Reply With Quote
your answer is incorrect. it was a democratic rally.
you had no problem telling us how you feel about black people, but you don't have the courage to be truthful about this?
Correct.
Incorrect and, I did answer that question.
your answer is incorrect. it was a democratic rally.
you had no problem telling us how you feel about black people, but you don't have the courage to be truthful about this?
You've yet to answer my question.
give us the names of the republican politicians that were to speak at the rally.
You've yet to answer my question.
And, another; Can you define "rally?"
you didn't ask a question. you simply lied about the rally. you said it was bi-partisan, yet you can't tell us about the republican politicians that attended. (cuz there were none)
It was a cons uent forum -- to my knowledge -- Congresswoman Giffords was there to meet and have a dialogue with those she represents. I don't know that their was an agenda or scheduled speakers.
Do you know otherwise?
yep, i know it was a democratic rally. you appear to be the only person that doesn't.
So, you're disrespecting Congresswoman Giffords by claiming she didn't care about the views of anyone other than her Democrat cons uents?
That's called a question.
I never said it was bi-partisan. I said it was a cons uent forum. Her district isn't exclusively Democrat.
tell me when i said that. be specific.
nope, its an allegation in a ty form of a question.That's called a question.
why haven't we heard from all the republicans attending?I never said it was bi-partisan. I said it was a cons uent forum. Her district isn't exclusively Democrat.
You called it a Democratic Rally when the Congresswoman's office clearly called it a "Congress on your Corner" cons uent forum. Your characterization implies she excluded non-Democrat cons uents from her event. Theirs does not.
I'd say that was disrespectful.
Or, you could have just called it what it was, a rhetorical question. So, and this is the real question, is the Congresswoman's staff lying about the purpose of that event?
One of them is dead and unavailable to call you. Plus, I'm not sure you're in their Rolodex...maybe you should call the Tucson media and let them know you're expecting a roster of attendees and their party affiliations.
show me where i said she excluded anyone. anyone. why have you failed to do this?
yep, you shouldn't make up things like that. i guess its better than stealing others words, however.I'd say that was disrespectful.
what would she be lying about?Or, you could have just called it what it was, a rhetorical question. So, and this is the real question, is the Congresswoman's staff lying about the purpose of that event?
why don't you just tell us about all these republicans eyewitness statements?One of them is dead and unavailable to call you. Plus, I'm not sure you're in their Rolodex...maybe you should call the Tucson media and let them know you're expecting a roster of attendees and their party affiliations.
or don't you have any?
sorry yoni, that last question wasn't fair.
if there were any, fox would be running it on a loop.
Rand Paul wishes this kid were black.
...petered out
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-15-2011 at 05:17 AM. Reason: withdrawn entirely
Really? Here's Jared in his own words. Can you tell me what his political views were because all I hear are the incoherent thoughts of a paraniod schizophrenic.
It's not obvious, at all. But, even if he did, where's your evidence those view animated his actions last week?
And, then, where's your evidence those views were informed by the SaraPAC ad, Ms. Palin, specifically, or anyone else in the Tea Party?
When did I ever say it did? I just think it's untrue to paint this guy as being apolitical when his views say other wise.
But political speech never can, right?
Hypocrite.
I never suggested he was apolitical, although he may be; what I've said is there is absolutely no shred of proof his political views -- whatever they may or may not be -- had anything to do with his actions on Saturday. Period.
And, as such, the non-stop media barrage, fueled by Dupnik, et. al., that somehow the massacre was related to, or caused by, any alleged vitriolic and rancorous political missives of the Tea Party or Sarah Palin are either libelous or opportunistic. Take your pick because, it's one of the two.
They can't of been mistaken; otherwise, they would have acceded to the growing and overwhelming evidence that Loughner acted out of mental illness and stopped the unfounded assertions. They didn't. , there are still people in here that pretend his actions had something to do with politics.
That's what I've been saying. That's what everyone who recognizes the pathetic, yet concerted, effort of the left to libel the Tea Party, has been saying for the past week.
To me I think you're both wrong. Whatever any leftist says that the Tea Party is to blame, and you for generalizing the entire left as slandering the Tea Party.
To be fair I'm a devout liberal, but I haven't accused a single Tea Party member of being responsible for any of what happened. Do I belittle Sarah Palin? Absolutely. But that's different from making her responsible for any of this.
However I do agree with a majority of what people on both sides of the political spectrum have been saying, and most of those have been liberals, that we need to tone down the vitriol on both sides. I do not agree, and this is where I mock Sarah Palin and others like her, that toning down the vitriol is somehow code word for censoring conservative thought. I think it's stupid for people like her or any leader to act and speak as though the end is nigh and soon we'll need to load up our guns and take action.
She may not say it in so many words, but her tone and the tone of others on both sides reflect that idea.
got should have just stfu, done his homework, and paid people in gold bullions. It really is amazing he did not shoot up that school.
Last edited by BlairForceDejuan; 01-15-2011 at 09:12 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions