‘we are marching to the white house’

[Trinity]

Surprised no one has posted this yet. This is still a political board right?! ;)


lots of pics.....


www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/)


And the correct answer to who are these folks, would have been United States citizens.....you fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyl59Tkfig4

[Trinity]

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10151930503779441" width="1280" height="720" frameborder="0"></iframe>This one is awesome!!

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10151930503779441" width="1280" height="720" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Arbo]

http://benswann.com/vets-tear-down-memorial-barricades-drop-them-in-front-of-white-house/

Read this story at the above place. I love the photos of them taking the barricades and making a pile of them in front of the white house. Great stuff.

[aboutime]

Surprised no one has posted this yet. This is still a political board right?! ;)


lots of pics.....


www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/)


And the correct answer to who are these folks, would have been United States citizens.....you fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyl59Tkfig4



Trinity. THANK YOU for posting it. I am just savoring, and enjoying the photo's. Feeling both the sadness, and the pride of seeing real, concerned Americans Walking the Walk, and Talking the Talk.
We as a nation need to see this every day until we get rid of the occupant of the W/H and as many of the 535 members of both houses of Congress as we can....ASAP.
Wish I was able to be there to take part, and see it in person.

[aboutime]

Sorry, double post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Surprised no one has posted this yet. This is still a political board right?! ;)


lots of pics.....


www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/13/we-are-marching-to-the-white-house-to-return-the-barricades-million-vet-march-descends-on-washington/)


And the correct answer to who are these folks, would have been United States citizens.....you fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyl59Tkfig4 A great post and important to be known to more Americans. Media covers for Obama to such a degree that they too are engaging in anti-American actions IMHO. --Tyr

[Arbo]

5654

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture from today is worth so much more.

[Jeff]

I see Sarah is in on it , I still like her , Makes me wonder where we would be if her and the turn coat had won where we would be, personally if Mccain had been impeached I think Sarah was the most qualified of the 4 that year.



Thousands of protesters led by Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, marched to the World War II memorial Sunday tearing down barricades and chanting “Tear down these walls.”
The “Million Vet March on the Memorial,” which bills itself as a non-partisan group, was also led by anti-Obamacare Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Marchers carried Confederate flags. Another held a sign that read “Respect Our Vets.” All the leaders at the march were either speakers or attendees at the Value Voters Summit, according to Raw Story.



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/palin-cruz-lead-thousands-break-wwii-memorial-chanting-tear-down-these-walls

[Gaffer]

The vets came out in force, the media didn't bother to cover the truckers and bikers there as well. If it wasn't for the riot police being called out I think the media would have ignored this entirely.

The white house sniper was up there on duty though.

[glockmail]

I read this on Drudge over the weekend. My local paper failed to mention that they had moved the BarryCades to the WH. :laugh:

[bingster]

I see Sarah is in on it , I still like her , Makes me wonder where we would be if her and the turn coat had won where we would be, personally if Mccain had been impeached I think Sarah was the most qualified of the 4 that year.





http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/palin-cruz-lead-thousands-break-wwii-memorial-chanting-tear-down-these-walls

She wasn't invited and wasn't appreciated. A respectful non-partisan protest turned into an ugly racist cluster fudge as Palin and her group of media whores "hijack" the Million Vet March's protest. It was disgusting.


Official Stance of the Million Vet March on the Memorials:
The political agenda put forth by a local organizer in Washington DC yesterday was not in alignment with our message. We feel disheartened that some would seek to hijack the narrative for political gain. The core principle was and remains about all Americans honoring Veterans in a peaceful and apolitical manner. Our love for and our dedication to remains with Veterans, regardless of party affiliation or political leanings.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/million-vet-march-organizers-we-were-hijacked-for-political-gain/

[gabosaurus]

cool story, bro.

http://makeameme.org/media/created/Nobody-Cares-eppbpv.jpg

[cadet]

cool story, bro.

http://makeameme.org/media/created/Nobody-Cares-eppbpv.jpg

Except for, you know, Americans.

[gabosaurus]

A very small percentage of Americans. The rest of us are going on with our daily lives.

[Arbo]

A very small percentage of Americans. The rest of us are going on with our daily lives.

As long as the government check shows up, it's all good, right?

[glockmail]

As long as the government check shows up, it's all good, right? Gabs is on hubby's checks. She "puts out" for a living. :laugh:

[aboutime]

Gabs is on hubby's checks. She "puts out" for a living. :laugh:


No COLA in that household. For pennies on the dollar? It will take a lifetime to pay anything off if there is NO PRODUCT worth paying for.

[Gaffer]

She wasn't invited and wasn't appreciated. A respectful non-partisan protest turned into an ugly racist cluster fudge as Palin and her group of media whores "hijack" the Million Vet March's protest. It was disgusting.

Official Stance of the Million Vet March on the Memorials:
The political agenda put forth by a local organizer in Washington DC yesterday was not in alignment with our message. We feel disheartened that some would seek to hijack the narrative for political gain. The core principle was and remains about all Americans honoring Veterans in a peaceful and apolitical manner. Our love for and our dedication to remains with Veterans, regardless of party affiliation or political leanings.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/million-vet-march-organizers-we-were-hijacked-for-political-gain/




Palin was very much appreciated. And I don't remember seeing where anyone needed an invitation to attend the march. The truckers, the bikers and the vets are what make up the Tea Party. Too bad you don't belong. The Tea Party is about getting rid of the old GOP and putting in real conservatives and literally taking over the republican party. The whole march was about politics and the way washington is running things into the ground.

Next year the Tea Party will put even more conservatives in the house and senate.

[gabosaurus]

As long as the government check shows up, it's all good, right?

I don't live off a government check. That is not true of some DP members who DO live off government checks. Perhaps all the government checks should stop until Congress figures things out.

[Trinity]

I don't live off a government check. That is not true of some DP members who DO live off government checks. Perhaps all the government checks should stop until Congress figures things out.


Or do you? You do work in a public school correct? So you are being paid through tax payers and the federal government. js

[aboutime]

Or do you? You do work in a public school correct? So you are being paid through tax payers and the federal government. js


Trinity. Somehow. I get the feeling gabby spends her days in a room, separated from the kids, where she gets eternally paid by the protections of her Union affiliation which FORBIDS, and PREVENTS her being fired for being worthless.

[gabosaurus]

Or do you? You do work in a public school correct? So you are being paid through tax payers and the federal government. js

I am paid by a school district. That is not the government. I am still being paid despite the shutdown.

[Gaffer]

The whole shut down thing was just political circus and any inconveniences are squarely on the dark ones shoulders. There has never been any threat to SS or any other govt payments. If you missed this shut down you get to see the replay in February.

[aboutime]

I am paid by a school district. That is not the government. I am still being paid despite the shutdown.


Can't wait to hear this one. And Gabby CLAIMS to be smart enough to be a teacher?

PAID BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT? Really, Gabby?

Any Idea how the School Administration gets their jobs, and WHO pays for the School district to operate?

NOT the government? Poor gabby. Must have attended the OBAMA SCHOOL OF IDIOT PERFECTIONISM.

[Arbo]

I am paid by a school district. That is not the government.

So the 'school district' is a private business entity that makes revenue through sales or service and you are paid from that pool of profit?

:laugh:

[glockmail]

Hilarious, so now a public school is not part of GovCo. It's amazing she can feed herself. :laugh:

[bingster]

Palin was very much appreciated. And I don't remember seeing where anyone needed an invitation to attend the march. The truckers, the bikers and the vets are what make up the Tea Party. Too bad you don't belong. The Tea Party is about getting rid of the old GOP and putting in real conservatives and literally taking over the republican party. The whole march was about politics and the way washington is running things into the ground.

Next year the Tea Party will put even more conservatives in the house and senate.

Yea, I'd love to see some numbers proving your private fantasy. I'm sure there are plenty of truckers, bikers, and vets who aren't oblivious suicide caucus types. I'm a vet myself, and I'll never be part of a lynch mob waving a rebel flag at a black president.

You may be right about the future of the Republican party. I checked out a ton of polls yesterday and saw some really strange results. GOP is vastly unpopular with Republican voters. Bet half think they are too radical (tea partiers) and half think they are not conservative enough (RINOs). Other polls showed massive percentages saying the GOP in total is too extreme and is losing touch with the American people. The future of the GOP is really a crap shoot.

[Kathianne]

I am paid by a school district. That is not the government. I am still being paid despite the shutdown.

You are paid by the government, just not the federal government, thus shutdown didnt effect your check, but likely the state payment for fed contribution.

[Gaffer]

Yea, I'd love to see some numbers proving your private fantasy. I'm sure there are plenty of truckers, bikers, and vets who aren't oblivious suicide caucus types. I'm a vet myself, and I'll never be part of a lynch mob waving a rebel flag at a black president.



There was no lynch mob there, just one guy with a Confederate Battle Flag. Your creating a situation that didn't exist. Are you afraid of saying anything against the king because he's black? I don't have that problem. His color makes no difference, he's a piece of shit communist.

[bingster]

There was no lynch mob there, just one guy with a Confederate Battle Flag. Your creating a situation that didn't exist. Are you afraid of saying anything against the king because he's black? I don't have that problem. His color makes no difference, he's a piece of shit communist.

They went on a microphone and called to him to put down the Quran! You're proud of these a-holes? The original march was absolutely honorable and I respect them for it. The Tea Party hijacked their event and turned it into something disgusting. If I saw something like that, I would get on a microphone myself and denounce it! That didn't happen. Why didn't that happen? Why isn't the GOP speaking out against the racist sh1t like "muslim" and "rebel flag"? You don't see the racism in it? If not, why not?

"Demand that this president get off his knees, and leave town....." "Not a president of our people, he's a president of his people..." I just heard it again on the TV. Klayman, I think was his name. Why doesn't the GOP speak out?

[bingster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtWu0c8y0Qw

Freedom Watch's Larry Klayman on Obama and the Quran


You guys keep accusing us of "falsely throwing the race card". This guy is from Freedom Watch. Typical Tea Party guy.

It's just wrong and you guys probably think it's funny or cool. You suck!

Much, Much More of Klayman in his call out to overthrow our "anit-white" government. It's sick!!!
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/130916

[jimnyc]

It's just wrong and you guys probably think it's funny or cool. You suck!

Wow, a little ahead of the game, no? Telling people they suck and all and telling them what they think about a video, a video they haven't even watched yet?

I've seen democrat groups from 2003 when the war started in Iraq until currently - referring to certain politicians as all kind of animal names, and worse. Where was Obama, leading Democrats, the Dems as a whole - or even YOU for that matter condemning such rhetoric?

[glockmail]

Bingster complains about individuals exercising their free speech, claiming they represent an entire group. What does he say about an organization of individuals committing acts of violence against their fellow citizens to further the Democrat Party's agenda?

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zTXBOgPCh9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:laugh:

[bingster]

Wow, a little ahead of the game, no? Telling people they suck and all and telling them what they think about a video, a video they haven't even watched yet?

I've seen democrat groups from 2003 when the war started in Iraq until currently - referring to certain politicians as all kind of animal names, and worse. Where was Obama, leading Democrats, the Dems as a whole - or even YOU for that matter condemning such rhetoric?

Yea, I was quick on the accusations, but this situation really pisses me off! There was nothing even close to as angry and rabid as this crowd during the Bush presidency. Nothing. Obama's religion, citizenship, political philosophy, and patriotism is questioned and defamed on a daily basis from conservatives and nobody on your side of the aisle has a problem with it. I'll bet most of the cons on this Forum has had a good ol' time yucking it up! Nothing even close to this vicious happened during the Bush watch. Nothing!

[Kathianne]

Yea, I was quick on the accusations, but this situation really pisses me off! There was nothing even close to as angry and rabid as this crowd during the Bush presidency. Nothing. Obama's religion, citizenship, political philosophy, and patriotism is questioned and defamed on a daily basis from conservatives and nobody on your side of the aisle has a problem with it. I'll bet most of the cons on this Forum has had a good ol' time yucking it up! Nothing even close to this vicious happened during the Bush watch. Nothing!

If you believe that you're either delusional or still not old enough to vote.

[bingster]

Bingster complains about individuals exercising their free speech, claiming they represent an entire group. What does he say about an organization of individuals committing acts of violence against their fellow citizens to further the Democrat Party's agenda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zTXBOgPCh9w

:laugh:

You know what? I didn't see any U.S. Representatives in that video. I didn't see a former candidate for Vice President of the US in that video. The one with the big mouth in my video is CEO of a Tea Party Group called Freedom Watch. Yup, didn't see so much as an elected liberal dog catcher in your video!

[Kathianne]

http://www.google.com/images?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=3nVgUof9BIfuyQHu3YCgBg&ved=0CBgQsAQ&q=kill%20bush&tbm=isch

http://www.google.com/images?q=chimp+bush&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=CHZgUu_CBOKbygGp5ICoBg&ved=0CBgQsAQ

http://www.google.com/search?q=burn%20effigy%20bush&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+hitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=TnZgUryGKemQyAHclYDoBA&ved=0CBgQsAQ

[bingster]

If you believe that you're either delusional or still not old enough to vote.

Oh, yea? I watch Bush covered like nothing I've seen since Reagan from 9/11 until just after the start of the Iraqi war. I saw news stories about news casters being "unpatriotic" for criticizing a president during war time. Then it did began to change. People spoke out and people protested. Records worldwide were broken to protest that war. Nobody ever questioned Bush's legitamacy as president (Except for about 10 minutes after Gore lost) and they certainly didn't go after his religion, citizenship, or race! That's personal.

It never got as bad as this, however. These people are questioning and HAVE been questioning Obama's legitimacy as President!!! And not just once, practically weekly, you can find some idiot questioning it. You guys even ran someone in your primaries who was a birther, for Christ's sake! And it's not just talk. I could post some polls that prove you have a ton of people in the Tea Party that believes this garbage! What we believed about Bush was true, none of this crap is true about Obama!

[Kathianne]

Oh, yea? I watch Bush covered like nothing I've seen since Reagan from 9/11 until just after the start of the Iraqi war. I saw news stories about news casters being "unpatriotic" for criticizing a president during war time. Then it did began to change. People spoke out and people protested. Records worldwide were broken to protest that war. Nobody ever questioned Bush's legitamacy as president (Except for about 10 minutes after Gore lost) and they certainly didn't go after his religion, citizenship, or race! That's personal.

It never got as bad as this, however. These people are questioning and HAVE been questioning Obama's legitimacy as President!!! And not just once, practically weekly, you can find some idiot questioning it. You guys even ran someone in your primaries who was a birther, for Christ's sake! And it's not just talk. I could post some polls that prove you have a ton of people in the Tea Party that believes this garbage! What we believed about Bush was true, none of this crap is true about Obama!

Delusional was the answer.

[jimnyc]

Yea, I was quick on the accusations, but this situation really pisses me off! There was nothing even close to as angry and rabid as this crowd during the Bush presidency. Nothing. Obama's religion, citizenship, political philosophy, and patriotism is questioned and defamed on a daily basis from conservatives and nobody on your side of the aisle has a problem with it. I'll bet most of the cons on this Forum has had a good ol' time yucking it up! Nothing even close to this vicious happened during the Bush watch. Nothing!

Bush was perpetually referred to as a monkey, baby killer, soldier killer and many went as far as to say they would move from the country had he been reelected (and of course NONE did) and some went as far as to say he should hang or die in other ways.

You simply see something ONE way and refuse to see that it happens on BOTH sides. Liberals made fun of GWB, his politics, his leadership, his looks, HIS religion because he prayed, defamed, threatened - and I see YOU and no one on your side of the aisle had or has a problem with it.

All you're proving is your hackery, how you see things through 2 sets of glasses and you yourself run around talking smack about conservatives, and out the other side of your mouth you are crying about people talking smack about Obama.

[bingster]

http://www.google.com/images?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=3nVgUof9BIfuyQHu3YCgBg&ved=0CBgQsAQ&q=kill%20bush&tbm=isch

http://www.google.com/images?q=chimp+bush&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=CHZgUu_CBOKbygGp5ICoBg&ved=0CBgQsAQ

http://www.google.com/search?q=burn%20effigy%20bush&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+hitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=TnZgUryGKemQyAHclYDoBA&ved=0CBgQsAQ


I never saw any of this before. I'm willing to bet most of it is from overseas. The whole world blamed Bush for the Iraq war. I'll admit that it's bad.

[jimnyc]

Oh, yea? I watch Bush covered like nothing I've seen since Reagan from 9/11 until just after the start of the Iraqi war. I saw news stories about news casters being "unpatriotic" for criticizing a president during war time. Then it did began to change. People spoke out and people protested. Records worldwide were broken to protest that war. Nobody ever questioned Bush's legitamacy as president (Except for about 10 minutes after Gore lost) and they certainly didn't go after his religion, citizenship, or race! That's personal.

It never got as bad as this, however. These people are questioning and HAVE been questioning Obama's legitimacy as President!!! And not just once, practically weekly, you can find some idiot questioning it. You guys even ran someone in your primaries who was a birther, for Christ's sake! And it's not just talk. I could post some polls that prove you have a ton of people in the Tea Party that believes this garbage! What we believed about Bush was true, none of this crap is true about Obama!

Here's an opportunity to put yourself above the others, Bingster - please point us to a post of yours, from ANY site back when GWB was in office, where you spoke out against groups like Code Pink and other anti-war groups who went WELL above stating their dislike of war, into the hatred and "baby killer" talk. There are MANY groups who did similar things to what you're complaining about with Obama now. Hell, nevermind even the larger groups - even a post back then condemning pretty much anyone for their non-political rhetoric towards GWB will do. Show us that you walked the talk back then. Because quite frankly, from your anti-Bush talk here, and anti-conservative talk here since you joined - I honestly think you're a hack, now condemning others for not speaking out about things that you didn't do jack shit about back then. That would make you a hypocrite.

[aboutime]

Bush was perpetually referred to as a monkey, baby killer, soldier killer and many went as far as to say they would move from the country had he been reelected (and of course NONE did) and some went as far as to say he should hang or die in other ways.

You simply see something ONE way and refuse to see that it happens on BOTH sides. Liberals made fun of GWB, his politics, his leadership, his looks, HIS religion because he prayed, defamed, threatened - and I see YOU and no one on your side of the aisle had or has a problem with it.

All you're proving is your hackery, how you see things through 2 sets of glasses and you yourself run around talking smack about conservatives, and out the other side of your mouth you are crying about people talking smack about Obama.



jim. The bingster isn't too good at hiding deniability.

[bingster]

Bush was perpetually referred to as a monkey, baby killer, soldier killer and many went as far as to say they would move from the country had he been reelected (and of course NONE did) and some went as far as to say he should hang or die in other ways.

You simply see something ONE way and refuse to see that it happens on BOTH sides. Liberals made fun of GWB, his politics, his leadership, his looks, HIS religion because he prayed, defamed, threatened - and I see YOU and no one on your side of the aisle had or has a problem with it.

All you're proving is your hackery, how you see things through 2 sets of glasses and you yourself run around talking smack about conservatives, and out the other side of your mouth you are crying about people talking smack about Obama.

We both see things from our point of view. I still don't think what happened with Bush was anywhere as deep seated and evil as what's going on now. Even the politicians have been joining in on the racist sh1t. We have a large part of a political party who believe Obama is the country's mortal enemy. That's where the birther and muslim crap comes from. The Tea Party is attempting to characterize Obama as the actual enemy as in Al Qaeda.

[jimnyc]

I never saw any of this before. I'm willing to bet most of it is from overseas. The whole world blamed Bush for the Iraq war. I'll admit that it's bad.

Of course you never saw it before, that's what those glasses do for you! And if you think the crap being tossed at Bush was mainly from overseas, you must have lived on another planet for 8 years.

[jimnyc]

We both see things from our point of view. I still don't think what happened with Bush was anywhere as deep seated and evil as what's going on now. Even the politicians have been joining in on the racist sh1t. We have a large part of a political party who believe Obama is the country's mortal enemy. That's where the birther and muslim crap comes from. The Tea Party is attempting to characterize Obama as the actual enemy as in Al Qaeda.

Point me to where you spoke up in the past when the endless pictures of Bush and Saddam were posted around the net, as well as pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam. It was both indirectly AND directly stated that both were on the other side, and that both were traitors to their country and it was all about oil. PLEASE don't attempt to claim you never heard or saw this crap over the years. Surely you can clear this up by pointing us to where you shouted these people down for their crap.

[aboutime]

Of course you never saw it before, that's what those glasses do for you! And if you think the crap being tossed at Bush was mainly from overseas, you must have lived on another planet for 8 years.



Actually jim.....this says it better......5678 for those in denial.

[Arbo]

saying the GOP in total is too extreme and is losing touch with the American people.

Anyone that votes party line for either party is 'too extreme' in my book (too stupid to live to be more specific). The crazy thing is that in general when someone cites the Constitution or suggests that perhaps it should be followed, they are labeled an 'extremist'.

[Gaffer]

They went on a microphone and called to him to put down the Quran! You're proud of these a-holes? The original march was absolutely honorable and I respect them for it. The Tea Party hijacked their event and turned it into something disgusting. If I saw something like that, I would get on a microphone myself and denounce it! That didn't happen. Why didn't that happen? Why isn't the GOP speaking out against the racist sh1t like "muslim" and "rebel flag"? You don't see the racism in it? If not, why not?

"Demand that this president get off his knees, and leave town....." "Not a president of our people, he's a president of his people..." I just heard it again on the TV. Klayman, I think was his name. Why doesn't the GOP speak out?

Yes, harry, I'm proud of those "a-holes" as you put it. They are exercising their right of free speech. Just as you are doing here.

I disagree with everything obama does and stands for. So therefore, according to you and the left in general, I am a racist and terrorist. And according to DHS, as a veteran and a conservative I am also an enemy of the state. If your a veteran, then so are you. Doesn't that make you go hmmmm?

When the dark lord was sworn in back in 2009 I said he wasn't my president. That still stands. He's not. He may be yours but he's not mine. He's just a tyrant sitting in the white house that I want to see removed as soon as possible.

Want to learn a bit of history? In 1972 the communist party stopped running candidates in presidential elections. Why? Because the democrat party had taken over their platform. They had successfully infiltrated a major party in the US and no longer needed to run candidates. They are still active but they support the democrats in everything they do. Your president was a member of the New Party. A communist organization. His mentors were communists, his parents were communists. Guess what he is. As his supporter guess what you are.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, harry, I'm proud of those "a-holes" as you put it. They are exercising their right of free speech. Just as you are doing here.

I disagree with everything obama does and stands for. So therefore, according to you and the left in general, I am a racist and terrorist. And according to DHS, as a veteran and a conservative I am also an enemy of the state. If your a veteran, then so are you. Doesn't that make you go hmmmm?

When the dark lord was sworn in back in 2009 I said he wasn't my president. That still stands. He's not. He may be yours but he's not mine. He's just a tyrant sitting in the white house that I want to see removed as soon as possible.

Want to learn a bit of history? In 1972 the communist party stopped running candidates in presidential elections. Why? Because the democrat party had taken over their platform. They had successfully infiltrated a major party in the US and no longer needed to run candidates. They are still active but they support the democrats in everything they do. Your president was a member of the New Party. A communist organization. His mentors were communists, his parents were communists. Guess what he is. As his supporter guess what you are. So right it hurts my friend. Our nation didn't start being attacked in along range plan recently. Obama is the culmination of a long range plan and its looks to me like he is meant to launch the final salvo.... They couldn't have picked a better person for the betrayal because the bastard dearly hates this nation.. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

So right it hurts my friend. Our nation didn't start being attacked in along range plan recently. Obama is the culmination of a long range plan and its looks to me like he is meant to launch the final salvo.... They couldn't have picked a better person for the betrayal because the bastard dearly hates this nation.. -Tyr

I have two responses to the above:

1. New Deal
2. War on Poverty

[bingster]

Point me to where you spoke up in the past when the endless pictures of Bush and Saddam were posted around the net, as well as pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam. It was both indirectly AND directly stated that both were on the other side, and that both were traitors to their country and it was all about oil. PLEASE don't attempt to claim you never heard or saw this crap over the years. Surely you can clear this up by pointing us to where you shouted these people down for their crap.

I wasn't on the internet at that time. I just got on sites like this in Jan of this year.

[glockmail]

You know what? I didn't see any U.S. Representatives in that video.... No, you saw representatives of a union, complete with matching tee shirts, commit group acts of violence against their fellow citizens because of their political affiliation. Yet you dismiss that and harp on some guy exercising his free speech with a microphone. :laugh:

[aboutime]

I wasn't on the internet at that time. I just got on sites like this in Jan of this year.


So, you are telling us you JUST GRADUATED FROM PRE-SCHOOL?

[Arbo]

I said he wasn't my president. That still stands. He's not. He may be yours but he's not mine.

If you are a citizen of this country, he *is* your president. Period.

[jimnyc]

I wasn't on the internet at that time. I just got on sites like this in Jan of this year.

But are you saying you went around at all trying to condemn the Democrat party and any of their supporters for the similar rhetoric used against GWB? Considering the unending hackery I see from you, and how you blame one party for everything, and even go a step further and use filthy terms to refer to other political 'parties' - I highly doubt that. I'm simply pointing out that I think you're being hypocritical. You made it sound as if the GOP and so many of us here at this board "suck" because we don't condemn things being said about Obama. That's like Pelosi, Feinsteinn or Barbara Boxer telling others to lower the amount of rhetoric they use, which would be just as laughable.

[jimnyc]

If you are a citizen of this country, he *is* your president. Period.

Kind of like a contract, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. While no 2 ways about it, if a US citizen, Obama is listed as our president. But a US citizen CAN claim he is not their president of they like. Not that another is there in his place, but rather as a big "FU" in his face that no support whatsoever is given his way, nor any respect or anything at all that a regular president would receive. On paper and by law - yes. But some would like to make it clearER that his words and actions don't speak for them.

[Arbo]

Kind of like a contract, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. While no 2 ways about it, if a US citizen, Obama is listed as our president. But a US citizen CAN claim he is not their president of they like. Not that another is there in his place, but rather as a big "FU" in his face that no support whatsoever is given his way, nor any respect or anything at all that a regular president would receive. On paper and by law - yes. But some would like to make it clearER that his words and actions don't speak for them.

They can claim they are from outer space or are the love child of a siberian tiger and yeti, but it doesn't make it so. So it doesn't make a lot of sense (in a logical way) to say 'not MY president', when reality and in all legal manner, whoever is president, is the president of all citizens. It seems more rational to simply say you disagree with the policies you disagree with, and perhaps that the president doesn't stand for your views.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Kind of like a contract, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. While no 2 ways about it, if a US citizen, Obama is listed as our president. But a US citizen CAN claim he is not their president of they like. Not that another is there in his place, but rather as a big "FU" in his face that no support whatsoever is given his way, nor any respect or anything at all that a regular president would receive. On paper and by law - yes. But some would like to make it clearER that his words and actions don't speak for them. I've stated ever since the bastard was elected the first time he is not my damn president. I follow no such dishonorable son of a bitch as that and never will. I give no authority over myself to such a dishonorable and traitorous bastard as that. To do so would be a total act of dishonor for me. I would do the same if he was a Republican! Take McCain who has revealed himself to be a sold out hack. I say the same thing in regards to him. His earlier life got the respect it deserved but now he is a lying ,self-serving turncoat. ff-him too. I break my principles for no man.... --Tyr

[Arbo]

I've stated ever since the bastard was elected the first time he is not my damn president. I follow no such dishonorable son of a bitch as that and never will. I give no authority over myself to such a dishonorable and traitorous bastard as that. To do so would be a total act of dishonor for me. I would do the same if he was a Republican! Take McCain who has revealed himself to be a sold out hack. I say the same thing in regards to him. His earlier life got the respect it deserved but now he is a lying ,self-serving turncoat. ff-him too. I break my principles for no man.... --Tyr

:laugh: You follow 'his' laws each and every day, if you do not, you are a criminal, and will be treated as such. LOL. It doesn't matter if you like him or the laws he enforces.

[aboutime]

I've stated ever since the bastard was elected the first time he is not my damn president. I follow no such dishonorable son of a bitch as that and never will. I give no authority over myself to such a dishonorable and traitorous bastard as that. To do so would be a total act of dishonor for me. I would do the same if he was a Republican! Take McCain who has revealed himself to be a sold out hack. I say the same thing in regards to him. His earlier life got the respect it deserved but now he is a lying ,self-serving turncoat. ff-him too. I break my principles for no man.... --Tyr


Tyr. I remember a time back in the 1990's, during the Clinton presidency when this same question was asked, and answered by American citizens. Namely, American citizens like myself who, at the time. Were in uniform, and by law. The Constitution to be more exact, were instructed to provide RESPECT...official Respect for the Sitting Commander-in-chief, WHO, at the time. Was William J. Clinton.
Long story short. Yes. Clinton was our CIC. However. While we followed the orders of the President at that time, and Respected his position, being called the President of the United States of America.
As citizens of the United States of America. NO LIVING PERSON, nor the Constitution. Had the power to demand, or order that we agree with calling him OUR President.
He was, loosely speaking, and legally. Our Commander in Chief. Who was rendered a respectful Military Salute. But that did not mean WE HAD TO LIKE HIM, or become his Political Pawns...as today's Phony, CIC does with every opportunity...as in allowing for the closure of Military Memorials.
That was just plain DISRESPECTFUL, and most certainly UNDESERVING of Honest Respect.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have two responses to the above:

1. New Deal
2. War on Poverty FDR and Johnson both loved their socialism. Also this guy ..


http://antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=5711
April 23, 2005

Blame Wilson



by Scott Horton


"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force." -John Quincy Adams 1821




Listen to Scott's interview with Jim Powell

Woodrow Wilson's decision to bring the United States into Europe's "Great War" (1914-18) wasn't made in 1917. In fact, his agents had already reached an agreement with the governments of England and France to involve the U.S. in the autumn of 1915. He then spent all of 1916 campaigning for reelection on the slogan, "He kept us out of war." When Wilson, who had already invaded Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, finally got Congress to declare war against the Central Powers on April 8, 1917, based on the ridiculous Zimmerman Telegram, the renewal of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, and trumped up charges of atrocities against the Belgians, he didn't just get more than 100,000 Americans killed, he solidified the last century's turn toward warfare and totalitarianism that eventually killed over two hundred million people. So says Jim Powell, author of Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and World War II. Perhaps he left the Cold War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the wars against terror and Iraq out of the book's title for brevity's sake.

Powell makes a compelling argument that by the time the U.S. got involved, World War I was a stalemate. Peace was sure to break out soon. The soldiers on all sides were sick, freezing, and in various states of mutiny.

The Russians in particular had been devastated, many of their soldiers were without weapons, and their luck on the battlefield was running out. The commanding generals were so incompetent that Czar Nicholas II left the capital to lead the war from the front. What little existed of a modern economy was being ruined. Primarily due to his refusal to withdraw from the war, Nicholas II was deposed in a popular uprising on March 15, 1917. As soon as the U.S. Congress declared war less than a month later, Wilson began applying diplomatic pressure and paid the Russians $325 million to continue the fight. An Anglophile to the core, Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.

Finally, on their fourth try, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his sidekick Leon Trotsky seized power. As Powell says in the book,

"If Russia's Provisional Government had quit the war and negotiated peace with Germany in early 1917, we might never had heard of Lenin. He would have returned home to find Russians celebrating the end of the war. Soldiers would have been returning home and the process of reviving the economy would have begun ... Finally of course, the Czar was gone, and the Russian army would have been there to defend the Provisional Government, virtually ruling out prospects for a Bolshevik coup

[Gaffer]

:laugh: You follow 'his' laws each and every day, if you do not, you are a criminal, and will be treated as such. LOL. It doesn't matter if you like him or the laws he enforces.

He makes no laws, so I don't follow any of 'his' laws. The Congress makes the laws. And I follow the laws of my state. By saying he's not my president I am showing my total disgust of his very existence. I have many names and titles for him but my president isn't one of them. He doesn't represent me in anyway, shape or form.

[aboutime]

He makes no laws, so I don't follow any of 'his' laws. The Congress makes the laws. And I follow the laws of my state. By saying he's not my president I am showing my total disgust of his very existence. I have many names and titles for him but my president isn't one of them. He doesn't represent me in anyway, shape or form.


Gaffer. The only Law Obama has had anything to do with is OBAMACARE, and he's violated HIS OWN laws by making changes, and giving special interests breaks on when the laws will apply for them. So. Obama is not capable of enforcing any real laws. Not when he intentionally ignores them, and the constitution.
I agree with you. He doesn't represent you, or I in any way.
If he did. We might have foolishly voted for him. Falling for his lies that convinced so many Uneducated Americans...TWICE.

[Arbo]

By saying he's not my president I am showing my total disgust of his very existence.

You guys are a hoot. You can say whatever you like, doesn't change the reality of things.

[jimnyc]

You guys are a hoot. You can say whatever you like, doesn't change the reality of things.

The reality is that Obama is SO out of touch with the people and SO bad for our country, that some don't want him to be seen as our president, some want to put as much separation as possible between themselves, and the epic failure of a president in the white house. He represents the Democrat interests, not the interests of those who are vehemently against 99% of what he does and says. At the end of the day, of course on paper he is the president of ALL Americans. Like Gaffer stated, his stating what he does is a way of showing his disgust for who is in the office. You're trying to stay literal on the subject as if it's some great debate and you're proving people wrong, but you're not. The reality is that some do FEEL this way, and your condescension towards them wont change that reality.

Methinks you are biting onto something and chewing on it, for the sake of doing so, even though we all know that these folks don't mean these things in a literal sense.

[Arbo]

The reality is that Obama is SO out of touch with the people and SO bad for our country, that some don't want him to be seen as our president, some want to put as much separation as possible between themselves, and the epic failure of a president in the white house. He represents the Democrat interests, not the interests of those who are vehemently against 99% of what he does and says. At the end of the day, of course on paper he is the president of ALL Americans. Like Gaffer stated, his stating what he does is a way of showing his disgust for who is in the office. You're trying to stay literal on the subject as if it's some great debate and you're proving people wrong, but you're not. The reality is that some do FEEL this way, and your condescension towards them wont change that reality.

Methinks you are biting onto something and chewing on it, for the sake of doing so, even though we all know that these folks don't mean these things in a literal sense.

Everyone that has been president, for quite some time, has been far out of touch with 'the people'. Each one of them was still the president of those they were out of touch with. Saying something that is blatantly false doesn't help anyone's position or their credibility. Simply stating he is a moron, an utter failure as a leader and is leading this country down the crapper is more realistic and easier to back up credibly.

Clearly those who take it even further and say they will not obey 'his' laws are going even beyond the 'feeling' of the president not representing them, into the land of false bravado about taking a stand against obeying the laws, all of which the president is in charge of enforcing. Much like the gun owners that boast the 'over my cold dead body', when faced with reality 99.9% will simply bow their heads and comply.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. I remember a time back in the 1990's, during the Clinton presidency when this same question was asked, and answered by American citizens. Namely, American citizens like myself who, at the time. Were in uniform, and by law. The Constitution to be more exact, were instructed to provide RESPECT...official Respect for the Sitting Commander-in-chief, WHO, at the time. Was William J. Clinton.
Long story short. Yes. Clinton was our CIC. However. While we followed the orders of the President at that time, and Respected his position, being called the President of the United States of America.
As citizens of the United States of America. NO LIVING PERSON, nor the Constitution. Had the power to demand, or order that we agree with calling him OUR President.
He was, loosely speaking, and legally. Our Commander in Chief. Who was rendered a respectful Military Salute. But that did not mean WE HAD TO LIKE HIM, or become his Political Pawns...as today's Phony, CIC does with every opportunity...as in allowing for the closure of Military Memorials.
That was just plain DISRESPECTFUL, and most certainly UNDESERVING of Honest Respect. Obama so surpasses the dishonor, corruption and dishonesty of any other President that I honestly say he is not my president. I obey the laws of the land but almost certainly would spit in his face if he were ever that close to me. I've never advocated anything be done to Obama that was not decided in a court of law. Yet I know he has engaged in treason and I will not honor or obey in anyway such damn traitor. I am constantly amazed at how many intelligent people overlook so much to find him innocent of his many, many "miss deeds". I guess seeing denial in one of it's greatest and most massive forms will do that to a man! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Everyone that has been president, for quite some time, has been far out of touch with 'the people'. Each one of them was still the president of those they were out of touch with. Saying something that is blatantly false doesn't help anyone's position or their credibility. Simply stating he is a moron, an utter failure as a leader and is leading this country down the crapper is more realistic and easier to back up credibly.

Clearly those who take it even further and say they will not obey 'his' laws are going even beyond the 'feeling' of the president not representing them, into the land of false bravado about taking a stand against obeying the laws, all of which the president is in charge of enforcing. Much like the gun owners that boast the 'over my cold dead body', when faced with reality 99.9% will simply bow their heads and comply.

It's stating something that is perhaps false, but for effect and a reason, to make a statement. I don't think any members stating such here will have other stances/debates of theirs hurt, simply because they made a statement in regards to Obama, that he isn't their president. It's simply a statement to relay ones feelings, but you're treating it as if those saying it are HS dropouts who don't understand government. If they want to express their disdain for Obama in this manner, so be it, even if their expression is not literal.

And 99.9%? I think you TRULY underestimate gun owners and those who defend our constitution. The gun owners I know would rather go down fighting with their legal weapons rather than have them taken away via confiscation, for example. I'm sure there are plenty who would comply with an unconstitutional grab, if it came to that, but it would be FAR from the numbers you project.

[aboutime]

The reality is that Obama is SO out of touch with the people and SO bad for our country, that some don't want him to be seen as our president, some want to put as much separation as possible between themselves, and the epic failure of a president in the white house. He represents the Democrat interests, not the interests of those who are vehemently against 99% of what he does and says. At the end of the day, of course on paper he is the president of ALL Americans. Like Gaffer stated, his stating what he does is a way of showing his disgust for who is in the office. You're trying to stay literal on the subject as if it's some great debate and you're proving people wrong, but you're not. The reality is that some do FEEL this way, and your condescension towards them wont change that reality.

Methinks you are biting onto something and chewing on it, for the sake of doing so, even though we all know that these folks don't mean these things in a literal sense.



jimnyc. Finally. Arbo recognized our right to use the 1st amendment to SAY, and THINK anything we want. Despite his disapproval, or other opinions he has told us...are the only ones that matter. From his point of view.
I will stick with the Constitution, no matter what Arbo says in trying to convince us otherwise.

[Arbo]

It's simply a statement to relay ones feelings, but you're treating it as if those saying it are HS dropouts who don't understand government.

Considering other posts from people that say such things, it is possible that the latter is the case.


And 99.9%? I think you TRULY underestimate gun owners and those who defend our constitution. The gun owners I know would rather go down fighting with their legal weapons rather than have them taken away via confiscation, for example. I'm sure there are plenty who would comply with an unconstitutional grab, if it came to that, but it would be FAR from the numbers you project.

I am a gun owner, just about everyone I know is as well. But the reality is that most talk a good game, but bow down to authority when the shit hits the fan. The world is full of examples of it.... full of people that thought they would 'stand strong' when the government came to take their guns... now they have no guns, and they did not fight.


jimnyc. Finally. Arbo recognized our right to use the 1st amendment to SAY, and THINK anything we want. Despite his disapproval, or other opinions he has told us...are the only ones that matter. From his point of view.
I will stick with the Constitution, no matter what Arbo says in trying to convince us otherwise.

I stick with the Constitution, always have, but you'd have to read what I write to see that. It's much easier (so it seems) for some to just make shit up.

[glockmail]

What happened to bingster? Tail between her legs? :lol:

[aboutime]

What happened to bingster? Tail between her legs? :lol:


Doesn't matter. Give it time. It takes them longer to come up with more excuses (we call lies). So they have to get all of their FALSE ducks in a row before coming back to defend the UN-defendable.

[gabosaurus]

And 99.9%? I think you TRULY underestimate gun owners and those who defend our constitution. The gun owners I know would rather go down fighting with their legal weapons rather than have them taken away via confiscation, for example. I'm sure there are plenty who would comply with an unconstitutional grab, if it came to that, but it would be FAR from the numbers you project.

Including this fine American family who chose to allow their son to exercise his constitutional right to bear arms.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131022/NEWS01/131022017/Sparks-police-withholding-name-suspect-Sparks-Middle-School-shooting?nclick_check=1

[red states rule]

You guys are a hoot. You can say whatever you like, doesn't change the reality of things.

If this place "offends" you - by all means go somewhere else. You, FU, LR and Obama all have remind me of this classic scene in Godfather II. You clowns remind me of Fredo DEMANDING respect and how others should behave



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8jODlrka0

[red states rule]

Including this fine American family who chose to allow their son to exercise his constitutional right to bear arms.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131022/NEWS01/131022017/Sparks-police-withholding-name-suspect-Sparks-Middle-School-shooting?nclick_check=1

and if someone broke into your home. threatened your family = what would you do to defend them?

Use harsh language?

Try to talk to them and find out why they are so angry?

Offer to pay for their therapy?

Or would you do what most reasonable people would do and send them straight to hell with several bullets in their head?

[CSM]

and if someone broke into your home. threatened your family = what would you do to defend them?

Use harsh language?

Try to talk to them and find out why they are so angry?

Offer to pay for their therapy?

Or would you do what most reasonable people would do and send them straight to hell with several bullets in their head?

Gabby has already indicated that she is an expert marksman which leads me to believe that she has a firearm of some sort readily accessible. Based on her statements, I am sure she is more than capable of defending her family should anyone intrude on her domain. That being said, being capable of presenting a strong defense and being willing to present a strong defense are two different things. As an aside, does that fact that Gabby apparently owns and uses a firearm make her part of a "fine American family" that exercises the right to bear arms or is her family "special"??

Really, Gabby, is it your stance in this case that the parents of this kid CHOSE to let their child go to a school and shoot people? I know you love to troll these forums but sometimes you just seem like a callous, arrogant bitch.

[red states rule]

Gabby has already indicated that she is an expert marksman which leads me to believe that she has a firearm of some sort readily accessible. Based on her statements, I am sure she is more than capable of defending her family should anyone intrude on her domain. That being said, being capable of presenting a strong defense and being willing to present a strong defense are two different things. As an aside, does that fact that Gabby apparently owns and uses a firearm make her part of a "fine American family" that exercises the right to bear arms or is her family "special"??

Really, Gabby, is it your stance in this case that the parents of this kid CHOSE to let their child go to a school and shoot people? I know you love to troll these forums but sometimes you just seem like a callous, arrogant bitch.

If what Gabby has posted is true then it shows a classic side of most liberals

Do not do as I do

She can have a gun and protect her family. Everyone else - eh call 911 and wait

Do as I say

[CSM]

If what Gabby has posted is true then it shows a classic side of most liberals

Do not do as I do

She can have a gun and protect her family. Everyone else - eh call 911 and wait

Do as I say

Keep in mind that Gabby's primary purpose is to troll. She can and will say just about anything to get folks fired up so we really have no idea of what her principles (if she has any) are or how strongly she believes in them. That being said, liberals tend to take their position on issues based on emotional perception rather than fact. That is why so many liberal solutions to issues do little more than make folks "feel good" without actually solving the problem.

[jimnyc]

Keep in mind that Gabby's primary purpose is to troll.

Which is why I didn't even address her post, which had NOTHING to do with confiscation of guns and such, which was the topic she quoted and replied to. She simply wanted to troll the thread and get a rise. The shame of it is that she is very intelligent, and could contribute to many good threads, even when in opposition of what the majority thinks - but about 80-90% of her posts outside of the lounge are trolling posts.

[aboutime]

Gabby has already indicated that she is an expert marksman which leads me to believe that she has a firearm of some sort readily accessible. Based on her statements, I am sure she is more than capable of defending her family should anyone intrude on her domain. That being said, being capable of presenting a strong defense and being willing to present a strong defense are two different things. As an aside, does that fact that Gabby apparently owns and uses a firearm make her part of a "fine American family" that exercises the right to bear arms or is her family "special"??

Really, Gabby, is it your stance in this case that the parents of this kid CHOSE to let their child go to a school and shoot people? I know you love to troll these forums but sometimes you just seem like a callous, arrogant bitch.



CSM. I think the fact that gabby claims to have a firearm at all should be a RED FLAG. It kind of proves what most people have been complaining about...as in Lack of Mental background checks before firearms are sold, or issued to such people.

[red states rule]

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/burglarize-house.gif

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

and if someone broke into your home. threatened your family = what would you do to defend them?

Use harsh language?

Try to talk to them and find out why they are so angry?

Offer to pay for their therapy?

Or would you do what most reasonable people would do and send them straight to hell with several bullets in their head?

Sumbiatch would be hell-bound faster that you can say Yankee Doodle if it's my home!-- :gunner4:

[red states rule]

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/attachments/off-topic/8946d1360976308-pro-gun-photos-cartoons-2h.jpg

[Arbo]

If this place "offends" you - by all means go somewhere else. You, FU, LR and Obama all have remind me of this classic scene in Godfather II. You clowns remind me of Fredo DEMANDING respect and how others should behave

Nothing offends me, but a nice little spin, it seems to be the norm from you as you appear to be incapable of dealing with reality, and much like gabby, your only purpose here is that of troll.

[red states rule]

Nothing offends me, but a nice little spin, it seems to be the norm from you as you appear to be incapable of dealing with reality, and much like gabby, your only purpose here is that of troll.

I see FU sent out a distress call to you as well for assistance

Oh well, the one good thing about you returning to the community Arbo - is that it feels so good when you leave

[Arbo]

I see FU sent out a distress call to you as well for assistance

Oh well, the one good thing about you returning to the community Arbo - is that it feels so good when you leave

Thank you for validating my assessment of your purpose.

[aboutime]

I see FU sent out a distress call to you as well for assistance

Oh well, the one good thing about you returning to the community Arbo - is that it feels so good when you leave


red states rule. Everyone is obviously taking notice about how Arbo, fj, and others always find that need to resort to be FIRST to use the liberal, descriptive Troll accusation.
It's their only means, and methods they have to disguise, and re-direct attention away from their own TROLLING techniques. Much like the Now...IRON CLAD, DNC Talking Points manual they follow so carefully.
I am still waiting for one Liberal, Democrat member here to mess up, and post a photo of the DNC's Olympic Sized Pool...filled with GRAPE KOOL-AID.
Of course. When they run out of the Kool-Aid. The Washington DC Sewer system in re-directed into the Pool to keep that DIRECT LINE OPEN with Congress, and the White House.

[Arbo]

red states rule. Everyone is obviously taking notice about how Arbo, fj, and others always find that need to resort to be FIRST to use the liberal, descriptive Troll accusation.
It's their only means, and methods they have to disguise, and re-direct attention away from their own TROLLING techniques. Much like the Now...IRON CLAD, DNC Talking Points manual they follow so carefully.
I am still waiting for one Liberal, Democrat member here to mess up, and post a photo of the DNC's Olympic Sized Pool...filled with GRAPE KOOL-AID.
Of course. When they run out of the Kool-Aid. The Washington DC Sewer system in re-directed into the Pool to keep that DIRECT LINE OPEN with Congress, and the White House.

You wouldn't know what 'liberal' is if it smacked you upside the head. According to you (and those like you) anyone left of the most extremist right winger is a 'liberal'. It show lack of comprehension, but it comes as no surprise, considering the source.

[red states rule]

red states rule. Everyone is obviously taking notice about how Arbo, fj, and others always find that need to resort to be FIRST to use the liberal, descriptive Troll accusation.
It's their only means, and methods they have to disguise, and re-direct attention away from their own TROLLING techniques. Much like the Now...IRON CLAD, DNC Talking Points manual they follow so carefully.
I am still waiting for one Liberal, Democrat member here to mess up, and post a photo of the DNC's Olympic Sized Pool...filled with GRAPE KOOL-AID.
Of course. When they run out of the Kool-Aid. The Washington DC Sewer system in re-directed into the Pool to keep that DIRECT LINE OPEN with Congress, and the White House.

AT, I am well aware that people like Arbo, FU, and his fellow Obama lap dogs deeply resent anyone standing up to them and using logic, facts, reason, and common sense to refute their far left big government agenda

I posted this on another thread and it fits here as well

This is what is seen as dangerous beliefs in their inner circle


Yea people like you would consider my beliefs detached from reality

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

[Arbo]

AT, I am well aware that people like Arbo, FU, and his fellow Obama lap dogs deeply resent anyone standing up to them and using logic, facts, reason, and common sense to refute their far left big government agenda


That right there is some funny stuff. Anyone that doesn't follow your brain dead beliefs is a 'liberal' and a 'lap dog', yet you have YET to back up such claims. Then you talk about 4 items that you have never had or used.... :laugh:

[red states rule]

That right there is some funny stuff. Anyone that doesn't follow your brain dead beliefs is a 'liberal' and a 'lap dog', yet you have YET to back up such claims. Then you talk about 4 items that you have never had or used.... :laugh:

Thank you finally admitting you and your fellow Obama lap dogs are indeed libs. Only a liberal would sneer how the following are brain dead beliefs. Of course your confession does not come as a surprise to anyone in the community

Yea people like you would consider my beliefs detached from reality

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"

[aboutime]

Thank you finally admitting you and your fellow Obama lap dogs are indeed libs. Only a liberal would sneer how the following are brain dead beliefs. Of course your confession does not come as a surprise to anyone in the community

Yea people like you would consider my beliefs detached from reality

Like government living with its means

Allowing people to keep more of what they earn

Stop rewarding failure and punishing success with the US tax code

Not making social programs a full time occupation

Making the US self sufficient and utilize all out natural resources of oil and natural gas

Treat terrorism as an act of war and not a crime

If you can find a service in the Yellow Pages then make sure government is not offering the same service

I can understand how you and your fellow Obama lap dogs find those beliefs so "extreme"



red states rule. My wife was looking over my shoulder, and she spotted the word Arbo. She asked about it, and began laughing. Then explained how, when she worked. She and the other ladies where she worked used something called 'ARBO' to clean the ladies room, toilets too!
How funny is that? And he thinks calling something Funny here....beats that?????

[red states rule]

red states rule. My wife was looking over my shoulder, and she spotted the word Arbo. She asked about it, and began laughing. Then explained how, when she worked. She and the other ladies where she worked used something called 'ARBO' to clean the ladies room, toilets too!
How funny is that? And he thinks calling something Funny here....beats that?????

Bottom line is he finally fessed up to what he considers " brain dead beliefs"

Now we will wait for FU, MM, or LR to ride in and try and salvage what is left of his near non-existent creditability

[Arbo]

Thank you finally admitting you and your fellow Obama lap dogs are indeed libs.

You should stick to putting up moronic pictures, because clearly words do not something you hold a strong grasp of, nor is comprehension.



red states rule. My wife was looking over my shoulder, and she spotted the word Arbo.

Making up stories again... go figure. :laugh:

[red states rule]

You should stick to putting up moronic pictures, because clearly words do not something you hold a strong grasp of, nor is comprehension.




Making up stories again... go figure. :laugh:

Like your boy Obama, you do have a problem with denying what you said and then blame others for your screw ups

That is so liberal of you

[aboutime]

Like your boy Obama, you do have a problem with denying what you said and then blame others for your screw ups

That is so liberal of you


red states rule. Did he say "making up"?

Wow. Let's see how he explains this "MADE UP" photo.

5727

[red states rule]

red states rule. Did he say "making up"?

Wow. Let's see how he explains this "MADE UP" photo.

5727

Arbo may be worried that Obamacare will not cover his self inflected hickies

[Arbo]

Like your boy Obama, you do have a problem with denying what you said and then blame others for your screw ups

The two of you combined no doubt have more ass hair than functioning brain cells.

[red states rule]

The two of you combined no doubt have more ass hair than functioning brain cells.

and when confronted with facts they cannot refute, the liberal will fall back on personal attacks

You are a shining example of liberalism and liberal tolerance

Congrats

[aboutime]

and when confronted with facts they cannot refute, the liberal will fall back on personal attacks

You are a shining example of liberalism and liberal tolerance

Congrats


Wow, red states rule. Sounds to me, like he is interested in a personal tour of our ass hair. To which, I would suggest to arbo. STICK OUT YOUR TONGUE, and enjoy.

[Arbo]

and when confronted with facts they cannot refute, the liberal will fall back on personal attacks

You are a shining example of liberalism and liberal tolerance

Congrats

That you think you are fooling anyone is quite humorous. Anyone with more than 4 functioning neurons (double what you appear to be working on) can see you don't know what a 'fact' is, and certainly have not made a point or presented anything close to a 'fact'. Possibly in your entire time posting here, not just this thread. But you and your buddies keep on the attack... same format, same lame claims, same failures. But I'm guessing 'failure' is just a feature of life for you.

[Arbo]

Wow, red states rule.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

[jimnyc]

Seems this one took a turn for the worse. And guys, can we please not pull other members into threads unless they are active participants in that thread? Anyway, off to the cage.

[fj1200]

And guys, can we please not pull other members into threads unless they are active participants in that thread?

Isn't there a rule about that?

[jimnyc]

Isn't there a rule about that?

I don't know about one specifically, but I suppose it can fall under the 'habitual occurrence' part of the flaming rule. I don't think people care as much if there is a little shit tossing here and there in threads, but it should remain between the participants involved. Bringing in non-participants, which is really extending feuds from elsewhere, is unprovoked flaming, IMO. Hence the move here.

So yes, I suppose there is a rule against it, and I hope this will make a statement and put it behind us. For now.

[fj1200]

I don't know about one specifically, but I suppose it can fall under the 'habitual occurrence' part of the flaming rule. I don't think people care as much if there is a little shit tossing here and there in threads, but it should remain between the participants involved. Bringing in non-participants, which is really extending feuds from elsewhere, is unprovoked flaming, IMO. Hence the move here.

So yes, I suppose there is a rule against it, and I hope this will make a statement and put it behind us. For now.

Actually I was thinking this one:


Personal Feuds - No surprisingly, members can sometimes get involved in personal feuds. We ask that these be kept off the boards. Please don't derail threads by going "after" someone you don't like. Don't start threads just to rile someone up. Don't harass other members. Please PM staff if you need assistance.

I'm guessing it won't stay behind us.

[Arbo]

I'm guessing it won't stay behind us.

How long has RSR and a few others been doing it? Yeah, it doesn't appear to be going away. Not until they do anyway.

[jimnyc]

Actually I was thinking this one:



I'm guessing it won't stay behind us.

I can't debate or disagree with you. It's tough enforcing rules while trying not to be labeled a nazi or playing favorites. But I do agree with you, the continual bringing up of "FU, LR, arbo..." is getting tiresome. Same with the continual lapdog comments and such. I think members need to get back to zoning in on what others actually say and debating what they actually say - and letting go of the endless finger pointing and poking with sticks.

There's no easy way to tell others to do so. I'm asking RSR and all involved to stop with that crap. Please stop bringing up members for no reason and simply looking to poke with sticks and continue feuds.

I'll do my best to stay on top of it elsewhere as well. I think a little back and forth and harsh debating can be cool at times, but every thread and every day is too much. It's overkill and why we have to often lay down the hammer and enforce things toughly at times. Used in moderation it wouldn't be so bad. But the bringing up of people into threads they aren't even posting in needs to stop, along with the continued badgering.

[fj1200]

I can't debate or disagree with you. It's tough enforcing rules while trying not to be labeled a nazi or playing favorites. But I do agree with you, the continual bringing up of "FU, LR, arbo..." is getting tiresome. Same with the continual lapdog comments and such. I think members need to get back to zoning in on what others actually say and debating what they actually say - and letting go of the endless finger pointing and poking with sticks.

...

I think a little back and forth and harsh debating can be cool at times...

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I love me some feisty debate, when there is actual debate of course and not mindless trolling. ;)

[jimnyc]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I love me some feisty debate, when there is actual debate of course and not mindless trolling. ;)

A feisty competitor is cool at times. So long as lines aren't crossed an all parties can maturely separate and not bring any hard feelings to other threads around the board. :)

[red states rule]

A feisty competitor is cool at times. So long as lines aren't crossed an all parties can maturely separate and not bring any hard feelings to other threads around the board. :)

Last I checked trolling was not against the rules so FU is safe

Pardon me while I choke. For Mr Obnoxious FU and his new found butt buddy Arbo to whine and cry about being mistreated is like Al Capone bitching George Moran is causing the crime rate in Chicago to increase. These two have been going after many posters who have the nerve to disagree with them

I understand you want to keep the peace but really Jim - but those two assholes have earned all the contempt they are getting

[Arbo]

Last I checked trolling was not against the rules so FU is safe

Pardon me while I choke. For Mr Obnoxious FU and his new found butt buddy Arbo to whine and cry about being mistreated is like Al Capone bitching George Moran is causing the crime rate in Chicago to increase. These two have been going after many posters who have the nerve to disagree with them

I understand you want to keep the peace but really Jim - but those two assholes have earned all the contempt they are getting

You quite possibly are the dumbest human to suck in air. But I give you credit for being stubborn, in terms of proving to the world how totally clueless you are. I think if a spark of intelligence ever showed up in a post by you several people might go into shock.

[aboutime]

You quite possibly are the dumbest human to suck in air. But I give you credit for being stubborn, in terms of proving to the world how totally clueless you are. I think if a spark of intelligence ever showed up in a post by you several people might go into shock.


Good thing this is the cage, and you feel so safe, and confident Arbo. Guess you think you are above all of Jim's requests, and can simply ignore them?
Birds of a feather seems to fit you guys who cling to your shared ignorance, and stupidity. Like the bunch of bullies you try to disguise behind your lost courage.

[Arbo]

Good thing this is the cage, and you feel so safe, and confident Arbo. Guess you think you are above all of Jim's requests, and can simply ignore them?
Birds of a feather seems to fit you guys who cling to your shared ignorance, and stupidity. Like the bunch of bullies you try to disguise behind your lost courage.

Hey look, one of the lead morons is out and about making shit up… or simply misunderstanding (yet again) what is going on. Jim was talking to your buddies about discussing people that were not part of the conversation… you know, how they always feel the need to mention others in an attempt to draw them in while stirring the shit pot. Of course, your buddies don't offer much beyond that. So now that I clarified that bit, do you get it? Or are you still lost?

Your last statement is a destroyer of irony meters across the world. :laugh: Your projection is showing bright and clear.

[fj1200]

Last I checked trolling was not against the rules so FU is safe

Pardon me while I choke. For Mr Obnoxious FU and his new found butt buddy Arbo to whine and cry about being mistreated is like Al Capone bitching George Moran is causing the crime rate in Chicago to increase. These two have been going after many posters who have the nerve to disagree with them

I understand you want to keep the peace but really Jim - but those two assholes have earned all the contempt they are getting

:laugh:

[SassyLady]

I am paid by a school district. That is not the government. I am still being paid despite the shutdown.

Gabby, I thought anyone that is paid with tax money is paid by the government. I'm pretty sure your district gets its money from some type of tax (property, sales, etc.) You keep alluding to the fact that people here on DP are paid by the government because they are on social security or disability. Where does that money come from? The same pot as your paycheck (unless you are employed by a private school). I get a government paycheck also ... military retirement .. honorably earned I might add. And yet you look down your nose at those of us who have paid our dues and are not collecting them.

Perhaps one day you will understand that any payment from "taxes", whether local, state or federal is considered government.

[SassyLady]

I have two responses to the above:

1. New Deal
2. War on Poverty


3. Agenda 21

[SassyLady]

You guys are a hoot. You can say whatever you like, doesn't change the reality of things.

The reality is that you fail to understand the difference between being "the" president and being a president "of" the people.

[SassyLady]

I can't debate or disagree with you. It's tough enforcing rules while trying not to be labeled a nazi or playing favorites. But I do agree with you, the continual bringing up of "FU, LR, arbo..." is getting tiresome. Same with the continual lapdog comments and such. I think members need to get back to zoning in on what others actually say and debating what they actually say - and letting go of the endless finger pointing and poking with sticks.

There's no easy way to tell others to do so. I'm asking RSR and all involved to stop with that crap. Please stop bringing up members for no reason and simply looking to poke with sticks and continue feuds.

I'll do my best to stay on top of it elsewhere as well. I think a little back and forth and harsh debating can be cool at times, but every thread and every day is too much. It's overkill and why we have to often lay down the hammer and enforce things toughly at times. Used in moderation it wouldn't be so bad. But the bringing up of people into threads they aren't even posting in needs to stop, along with the continued badgering.

Making a post to another member just to bash a third member is childish, i.e.,

"JANE, the only thing JANET is good at is trolling? Ask MARY and BETTY, they will agree with me". And, nothing was addressed about the subject at hand. Boring!!! If you want to bitch about someone, bitch to that person directly, not indirectly. Too passive/aggressive for me.

[SassyLady]

A feisty competitor is cool at times. So long as lines aren't crossed an all parties can maturely separate and not bring any hard feelings to other threads around the board. :)

Like me? :thanks::thanks:

[Arbo]

The reality is that you fail to understand the difference between being "the" president and being a president "of" the people.

You can join the goon squad and spin all you like, whatever jackass get's elected (and there have been many), well, that person is your president. Period.

[SassyLady]

You can join the goon squad and spin all you like, whatever jackass get's elected (and there have been many), well, that person is your president. Period.

You can continue to pretend you do not know the difference. Sometimes it's hard for someone who is "literal" to understand complexities and nuances.

[Arbo]

You can continue to pretend you do not know the difference. Sometimes it's hard for someone who is "literal" to understand complexities and nuances.

Or I can just ignore one more dummy. That seems the better course. Keep on trucking …

[glockmail]

You can join the goon squad and spin all you like, whatever jackass get's elected (and there have been many), well, that person is your president. Period.No he's the president of GovCo, period.

[Arbo]

You idiots of the right keep on believing in your fantasy. Meanwhile you push more people out of the party due to your stupidity, and the left keeps winning. Morons.

[glockmail]

Always amusing when a leftie pretends to give advice to his opposition. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Always amusing when a leftie pretends to give advice to his opposition. :laugh:


Always amusing when yet another extreme right winger with an inability to think for himself is offended because they are questioned, so the first thing they say is "you liberal!"
Even more so when a review of posts from those they sling such thing at, shows that is not the case. The overall result being those that are bad for the ( r ) party looking even more foolish, and losing even more credibility.

[glockmail]

Since twice as many people self describe themselves a conservative rather than liberal, moving the R party to the center is simply foolish. Conservatism wins elections, and a majority of true conservatives in both houses plus a true conservative in the White House is the only way to clean up the mess that is FedCo.

[Arbo]

Conservatism wins elections,

:laugh:

Are you serious?

That must be why a president with the worst record was just re-elected.

Heaven forbid anyone on the right notice the failing in it's own party and fix them so we can get people in office to fix this mess.

[fj1200]

Since twice as many people self describe themselves a conservative rather than liberal, moving the R party to the center is simply foolish. Conservatism wins elections, and a majority of true conservatives in both houses plus a true conservative in the White House is the only way to clean up the mess that is FedCo.

Conservatism, yes. Anti-gay witches promoting self-aborting ducks*, no.

*amalgamation of recent Senate candidates that snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[fj1200]

:laugh:

Are you serious?

That must be why a president with the worst record was just re-elected.

Heaven forbid anyone on the right notice the failing in it's own party and fix them so we can get people in office to fix this mess.

Tis true, conservatism does win. However, don't discount the ability of candidates to run poor campaigns and not define conservatism properly. :poke:

[Arbo]

Tis true, conservatism does win. However, don't discount the ability of candidates to run poor campaigns and not define conservatism properly. :poke:

Considering the state of our nation, it would appear the concept that an ideology can win elections, is a flawed concept. People run in elections, and those that attached 'conservative' to their name have been doing nothing other than pissing off the majority of people that might otherwise vote for a 'conservative'. And yet the extremes of the right don't seem to pick up on this, and instead keep pushing for more of the anti-gay, pro-life, bible thumping nonsense. When they learn that what matters is jobs, the economy, and individual liberty, perhaps they can rise from the ashes. But it would clearly not be due to the extremes, but despite them.

There is a reason why a libertarian candidate steals votes from a ( R ) candidate, and why they will continue to do so until the ( R )'s either shape up or disappear.

[glockmail]

That must be why a president with the worst record was just re-elected. Because the R party chose a moderate to run against him, proving my point. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Because the R party chose a moderate to run against him, proving my point. :laugh:

Some day you may wake up and face the reality that nobody with an R by their name would have beat him. There is a reason. Until those at the extreme end of the right start dealing with those realities, they will keep losing.

But to humor you, who of the field of 'conservatives' this past time do you think was a 'real conservative' and would have won had they been the nominee?

[glockmail]

Conservatism, yes. Anti-gay witches promoting self-aborting ducks*, no.

*amalgamation of recent Senate candidates that snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Your gay agenda is not a federal issue. Marriage, for example, is up to the states.

Same with murdering of the unborn. Have you not read the 10th Amendment?

[Arbo]

Marriage, for example, is up to the states.

Same with murdering of the unborn. Have you not read the 10th Amendment?

Perhaps you need to inform the 'conservatives' in your party about these revelations. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Some day you may wake up and face the reality that nobody with an R by their name would have beat him. There is a reason. Until those at the extreme end of the right start dealing with those realities, they will keep losing.

But to humor you, who of the field of 'conservatives' this past time do you think was a 'real conservative' and would have won had they been the nominee?

You keep repeating the same argument without adding anything. Again, if a clean articulate conservative ran against The Obama, he would have beaten him handily.

This past election? Ryan fits the bill. If he had been on the top of the ticket with a conservative governor a veep, he would have energized young voters as well as turned out the conservative base.

[glockmail]

Perhaps you need to inform the 'conservatives' in your party about these revelations. :laugh:

The ones you're alluding to, Bachmann, Santorum, et al, need to understand that. A true conservative understands that the Federal government has very limited powers. If Vermont wants to ban soap and have everyone braid their armpit hair why should FedCo get involved?

[fj1200]

Considering the state of our nation, it would appear the concept that an ideology can win elections, is a flawed concept. People run in elections, and those that attached 'conservative' to their name have been doing nothing other than pissing off the majority of people that might otherwise vote for a 'conservative'. And yet the extremes of the right don't seem to pick up on this, and instead keep pushing for more of the anti-gay, pro-life, bible thumping nonsense. When they learn that what matters is jobs, the economy, and individual liberty, perhaps they can rise from the ashes. But it would clearly not be due to the extremes, but despite them.

There is a reason why a libertarian candidate steals votes from a ( R ) candidate, and why they will continue to do so until the ( R )'s either shape up or disappear.

I agree with you on the latter bold and disagree on the former. I think Conservatism still wins but the inherent requirement is 1. true conservatism, and 2. not displaying a fundamentalist bent. Republicans have been winning at the state level but not as much at the Federal level.

And I don't mind Libertarians, probably am one for the most part, but if they forsake the R primaries then they are consigning themselves to irrelevance because that's where some actual changes can occur for the Republicans.

[Arbo]

You keep repeating the same argument without adding anything.

Because it is an unbeatable argument. It is noted you have not tried.


This past election? Ryan fits the bill. If he had been on the top of the ticket with a conservative governor a veep, he would have energized young voters as well as turned out the conservative base.

Ryan would have lost by a bigger margin than Romney did.


The ones you're alluding to, Bachmann, Santorum, et al, need to understand that. A true conservative understands that the Federal government has very limited powers. If Vermont wants to ban soap and have everyone braid their armpit hair why should FedCo get involved?

So you are admitting that as far as the R party goes, there really are no 'true conservatives'. Oh, there might be a person or two that appear to be, but based on the R platform, they don't fit, they should be in the L party. And of course, the establishment R's have been bad mouthing such individuals and fighting against them.

[fj1200]

Your gay agenda is not a federal issue. Marriage, for example, is up to the states.

Same with murdering of the unborn. Have you not read the 10th Amendment?

Who has a marriage-based agenda? Marriage would be up to the States IMO except for the myriad of marriage based references in the Federal code; think about it. ;)

The 10th? It's about State rights not individual rights.


Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561


There can be many reasons why abortion should be unconstitutional but the 10th isn't one of them.

[Arbo]

I think Conservatism still wins but the inherent requirement is 1. true conservatism, and 2. not displaying a fundamentalist bent.

The problem with that thought is that it is not born out to be true based on election results. If it were true, our country would be in a vastly different (and better) spot/position than it currently finds itself in.


And I don't mind Libertarians, probably am one for the most part, but if they forsake the R primaries then they are consigning themselves to irrelevance because that's where some actual changes can occur for the Republicans.

Even when they sew on the R label, they are shunned among the ranks of R's and not supported. Look at all the infighting WRT the handful of people in the party that are actually L's. The R establishment want's them gone, they would never support any of them for a big election. Cruz, Paul, several others… They are in there all alone.

[fj1200]

The problem with that thought is that it is not born out to be true based on election results. If it were true, our country would be in a vastly different (and better) spot/position than it currently finds itself in.

Even when they sew on the R label, they are shunned among the ranks of R's and not supported. Look at all the infighting WRT the handful of people in the party that are actually L's. The R establishment want's them gone, they would never support any of them for a big election. Cruz, Paul, several others… They are in there all alone.

On the former, I disagree. Look at state results. On the latter, I never said it wouldn't take time but the Ls do have the structural disadvantage of many of our current electoral rules. And I think there are plenty of non-establishment types that will support Cruz and Paul, it's just a matter of getting more true conservatives in there... and that's done in the primaries.

[glockmail]

Because it is an unbeatable argument. It is noted you have not tried.



Ryan would have lost by a bigger margin than Romney did.



So you are admitting that as far as the R party goes, there really are no 'true conservatives'. Oh, there might be a person or two that appear to be, but based on the R platform, they don't fit, they should be in the L party. And of course, the establishment R's have been bad mouthing such individuals and fighting against them.
Actually I've addressed your argument and summarily destroyed it. You continue to ignore that.

There are plenty of conservatives in the R party, just not in leadership positions. But there are more conservatives now then there were in 2010, and more in 2010 than in 2008. The TEA Party is making huge inroads, but change doesn't happen overnight.

[glockmail]

Who has a marriage-based agenda? Marriage would be up to the States IMO except for the myriad of marriage based references in the Federal code; think about it. ;)

The 10th? It's about State rights not individual rights.




There can be many reasons why abortion should be unconstitutional but the 10th isn't one of them. The gay lobby has a marriage agenda. If Federal codes refer to marriage then they must abide by state licensing laws.

The 10th refers to the states and the people. Murder is a state issue, as well as abortion.

[Abbey Marie]

Cool that a Steel Cage thread turned back into a good debate. :cool:

[glockmail]

I've learned to stop paying attention to whiners and snipers.

[Arbo]

On the former, I disagree. Look at state results.

I am looking at my state. D controlled. Shifting more and more blue due to the ignorance and apathy of a small, overpopulated area.

[Arbo]

Actually I've addressed your argument and summarily destroyed it. You continue to ignore that.

There are plenty of conservatives in the R party, just not in leadership positions. But there are more conservatives now then there were in 2010, and more in 2010 than in 2008. The TEA Party is making huge inroads, but change doesn't happen overnight.

1) "because I said so" is not an argument, nor does your use of it mean you destroyed anything, as destruction of anything is impossible with such tactics.

2) The tea party is not, in general, a 'real' part of the R party. Nor are the L's in elected office that have a R behind their name. It is just that sort of people that the R establishment is working hard to get rid of. In which case the R party becomes more and more irrelevant.

[glockmail]

1) "because I said so" is not an argument...
2) The tea party is not, in general, a 'real' part of the R party....

1. How incredibly ironic.
2. Tell that to the R incumbents who lost primaries to TEA Party backed candidates. :laugh:

[Arbo]

1. How incredibly ironic.
2. Tell that to the R incumbents who lost primaries to TEA Party backed candidates. :laugh:

Are you able to stick to a point? Or do you just naturally roll all over the place?

Yes, a few tea party people beat out some R's. And ever since then the establishment R's have been bitching about them and working to get rid of them. Look, you can pretend forever and a day that the R's are a giant happy family, but that is not the reality. There are up and comers that ideologically stand apart from the R's, yet they put on that label in order to get into office. If a majority of L's were to 'take over' the R's and banish the old school establishment in the party, it would be a good thing, but it's not going to happen. Time would be better spent working outside of the cluster that is the R's, building up and eventually just replacing them as they work their way into total irrelevancy.

The most funny part of this exchange is you clear see 'true conservatives' as those outside of the establishment R's. You just seem to want to stick to this strange belief that they are welcome in the party and all things are great.

[glockmail]

...you can pretend forever and a day that the R's are a giant happy family...
...You just seem to want to stick to this strange belief that they are welcome in the party and all things are great.

What's hilarious is that you expect me to accept this premise. :laugh:

[fj1200]

The gay lobby has a marriage agenda. If Federal codes refer to marriage then they must abide by state licensing laws.

The 10th refers to the states and the people. Murder is a state issue, as well as abortion.

Just as the straight lobby has a marriage agenda. So when the Federal codes favor one group over another don't be surprised when it's decided on an equal protection basis.

Rights of the citizens are a Federal issue.


I am looking at my state. D controlled. Shifting more and more blue due to the ignorance and apathy of a small, overpopulated area.

Overall state results. Besides it's not my fault that the CA idiots are moving in with you. :poke:

[Arbo]

What's hilarious is that you expect me to accept this premise. :laugh:

You put it forth, I merely highlighted what you said. That is when you were not ducking and dodging.



Overall state results. Besides it's not my fault that the CA idiots are moving in with you. :poke:

Yes, I think you are driving them out of CA and telling them to come here. Lord they destroy every place they go, like a plague. ;)

[fj1200]

Yes, I think you are driving them out of CA and telling them to come here. Lord they destroy every place they go, like a plague. ;)

You've uncovered my true agenda of driving buses full of libs out of CA into neighboring states to equal out the libocity the country. Now you must pay!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[glockmail]

Just as the straight lobby has a marriage agenda. So when the Federal codes favor one group over another don't be surprised when it's decided on an equal protection basis.

Rights of the citizens are a Federal issue.


Marriage is not a rights issue. It's a simple licensing issue, administered by the states.

In NC if you want to claim marriage to your dog, so be it, as long as you're not having sex with the animal, giving it fresh water and food on a daily basis. The state won't be licensing your activity though. :laugh:

[glockmail]

You put it forth, I merely highlighted what you said. That is when you were not ducking and dodging.


Hilarious and ironic. :laugh:

[Arbo]

You've uncovered my true agenda of driving buses full of libs out of CA into neighboring states to equal out the libocity the country. Now you must pay!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

:clap:

[glockmail]

You've uncovered my true agenda of driving buses full of libs out of CA into neighboring states to equal out the libocity the country. Now you must pay!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

They'd never survive out here. :laugh:

[Arbo]

Hilarious and ironic. :laugh:

Perhaps one day you will learn that words have meanings, and you will start to understand those meanings, and then start to make sense.

[fj1200]

Marriage is not a rights issue. It's a simple licensing issue, administered by the states.

In NC if you want to claim marriage to your dog, so be it, as long as you're not having sex with the animal, giving it fresh water and food on a daily basis. The state won't be licensing your activity though. :laugh:

Um, I didn't say marriage was a rights issue as I don't think it is (the "rights" reference was in regards to the decision pertaining to abortion). Marriage benefits are a privilege granted to married persons that are not granted to others who don't fit the state's definition. If it was "licensing administered by the state" then there wouldn't be much discussion IMO but it hasn't been that way in decades.

Is there an overabundance of dog lovers err, aficionados in your state? :eek:

[glockmail]

Perhaps one day you will learn that words have meanings, and you will start to understand those meanings, and then start to make sense. More irony! :laugh:

[glockmail]

Um, I didn't say marriage was a rights issue as I don't think it is (the "rights" reference was in regards to the decision pertaining to abortion). Marriage benefits are a privilege granted to married persons that are not granted to others who don't fit the state's definition. If it was "licensing administered by the state" then there wouldn't be much discussion IMO but it hasn't been that way in decades.

Normally when someone mentions only one issue in a post and then refers to rights, they are equating the two, not something else entirely.

I'm not sure what planet you are on but marriage has always been, and still is, a state licensing issue. I realize that liberals want to pretend that states have no jurisdiction but to do that is to completely ignore an 'unimportant, dusty old, outdated document written by dead slave-owning white guys': the Constitution. :laugh:

[Arbo]

More irony! :laugh:

At first I thought you might have a bit more knowledge and common sense in you than some of the other idiots that spam up this place. But I am quickly coming to the realization I was wrong.

BTW, your tactics are pretty transparent..

[glockmail]

At first I thought you might have a bit more knowledge and common sense in you than some of the other idiots that spam up this place. But I am quickly coming to the realization I was wrong.

Funny because I've never made that mistake about you.

:lol:

[Arbo]

Funny because I've never made that mistake about you.



And the lame continues…. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Normally when someone mentions only one issue in a post and then refers to rights, they are equating the two, not something else entirely.

I'm not sure what planet you are on but marriage has always been, and still is, a state licensing issue. I realize that liberals want to pretend that states have no jurisdiction but to do that is to completely ignore an 'unimportant, dusty old, outdated document written by dead slave-owning white guys': the Constitution. :laugh:

Considering that we were talking about two different subjects and my separating them into two different paragraphs... :dunno:

/first PP and topic

I'm on the planet where the Federal government grants benefits based on a particular definition that is not applied equally to all. You know, our planet in real worldopia. :slap: IIRC Equal Protection was the basis for tossing out parts of DOMA or are we to the point where you get to declare it's unconstitutional because you say so?

[glockmail]

And the lame continues…. :rolleyes: And the irony continues. :laugh:

[Arbo]

And the irony continues. :laugh:

5736

[glockmail]

Considering that we were talking about two different subjects and my separating them into two different paragraphs... :dunno:

/first PP and topic

I'm on the planet where the Federal government grants benefits based on a particular definition that is not applied equally to all. You know, our planet in real worldopia. :slap: IIRC Equal Protection was the basis for tossing out parts of DOMA or are we to the point where you get to declare it's unconstitutional because you say so?

You mean separating them into two different posts.

Any act by FedCo with respect to marriage is unconstitutional because marriage is the purview of the states. If gays want some federal benefit that requires them to be married then that benefit provision should be changed to allow other forms of legal unions. It's stupid to try and change the definition of a word instead.

[glockmail]

5736

And now I've forced you into making stupid picture sayings. This is solid proof that I've destroyed whatever argument that your have attempted to make. :laugh:

[Arbo]

And now I've forced you into making stupid picture sayings. This is solid proof that I've destroyed whatever argument that your have attempted to make. :laugh:

It is proof you are a whining little girl, nothing more. The only think you are capable of 'destroying' is your own life, and I'm pretty sure you have done a bang up job fucking that up.

:laugh2:

[fj1200]

You mean separating them into two different posts.

:facepalm99: Just following your lead hotshot.


Your gay agenda is not a federal issue. Marriage, for example, is up to the states.

Same with murdering of the unborn. Have you not read the 10th Amendment?


Any act by FedCo with respect to marriage is unconstitutional because marriage is the purview of the states. If gays want some federal benefit that requires them to be married then that benefit provision should be changed to allow other forms of legal unions. It's stupid to try and change the definition of a word instead.

So you agree that DOMA was unconstitional then? And any government prescribed benefit that has marriage as a prerequisite is unconstitutional? That I would agree with because marriage should have been left to the states; that boat just done happened to have sailed quite some time ago, 1913 would be my guess.

[fj1200]

And now I've forced you into making stupid picture sayings. This is solid proof that I've destroyed whatever argument that your have attempted to make. :laugh:

Quoted for future use. :)

[Arbo]

Quoted for future use. :)

Based on this I'm guessing you know a history of this user which will bear out to show him to be yet another moronic hypocrite?

[glockmail]

It is proof you are a whining little girl, nothing more. The only think you are capable of 'destroying' is your own life, and I'm pretty sure you have done a bang up job fucking that up.

:laugh2:

I blast you for name calling, so you resort to more name calling. Hilarious. :laugh:

I assure you that with regards to quality of life, I've got you beat there as well. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Based on this I'm guessing you know a history of this user which will bear out to show him to be yet another moronic hypocrite? Good luck with that tactic. :laugh:

[Arbo]

I blast you for name calling, so you resort to more name calling. Hilarious. :laugh:

I assure you that with regards to quality of life, I've got you beat there as well. :laugh:

So again you don't know the difference between calling names (i.e. dumbass) and describing a person (i.e. an unintelligent fool). Thanks for pointing out your ignorance yet again. I can assure you that your assurance (on anything) has zero value. But keep living in that fantasy land, it provides great entertainment every time you type and fail (which would be every time you type).

[glockmail]

:facepalm99: Just following your lead hotshot.


So you agree that DOMA was unconstitional then? And any government prescribed benefit that has marriage as a prerequisite is unconstitutional? That I would agree with because marriage should have been left to the states; that boat just done happened to have sailed quite some time ago, 1913 would be my guess.

You should learn English comprehension beyond the 10th grade level. I gave two examples, then a citation that covers both. In different paragraphs.

Boats that have sailed can be retrieved. Better to do that than to change the definition of water that it floats on.

[fj1200]

Based on this I'm guessing you know a history of this user which will bear out to show him to be yet another moronic hypocrite?

No, I don't recall glock posting pics in place of an argument.

[Arbo]

You should learn English comprehension beyond the 10th grade level.

5737

[glockmail]

So again you don't know the difference between calling names (i.e. dumbass) and describing a person (i.e. an unintelligent fool). Thanks for pointing out your ignorance yet again. I can assure you that your assurance (on anything) has zero value. But keep living in that fantasy land, it provides great entertainment every time you type and fail (which would be every time you type).

NAME-CALLING : the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts


http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg See name–calling defined for English-language learners » (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/name-calling)

First Known Use of NAME-CALLING1853


Related to NAME-CALLING<dl><dt>Synonyms</dt><dd>character assassination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character+assassination), mudslinging (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mudslinging)</dd></dl><dl><dt>Related Words</dt><dd>defamation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation), libel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel), maligning (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maligning), slander (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander), smearing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smearing), vilification (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vilification); belittlement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belittlement), detraction (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detraction), disparagement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparagement); abuse (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse), invective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invective), vituperation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vituperation); censure (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censure), denunciation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denunciation), revilement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revilement); aspersion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspersion), innuendo (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innuendo)
</dd></dl>







Facts. Pesky facts. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Based on this I'm guessing you know a history of this user which will bear out to show him to be yet another moronic hypocrite?


No, I don't recall glock posting pics in place of an argument.

Man, that had to hurt. :laugh:

[fj1200]

You should learn English comprehension beyond the 10th grade level. I gave two examples, then a citation that covers both. In different paragraphs.

Boats that have sailed can be retrieved. Better to do that than to change the definition of water that it floats on.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Maybe the boat can be retrieved but at this point it's well under steam. Do you think it's easy to "retrieve" government benefits that have been paid out over generations?

[Arbo]

Facts. Pesky facts. :laugh:

Yes, calling you a dumbass would be name calling. Saying you are ignorant and pretty dumb is making a statement about your intelligence (or lack of)… it is fully backed by what I have seen so far. But that you had to run to a dictionary to try and cover your ass (and still failed) is exquisitly humorous.

[glockmail]

5737

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43523-%91we-are-marching-to-the-white-house%92&p=672485#post672485

[glockmail]

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Maybe the boat can be retrieved but at this point it's well under steam. Do you think it's easy to "retrieve" government benefits that have been paid out over generations? No I think it's easy top review an old law and redefine terms in it, rather than trying to redefine a word that has had common use for the last 5000 years. :laugh:

[Arbo]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43523-%91we-are-marching-to-the-white-house%92&p=672485#post672485

:laugh:

[glockmail]

...making a statement about your intelligence....

"...without objective consideration of the facts."

[fj1200]

No I think it's easy top review an old law and redefine terms in it, rather than trying to redefine a word that has had common use for the last 5000 years. :laugh:

Wow. Do you really think that was going to be the shortcut to gay "marriage"? Your overly romantic view of marriage is noted; should we mandate arranged marriages because they were in use at some point in the past as well?

[Arbo]

"...without objective consideration of the facts."

So you are saying your 2600+ posts are not enough to come to an objective conclusion? Man, you are a laugh riot. :laugh:

[glockmail]

Wow. Do you really think that was going to be the shortcut to gay "marriage"? Your overly romantic view of marriage is noted; should we mandate arranged marriages because they were in use at some point in the past as well? Arranged marriages have never been part of American tradition.

[glockmail]

So you are saying your 2600+ posts are not enough to come to an objective conclusion? Man, you are a laugh riot. :laugh: Conclusion, perhaps. Objectivity based on facts? Not a chance. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Arranged marriages have never been part of American tradition.

So the US hasn't been around for 5000 years?


No I think it's easy top review an old law and redefine terms in it, rather than trying to redefine a word that has had common use for the last 5000 years. :laugh:

Equality, via equal protection, is part of American tradition though.

[Arbo]

Arranged marriages have never been part of American tradition.

I thought the Puritans did arranged marriages.


Conclusion, perhaps. Objectivity based on facts? Not a chance. :laugh:

So your 2600+ posts can not be used as facts in terms of what you know and what you believe? :laugh: Man, keep digging that hole.

[glockmail]

Equality, via equal protection, is part of American tradition though.

There is equality. Qualified participants may get licensed.

[glockmail]

I thought the Puritans did arranged marriages.



So your 2600+ posts can not be used as facts in terms of what you know and what you believe? :laugh: Man, keep digging that hole.

Maybe they did, but so what?

I can be, but that's not the point. Your objectivity is. Keep up with the name calling though since it's all you have left apparently. :laugh:

[Arbo]

I can be, but that's not the point. Your objectivity is. Keep up with the name calling though since it's all you have left apparently. :laugh:

More fail. Keep it up.

[glockmail]

Wow what a come-back. :laugh:

[aboutime]

Wow what a come-back. :laugh:


glock. Just remember. The only person Arbo impresses here is ARBO.

Just watch, or let him demonstrate. Thick Skin? Wart Hogs, Gators, Sewer rats all have Thick skin.

[Arbo]

Wow what a come-back. :laugh:

Says the guy that denies his posts can be used to show who he is and in what areas he lacks in. And of course when called on it, changes the subject, per the norm. If you come up with something worth reading, let me know, because so far you are just boring the hell out of me.

[glockmail]

Says the guy that denies his posts can be used to show who he is and in what areas he lacks in. .... Not at all. What I deny is your objectivity.

[Arbo]

Not at all. What I deny is your objectivity.

Like I give a fuck what a moron like you denies. The list is probably quite long, but it is worth about the same level of concern as an fly on a pile of dog shit. Your credibility is about at that same level. Now go work on something worth reading for a change you goon.

[glockmail]

Tsk, tsk. More name calling. :laugh:

[aboutime]

Not at all. What I deny is your objectivity.


glockmail. Amazzin' ain't it. The purest sign of anger from someone who denies it is...the endless, childish, name calling.

Objectivity isn't something they recognize anyhow.

[fj1200]

There is equality. Qualified participants may get licensed.

Keep grasping at the unconstitutional straw. The several States have decided on their definition of marriage which automatically makes Federal benefits not applied equally. You do believe in State's rights don't you?

[glockmail]

Keep grasping at the unconstitutional straw. The several States have decided on their definition of marriage which automatically makes Federal benefits not applied equally. You do believe in State's rights don't you?Each state has a right to decide it own licensing. FedBen is applied equally in each state. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Each state has a right to decide it own licensing. FedBen is applied equally in each state. :laugh:

:facepalm99:


Keep grasping at the unconstitutional straw.

[glockmail]

The truth hurts you, don't it? :laugh:

[fj1200]

:dunno: Not exactly sure which "truth" is supposed to be painful.

[Arbo]

:dunno: Not exactly sure which "truth" is supposed to be painful.

The little gang of morons doesn't know what the fuck truth is. They appear to be typical meathead kids, that grew up leaving their golden years in the dust, no different than an Al Bundy. Their lives are dedicated to parroting talking points and avoiding anything that resembles rational thought.

[tailfins]

The little gang of morons doesn't know what the f**k truth is. They appear to be typical meathead kids, that grew up leaving their golden years in the dust, no different than an Al Bundy. Their lives are dedicated to parroting talking points and avoiding anything that resembles rational thought.

When all else fails, swear! You play the grouchy comedian bit quite well.

[aboutime]

When all else fails, swear! You play the grouchy comedian bit quite well.


tailfins. Actually. That ^ sounds more like the words of a mentally disabled Archie 5757 Bunker on steroids.

[tailfins]

tailfins. Actually. That ^ sounds more like the words of a mentally disabled Archie 5757 Bunker on steroids.

When someone acts all ticked off like that, it's hard to even get to the content of the post. The crankiness gets in the way of the message.

[Arbo]

When someone acts all ticked off like that, it's hard to even get to the content of the post. The crankiness gets in the way of the message.

You live in a strange fantasy world where you have an inability to accurately judge much of anything, eh? Lord you are so off base every time a neuron fires in that little brain…

[tailfins]

You live in a strange fantasy world where you have an inability to accurately judge much of anything, eh? Lord you are so off base every time a neuron fires in that little brain…

Next you're going to tell me if brains were dynamite I couldn't blow my nose, then you will call me a poopyhead.

[aboutime]

Next you're going to tell me if brains were dynamite I couldn't blow my nose, then you will call me a poopyhead.


tailfins. REMEMBER what I posted a couple weeks ago, in reference to your line above?

When God was handing out brains.

Arbo thought they said Trains, and God gave him the smallest set.

[Arbo]

Next you're going to tell me if brains were dynamite I couldn't blow my nose, then you will call me a poopyhead.

I have no intention of stealing your lines.


tailfins. REMEMBER what I posted a couple weeks ago,

Hey, it's manboy, the child who is not man enough to address me directly. Such a coward.

[glockmail]

The little gang of morons doesn't know what the fuck truth is. They appear to be typical meathead kids, that grew up leaving their golden years in the dust, no different than an Al Bundy. Their lives are dedicated to parroting talking points and avoiding anything that resembles rational thought.:laugh: