tojo2000 wrote:

I thought it was more noteworthy how he decided to remind people about how he fought to get Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday declared a holiday.

He didn't.  Really?!  He did?  Can you cite something on that?  I'm beginning to think the man might have something wrong with his brain.  I'm not being sarcastic.  I'd love to see a link, hear some audio, something.

Oh, shiiiiit.  Has he been checked for Alzheimer's/arteriosclerosis?

"What was the first part?"

Thanks so much, tojo.

sofaking wrote:

If he gets elected, we are utterly and completely fucked.

The ghost of Boris Yeltsin, isn't he? What the hell, Hillary Clinton insisted she was in the race right up to the grassy knoll but, hey, she missed her shot.

What a dumbfuck.  "I've supported equal opportunities for all Americans, and I support tax cuts..."  Horseshit.  The only tax cuts I have ever seen Republicans (even the "Mavericks," whatever-the-fuck that's supposed to mean) support have been to keep the rich from supporting the poor while they keep them impoverished.

ptah13 wrote:

Thank god we have Obama, who will give us hope, and change, and a hope for change that we've never had. Lets hope he doesn't change his hopes too often.

Of course, we have no idea where he stands on the issues. Oh yeah, we know where he stands today, but tomorrow is different based on what the polls tell him.

lol

Okay, I can already tell you don't know what you're talking about, but just for the sake of argument, what specifically are you talking about?

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Thank god we have Obama, who will give us hope, and change, and a hope for change that we've never had. Lets hope he doesn't change his hopes too often.

Of course, we have no idea where he stands on the issues. Oh yeah, we know where he stands today, but tomorrow is different based on what the polls tell him.

lol

Okay, I can already tell you don't know what you're talking about, but just for the sake of argument, what specifically are you talking about?

Well the latest is, "we can't drill our way out of this" then "ok lets drill in the gulf" flop. Also throw in the "I'll bring our troops home NOW" then "well it depends on what the situation is on the ground" flop.

Before you misunderstand me, I'm far from some raving right-winger. My guy was Ron Paul. I'm not at all for McCain, I just like Obama less as he comes off as a-typical "I stand for nothing and just want to get elected" type to me.

My issue with Obama is that he's not firm on a whole lot other than vague catch-phrases ("hope", "change", "this is the time", etc).

Secretly, I want him to get elected just so I can laugh when they do away with the child tax credit and all the baby mommas flip out when their earned-income  tax checks are cut in half.

Don't get me wrong. Obama is a smart guy and is a savvy politician. He's better than the last two wack-jobs their party ran.

I pointed this out 4 years ago and I'll say it again. The Dems are their own worst enemy. Last two elections they ran on, "all you need to know about us is that GW is a bad bad man so elect us instead" policy and it screwed them. They PROMISED us, after the Kerry debacle (you know, where he was up by 7 points a month before the election and blew it by burying himself), that they learned their lesson. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they have. They are still running on  not what they will do but what evils the other guy will do.

You can't win elections anymore by simply trashing the other guy. Bill won by going out and saying, "hey I'm not even interested in  talking about the other guy, here's what I'm all about". He was successful by being positive, picking a position and sticking to it. Ever since his tenure ended the party position has been foggy, at best.

The only Dem I really can't stand is Pelosi. My biggest fear is for prez and veep to die in office. I'll take my guns and go to ground if that ever happens.

There is nothing I'd like better than to see the two-headed dragon slain. Both parties are owned by the same folks and you guys are idiots if you think otherwise. If you don't think "big oil" has given as much money to the left as it has to the right, your head is buried in the sand. These two parties are playing the simple masses off against each-other while laughing their way to the same bank.

Again, I hate all party politicians. I lean a little right of center based on my hatred of socialization, my love of guns and my disdain of welfare.

I treasure my liberty and will give none of it up, regardless of the law.

For those that don't know, Ron Paul is against things like the war in Iraq, believing we should steer clear of being the worlds police force. He is for more states rights and is all about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He's against the Patriot Act, our invasion of Iraq, most federal agencies, our troops stationed abroad, the war on drugs, no child left behind, etc etc.

Of course, I don't agree with everything the guy preaches but I think our federal government has been hosing us for the better part of the last 100 years and it amazes me that smart folks like the people here just want to keep playing the same game instead of getting back to what this country was founded on.

"They who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither". - Franklin

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was true with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state." -Jefferson

"Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test his character, give him power." -Lincoln


You may still say, "He doesn't know what he's talking about" and I'll probably not touch on politics again, if I can bear it, but having a differing opinion and being ignorant are two different things. The problem with the masses are that they allow themselves to be pitted against one-another under the banner of Republican/Democrat while their heros pump 12 inches of government love right up our asses.

Once again, in my most humble of opinions...

Oh, and we can't really blame the pols for being circumspect about specifics (if, in fact, they are) because when they offer plans that actually would make a difference they get openly mocked and derided:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic … ml?cnn=yes

"You 'spect me to fill up my tires? Fuck that and fuck you! This is 'Merica, and I ain't gotta do no faggoty-ass conservation shit."

ptah13 wrote:

Again, only my opinion. Don't hold it against me.

Bullshit.  Fuck you leftist cockfags.

*Disclaimer*  The above opinion is the opinion of this poster and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the quoted poster.  Although it should.

Last edited by Scotty (2008-08-06 09:04:34)

ah297900 wrote:

Oh, and I have no idea who scotty's cursing.

Pretty simple, Ah Pook.  Leftist cockfags. 

Had you been around in the glorious days of yore when Cruel was at its zenith during the summer of '04 you would understand what caused the great and mighty fall of December '04.

The leftist cockfags were defeated again and the whole thing deflated like a bad souflee.

ptah13 wrote:

dad -- 82nd [A]irborne

Someday say hey to your old man from some freak on the internet.  It appears he may be a 3rd Brigade soldier.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-08-06 10:41:02)

ptah13 wrote:

next best thing to sex...

Pure adrenalin rush, the good stuff.

ptah wrote:

Well the latest is, "we can't drill our way out of this" then "ok lets drill in the gulf" flop. Also throw in the "I'll bring our troops home NOW" then "well it depends on what the situation is on the ground" flop.

Neither of these pass the smell test (especially when we're comparing this to McCain, but I'll get to that later).  On the drilling thing, and the FISA thing, we may as well throw that in, he never changed his mind.  He did agree to a compromise, one that was unpopular with his supporters.  He never, though, said that he agreed with things that he disagreed with previously.  This is a flip-flop, this is going back on your values, and this is McCain in a nutshell. 

On the need for compromises, I don't know if you've been paying attention to the state of the Senate in this last Congress, but the fact is that the Democrats don't have the majority that people keep saying they have.  In the House they have a solid majority, and that's the branch of the Legislature that has passed timetables on leaving Iraq, etc.  Unfortunately this is the really real world, and the Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate.  What they have is essentially a tie + Joe Lieberman, which doesn't help when the Republicans have broken every record ever set for filibustering twice over (literally, in the literal sense).  So while some Democrats may indulge in a bit of hand-wringing when Obama makes a compromise, the truth is that if an issue is important enough that something absolutely must be passed, some compromises must be made.   I'm not saying I would necessarily have made the same compromises, but I know where he's coming from.

On the issue of flip-flopping over Iraq, that is the biggest giveaway so far that you have no idea what his position is, and unfortunately that news cycle proved that a lot of his supporters didn't either.  This is particularly surprising given that the position he was lambasted over was the same one Hillary Clinton tried to stick it to him over during the Democratic Primary debates, and it made front page news at the time.  "OMG, Barack Obama won't commit to withdrawing by a particular date without taking the conditions 16 months into his Presidency into account!  We're doomed!"

Oh God, another Ron Paul fan wrote:

Before you misunderstand me, I'm far from some raving right-winger. My guy was Ron Paul. I'm not at all for McCain, I just like Obama less as he comes off as a-typical "I stand for nothing and just want to get elected" type to me.

First with regards to Ron Paul, I can only hope you're as ignorant about him as you obviously are about the rest of the issues in this election, because Ron Paul is an idiot.  I'm all for trying to make the government more efficient, but for someone who is on record wanting the elimination of the DEA, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, basically anything except for the military and hides behind the "I think the States should decide" canard anytime someone asks him a question that requires actual thought and is now crying in his beer with anyone who will listen about how McCain and Obama are exactly the same because they're not Ron Paul, I'm having a hard time telling what the draw is.

Tool wrote:

My issue with Obama is that he's not firm on a whole lot other than vague catch-phrases ("hope", "change", "this is the time", etc).

My issue with you is that you are either a liar or an ignorant tool.  I'm going to be gracious and assume that you're just a tool repeating the same stupid catch phrases someone else whispered in your ear.  Obama has been specific and on the record about his stance on the economy, the Energy Crisis, the Iraq War, Presidential Powers, abortion, Free Trade, Afghanistan, you name it.  Since you obviously don't want to sit through any of his speeches, I'd suggest actually going to his website.  You might find it illuminating.  Theres like, pictures and stuff for when you get bored.

sigh wrote:

Secretly, I want him to get elected just so I can laugh when they do away with the child tax credit and all the baby mommas flip out when their earned-income  tax checks are cut in half.

First, you do know that most of the beneficiaries of these programs are white, right?  Secondly, what are you talking about?

ptah wrote:

I pointed this out 4 years ago and I'll say it again. The Dems are their own worst enemy. Last two elections they ran on, "all you need to know about us is that GW is a bad bad man so elect us instead" policy and it screwed them. They PROMISED us, after the Kerry debacle (you know, where he was up by 7 points a month before the election and blew it by burying himself), that they learned their lesson. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they have. They are still running on  not what they will do but what evils the other guy will do.

Citation please.  Where do you get that this is their strategy?  Since you apparently haven't listened to a single thing that actually came from the party or the candidate I find your conclusion suspect.

Ron Paul wrote:

There is nothing I'd like better than to see the two-headed dragon slain. Both parties are owned by the same folks and you guys are idiots if you think otherwise. If you don't think "big oil" has given as much money to the left as it has to the right, your head is buried in the sand. These two parties are playing the simple masses off against each-other while laughing their way to the same bank.

Again, I hate all party politicians. I lean a little right of center based on my hatred of socialization, my love of guns and my disdain of welfare.

Actually big oil has given about double the money to the Republicans, but I have no doubt that it is in large part due to the fact that they had the sitting President and a majority for so long.  In this election cycle if such things will influence your vote, McCain is receiving about four times as much money from oil companies, and almost all of that came right after the recent flip-flop on offshore drilling.

I don't like having to choose between one of the two parties either.  I've never had a year where I said, "Hell yeah, Party X totally has all of the same positions as me!"  Unfortunately as long as the elections are winner-take-all, we'll probably be stuck with a two party system until the end of time.  At best one of the parties will be supplanted by a new one.

ptah wrote:

I treasure my liberty and will give none of it up, regardless of the law.

For those that don't know, Ron Paul is against things like the war in Iraq, believing we should steer clear of being the worlds police force. He is for more states rights and is all about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He's against the Patriot Act, our invasion of Iraq, most federal agencies, our troops stationed abroad, the war on drugs, no child left behind, etc etc.

Those are good things.  I notice you left out any and all controversial positions, like arranging for his Republican pals to vote in the pork that he puts up to a vote but then voting against it so that it looks like he's a libertarian hero, but I don't really care since he doesn't have a chance in hell of actually becoming President.

ptah wrote:

Of course, I don't agree with everything the guy preaches but I think our federal government has been hosing us for the better part of the last 100 years and it amazes me that smart folks like the people here just want to keep playing the same game instead of getting back to what this country was founded on.

"They who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither". - Franklin

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was true with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state." -Jefferson

"Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test his character, give him power." -Lincoln

Nice quotes, but you might also want to take into account that those three men had pretty different ideas about the role of the Federal government.  Jefferson, in particular, was in favor of using programs like free education in order to benefit the nation as a whole, and none of them had the "throw it to the market and let God sort it out" philosophy that Mr. Paul espouses.

ptah wrote:

You may still say, "He doesn't know what he's talking about"

I do, when it comes to Obama.

ptah wrote:

and I'll probably not touch on politics again, if I can bear it, but having a differing opinion and being ignorant are two different things.

You're ignorant.

ptah wrote:

The problem with the masses are that they allow themselves to be pitted against one-another under the banner of Republican/Democrat while their heros pump 12 inches of government love right up our asses.

I can agree with you on this point, insomuch as it has become a macrocosm of "my team is better than your team, nyah."

ptah wrote:

Once again, in my most humble of opinions...

Yes, your humility in smearing someone whose basic position on the issues you haven't bothered to look into at all is truly staggering.

I've got to make some money, but later on I'll dig in to the flip side of this, the issue that the news seems loathe to cover for fear of seeming biased: some of the reasons why McCain would make a really, really terrible President.

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah wrote:

Well the latest is, "we can't drill our way out of this" then "ok lets drill in the gulf" flop. Also throw in the "I'll bring our troops home NOW" then "well it depends on what the situation is on the ground" flop.

Neither of these pass the smell test (especially when we're comparing this to McCain, but I'll get to that later).  On the drilling thing, and the FISA thing, we may as well throw that in, he never changed his mind.  He did agree to a compromise, one that was unpopular with his supporters.  He never, though, said that he agreed with things that he disagreed with previously.  This is a flip-flop, this is going back on your values, and this is McCain in a nutshell. 

On the need for compromises, I don't know if you've been paying attention to the state of the Senate in this last Congress, but the fact is that the Democrats don't have the majority that people keep saying they have.  In the House they have a solid majority, and that's the branch of the Legislature that has passed timetables on leaving Iraq, etc.  Unfortunately this is the really real world, and the Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate.  What they have is essentially a tie + Joe Lieberman, which doesn't help when the Republicans have broken every record ever set for filibustering twice over (literally, in the literal sense).  So while some Democrats may indulge in a bit of hand-wringing when Obama makes a compromise, the truth is that if an issue is important enough that something absolutely must be passed, some compromises must be made.   I'm not saying I would necessarily have made the same compromises, but I know where he's coming from.

On the issue of flip-flopping over Iraq, that is the biggest giveaway so far that you have no idea what his position is, and unfortunately that news cycle proved that a lot of his supporters didn't either.  This is particularly surprising given that the position he was lambasted over was the same one Hillary Clinton tried to stick it to him over during the Democratic Primary debates, and it made front page news at the time.  "OMG, Barack Obama won't commit to withdrawing by a particular date without taking the conditions 16 months into his Presidency into account!  We're doomed!"

Oh God, another Ron Paul fan wrote:

Before you misunderstand me, I'm far from some raving right-winger. My guy was Ron Paul. I'm not at all for McCain, I just like Obama less as he comes off as a-typical "I stand for nothing and just want to get elected" type to me.

First with regards to Ron Paul, I can only hope you're as ignorant about him as you obviously are about the rest of the issues in this election, because Ron Paul is an idiot.  I'm all for trying to make the government more efficient, but for someone who is on record wanting the elimination of the DEA, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, basically anything except for the military and hides behind the "I think the States should decide" canard anytime someone asks him a question that requires actual thought and is now crying in his beer with anyone who will listen about how McCain and Obama are exactly the same because they're not Ron Paul, I'm having a hard time telling what the draw is.

Tool wrote:

My issue with Obama is that he's not firm on a whole lot other than vague catch-phrases ("hope", "change", "this is the time", etc).

My issue with you is that you are either a liar or an ignorant tool.  I'm going to be gracious and assume that you're just a tool repeating the same stupid catch phrases someone else whispered in your ear.  Obama has been specific and on the record about his stance on the economy, the Energy Crisis, the Iraq War, Presidential Powers, abortion, Free Trade, Afghanistan, you name it.  Since you obviously don't want to sit through any of his speeches, I'd suggest actually going to his website.  You might find it illuminating.  Theres like, pictures and stuff for when you get bored.

sigh wrote:

Secretly, I want him to get elected just so I can laugh when they do away with the child tax credit and all the baby mommas flip out when their earned-income  tax checks are cut in half.

First, you do know that most of the beneficiaries of these programs are white, right?  Secondly, what are you talking about?

ptah wrote:

I pointed this out 4 years ago and I'll say it again. The Dems are their own worst enemy. Last two elections they ran on, "all you need to know about us is that GW is a bad bad man so elect us instead" policy and it screwed them. They PROMISED us, after the Kerry debacle (you know, where he was up by 7 points a month before the election and blew it by burying himself), that they learned their lesson. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they have. They are still running on  not what they will do but what evils the other guy will do.

Citation please.  Where do you get that this is their strategy?  Since you apparently haven't listened to a single thing that actually came from the party or the candidate I find your conclusion suspect.

Ron Paul wrote:

There is nothing I'd like better than to see the two-headed dragon slain. Both parties are owned by the same folks and you guys are idiots if you think otherwise. If you don't think "big oil" has given as much money to the left as it has to the right, your head is buried in the sand. These two parties are playing the simple masses off against each-other while laughing their way to the same bank.

Again, I hate all party politicians. I lean a little right of center based on my hatred of socialization, my love of guns and my disdain of welfare.

Actually big oil has given about double the money to the Republicans, but I have no doubt that it is in large part due to the fact that they had the sitting President and a majority for so long.  In this election cycle if such things will influence your vote, McCain is receiving about four times as much money from oil companies, and almost all of that came right after the recent flip-flop on offshore drilling.

I don't like having to choose between one of the two parties either.  I've never had a year where I said, "Hell yeah, Party X totally has all of the same positions as me!"  Unfortunately as long as the elections are winner-take-all, we'll probably be stuck with a two party system until the end of time.  At best one of the parties will be supplanted by a new one.

ptah wrote:

I treasure my liberty and will give none of it up, regardless of the law.

For those that don't know, Ron Paul is against things like the war in Iraq, believing we should steer clear of being the worlds police force. He is for more states rights and is all about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He's against the Patriot Act, our invasion of Iraq, most federal agencies, our troops stationed abroad, the war on drugs, no child left behind, etc etc.

Those are good things.  I notice you left out any and all controversial positions, like arranging for his Republican pals to vote in the pork that he puts up to a vote but then voting against it so that it looks like he's a libertarian hero, but I don't really care since he doesn't have a chance in hell of actually becoming President.

ptah wrote:

Of course, I don't agree with everything the guy preaches but I think our federal government has been hosing us for the better part of the last 100 years and it amazes me that smart folks like the people here just want to keep playing the same game instead of getting back to what this country was founded on.

"They who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither". - Franklin

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was true with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state." -Jefferson

"Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test his character, give him power." -Lincoln

Nice quotes, but you might also want to take into account that those three men had pretty different ideas about the role of the Federal government.  Jefferson, in particular, was in favor of using programs like free education in order to benefit the nation as a whole, and none of them had the "throw it to the market and let God sort it out" philosophy that Mr. Paul espouses.

ptah wrote:

You may still say, "He doesn't know what he's talking about"

I do, when it comes to Obama.

ptah wrote:

and I'll probably not touch on politics again, if I can bear it, but having a differing opinion and being ignorant are two different things.

You're ignorant.

ptah wrote:

The problem with the masses are that they allow themselves to be pitted against one-another under the banner of Republican/Democrat while their heros pump 12 inches of government love right up our asses.

I can agree with you on this point, insomuch as it has become a macrocosm of "my team is better than your team, nyah."

ptah wrote:

Once again, in my most humble of opinions...

Yes, your humility in smearing someone whose basic position on the issues you haven't bothered to look into at all is truly staggering.

I've got to make some money, but later on I'll dig in to the flip side of this, the issue that the news seems loathe to cover for fear of seeming biased: some of the reasons why McCain would make a really, really terrible President.

Wow, another left-winger who can't discuss politics without making it personal.

Sorry, I'm not into your game.

The one thing I will address is the issue of Kerry v. Bush. I do believe the guy was up by at least 7 points two months before the election. I also remember how stunned the left voting block was the day after the election when they were so certain their guy was a shoo-in. There were many articles where people were quoted as saying how the democratic party needed to be retooled from the ground up.

I am amazed you claim this is fiction. Everyone I knew that was "in the middle" and voted for Bush said, "well, he's not that great but I have no idea what Kerry stands for".

A month before the election I told everyone at Cruel, "sucks but you're getting 4 more years of Bush because the left spends 90% of their time talking about Bush and only 10% talking about the issues". Of course I was ridiculed and told what an "ignorant tool" I was and how Kerry was going to trounce Bush.

Clinton won because he got out of the mud and talked about himself and real issues.

Also, I think Clinton knows we only have 50 states. That always helps.

Again, you can call me all the names you want and it still won't change the fact that your party is going to give up 4 more years to the right because your guy is a poser.

Of course if the left takes some different tact things could still change. If that happens, I'll tell you. I haven't been wrong about an election yet.

I'm not sure why you seem to want to make this a racial thing. I've grown up in a colorblind environment and raised my children the same way. To be honest, I voted for Obama in the primary (you don't have to register a party in my state). I have no problem with him winning other than I think that McCain is the more bipartisan of the two (but hey, if you can show me a bunch of links of Obama voting with the right I'll be glad to check them out).

I'm sure you'll have some more childish name calling and insulting to do. Seems that's the only way your party knows how to converse.

ah297900 wrote:

Also, I think Clinton knows we only have 50 states. That always helps.

I remember when Obama said the 57 states thing.



I defy you to tell me that you honestly believe that Obama thinks that there are 57 states. I further defy you to tell me that the occasional (not habitual) verbal misstep is grounds for not voting for someone. Either tell me those two things or forever drop the 57 states thing.

I agree that it was a verbal misstep. I know Osama is a smart guy.

The truth of the matter is that if McCain had said it, it would be the lead story on CNN and MSNBC (famous for bias) with everyone harping on it for days.


(hehehe)

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-06 16:11:17)

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Jupiterian response to Homeric post.

Do you know what ignorant means?  It means that in the complete absence of any facts and in fact a huge volume of information to the contrary, you spread the kind of crap you spouted.  You are ignorant.  By the way, way to not respond to virtually any of the actual points I made and instead run away yelling "sticks and stones".

As for the Kerry not being a tool thing, I didn't mean to imply that I disagreed.  I actually do.  Kerry was milquetoast defined.  It was the statement (again, with nothing to back it up) that the only thing the left has as a strategy is to say that their candidate is not Bush.

As for the racist thing, I thought the implication that Obama's policies would result in a bunch of "baby mamas" crying when their government checks were cut in half was playing to a pretty nasty racial stereotype.

Also:

Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!  Ignorant!

I apologize. Most of the "baby mommas" I know are white.

I can see why that comment came off that way but that wasn't my intent.

As for the "not Bush" comment I made, I'm only going off what people said when asked why they voted for Bush over Kerry. Most of what I heard was, "well, we know Bush is a dork but we really had no clue what was up with Kerry because all he seemed to do was talk about Bush".

Again, goes back to why Clinton was so effective and Gore and Kerry were not. Clinton refused to even discuss Bush I. Since Clinton, that type of campaign has gone by the wayside. I agree that Obama is way better at taking the high-ground than Kerry or Gore but the left base are still obsessing on the other guy. During the primaries it seemed like 1/2 the dems were thinking they were running against Bush by the way they talked about him during their speeches.

When I commented on your name calling, I wasn't talking about your use of the word "ignorant" but, hey, however you want to spin it is your business.

ptah13 wrote:

but hey, if you can show me a bunch of links of Obama voting with the right I'll be glad to check them out

What about that vote on the FISA courts thing that pissed off the left?

And, yes, scotty I will have to concede that there are 57 Islamic states, therefore Obama is a muslim extremist sent to subvert our culture from within. That's literally the only possible explanation, unless, of course, he was referring to Passenger 57.

Always bet on black.

ptah13 wrote:

There is nothing I'd like better than to see the two-headed dragon slain. Both parties are owned by the same folks and you guys are idiots if you think otherwise. If you don't think "big oil" has given as much money to the left as it has to the right, your head is buried in the sand. These two parties are playing the simple masses off against each-other while laughing their way to the same bank.

Again, I hate all party politicians. I lean a little right of center based on my hatred of socialization, my love of guns and my disdain of welfare.

I treasure my liberty and will give none of it up, regardless of the law.

Can I get an Amen, brother? My beliefs, as well. Nicely stated.

As y'all must know by now, McCain is just another ineligible wetback.

ah297900 wrote:

Quit trolling. I could go to cable news for this kind of stuff.

For good or ill, ptah, this ain't cruel. If Smitty weren't otherwise indisposed, she'd banish you to Drudge planet in the Puckerstar galaxy for a first offense.

Oh, I forgot the second part.

choad wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Quit trolling. I could go to cable news for this kind of stuff.

For good or ill, ptah, this ain't cruel. If Smitty weren't otherwise indisposed, she'd banish you to Drudge planet in the Puckerstar galaxy for a first offense.

I get it, now.  You can say whatever you want about the right wing but god forbid you comment negative on Mr Hope for Change.

Sorry, just learning the rules!

I went back and reread the posts, to see where the "trolling" began.

Hmm.... Someone posted something negative about McCain. I then posted something negative about Obama. I was then told I didn't know what I was talking about and was asked to elaborate, which I did.

Then Tojo (perfect moniker for the poster, btw) threw out all this stuff about me being an "ignorant tool or liar" saying stuff like "there are pictures there if you get bored", etc.

I still avoid the insults and now you're calling me the troll and threatening to banish me.

So, again, so I understand...

Run McCain through the mud--- that's ok.

Run Obama through the mud--- then you're a troll?

or is it

State your beliefs--- you're a troll

Insult and ridicule someone for stating their beliefs--- that's ok as long as you are a left-winger....

got it!

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-06 22:05:20)

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

choad wrote:

For good or ill, ptah, this ain't cruel. If Smitty weren't otherwise indisposed, she'd banish you to Drudge planet in the Puckerstar galaxy for a first offense.

I get it, now.  You can say whatever you want about the right wing but god forbid you comment negative on Mr Hope for Change.

Sorry, just learning the rules!

I always thought the rules were you can say whatever you want to anybody, it's just that they get to say whatever they want back.

We agree on something, then...

I'm not calling foul on your responses, as I use to roll the same way. I'm calling foul on threatening to banish me to drudge for responding to you.

I'm all cool with you saying whatever you want, even telling me I'm a mule-felching taint-gobbler...

I'm just going to avoid the whole politcal thing anyway as I really enjoy most of what's going on here (especially the banners) and could care less about the political crap anyway.

So you win, Tojo and Ah ha. I'm sufficiently beat down by your superior intellect!

I think you get The Kids of Widney High CD or something for beating me down in an internet argument.

ptah13 wrote:

I get it, now.  You can say whatever you want about the right wing but god forbid you comment negative on Mr Hope for Change.

Sorry, just learning the rules!

By the way, be-fore you "stick your foot in it again," we're all-so under-standing and supportive of the furry life-style now.

Oh, and, well-come back . . .  Or, home . . .  Or, where-ever.

George Orr wrote:

All choad means is that if Roger were around, she'd be telling all of you boring windbags to TAKE IT TO FUCKING DRUDGE

Thank You.