quote Another post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts Twisted language is your specialty. Give him a break...looks like the spell checker has been utilized in recent posts. Those posts will finally make sense once a coherence checker is invented. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 March 21, 2010 QuoteYou can spew your bigotry for hours without coming up for air. This is rhetoric, it answers nothing and illustrates you have no answer for the issues proposed to you. QuoteNeither political party is perfect,... There were no assertions of perfection, allegations of perfection or imperfection, this is simply more rhetoric to further illustrate you have no answer for the issues, just, well, obviously rhetoric. Quote...and our side has not been shy about criticizing our guys when they were wrong. RealY? - Clinton was impeached by the Republican Speaker of the House Gingrinch for being one not of family values, then Newt http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm does the same and more, adultery, draft didging, smoking dope, etc and all he gets is praise from t he right; guys like you. - Scooter libby committed and wasCRIMINALLY CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL COURT of perjury and obstruction for outing a federal agent; GWB then commuted his jail. Cheney was pissed that Bush didn't give him a full pardon and even wrote a book about it. Now, let's look at Clinton, he was impeached and the conviction failed in a POLITICAL TRIAL for obstriction and perjury, but Newt led the charge against Clinton for doing the thinsg Newt did and does; his Republican puppets followed suit. - Larry Craig. Solicited gay sex by tapping his foot under an airport shitter stall. The Repub response: you need to step down. LC's response: No. Repub response: OK. Where was the impeachment? Where was the congressional investigation? He did admit to lewd conduct or something to that effect, where was the fallout? So Larry, "wide stance" Craig goes on to tap under shitter stalls once again. - I could add more, these are 3 huge and shining examples of failrly recent Republican hypocrisies that you will minimize or deny. QuoteRepublicans not only are not perfect, but at times have been pretty damn gutless. That's the problem, they aren't gutless, they stand lockstepped and brave, that is one thing Michale Moore just said and is right; the R's stand virtually if not absolutley solid and ramrod shit down the country's throat. An example is found in their Reconciliation record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress) Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents ... So once again, in your quest to say, "they do it, we do it; it's all a wash," you have yet again been wrong. The R's are not gutless but have an agenda that of representing the rich in our society; don't confuse the two. Now if you mean representing the rich is an act that is gutless, I agree, but I think you mean they have been too timid, which you are wrong. QuoteHowever, the fact remains that when Democrats win elections and get what they want, ... Evidence of that is found with the HC Bill and the public option the heavily D House is with what was 59 senators (58+1 indep for the 1st year of Obama), right? BRILLIANT. We're having to fight out and diminish this issue with one of the biggest majorities in a long time and you say we just get what we want. Shall we talk Bush's tax cuts 10 years ago? Shall we talk fascist pig Ronnie and his massive tax cuts from 1981 to 1986 he took the top brkt from 70% to 28% in 3 cuts, driving up the debt and you say that was a Dem thing? That's what teh Dems wanted? I thought Dems were about tax increases (and they are)? Quote...we all lose more money & more freedom. - Patriot Act and all the wiretapping under GWB? - All the civil rights acts and SCOTUS decisions under the liberal Sup Ct in the 1960's? - Union busting under that fascist pig and GWB? - Most growth of the economy under Clinton of all time? - Under Clinton he took 7% unemp and left <4%. Stock market (DJIA) from 3500 to 9800. GDP thru the roof. - As for the AWB, that is on the Dems, but your glorious retard said he would sign it if congress gave it to him; they did not and it sunsetted. - As for lose momey, seen the debt picture under presidents? 2/3 of our current 12.5T debt was accrued directly under Reagan, Bush, Bush, not to mention the fascist pig and GWB inherited stable debt scenarious and left an absolute mess, just as with the Harding, Coolidge, Hoover trio that led us into the Great Depression. DEBT AS A % OF GDP: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html GROSS DEBT INCREASE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms By tenure, the largest increases in gross debt relative to GDP, to date, occurred under George H.W. Bush (+12.2%), George W. Bush (+11.9%), and Ronald Reagan (+18.5%). QuoteWhen liberals (in either party) are in charge, it becomes illegal to do things we were previously free to do. How about that president who was likely the most liberal of all time, Lincoln? I guess you were right, that liberal then made it illegal to own people; good point. Son, you need to make illustrations rather than listen to your first shirt or whoever the fuck directs you in life; COUGH UP EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. QuoteThis is the issue. No, son, the issues are right here; remember what you wrote? ________________ QuoteWait a minute. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone made fun of the guy's alleged parkinsons situation. All I see are accusations that someone heckled a guy who HAPPENS to maybe suffer from the disease. The jury is still out on this one, I guess. Altho heckling him should have been replaced with silence since he had such a bad disease. QuoteThis is what happened with Rush. He was criticizing 1) M. J. Fox's ignorant statements regarding embryonic stem cell research, and ... What you've done here is to justify Lush Rimjob for his unforgiveable actions. BTW, maybe you haven't seen the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE&feature=related Exadgerating the effects of the disease. Really shameless of MJ Fox? Let's see, in order to weigh your brilliant interpretation of your pig hero Limbaugh, we need to assume that MJ Fox really isn't that ill and that he threw away a 20M per movie career to make a stance for Parkinson's research. That just doesn't have the ring of truth to it no matter how abstract we get, so Airman, I guess you ought to head back the base and stick with the rest of the conservatives who think it's fun to laugh at people with Parkinson's under the guise of tax cuts and overspending on the military; the Republican moniker. Quote...2) Democrats' use of a sympathetic public figure to appeal to emotion rather than reason. I know, I prefer sympathy for people like Cheney who likes to cut programs to poor people and give tax cuts to the rich. At least I know the military hasn't changed. BTW, what reason are you referring to? What reason tells us that MJ Fox threw away a brilliant movie career to petition for Parkinson's and is now, "hamming it up" for the cause? Are they teaching that form of reasoning in basic training now? Hell, if this were a ploy, MJ Fox could have just kept making movies and gave all teh proceeds to Parkinson's research, doesn't that make more sense? Now if MJ Fox kept making movies looking unaffeccted by the disease, yet was, "wiggling around" per Lush Rimjob during interviews, you might have a point, but since MJ quit making movies, what, 15 years ago and missed all that money and fame inbetween, your logic is defined as illogic. QuoteThus, anyone who called Fox out on his failure to understand basic facts was portrayed as making fun of his personal situation. Basic facts? What is needed to understand that Fox has to be under constant medication and even then can't stop, "wiggling around?" Show us your basic facts or just be deemed another Rimjob ditto-head. __________________ Now show some cookies and address all the old issues and the new ones; quit running. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #63 March 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: QuoteQuote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #64 March 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: QuoteQuote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine.... 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
kallend 2,184 #65 March 21, 2010 www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Health-Care-Vote-Prompts-Slurs-Spitting-from-Protesters-88758912.html More for the Tea Party to be proud of.... 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
Amazon 7 #66 March 21, 2010 Quote Lucky: You can spew your bigotry for hours without coming up for air. Neither political party is perfect, and our side has not been shy about criticizing our guys when they were wrong. Republicans not only are not perfect, but at times have been pretty damn gutless. However, the fact remains that when Democrats win elections and get what they want, we all lose more money & more freedom. When liberals (in either party) are in charge, it becomes illegal to do things we were previously free to do. This is the issue. Cheers, Jon S. Ah yes there you go again... as the man once said. The trouble is WHO you guys label as liberals, which since the man who said that phrase in the debate took office, is anyone who does not GOOSE-STEP to the same drummer as those on the far fringes of what was once a Grand Old PartyIt is truely sad that there are people in this country who really do believe that kind of jingoistic knee jerk BULLSHIT when it comes spewing out of the mouths of your great leaders like Lush Rimjob the Great. It is even sadder when all the mindless little dittoheads(meaning can't think for themselves) parrot the same crap over and over and believe it thru over usage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 March 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: QuoteQuote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. From the party of Ollie "I don't recall" North, we give you more blatant ambiguity. See, people who want the right to change answers will never look you in the eye and give you a yes or no; on the internet all I need is one of the latter set, apparently I get both a yes and a no from Mike North. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #68 March 21, 2010 Quote Quote Lucky: You can spew your bigotry for hours without coming up for air. Neither political party is perfect, and our side has not been shy about criticizing our guys when they were wrong. Republicans not only are not perfect, but at times have been pretty damn gutless. However, the fact remains that when Democrats win elections and get what they want, we all lose more money & more freedom. When liberals (in either party) are in charge, it becomes illegal to do things we were previously free to do. This is the issue. Cheers, Jon S. Ah yes there you go again... as the man once said. The trouble is WHO you guys label as liberals, which since the man who said that phrase in the debate took office, is anyone who does not GOOSE-STEP to the same drummer as those on the far fringes of what was once a Grand Old PartyIt is truely sad that there are people in this country who really do believe that kind of jingoistic knee jerk BULLSHIT when it comes spewing out of the mouths of your great leaders like Lush Rimjob the Great. It is even sadder when all the mindless little dittoheads(meaning can't think for themselves) parrot the same crap over and over and believe it thru over usage. Membership is free, it just requires an empty soul with no conscience (sociopathy). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #69 March 21, 2010 How is this the Tea Party? They are not mentioned in the artical! Nice spin though! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #70 March 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: QuoteQuote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine. Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #71 March 22, 2010 ...Larry Craig. Solicited gay sex... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Let the record show that a liberal Democrat acknowledges there's something wrong with this. ________________ ***Wait a minute. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone made fun of the guy's alleged parkinsons situation. All I see are accusations that someone heckled a guy who HAPPENS to maybe suffer from the disease... ***This is what happened with Rush. He was criticizing M. J. Fox's ignorant statements regarding embryonic stem cell research... ...What you've done here is to justify Lush Rimjob for his unforgiveable actions... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ My my, such hatred. Anyone wanna venture a guess as to how much time Mr. Lucky has actually spent listening to the show? Are you saying that if a guy who has parkinson's claims the sun rises in the west it would be cruel or "unforgiveable" to point out that he's wrong? This is what Rush did. He did not make fun of Fox's illness. (I heard the show. You didn't.) As for issues of liberty & freedom, make a list of all the things we were free to do 30 years ago but which are illegal today. How many of these new laws were pushed by Democrats, & how many were pushed my Republicans? In other posts I listed numerous examples of freedom being eroded by the left. Rather than explain why I'm wrong, you get your panties in a wad about the Patriot Act and even manage to misrepresent that. If people like you have your way my family will end up in a boxcar someday. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #72 March 22, 2010 >As for issues of liberty & freedom, make a list of all the things we were >free to do 30 years ago but which are illegal today. Let's see. We could keep the blacks out of proper schools and keep them from marrying white women. (Actually closer to 50 years ago.) We could fire people because they were gay or disabled. We could keep "undesirables" from voting by using poll taxes and literacy tests. If you were a woman and got an abortion, you'd end up in prison. Do you really miss all those "freedoms?" >If people like you have your way my family will end up in a boxcar >someday. And if people like you have your way, my friends will end up being kicked out of school because they're black, and imprisoned because they're gay or think they own their own bodies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #73 March 22, 2010 Quote >As for issues of liberty & freedom, make a list of all the things we were >free to do 30 years ago but which are illegal today. Let's see. We could keep the blacks out of proper schools and keep them from marrying white women. (Actually closer to 50 years ago.) We could fire people because they were gay or disabled. We could keep "undesirables" from voting by using poll taxes and literacy tests. If you were a woman and got an abortion, you'd end up in prison. Do you really miss all those "freedoms?" >If people like you have your way my family will end up in a boxcar >someday. And if people like you have your way, my friends will end up being kicked out of school because they're black, and imprisoned because they're gay or think they own their own bodies. Nah "chistians" are far better at burning at the stake when you dont believe the things they believe in exactly the same way.. although they did get a little sidetracked with other methods the last couple of attrocities ago...in Bosnia and other countries of the former Yugoslavia... or the zyclon b they used before burning the bodies in that other one.. since he brought it up. Interesting projection some people have goin on around here on the far fringes of the right wing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #74 March 22, 2010 Quote Let's see. We could keep the blacks out of proper schools... Brown vs Board of Education (more than one renderring) Quote ...and keep them from marrying white women. (Actually closer to 50 years ago.) Loving vs Virginia 1968, so 42 years. (they were convicted of that horrible offense in 1959, which was 51 years ago) Quote We could fire people because they were gay or disabled. Now those conservative family values that still go on today, just that they can't brag about them. Quote We could keep "undesirables" from voting by using poll taxes and literacy tests. Hell, the Retardlicans did a version of that bias in 2000 in FL. Quote If you were a woman and got an abortion, you'd end up in prison. And the doctor, ah, the good ole days when we could do so much more w/o fear of persecution. Hey Bill, ya forgot Mapp v. Ohio where the cops were looking for a fugitive based upon an annonymous report, decision in 1961: http:/hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio Of course they had no warrant, just a blank piece of paper and they found porn, also then illegal, for which she was prosecuted. That was the liberal Warren court. Also, warrant requirements were established, as well we had Escobedo v Illinois where the cops were shuttling defendants around the police station, hiding him from his attnys. Of course Miranda too. Oh, and Katz v Ohio, where PEOPLE HAVE PRIVACY, NOT PLACES gave us or reitterated our rights to privacy the US Const FF forgot to mention. Yep, if only we could roll the clock back 30 years we would be set; anyone have a time machine?Oh, the Mapp 6-3 decision, Harlan wrote the dissent and wanted the illegal search upheld. BTW, needless to say, Harlan was the conservative leader, so once again Airman's ideas of conservatism = freedom is just more BS backed by no real legal / political education. http://www.oyez.org/justices/john_m_harlan2 Harlan was the intellectual leader of the conservatives on the Court, frequently dissenting from the liberal activist decisions of the Warren Court. Quote And if people like you have your way, my friends will end up being kicked out of school because they're black, and imprisoned because they're gay or think they own their own bodies. You have black and gay friends? WTF, come on, white bread, you're outta the club . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #75 March 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question. You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: QuoteQuote You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine. Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"? In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control. Simple, really.... 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
