You shouldn't have to lie this much to get elected

[RandomGuy]

dM9DVC7kd7s



To be fair, Obama, like any politician, will spin things in his favor to make his case.

Even viewed through that lens, you have to have some basis in fact to make claims, however weak.

Romney has gone for the sweeping generalizations here that play well to his base. That these sweeping generalizations are wildly, provably inaccurate, doesn't seem to be cause for concern for Republicans.

Why have no Republicans come forward to call him on this bullshit?


I know a lot of you like to pretend there isn't much difference between the two parties. For the most part, I would agree that they both play to the center, and because of their size can't get too far apart.

BUT

What I see is that the right wing in this country simply cannot make the case for its ideology without lying at some point, and that is very damning when it comes to finding pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to problems.

[TeyshaBlue]

Honestly, RG. I could put together a hit piece like that in 10 minutes....
Every quote out of context, every response, out of context. Net value: .005
+10 propaganda!
smh

[TeyshaBlue]

Also, your tacit implication that all Right Wingers are ideological liars and devoid of any ability to apply pragmatism to a solution is absurd.

You didn't think this out very well, did you?

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm mad as hell and I'm going to post a youtube!:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm mad as hell and I'm going to post a youtube!:lol

:lmao

[BlairForceDejuan]

Romney is just as much a giant douche Politician as Obama, newsbreaking. Politicians are politicians, lol self-declared intellectual still chained by the partisan paradigm.

Loser regressives can't make a case for ideology so they play on heart strings and white guilt. How noble. Obama is a flat out liar, for you to bash Romney and then gently caress Obama as doing nothing more than spinning the occasional fib is a joke. Genius can't even man up on his own fking healthcare plan.

[boutons_deux]

"all Right Wingers are ideological liars and devoid of any ability to apply pragmatism"

An accurate statement, except I would add pathological before "liars".

[TeyshaBlue]

"all Right Wingers are ideological liars and devoid of any ability to apply pragmatism"

An accurate statement, except I would add pathological before "liars".

Am I a pathalogical liar, boutons?

I do drift more to the right than the left.

[TeyshaBlue]

Could you milk me, Greg? I have nipples too.


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Uyf3d9hOcsc/0.jpg

[cheguevara]

"I am not a crook"
"I did not sell missiles to Iran"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
"They have weapons of mass destruction"
"I will bring the troops home within 16 months", "I will close Guantanamo", "I will stop Bush detention policies", etc, etc

Romney would just be another one on in a long line of liars

[fraga]

Romney is for everything at any moment...

[Bill_Brasky]

Fuckin' fish in a barrel.

[SA210]

"I am not a crook"
"I did not sell missiles to Iran"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
"They have weapons of mass destruction"
"I will bring the troops home within 16 months", "I will close Guantanamo", "I will stop Bush detention policies", etc, etc

Romney would just be another one on in a long line of liars

:tu

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Same ol' hot air. More of the same, indeed.

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, RG. I could put together a hit piece like that in 10 minutes....
Every quote out of context, every response, out of context. Net value: .005
+10 propaganda!
smh

Feel free to. Give me a link, and I will add it to the OP. The thread title's word choice was intentionally unspecific.

Obama made a lot of promises that he either didn't know he would have to go back on, or never intended to carry through in 2008. You should start there.

It is a piece of propaganda, although I'm not sure what context would change some of the basic statements Romney made into things that weren't sweeping generalizations.

[cheguevara]

he didn't mean to lie :cry

[RandomGuy]

Also, your tacit implication that all Right Wingers are ideological liars and devoid of any ability to apply pragmatism to a solution is absurd.

You didn't think this out very well, did you?

Not all right wingers are either of those things, and that is not what I think. If you think it is tacit, then I should clarify. My bad.

What I do think, is that when people start making the case for right-wing ideology, it almost invariably has to start leaving out important infomration needed to make good decisions. This selectivization of the facts piles up to the point where it starts becoming lies of omission.

There is a gulf between making a case for something, and doing so in an intellectually honest manner.

I don't think all people who hold right-wing ideologies tend to be devoid of pragmatism.

Crud... times up. More later.

[RandomGuy]

he didn't mean to lie :cry

Strawman.


either didn't know he would have to go back on, or never intended to carry through in 2008

The latter phrase implies an intent to deceive, i.e. "he meant to"

Can you make an argument without strawman attacks, or is it impossible for you to fairly represent people's views that you dont' agree with?

[RandomGuy]

"I am not a crook"
"I did not sell missiles to Iran"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
"They have weapons of mass destruction"
"I will bring the troops home within 16 months", "I will close Guantanamo", "I will stop Bush detention policies", etc, etc

Romney would just be another one on in a long line of liars

Now that I would buy.

Question:

Do you see ANY Republican on this board or elsewhere who is, or has called Romney on his lies?

[boutons_deux]

I'm not talking about "people", I'm talking about Repug politicians, right-wing hate media, Fox Repug Progaganda network, "Christian" asshole extremists.

eg, even MSM asked McLiar to quit lying about Hussein in 2008.

[cheguevara]

Obama is as bad as Romney. It's been proven by his lies about guantanamo, iraq, NDAA, bailouts, prosecution of bankers, campaign funding, etc, etc.

The delusion that Red team has a bigger liar is pathetic.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Now that I would buy.

Question:

Do you see ANY Republican on this board or elsewhere who is, or has called Romney on his lies?

I thought that's what Joe Chalupa is for........
:wakeup

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I'm not talking about "people", I'm talking about Repug politicians, right-wing hate media, Fox Repug Progaganda network, "Christian" asshole extremists.

eg, even MSM asked McLiar to quit lying about Hussein in 2008.

Gfy

[SA210]

Strawman.


From the guy who misrepresented things in the 9/11 thread about the video I posted there, and you laughed your wrong assumptions and misrepresentations off as if they were funny and true, then avoided them by trying to show other videos all the while not watching mine.

:lmao strawman :lol


Che is right. Nothing but cry-babying excuses for the fraud that is Obama. There is no difference from the Dems and Republicans. The corruption is there on both sides. You support a corrupt system, a corrupt way of doing things. The SYSTEM itself, set up the way it is for Dems and Republicans is a fraud. Obama is no different, if not worse.

[Nbadan]

He was probably just 'unaware'...

[TeyshaBlue]

Feel free to. Give me a link, and I will add it to the OP. The thread title's word choice was intentionally unspecific.

Obama made a lot of promises that he either didn't know he would have to go back on, or never intended to carry through in 2008. You should start there.

It is a piece of propaganda, although I'm not sure what context would change some of the basic statements Romney made into things that weren't sweeping generalizations.

lol...I have about zero interest in cranking out propaganda. I'll leave that to Yoni.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Not all right wingers are either of those things, and that is not what I think. If you think it is tacit, then I should clarify. My bad.

What I do think, is that when people start making the case for right-wing ideology, it almost invariably has to start leaving out important infomration needed to make good decisions. This selectivization of the facts piles up to the point where it starts becoming lies of omission.

There is a gulf between making a case for something, and doing so in an intellectually honest manner.

I don't think all people who hold right-wing ideologies tend to be devoid of pragmatism.

Crud... times up. More later.

When you round a population up aka, "the right wing in this country", without any attempt whatsoever at differentiation, what do you expect the resultant data set to be? C'mon dude.
I am a conservative. I am not a social conservative. There exists, more than one set of conservatives. However well it might serve your meme to conflate the two, it's a foundational error that comes back to submarine your (unqualified) position. Everytime.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not talking about "people", I'm talking about Repug politicians, right-wing hate media, Fox Repug Progaganda network, "Christian" asshole extremists.

eg, even MSM asked McLiar to quit lying about Hussein in 2008.

"all Right Wingers".

Please. :facepalm.

[TeyshaBlue]

Now that I would buy.

Question:

Do you see ANY Republican on this board or elsewhere who is, or has called Romney on his lies?

I can't speak for any of the resident cons, or any others for that matter, but I'm profoundly dissappointed in the GOP's selections. I honestly don't spend 10 seconds thinking about any of them much less creating threads with youtubes about them. I've pretty much dismissed them as irrelevant until the primaries are over. Some of the BS falls off at that point and the focus becomes somewhat (relatively) more coherent. They will command some attention at that point. Right now, every primary candidate appears to me as a fucking chameleon.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama is as bad as Romney"

false equivalence from a Randian Paul sucker, upping his game.

[hitmanyr2k]

"I will bring the troops home within 16 months",

I don't think it's as black and white as you put it lol. He didn't say ALL troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months.


"I will close Guantanamo",

wtf? You're quoting this as if he didn't try to get Guantanamo closed :lol He didn't just suddenly change his mind and say leave it open for shits and giggles.


"I will stop Bush detention policies", etc, etc


This one has merit.

[SA210]

"Obama is as bad as Romney"

false equivalence from a Randian Paul sucker, upping his game.

Easy there Boutons, I usually agree with you. Don't hate just because I appreciate an honest politician. They are non-existent these days. Nothing wrong with that, just because he is more honest than your candidate of choice doesn't mean I'm the bad guy or a sucker. You may not agree with his policies, but he's honest, and Obama is not. That's a fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Easy there Boutons, I usually agree with you. Don't hate just because I appreciate an honest politician. They are non-existent these days. Nothing wrong with that, just because he is more honest than your candidate of choice doesn't mean I'm the bad guy or a sucker. You may not agree with his policies, but he's honest, and Obama is not. That's a fact.Ron Paul has lied just like any other politician.

You are a sucker.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a sad fact, but a truthful politician doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected.

Can you imagine a politician stepping up to the mike and telling people that there is no way in hell the American public will support the pain that would be required to get our debt under control (until it's completely out of our control and forced on us) or that he can't do a fucking thing about gas prices, or that the productive part of the american population can no longer pay enough to support the unproductive americans, and that for the most part Americans are greedy lazy fucks that are getting swamped by the global economy and the willingness of others in the world to work harder...in other words, we are fucked and our future looks grim.

:lmao

his opponent would kill him.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh yeah...don't forget that by 2018 the interest on our national debt will be more than our military budget.

[RandomGuy]

:cry Randomguy made fun of my 9-11 truth video about all the celebrities that agree with me. BOO-HOO!! :cry

Jeez man, give it a break. Your video sucked, and nobody wants to waste two and a half hours wading through a pit of stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Oh yeah...don't forget that by 2018 the interest on our national debt will be more than our military budget.

the sick-care for-profit sector is and will continue to be much more deficit-driving and wealth-sucking than interest payments on the debt (much of which is held by US citizens and orgs).

Nice kneejerk effort with the Repug policy of deficit scare-mongering.

[RandomGuy]

When you round a population up aka, "the right wing in this country", without any attempt whatsoever at differentiation, what do you expect the resultant data set to be? C'mon dude.
I am a conservative. I am not a social conservative. There exists, more than one set of conservatives. However well it might serve your meme to conflate the two, it's a foundational error that comes back to submarine your (unqualified) position. Everytime.

cake and sodomy, as vy would say.

The left does not have a monopoly on critical thinking, but I don't know of any people who I would say are good at it that have political views that are right of center.

The two ends of the political spectrum do have their political othodoxies, but it is rather obvious to me who is lying more.

Name the right wing equivalent of Robert Reich.

Name the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

The two sides are not equal.

[CosmicCowboy]

the sick-care for-profit sector is and will continue to be much more deficit-driving and wealth-sucking than interest payments on the debt (much of which is held by US citizens and orgs).

Nice kneejerk effort with the Repug policy of deficit scare-mongering.

:lmao

It's not scare mongering. It' just simple facts. Add in your "sick care for profit" scenario and we are double fucked. BTW the "not for profit" single payer systems are also eating the budgets of the governments that adopted them. Ain't nothing cheap about health care anywhere.

[MannyIsGod]

The candidates we have are simply reflections of our society. Wishing for better candidates isn't going to make it so. Once the fundamentals (read: Critical thinking in our society) are at a level more conducive to candidates that are more than shallow caricatures then we shall have them.

When you have more Wineholes and LNGs in our society then perhaps you'll get more Teysha Blues running for office.

But as long as the majority are Wild Cobras and Darrins then you're going to get Barrack, Bush, Romney etc.

If you build it, they will come etc etc.

[RandomGuy]

for the most part Americans are greedy lazy fucks

The number of hours worked would seem to indicate otherwise.

[CosmicCowboy]

cake and sodomy, as vy would say.

The left does not have a monopoly on critical thinking, but I don't know of any people who I would say are good at it that have political views that are right of center.

The two ends of the political spectrum do have their political othodoxies, but it is rather obvious to me who is lying more.

Name the right wing equivalent of Robert Reich.

Name the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

The two sides are not equal.

Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.

[TeyshaBlue]

cake and sodomy, as vy would say.

The left does not have a monopoly on critical thinking, but I don't know of any people who I would say are good at it that have political views that are right of center.

The two ends of the political spectrum do have their political othodoxies, but it is rather obvious to me who is lying more.

Name the right wing equivalent of Robert Reich.

Name the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

The two sides are not equal.

Equivalent in what manner?

[TeyshaBlue]

See? Stop being squishy.

[MannyIsGod]

The number of hours worked would seem to indicate otherwise.

Do they? Being forced to work more hours doesn't mean you're any less lazy, tbh.

[RandomGuy]

The candidates we have are simply reflections of our society. Wishing for better candidates isn't going to make it so. Once the fundamentals (read: Critical thinking in our society) are at a level more conducive to candidates that are more than shallow caricatures then we shall have them.

If you build it, they will come etc etc.

Hallelujah.

My wife is finishing up her final semester of student teaching in a science class.

The kids in her class are being inundated with massive amounts of information needed to pass the standards test and no time to cover anything in any depth.

Our striving for "accountability" is fucking our ability to produce good critical thinkers.

We want our kids to learn checklists so we can test better than Asians who spend 80 hours/week memorizing bullshit without understanding it.

So that is what we are getting.

[Wild Cobra]

Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.
Ever listen to Randi Rhodes?

[CosmicCowboy]

The number of hours worked would seem to indicate otherwise.

I wan't comparing to rotting european models.

*see riots as governments figure out they can't afford to support the model*

[MannyIsGod]

Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.

No, fucking, way.

I confess to not having watched Maddow in a couple of years but unless she's gone off the fucking deep end then there's no way that comparison by an objective party is ever going to hold.

I'm not saying they aren't out there but that is not a good match AT ALL.

[RandomGuy]

Name the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.


Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.

You seem to be overestimating Maddow's viewership, or influence in the Democratic party. Ain't no one kissing her ring.

You also can't tell me that she is anywhere near as venal or unfactual as Limbaugh.

[TeyshaBlue]

You seem to be overestimating Maddow's viewership, or influence in the Democratic party. Ain't no one kissing her ring.

You also can't tell me that she is anywhere near as venal or unfactual as Limbaugh.

Is there a venality index we can use?:rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

No, fucking, way.

I confess to not having watched Maddow in a couple of years but unless she's gone off the fucking deep end then there's no way that comparison by an objective party is ever going to hold.

I'm not saying they aren't out there but that is not a good match AT ALL.

C'mon Manny. They both have mastered the snark depending on their red or blue glasses vision.

[TeyshaBlue]

The two ends of the political spectrum do have their political othodoxies, but it is rather obvious to me who is lying more.

Of course it is. Consistency and hobgoblins and all that.

[TeyshaBlue]

C'mon Manny. They both have mastered the snark depending on their red or blue glasses vision.

Please publish your snark metics. Thx.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

[ChumpDumper]

Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.Wow, that was pretty stupid.

Which email told you to call her the snuff queen?

[CosmicCowboy]

You seem to be overestimating Maddow's viewership, or influence in the Democratic party. Ain't no one kissing her ring.

You also can't tell me that she is anywhere near as venal or unfactual as Limbaugh.

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh. the difference is she claims to actually be a journalist while Limbaugh is an entertainer and makes no bones about it. He laughs all the way to the bank.

[RandomGuy]

Is there a venality index we can use?:rolleyes

Hmmm... maybe "mean/vindictive" would be better. Although I am unaware Maddow has given her endorsement to any commercial products, as I know Limbaugh has.

Do you doubt I could find a rather long list of nasty comments about left-wingers from Rush?

Do you doubt that you would be similarly unable to find anything similar for Rachel?

[ChumpDumper]

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh.Give us some examples.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever listen to Randi Rhodes?

Here's a link for those who don't know her. I'll bet some of the liberals here will fall in love with her:

Randi Rhodes dot com (http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html)

Podcasts (http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/podcast/)

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow, that was pretty stupid.

Which email told you to call her the snuff queen?

You are obviously such a clueless fucking nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.

[RandomGuy]

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh.



Then it should be easy for you to show this.

Bullshit has been called.

If you can't prove it, the only reasonable thing to do is reject your statement.

Can you back that statement up?

[TeyshaBlue]

Hmmm... maybe "mean/vindictive" would be better. Although I am unaware Maddow has given her endorsement to any commercial products, as I know Limbaugh has.

Do you doubt I could find a rather long list of nasty comments about left-wingers from Rush?

Do you doubt that you would be similarly unable to find anything similar for Rachel?

I seriously doubt that it's quantifiable in any meaningful manner. It's certainly eluding us at this moment.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

Shup. You're the snark monkey when you want to be.:lol

[RandomGuy]

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

It's wierd, because left and right are not equivalent.

The things that make right-wingers into right-wingers encourage homogenousness and uniform thinking. That is what makes the right-wing message so clear.

Exactly how have I moved the goal posts here?

[ChumpDumper]

You are obviously such a clueless fucking nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.lol Jimmy Buffet?

What do you mean by it in this context, Jimmy Buffet fan?

[TeyshaBlue]

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

I could be incorrect here.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SqcXlrLuVyM/TcL7EXTvZwI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/tQliG-J9Wyo/s1600/Michael-Moore.jpg+2.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

Then it should be easy for you to show this.

Bullshit has been called.

If you can't prove it, the only reasonable thing to do is reject your statement.

Can you back that statement up?

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.

[MannyIsGod]

Moore is definitely a good bet.

[RandomGuy]

I seriously doubt that it's quantifiable in any meaningful manner. It's certainly eluding us at this moment.

It most certainly is not.

Find a list of nasty personal attacks on anyone from Rachel.

It seems fairly quantifiable to me. If you don't want to be honest about this, then I guess we can stop here.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.

Perspective has nothing to do with being factually incorrect. For snark, sure, which is why I didn't want to use it as a metric.

[MannyIsGod]

It most certainly is not.

Find a list of nasty personal attacks on anyone from Rachel.

It seems fairly quantifiable to me. If you don't want to be honest about this, then I guess we can stop here.

Definite a nasty attack. Thats going to vary quite a bit.

Being factually incorrect is much easier to establish, however.

[RandomGuy]

You are obviously such a clueless fucking nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.

:lol

Ok, count me in that. I don't get it.

Buffet hasn't had a hit in how many decades?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.You can't even think of one instance, so yeah -- you lose.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's wierd, because left and right are not equivalent.

The things that make right-wingers into right-wingers encourage homogenousness and uniform thinking. That is what makes the right-wing message so clear.

Exactly how have I moved the goal posts here?

I could've sworn we were talking about Romney...then we moved to all right wingers....then we moved to Limbaugh. I really have no idea where we're going next.


As far as homogenous thought is concerned, really? Let me get this straight...the base motivators of the right (The "things", as you inelegantly stated), encourage homegenousness and uniform thinking (redundancy alert!), and furthermore, this is a phenomenon of the right?

You've got to be shitting me.

That's complete bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Definite a nasty attack. Thats going to vary quite a bit.

Being factually incorrect is much easier to establish, however.

Calling somebody a slut, for example.

Simple name-calling, with obvious, loaded emotional content. Personal slander.

I would say the recent brew-ha-ha has a fair amount of material:

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-baltimore/53-separate-insults-cost-limbaugh-nine-sponsors-so-far

[Sec24Row7]

Another poster that leans left on here who has a good brain starting political hack bullshit posts and losing my respect.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol Jimmy Buffet?

What do you mean by it in this context, Jimmy Buffet fan?

LL9O0B0gzZE

[TeyshaBlue]

It most certainly is not.

Find a list of nasty personal attacks on anyone from Rachel.

It seems fairly quantifiable to me. If you don't want to be honest about this, then I guess we can stop here.

Ok...finally we get something specific. About fucking time, RG.
Nasty personal attacks.

Does by proxy count? *geore soros move on/daily kos * *cough-cough*.

And Maddow is waaay smarter than Limbaugh tbh.

I would offer up Moore instead.

[boutons_deux]

I could be incorrect here.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SqcXlrLuVyM/TcL7EXTvZwI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/tQliG-J9Wyo/s1600/Michael-Moore.jpg+2.jpg

yep, you're incorrect

[MannyIsGod]

Calling somebody a slut, for example.

Simple name-calling, with obvious, loaded emotional content. Personal slander.

The point is that what constitutes your attack is very open to interpretation. For instance, personally, I could give two shits about being called a name. On the other hand, I find thinly veiled insults to my intelligence FAR more offensive and there are definitely people out there who know how to do this. Rachal Maddow definitely seems smart enough to be one of those people.

[TeyshaBlue]

@ boutons: I know english is your second language, so I'll give you a pass.

[ChumpDumper]

LL9O0B0gzZEHave you lost the ability to form your own sentences?

Not going to watch it. Let us know what you mean by calling Rachel Maddow a snuff queen.

[ChumpDumper]

yep, you're incorrectPretty close tbh.

[CosmicCowboy]

Have you lost the ability to form your own sentences?

Not going to watch it. Let us know what you mean by calling Rachel Maddow a snuff queen.

LOL

She is a snarky lesbian bitch with a very limited audience that cares what she says. Satisfied?

Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL

She is a snarky lesbian bitch. Satisfied?I'm satisfied you have nothing of substance to post regarding her actual reporting or commentary and are just making up shit.

Again.




Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.Hey! Personal attack!

Right on time!

[RandomGuy]

Another poster that leans left on here who has a good brain starting political hack bullshit posts and losing my respect.

I call it like I see it.

Quite frankly it is an expression of an increasing sense of exasperation when dealing with right leaning people in this country.

I will go out and agree with any fair criticism of Obama, or any Democrat.

What I see though, is a very disturbing lack of similar criticism in the public domain of Republican candidates.

Anyhoo... I have to get back to reading boring, lengthy contracts. Dinner break is over, and those reviews won't do themselves.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm satisfied you have nothing of substance to post and are just making up shit.



you are such a fucking tool.

You asked about the snuff queen reference and I delivered.

You really are a pathetic piece of shit.

[ChumpDumper]

you are such a fucking tool.

You asked about the snuff queen reference and I delivered.

You really are a pathetic piece of shit.Don't get all hysterical on us. Your emotions are getting the better of you.

I also asked you this:
Give us some examples.You completely failed to deliver on that.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you weren't such a lazy fuck you could easily find them on your own.

Google is your friend. Meanwhile I'm going outside to get some shit done. Chao.

[Sec24Row7]

I call it like I see it.

Quite frankly it is an expression of an increasing sense of exasperation when dealing with right leaning people in this country.

I will go out and agree with any fair criticism of Obama, or any Democrat.

What I see though, is a very disturbing lack of similar criticism in the public domain of Republican candidates.

Anyhoo... I have to get back to reading boring, lengthy contracts. Dinner break is over, and those reviews won't do themselves.

So your solution is demagoguery? Let me fill you in on a little secret... SpursTalk Political Forum isn't exactly the greatest place to talk with a rational ideological opponent, as I'm sure you are aware. Why just throw more shit on the pile? Why not just come here and laugh at idiots and crazies like the other 3 sane people?

[ChumpDumper]

If you weren't such a lazy fuck you could easily find them on your own.

Google is your friend. Meanwhile I'm going outside to get some shit done.So you want me to back up your claim and I'm the lazy one?

:lmao

My claim is you're a pompous, insecure, small-minded bigot.

Now you use the search function to find examples of your laughable behavior.

We'll wait.


Chao.Misspelled.

[Sec24Row7]

Misspelled.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/135/3/AAAAAtdFaOUAAAAAATU-Sw.jpg?v=1219258276000

[ChumpDumper]

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/135/3/AAAAAtdFaOUAAAAAATU-Sw.jpg?v=1219258276000No charges or fines. I figure people might want to know. I would.

[Sec24Row7]

No charges or fines. I figure people might want to know. I would.

Surely not! I'm sure your typo corrector has never even corrected a typo'd "there" into "their".

[ChumpDumper]

Surely not! I'm sure your typo corrector has never even corrected a typo'd "there" into "their".I'm sure it has, just as I have been corrected on these boards. I thank the person, edit and don't whine about it -- for myself or on behalf of someone else.

[TeyshaBlue]

I want that coffee cup.

[Sec24Row7]

I want that coffee cup.

Every person who mentions minor spelling or grammatical mistakes in a flame war needs one. It's like lack of originality 101.

[CuckingFunt]

lesbian

Relevant?


lesbian bitch

Redundant.

[NASCARdad]

The point is that what constitutes your attack is very open to interpretation. For instance, personally, I could give two shits about being called a name. On the other hand, I find thinly veiled insults to my intelligence FAR more offensive and there are definitely people out there who know how to do this. Rachal Maddow definitely seems smart enough to be one of those people.

Insulting your intelligence isn't hard to do.

[spursncowboys]

The point is that what constitutes your attack is very open to interpretation. For instance, personally, I could give two shits about being called a name. On the other hand, I find thinly veiled insults to my intelligence FAR more offensive and there are definitely people out there who know how to do this. Rachal Maddow definitely seems smart enough to be one of those people.

why would rachal maddow insult you?

[CosmicCowboy]

So you want me to back up your claim and I'm the lazy one?

:lmao

My claim is you're a pompous, insecure, small-minded bigot.

Now you use the search function to find examples of your laughable behavior.

We'll wait.

Misspelled.

LOL

Check the forum rules you ignorant bitch. They aren't Chumps rules.

I am not obligated to educate you.

If Kori or LJ say I have to provide links to back up statements I make in the political forum for the stupid people that don't know how the google machine works then I will do it.

Until then, if it's something that really interests you (other than just being an irritating confrontational bitch) then google is your friend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL

She is a snarky lesbian bitch with a very limited audience that cares what she says. Satisfied?

Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.

So sexual preference is the basis for your contra position? Thats nice. Oh and shes snarky. Uppity women should be burned at the stake huh?

[CosmicCowboy]

So sexual preference is the basis for your contra position? Thats nice. Oh and shes snarky. Uppity women should be burned at the stake huh?

burn your straw man at the stake instead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

burn your straw man at the stake instead.

Oh so when you say


LOL

She is a snarky lesbian bitch with a very limited audience that cares what she says. Satisfied?

Chump. you need to get laid. Don't call Rachel.

You were just saying that as an observation and it has no position on how you view her opinions...

Show some fucking balls and stand by what you say.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL

Check the forum rules you ignorant bitch. They aren't Chumps rules.

I am not obligated to educate you.

If Kori or LJ say I have to provide links to back up statements I make in the political forum for the stupid people that don't know how the google machine works then I will do it.

Until then, if it's something that really interests you (other than just being an irritating confrontational bitch) then google is your friend.No, you aren't obligated to back up your claims.

You never do.

Sorry you're so sensitive. If you don't like being called out and are too much of a coward to be a man about it when you are, you should stop talking out of your ass.

[spursncowboys]

Rachel Maddow is the average liberal. She makes a living off of tv advertisements when she openly admits to never watching tv.
She speaks to people as if she is teaching them. She has low ratings and only has a job because of cronyism

[ChumpDumper]

Oh so when you say



You were just saying that as an observation and it has no position on how you view her opinions...

Show some fucking balls and stand by what you say.He's all hat and no cattle.

[ChumpDumper]

Rachel Maddow is the average liberal. She makes a living off of tv advertisements when she openly admits to never watching tv.
She speaks to people as if she is teaching them. She has low ratings and only has a job because of cronyism:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh so when you say



You were just saying that as an observation and it has no position on how you view her opinions...

Show some fucking balls and stand by what you say.

OK...

politically and intellectually I find her disgusting.

She distorts her version of the truth just as bad as Glen Beck does his.

She is a proud Lesbian.

Do you have a problem with me acknowledging she is a lesbian when she doesn't?

And yeah, it's OK to combine the two trains of thought and call her a lesbian bitch just as you are allowed to call me a heterosexual asshole if you emphatically disagree with me.

Do you not understand how this is played?

[ChumpDumper]

OK...

politically and intellectually I find her disgusting.

She distorts her version of the truth just as bad as Glen Beck does his....so much that you can't think of one example.

[CosmicCowboy]

...so much that you can't think of one example.

pfft...go fuck yourself Chump. I'm not doing your work for you bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

pfft...go fuck yourself Chump. I'm not doing your work for you bitch.It's your claim.

Since you can't support it with even one example, I can safely conclude you just made it up like you always do. Someone told you to hate her so you just repeated it and you got a chance to flaunt your homophobia again.

Good job! :tu

[CosmicCowboy]

It's your claim.

Since you can't support it with even one example, I can safely conclude you just made it up like you always do. Someone told you to hate her so you just repeated it and you got a chance to flaunt your homophobia again.

Good job! :tu

:lmao

Or another possibility is that I hold you in such contempt that I refuse to play your game.

GFY...

[Sec24Row7]

He doesn't present opinions CC... just trolls people that have them.

You know how it goes...

Show your facts...
No
Show your facts...
No
You are a pussy show your facts...
No
Here what about this...
Hah that doesn't count bitch
Or this?
You misspelled a word
Or this?
Bigot
Or this?
Homophobic asshole
Or this?
Jesus dude get a life this topic is so yesterday.


Wash rinse repeat... never a clever thought, never a variation from the model.


Don't worry, I have probably committed some spelling error, said something racist, or have been a "pussy" in a 3rd grade attempt to get a response.

Funny thing is... he is going to think I'm talking TO him instead of about him and that he deserves a response.

Children should be seen not heard.

I would suggest that you stop letting the little ankle biter tug on your pant leg for attention and go shoot something while you still have light. ;)

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Or another possibility is that I hold you in such contempt that I refuse to play your game.

GFY...Oh, the Wild Cobra response.

Get something original, coward.

[CuckingFunt]

And yeah, it's OK to combine the two trains of thought and call her a lesbian bitch just as you are allowed to call me a heterosexual asshole if you emphatically disagree with me.

Except no one would think to call you a heterosexual asshole unless they thought the two things were related.

Or they were a retard.

Or dishonest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK...

politically and intellectually I find her disgusting.

She distorts her version of the truth just as bad as Glen Beck does his.

She is a proud Lesbian.

Do you have a problem with me acknowledging she is a lesbian when she doesn't?

And yeah, it's OK to combine the two trains of thought and call her a lesbian bitch just as you are allowed to call me a heterosexual asshole if you emphatically disagree with me.

Do you not understand how this is played?

What place does sexual orientation have in this discussion other than for you using it as a point to try an discredit her? I understand that is not the only basis that you claim but it certainly seems to be an important point since you have fixated on it over your last 6 or so posts in this thread.

You being heterosexual is neither here nor there either. Thats my point. i haven't used your sexual orientation as a point to discredit you. See the difference?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's your claim.

Since you can't support it with even one example, I can safely conclude you just made it up like you always do. Someone told you to hate her so you just repeated it and you got a chance to flaunt your homophobia again.

Good job! :tu

:lmao at Chump defending Rachel Maddow like she is the modern day Walter Cronkite.

What a monumental fail.

[CuckingFunt]

Not much of anyone in this thread has defended Rachel Maddow.

[CosmicCowboy]

What place does sexual orientation have in this discussion other than for you using it as a point to try an discredit her? I understand that is not the only basis that you claim but it certainly seems to be an important point since you have fixated on it over your last 6 or so posts in this thread.

You being heterosexual is neither here nor there either. Thats my point. i haven't used your sexual orientation as a point to discredit you. See the difference?

:lmao

Sorry, but you still have no chance of scoring with Cucking Funt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Sorry, but you still have no chance of scoring with Cucking Funt.

huh? you think i am saying this to hit on CF? you having flashbacks to middle school or something?

Address the point: do you really think that someones sexual orientation is a basis to discredit someone's argument?

[spursncowboys]

He doesn't present opinions CC... just trolls people that have them.

You know how it goes...

Show your facts...
No
Show your facts...
No
You are a pussy show your facts...
No
Here what about this...
Hah that doesn't count bitch
Or this?
You misspelled a word
Or this?
Bigot
Or this?
Homophobic asshole
Or this?
Jesus dude get a life this topic is so yesterday.


Wash rinse repeat... never a clever thought, never a variation from the model.


Don't worry, I have probably committed some spelling error, said something racist, or have been a "pussy" in a 3rd grade attempt to get a response.

Funny thing is... he is going to think I'm talking TO him instead of about him and that he deserves a response.

Children should be seen not heard.

I would suggest that you stop letting the little ankle biter tug on your pant leg for attention and go shoot something while you still have light. ;):toast

Strongly agree

His schtick is old and overused.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao at Chump defending Rachel Maddow like she is the modern day Walter Cronkite.

What a monumental fail.And heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere comes the straw man!

You are so predictable, CC.

Talk about a tired schtick. It's hilarious that folks are so afraid of me that they are preemptively resorting to whining and name calling. I'm just a guy at a keyboard and I've cowed you all into submission by merely asking you to support your opinion with one (1) fact.

All you want is to be hugged and coddled by the members of your support groups who have also been called out by mean ol' me and knew they had been exposed as badly as you.

Tough shit.

[Blake]

OK...

politically and intellectually I find her disgusting.

She distorts her version of the truth just as bad as Glen Beck does his.

She is a proud Lesbian.

Do you have a problem with me acknowledging she is a lesbian when she doesn't?

And yeah, it's OK to combine the two trains of thought and call her a lesbian bitch just as you are allowed to call me a heterosexual asshole if you emphatically disagree with me.

Do you not understand how this is played?

My god you are stupid.