|
23 May 12 - 09:39 PM (#3354949) Subject: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger President Obama easily won the Kentucky Democratic Primary last night, but the vote was much closer than it should have been considering he was running unopposed. Obama received 58 percent of the vote state-wide, but that means 42 percent of the people who came out gave their support to "Uncommitted." So many people took time out of their day to register a protest votes that "Uncommitted" beat the Presdient in 67 of Kentucky's 120 counties. Obama faced a similar threat in Arkansas, where at least he was running against an actual human. Lawyer and Occupy Wall Street supporter John Wolfe also came in around 42 percent, or right about where he was polling.... http://news.yahoo.com/uncommitted-beats-obama-half-kentucky-110037550.html That's MORE THAN HALF of the counties that Obama lost to Uncommitted in Kentucky. And in a related story from West Virginia: In an embarrassment to President Obama, Federal Inmate No. 11593-051 – otherwise known as Keith Judd – won 10 counties and 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday. Mr. Judd is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, where he is serving a 210-month sentence for extortion, according to The Charleston Gazette. Judd had paid the $2,500 filing fee and submitted a notarized "certificate of announcement" to appear on the ballot.... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0509/Ouch!-Obama-loses-41-percent-of-W.Va.-primary-vote-to-federal-inmate |
|
23 May 12 - 09:53 PM (#3354955) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,josepp /////In an embarrassment to President Obama, Federal Inmate No. 11593-051 – otherwise known as Keith Judd – won 10 counties and 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday//// Although I won't vote for Obama in this upcoming election, this is an embarrassment to West Virginia. |
|
23 May 12 - 10:51 PM (#3354977) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 The only reason I never voted for Canada's Communist Party is that I know I would have shot myself if they'd ever won and I knew my vote had helped that happen. I do on occasion vote for the Marijuana Party when there is nothing else to vote for. However, most of that party forgets to campaign, and when they do, most of us forget their names, so we scrawl illegible stuff on the ballot, sign our real names and say some rude things. Hey, ya can't stand the heat, stay out of the bitchin'. |
|
23 May 12 - 11:04 PM (#3354979) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: MarkS Bunch of baloney. Of course Obama will win the nomination is spite of a bunch of gadflys. In November, it will most likely be a squeaker though. |
|
23 May 12 - 11:25 PM (#3354986) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bee-dubya-ell Obama lost both KY and WV by double digits in 2008. There's no reason to think he stands a chance in either of them in 2012. They could leave his name off the ballot entirely and it wouldn't make any difference in the electoral vote count. |
|
24 May 12 - 07:49 AM (#3355055) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Richard Bridge Hell, out there they probably still call him "uppity". |
|
24 May 12 - 08:19 AM (#3355060) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Face it... With Romney having locked up the Republican nomination, Republican voters are voting in large numbers in Democratic primaries with the purpose of trying to cast doubt on Obama to help their guy win... Nothing new here... Been going on forever in American politics... Next??? B~ |
|
24 May 12 - 09:46 AM (#3355085) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,no obama for me this time fool me once shame on you, fool me twice? NO WAY! what a fraud. |
|
24 May 12 - 10:04 AM (#3355089) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Any accuser who is not willing show hos face is a coward... The concept of the accused having the right to face the accuser goes back 8 centuries to the Magna Carta... Step out of the book depository... B~ |
|
24 May 12 - 12:49 PM (#3355148) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp I ain't been committed. To a mental institution, I mean. Does this mean Obama is battlin' ME? If he is, he is in fer the fight of his life. I got all MY coconuts! And they are very large coconuts. Obama don't stand a chance. - Chongo |
|
25 May 12 - 11:24 AM (#3355514) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Sawzaw Careful. If you post actual facts here you will be attacked and called a hater. If you respond you will be bullied and accused of mental illness. I do object to incendiary things like "GUEST,no obama for me this time" handle. That is designed to stir up an argument. A flame war. Those comments should be ignored. Just post the facts and they will speak for themselves. That will speak to the folks that can separate facts from spin and rhetoric. |
|
25 May 12 - 01:03 PM (#3355558) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert The fact is that, as has occurred over and over in American history, there is some cross over mischief going on in the Democratic primaries by Republican voters... I'm not saying that Dems have never done this because if you'll read history you'll find this stuff isn't new... B~ |
|
28 May 12 - 07:24 PM (#3356595) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger The Democratic voters in the 3 states mentioned above chose (by about 40% in each case) to refute Obama. One group even chose a nonentity over Obama. That's how low his support is WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY. The problem is that Obama's presumtive opponent Romney will just continue the Bush/Obama policies. More austerity, more gutting of social programming, more tax burden on the lower income brackets, more international wars, more internal spying and loss of freedoms. I voted for Ron Paul this past week. I don't care for his economic policies, but he's promised to end the wars. That's why I voted for Obama the last time around. I have to go with the anti-war candidate. Ron Paul would be gridlocked from day 1. And gridlock is a good thing. The Dems/Reps working together gave us the PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. So we need some gridlock. |
|
28 May 12 - 10:00 PM (#3356637) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert And then wronger woke up and realized that he was listening to Rush Limbaugh or dreaming... B~ |
|
28 May 12 - 10:26 PM (#3356642) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No he(Songwronger) didn't..he just stopped paying attention to the bankster parties, who go by the name of 'Republican' or 'Democratic' parties...who are owned by the PRIVATE Federal Reserve and their surrogate banks ....which by the way, is not part of the federal government, nor has any reserves.... but,..What's in a name? they're all a bunch of puppets, and the rank and file are just their zombie dupes...but a lot of them don't 'get it' yet! Fortunately a LOT of the country is waking up...hope it's not too late! GfS |
|
28 May 12 - 10:40 PM (#3356644) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert (((((((((((((((((((((((((yawn)))))))))))))))))))))))) GfinS broken record time... Expect this thread to be closed soon as the GfinS thread closing tactics take hold,,, Normal... B~ |
|
28 May 12 - 10:55 PM (#3356648) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No, Bobert...Firth wouldn't give it up with the accusations of 'troll' and other crap, along with your chiding, and my response to him, had a part in closing the other thread. You guys just wouldn't give it up, when I had just got back from a funeral for a friend, and I was gone for over a week. I was typing a very comprehensive and fair response, but you and he, with your nasty snide bullcrap demands that I post RIGHT NOW, was WAY too out of line....but, wannabe moochers usually don't have very good manners anyway....and that's ALL about that subject, on this thread. I'll still post my other response when it's is all together....so be patient, and display some of those 'Democratic' manners.... GfS |
|
28 May 12 - 11:03 PM (#3356650) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth No, I wanted an answer to my question. But you don't do answers. Don Firth |
|
28 May 12 - 11:22 PM (#3356653) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth And my question didn't require a long answer. Just a name. If you don't like either Obama or Romney, who would you vote for--assuming that your choice might actually stand a chance? Which, sadly, rules out Kucinich and Nader. That's all. A name. No great tomes required. Don Firth P. S. CLICKY. |
|
29 May 12 - 12:51 AM (#3356668) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Don, Bobert, want to start a band called the Zombie Dupes? There are some great song titles for a band like this: My Freshly Washed Brain The Uncivil Rights Reserve Your Federal Now! We're All Robots On This Bus The Elephant in the Room Don't Vote (It Only Encourages Them) All The Tea In China, Please |
|
29 May 12 - 01:06 AM (#3356670) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Utter nonsense! Can't you get it through your 'sophisticated pea brain' that to answer your 'question' in regard to Obamacare, which in its entirety, with both bills and supplements, was well over 5000 pages, (and I took notes)..and you want a 'short answer' with NO explanations(?)...and NOW you want a name??????????????? You didn't ask that before. I think you are all over the place, and dizzy. ..and by the way, I don't owe you a name of who I would vote for...do I? Are you taking a poll?...but I guarantee you, it WILL NOT be Obama/Romney....I might as well vote for Rockefeller/Bernanke...but you just don't get it...and probably won't. You two are just too blocked, or you're on someone's payroll! ...and another 'BTW'..Obama has lost a lot of his former starry eyed zombie/robot supporters..as you have read just a few posts ago, on this very thread. Solyndra, job czar Immelt, and his $500 billion of OUR tax money to start jobs in China, his handling of the BP oil spill, Geithner, shovel ready jobs(a lie), Gitmo, the wars, 'Fast and Furious' a trillion uncounted for dollars, the Fed bailing out foreign bankers WITH OUR MONEY that he refuses to answer, 5 trillion dollars in bailouts and carte blanche, spending, has NOT brought a budget, during his whole term....between he and Bush, that makes 12 trillion dollars in spending....and you think he is some kind of alternative????????????????????..and the list goes on!!!!!................and on!!!!!!!!!!!! ....and you are impressed with YOUR 'hip awareness' of what this is about????.....NDAA???..the 'Patriot Act'..(authored by Joe Biden in the mid '90's), BEFORE 911??!!?? Unemployment numbers?? The economy sucking eggs, as he and his crony capitalist buddies make off with MILLIONS in bonuses??..Remember he promised NO lobbyists in his cabinet?..What a fucking joke! He has NO record of shit..except Obamacare, which you might not think is so cool, once you know more about it!(but you don't). Class warfare??.....Oh yeah, he's my guy!! ...and the other guy....is the same shit!!...Except, he knows the legal speak for closing down businesses for his profits.....LIKE AMERICA....starting to make sense???? Duhhh...no, I don't get it. They are both working for the same banksters..YOU don't have a choice, you have only been led to believe you do...because you're not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree...but you prance around like people are supposed to respect your lame opinions....and TACTICS. A lot of us don't, and see right through you and your ilk. ..and Bobert, this is NOT from the Tea Party, nor the Republicans, nor the 'right wing'..nor the 'left wing' nor ANY wing of the turkey! OK..enough said.....you can throw your accusations all you want, in lieu of addressing anything(like you normally do), but it don't wash..it's yesterday's bullshit tactics. Try something NEW...may I suggest 'Reality'? GfS he is nothing but a sham |
|
29 May 12 - 02:53 AM (#3356674) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth I repeated my question to make sure you would GET it, but you're STILL dodging the issue. That's kinda pathetic. Don Firth |
|
29 May 12 - 02:59 AM (#3356676) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Don Firth Date: 28 May 12 - 11:22 PM "And my question didn't require a long answer. Just a name. If you don't like either Obama or Romney, who would you vote for--assuming that your choice might actually stand a chance? Which, sadly, rules out Kucinich and Nader. That's all. A name. No great tomes required." THAT QUESTION??????????????????????????????????????? GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 03:13 AM (#3356681) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Yes! THAT question. Which I asked you way back in the other thread, reminded you of it several times, and which you simply ignored. I'm going to bed. That'll give you some time to think. Provided, of course. . . . Don Firth |
|
29 May 12 - 10:16 AM (#3356800) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert I'm in, John P... After trying to get thru GfinS's above post I figure we could do "The Stuck Record Blues", too... Sheesh... Never mind... Put me down for drums, guitar or both... Oh, and I can half sing, too... B:~) |
|
29 May 12 - 10:34 AM (#3356806) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity John. you really ought to do it...you might be surprised how popular it would be..and who your audience was.... Bobert, Once again, and as usual, you substituted a dodge, and snipe, instead of commenting on the post...which of course, you CAN'T answer. ...and then DEMAND a quick and immediate response from me about something you demand. Another worn out and discrediting tactic from the so called, 'liberal' fascists!!!.....they just don't think they are...but then what do they know? I bet you Sawzaw has the where with all to comment on it, but you'd just slur him, as well...offering NOTHING, and refuse to answer his posts, that he usually includes valid links, for your comments. .......and you thought it couldn't happen to you! GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 10:40 AM (#3356809) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, Don, let's see if there will be another candidate....NOT supported by the usual bankster backers. Gfs |
|
29 May 12 - 01:21 PM (#3356887) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert There wasn't any real question, GfinS... Just the same rhetorical free association Obama hate ranting and raving... As for the "funniest quote"... I'd give it a 3 on the ten scale... Richard Pryor came up with funnier things to say while trying to extinguish the fire that was engulfing him... Might of fact, Part B... Yer posts are funnier than anything Bob Hope ever came up with... See, "now you funny, too." B;~) |
|
29 May 12 - 03:15 PM (#3356929) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth First line of an old Wobblie song: "Goofus, he's a dodger, a well-known dodger....." There ARE no candidates right now. There won't be until the conventions. Obama is the presumed Democratic candidate because the incumbent usually is, but other than a bunch of Republicans square-dancing around, there is no SET candidate. But there are a number of POTENTIAL candidates. Which of the POTENTIAL candidates would you vote for if you could? (And once again, both Kucinich and Nader have tried for the candidacy and came up empty.) Who? And for that matter, why? Have you even thought about it? Don Firth |
|
29 May 12 - 07:03 PM (#3357011) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Might of fact, Part B... Yer posts are funnier than anything Bob Hope ever came up with..." Yeah...I thought so too...probably pisses off a lot of certain Mudcatters! OK, you two....instead of saying the same ol' thing over and over again, about how you THINK I hate Obama.....try this: Tell me why you think he is so great, and worth my vote. So far, very little he has shown me(us), has been very convincing....you convince me, and he'll get my vote...BUT..I WILL play 'devil's advocate. I mean it beats you guys NEVER coming up with any legitimate counter debate, and always resorting to name calling and bad attempts at character defamation. Go ahead, give me your best shot, at why you think he's so good.....sell it to me...and include his record! GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 07:34 PM (#3357018) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Yup! Typical! Answer a question with another question. Nuthin'! Don Firth |
|
29 May 12 - 07:57 PM (#3357032) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yup, typical, another non-answer with no substance. Sell it to me, if you think you are either right or so smart! Stupid non-answers will be your declaration of nothing to say...as usual! GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 08:22 PM (#3357043) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert So are Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries??? Yes or no will do just fine, GfinS... B~ |
|
29 May 12 - 08:43 PM (#3357058) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth "Stupid non-answers?" My GAWD, look who's talking! Okay, Goofus, choke on THIS: For starters, Obama created more jobs in the first eleven months he was in office than Bush did in his entire presidency. The following is a comprehensive list of Obama's accomplishments while in office, including much needed restoration of regulations instituted by FDR, but gutted by Reagan. Obama's been busy. Of course, the Right-Wingers hate it with a purple passion, but this is what the country needs right now! CLICKY. And--each item has a web-link where you can verify it for yourself. If you want more, I have LOTS more. Don Firth P. S. The Republicans and the Libertarians want to take the country back to the Reagan years—or beyond, to the days of Herbert Hoover. |
|
29 May 12 - 08:56 PM (#3357061) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "So are Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries???" Wouldn't matter to me...I'm NOT a Republican.....next. OK, Don, Some of the 'accomplishments' are not so wonderful...BUT in all fairness I WILL check them out.....and separate facts from spin... GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 09:04 PM (#3357065) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert No, GfinS... You are VERY much a Republican... Your "classless and free" act is just that... An act... Like I have pointed out over and over: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck... You parrot REPUBLICAN propaganda... If you don't see it, sorry... That's called "denial"... Get off the Republican ***talking points*** and you'll have some credibility... Right now, you are squarely in the middle of the Tea Pot... Hate, hate, and more hate... B~ |
|
29 May 12 - 09:51 PM (#3357071) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity You are telling ME what party I belong to??????????????????? I told YOU that I'm not 'belonging' to ANY party...Now get off your trip! Fair enough?? personally I'm beginning to believe you are of the Pity Party....does it make it so? GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 10:30 PM (#3357079) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth You may not belong to the Republican Party, Goofus. I don't belong to any political party, but the Democratic Party comes closest to reflecting my own political positions (close, but lots of times, no cigar!) You may not actually be a member of the GOP, but the political ideas you have consistently expressed in these threads indicates that that is where your sympathies lie. A philosphy professor I once had at the university said, "Everyone has a personal philosophy [set of principles one believes in, including a sense of ethics, which expresses itself in one's political beliefs] whether they know it or not. Knowing what you really believe is the first step toward wisdom. And sad to say, most people don't! Plato said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living.'" You definitely come on like a Right-Winger. No matter how much you try to deny that you are a Right-Winger, those are the views that you express. Sorry! But that's the way it is. Don Firth |
|
29 May 12 - 10:41 PM (#3357086) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Yup, that's the way it is... Sorry, GfinS... You have outted yourself here... No turning back... "Now the die is cast nothing happens in the past" (Poco) B~ |
|
29 May 12 - 10:59 PM (#3357091) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don Firth: "A philosphy professor I once had at the university said, "Everyone has a personal philosophy [set of principles one believes in, including a sense of ethics, which expresses itself in one's political beliefs] whether they know it or not. Knowing what you really believe is the first step toward wisdom. And sad to say, most people don't! Plato said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living.'" You definitely come on like a Right-Winger. No matter how much you try to deny that you are a Right-Winger, those are the views that you express. Sorry! But that's the way it is." Don Firth Bobert: "Yup, that's the way it is..." What is this?..a ventriloquist and his parrot? Outed myself??..from what??.. Just for you, Bobsie-Babes! GfS |
|
29 May 12 - 11:18 PM (#3357093) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Egg on his chin and he criticizes our table manners? Don Firth |
|
30 May 12 - 12:24 AM (#3357098) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST Give up on reasoning with the insane. There is ample evidence. It is sad really. Good night Cecil and lansing. |
|
30 May 12 - 09:39 AM (#3357232) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Reminds me of a story... A very learned man was driving by the state mental hospital when one of the wheels came off his car... Just happened that one of the hospital's patient's was walking the fence line and witnessed the event... The learned man got out of his car, retrieved the wheel and rolled it back to the car where he stood by his now opened trunk scratching his head trying to figure out how to reinstall it with the lug nuts missing that were holdin' it on... "Excuse me, sir", said the mental patient thru the chain-link fence, "but if you take one lug nut off each of the other wheels you can install it and get to where you are going..." The leaned man looked over at the hospital patient and said, "How could you know that??? You're in a state mental hospital" to which the patient shot back... ..."I may be nuts but I ain't stupid..." Liked the Jimmy Durante song, BTW... B;~) |
|
30 May 12 - 10:41 AM (#3357254) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P If ya'll can stop talking about each other for a bit, this thread is ostensibly about electoral politics, even though that isn't the reason Songwronger started it. What are your opinions about the role of the Electoral College in modern society? Should the Republican and Democratic parties continue to pretend that they are private organizations that should be allowed to do things their own way? What would it look like if we could have a multi-party system in this country? Why does gerrymandering still exist, and what can we do to make it stop? Can we/should we try to force politicians to tell the truth on the campaign trail? Is it possible to get money completely out of electoral politics and how would we do campaigns without it? As a birther, Songwronger should have no expectation of being taken seriously, but if we want to talk about the real reason that he started this thread, let's talk about the irresistible urge that so many people have to find any little inconsistency or possible "embarrassment" on the part of a politician and try to turn it into an issue. This comes from the left and the right, but these days mostly and most virulently from the right. Both sides tend to do it only to the other side. Let's talk about the news media failing to do it's job when they report these quibbles as if they were important. Let's talk about conspiracy theorists being taken seriously in our society. Let's talk about politicians pandering to birthers, quibblers and conspiracy nuts. Let's talk about what happened to the Republican party; I can remember a time when respectful speech was a Republican virtue (lost along with most other conservative ideals), and the expectation was that one spoke of the president with respect, for the office and the country if not for the man. Don and Bobert, it's not GfS who destroys these threads. It takes two (or three) to tango. You both like talking about policy and instead you're taking pot shots at an asshole. I know I'm guilty of that as well. Let's stop letting the jerk set the tone for the conversation. That's how Republicans keep winning. |
|
30 May 12 - 12:59 PM (#3357297) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Actually, I am less concerned about the electoral college than I am our legislative and judicial branches of government, both which are currently badly broken... The only possible fix for the legislative branch is for something to go so badly wrong in this country that needs attention that can't get attention because Congress can't/won't act that brings about insurrection, strikes, mass demonstrations and perhaps some of the real nasty stuff we're seeing in the Middle East... It will take this level of despair and chaos for Congress to agree to being repaired... The repair is going to involve complete redistricting in every state by an independent entity, perhaps the UN, that makes every district competitive... The repair will also involve a constitutional amendment, if need be, to overturn "Citizen's United" coupled with legislation that provides for public financing of federal elections... On the judicial side we just need to re-elect Obama in the hopes that one of the 5 Republican justices dies or quits and we can get some balance... Folks do not realize it but it has been ****42 YEARS**** with a Republican dominated Supreme Court... That is a long, long time... Gotta go... B~ |
|
30 May 12 - 10:12 PM (#3357483) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger What asshats. Last one first. Bobert. Wants the U.N. to take care of redistricting in the U.S. Why don't you move to the fuckin' U.N.? Oh, that's right, they're not a country. They're just a bureaucracy. That you want to give your rights away to. What a freak. And then you trot out the gimpy "Republican Supreme Court" thing. You know, 8 out of 9 of the justices are Catholic, so why don't you blame THEM for the mess the country's in? I mean, you're so into the whole Republican/racist/conservative labeling thing, so slap the Catholic label on the court problems from now on. You hate every other group, it would just be one more. And John P. Another NPR zombie no doubt. Thinks "the Republicans" are "the enemy." And doesn't even know what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is defined as, "A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act." Here's a description of a conspiracy: President Obama has a secret list of suspected terrorists that he personally pores over before initiating drone strikes, The New York Times reports. The list contains a mug shot and biographies of each suspect targeted for killing, according to The Times. In January 2010, two of those targeted included teenagers, one, as The Times described it, who "looked even younger than her 17 years." About every week or so, according to the report, more than 100 members of the government's national security team meet by teleconference to go over terror suspects' biographies and recommend which should be killed. From there, a list of "nominations" goes to the White House, where Obama approves every name. Obama signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and some in Pakistan – about a third of all drone strikes. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-secret-terrorism-kill-list-071340255.html I'm not the conspirator, and the above is no theory. It's in the New York Times. Boss Obama lamenting about how he has to kill 17 year old girls now. Oh the agony. People are tired of Obama. They're voting for the blank on the ballot instead. So Obama will make his semi blackness the issue in the campaign, Bobert and John Pee will bitch about the Republicans, and we'll get Obamney and things will continue as they are. You'll all lose your pensions and if you gripe you'll just force Obamney to kill you. |
|
30 May 12 - 10:20 PM (#3357484) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Asshat, wronger??? There is a reason why you are wronger... You are a jerk and a moron... Any other questions??? Have a nice moronish night... B~ |
|
30 May 12 - 10:27 PM (#3357489) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger One of your more articulate responses. |
|
30 May 12 - 10:39 PM (#3357494) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Put your tin foil hat back on, wrong-as-wrong-can be... You tell us, *************asshat****************, how you are going to fix the legislative branch!!! Come on, BIG WRONGer... Tell us fuckin' plan... Come on... Cat got yer tongue??? Easy to fire shots, ain't it ****************asshat******************??? Bring your plan on!!! Serious business... What is your plan??? B~ |
|
30 May 12 - 10:58 PM (#3357499) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Bobert, Puhleez! Don't respond to the assholes. The repair is going to involve complete redistricting in every state by an independent entity, perhaps the UN, that makes every district competitive... I don't think competitive should be the goal. I think we should hire geographers to identify the locations of the centers of the districts, based solely on population distribution. Then the district is centered closely around those centers. In other words, make a voting district be the same as an actual district, so we are voting with our neighbors. No politicians should be involved. Group people contiguously and see where the chips fall as far as who gets elected. As for the Supreme Court, that is perhaps the best reason to vote for Obama, even though he is still at war and is so slow to evolve. On the stuff that I'm pissed off at him about, the Republicans would be immeasurably worse, and giving them the chance to further stack the court would be dreadful. The Citizens United farce demonstrates that the conservative majority is working for the corporations instead of the people. And the installment of George W. Bush demonstrated that they are working for the Republican Party. |
|
30 May 12 - 11:59 PM (#3357510) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth I definitely agree, John. Don Firth |
|
31 May 12 - 12:29 AM (#3357513) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Songwronger, This is so typical of these know nothings to TRY to insult you, instead of ANY fact finding discussion. They do it all the time. Don, at least sent a link of the 'accomplishments' of Obama's term...the link was of course, from the 'Progressive' website...which at least is an attempt. There were some links, that I've been running down to check out the story...However, sending me that link would be the equivalent of sending them a Rush Limbaugh link, to prove 'conservative' point of view! These guys know very little about what they are talking about..and Bobert even less(but we love him anyway....at least he appreciates good music!). Don makes up a lot of stuff, and tries to define your thoughts for you..as if he is more capable than you thinking for yourself...then interposes all the hate and bigotry he perceives you MUST have...even if you don't have any. John,..well John just jumps in occasionally, with his usual snide attitude, but once in a while has a lesser heard talking point. NONE of them have a clue, or are willing to acknowledge, that the two party system has been overrun with corruption......banksters contributing to both sides, so both sides are beholden to them, so no matter who wins, their is a debt/favor to return.....they are still brain-locked into the wishful thinking that there really is a difference of the two parties in their agendas, and they can't seem to grasp, that the goal of the corrupt elite is using both the parties to achieve their goal of total domination. They haven't clocked, yet, that the bills and laws, passed by one party, is rarely retracted by the other, once the other party assumes 'power'....while, in the meantime we just slip further into losing our freedoms, and the bankster/corporate/government puppet masters erect themselves a kings....and the people are the subjects.......hey, some people like it that way....the grass is always greener on the other side, to some short sighted fools!...as long as they THINK there is something FREE, that they are going to get. Regards Songwronger..I've seen your posts...you know the deal! GfS |
|
31 May 12 - 12:32 AM (#3357516) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger Well, if I'm elected Miss America, I will try to bring Truth, Justice and the American Way back into American life. I will do this by starting a petition to make Mr. Obama stop lynching blacks in southern Libya. The practice had died out under Mr. Kadaffi, but after Mr. Obama did what he could to bomb the country back into the stone age, the practice started up again. And Mr. Obama doesn't do anything to stop it. I will start a petition called "Please don't Lynch anymore Negroes in Libya" and try to get liberal support for it. I will dedicate my year's reign to this project alone, and after spending thousands of hours appealing to hundreds of liberal groups, I will present the petition (with all its dozen or so signatures) to Mr. Obama. And now I'll twirl my baton to the tune of "Shot me a Snapper an' now I Wanna Cry." |
|
31 May 12 - 12:44 AM (#3357521) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Songwronger Yes, GfS, there is a lot of agendizing here. I figure most of the people are old and feel their futures rely on not making waves. The pension and all that. But then there are some, like Bobert, who know that Obama's a bank huckster, same as G. W. Bush was. And they're fighting the same wars. So, domestic policy is the same, and foreign policy is the same--one national party with two faces. A third grader could see that. And the old people may turn away from that truth because they don't have much time left and want to be left alone, but what's Bobert's excuse? I don't really care what he thinks, because he kills wildlife to protect housecats, while he endorses warfare. How could you care what someone like that thinks? His logic is beyond unsnarling. It's sure funny when he froths though. |
|
31 May 12 - 01:51 AM (#3357526) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity About 4 or 5 years ago, during the last presidential primaries, i put it this way: You get into the ring with a boxer, he hits you with a right, another right, then a left, a right and another left....same boxer, just different hands. The idiots are going to try to fight the hands....not the boxer!!!! GfS |
|
31 May 12 - 08:50 AM (#3357611) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Well, John P... If districts were competitive that would force people to moderate... What we have now are "safe" districts where folks can just camp out with the most radical positions and be elected... The entire Tea Party comes from such districts... If we are going to fix things then we need people who, if they want to be re-elected, will have to work toward compromise... I personally believe that the ideas that we progressives hold would get a fairer shake if everyone had input and elected officials knew that they were going to have to explain their positions to a balanced district... My 2nd idea is this: Appoint the House of Reps by lottery and give them 4 year terms... Yeah, you'll get a few jerks, tin foilers and morons... But you'll also get some purdy smart folks as well... William Buckley suggested this 30 years ago and it was one of the things with which Buckley and I agreed... B~ |
|
31 May 12 - 09:39 AM (#3357625) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P Well, I see your point about safe districts producing politicians who don't have to act in a balanced way. On the other hand, maybe a district made up entirely of conservatives or liberals should have a strongly partisan representative. The real answer, of course, as with so many things, is an educated electorate. And a basic expectation that our pubic officials tell the truth to the best of their ability. I suppose that a district based solely on geography, if it contains 90% liberals, means that the conservative 10% would be always unrepresented. I rather like the idea of appointing Congresspeople by lottery. Think of all that talent and brains out there in the heads of people who would rather be gored by rhinos than subject themselves to a political campaign. For some reason, though, there's always an "on the other hand". On the other hand, have you been on jury duty lately? The last three times I've been, more than half of the people have been too ignorant and thoughtless to function in any official capacity. Again, we need an educated electorate. Have you noticed the attacks by the Republicans on people for being educated? And the push for "charter schools"? They've already got religious schools pretending to offer a real education. An educated populace is not the friend of the party that depends on people's ignorance and prejudices to sell it's essentially anti-social agenda. Until we start educating all our children to a high standard, we won't really be able to move forward. And I don't see that happening in this country. |
|
31 May 12 - 09:57 AM (#3357632) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert The difference between jury duty and what I'm talking about is the pool... Juries in certain areas just don't have much from which to draw... Now if that poool were to include the entire state, it would be very different... Except in states like West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina and a few others where educational levels are low... But I'd love to see the lottery picks from California and New York... B~ |
|
31 May 12 - 12:30 PM (#3357694) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert, in response to Songwronger's post: "Come on, BIG WRONGer... Tell us fuckin' plan... Come on... Cat got yer tongue??? Easy to fire shots, ain't it ****************asshat******************??? Bring your plan on!!! Serious business... What is your plan???" How about cleaning up the corruption in the existing plans, and bureaucracies, before trying to get us to swallow another 'great new idea'...Somehow these bozos want us to be gullible enough to foist more bullshit on us. Can't get further into details..but gotta run~! GfS |
|
31 May 12 - 12:35 PM (#3357695) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Little Hawk How's it going at the mudwrestling championships? Do we have a winner yet? |
|
31 May 12 - 01:00 PM (#3357699) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Little Hawk, Does it matter??..The 'winner' won't be 'We The People'. GfS |
|
31 May 12 - 03:38 PM (#3357752) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth I will no longer be responding to the attacks of vulgar, ignorant nincompoops. There is a political campaign to wage, and I will be participating. I don't have the time to respond to the babblings of nitwits or try to open closed minds. After all, there might not even be a mind in there! #### From a review of an excellent book entitled First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea, by Paul Woodruff. Americans have an unwavering faith in democracy and are ever eager to import it to nations around the world. But how democratic is our own "democracy"? If you can vote, if the majority rules, if you have elected representatives--does this automatically mean that you have a democracy? In this eye-opening look at an ideal that we all take for granted, classical scholar Paul Woodruff offers some surprising answers to these questions.Some important points that Woodruff makes: public officials were chosen, not by vote, but by lottery from the citizenship at large. It was considered to be the duty of every citizen of Athens to be well-educated and up on current events. After all, you might be called upon to make important decisions that would affect the whole city-state. Length of term was specified. And at the end of a public official's term, his performance would be judged by a jury of 501 citizens (odd number to avoid ties, also chosen by lottery, and large enough to be essentially immune to bribery), and based on that judgment, would be awarded honors if he did well by the citizens—or he could be censured, disgraced, or even banished if he fouled up. Athenian democracy did have its flaws. One major flaw was that women were not regarded as full citizens and were not eligible to be called on for public service, nor could they vote in general plebiscites. There were contemporary Athenians who spoke out against this, saying that by excluding women from these proceedings, Athens was failing to utilize—wasting—half of its intellectual power. The Afterward in the book is entitled, "Are Americans Ready for Democracy?" Good question. Good book. Get it. Read it. Learn. Don Firth |
|
31 May 12 - 04:44 PM (#3357787) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert I'm not mud-wrestling... I've put out real ideas here... The mud wrestler isn't wrestling with me but himself... When I see ideas and not attacks then maybe we can get to mud wrestling... You know the difference, LH... Shame... B~ |
|
31 May 12 - 09:30 PM (#3357868) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I think that the 'uncommitted' voters are mostly coming from that group of people, who want a government that doesn't fuck with them or their livelihoods, and/or family structure, and well-being. They don't see either candidate that they can talk themselves into, who can, either make it better...or, stop making it worse. Why else wouldn't you decide and be 'Uncommitted'? ....and NO, they aren't believing either side's propaganda, either...not even the Tea party, the Progressive's, the Libertarian's or registered 'Independent's'.....frankly, I think there is a rather large group of the electorate, who, for good reason, just DO NOT believe or trust the shit that comes out of Washington, and presented to us 'for human consumption'. I think I may fall into that category...and why not??...I've been right, more often than not....by a long shot....along with others, who are like-minded. Respectfully, GfS |
|
31 May 12 - 09:39 PM (#3357869) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Sorry, more free association tin foil... Can you ever present a policy position, GfinS, rather than yet another attack on this or that??? We all know exactly what you hate... Now tell us what you don't hate... B~ |
|
01 Jun 12 - 12:42 AM (#3357889) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P I think there is a rather large group of the electorate, who, for good reason, just DO NOT believe or trust the shit that comes out of Washington I think everyone I know doesn't believe the shit that comes out of Washington. It is clear that most politicians, on the left and the rights, are more interested in keeping their jobs -- and power, and money -- than in doing their jobs. We don't get to choose the best people available -- for the most part, we get to choose among those who cater to the parties and to the extremes within the parties. There is still, however, a clear difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are much worse when it comes to telling lies and fostering intolerance. From my point of view, most Democrats are slightly right of center, and the entire Republican establishment has fallen off the right edge. I get tired of hearing people refer to Obama and Clinton as liberals. They really aren't. But they are so much better than the alternative that it makes voting easy. I used to sometimes vote for Republicans who seemed honest and were doing a good job. Now, however, the Republican party has a series of extremely conservative litmus tests, and any candidate that doesn't pass muster doesn't get supported by the party. This makes it impossible to vote for them, since their votes are dictated by party hacks that no one ever elected, and, being politicians, they have to play along in order to keep their all-important power and money. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 12:42 AM (#3357890) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA "they aren't believing either side's propaganda" Then why are "they" predominantly spouting propaganda? I will believe all the "I am independant, both sides are evil" hoo-haa the moment I see one single solitary post that does not follow the FAUX/Tea Party/Libertarianoidish mantra. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 12:56 AM (#3357892) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth That's precisely my position as well, John. Don Firth |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:00 AM (#3357899) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: akenaton It does matter who is slightly "better" , or slightly "worse". To bring about any sort of change that is measurable,the whole apparatus requires to be dismantled. Citing "conservative" or "progressive" viewpoints as wrong or evil, simply keeps the same flock of vultures in power. A new structure of society will need a little of both....the egalitarianism of the liberals, without the idiocy of much of the "rights" legislation. The personal responsibility and freedom of thought championed by the conservatives, without the reliance on war and might as the final arbitrator. While we are stuck ing the current "money game" the new society will be unachievable. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:02 AM (#3357900) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: akenaton Sorry that should be "Does not matter" |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:43 AM (#3357910) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I have to agree also, with a lot of John's post...on the most part. Where I have a problem, with the other part, is that SOME Democrats have yet to see that their whole deal, has been corrupted beyond WAY beyond any logical description of what they believe themselves to be, and that is vehicles for 'social programs', that, on the most part, having NOTHING to do with social change for the better, but vehicles for the 'banksters' to finance, through 'loans' in which they can charge interest, to make themselves more money and power...at the expense of fiscal responsibility, either for the individual, family, businesses, or country...then they mask it into a quasi-form of responsible 'socialism'...with them, at the top, dictating what the people MUST be compelled to do, think, act like, and behave....so to satisfy THEIR control...for their agendas! If that means forcing the people to sacrifice their freedoms, liberties and/or sovereignty, well, too bad!...it's for the 'overall good'(for them!) The rank and file, believers then in turn, get nasty, and project onto others, that we are 'hateful', 'bigots', divisive, non-compassionate, 'enemies' that need to be 'conquered' into submission...of the bankster's/corporate/government CONTROL. Now I guess you can somehow justify all that...however, the mindset that we Americans have grown into, and live into, is that, based on the Constitution, we are supposed to guaranteed freedom, ('endowed by 'our Creator') as long as our WILL does not intrude and infringe over the rights of others, and vice-versa. As it is now, that OUR rights are being trampled beyond recognition. When before, we'd go to war, to defend that freedom if our rights to that freedom were threatened, and we kicked ass, now we go to war, to protect the 'interests' (read: greed and control) of the bankster/corporations....and told that it is really 'patriotism'!! We have become a country where our national defense, has been turned into a 'military for rent'....and this practice has been going on, through the hands of both political parties....and the American public instinctively KNOWS, that they are exhausted, supporting agendas that are wearing them out!!!...and consequently, support for either Obama or Romney is NOT enthusiastic, the people are suspicious of both of them, for different reasons, perhaps.....and the 'Uncommitted' numbers are huge. Now don't be mistaken, I DO NOT promote the divisions, nor have a political posture for anyone to 'subscribe' to....I am merely articulating the reasons of the unsettled undercurrents, that is growing in vast numbers, of common folk in this country. The whipping up of enthusiastic 'support' by the bankster's corporate media, to bend into submission people to 'settle for the lessor of their two evils', is only their barometer, to gauge the successes of 'crowd control' of the masses..............I don't think that, in a clear mind, that I can give them that.......BUT, as a musician/composer/writer, I can remind people who and what they really are!!!! Let the people decide for themselves what they want to do with it...as long as it does NOT infringe on the rights of others. There, that wasn't too hard to articulate....once the dust of political partisanship bickering has settled, a little bit. now, if only that same dust, doesn't get into the way, of seeing clearly.......................... Regards To All Those Other Musicians Out There Doing Folk...Reminding Folks! GfS |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:49 AM (#3357911) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Akenaton...We cross threaded.....You done good!!! Your post is spot on! GfS |
|
01 Jun 12 - 10:46 AM (#3358037) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: John P While we are stuck in the current "money game" the new society will be unachievable. This is true. Unfortunately, most people are too ignorant, lazy, and greedy to do anything about it. I think this is why "communist" governments seem to end up being totalitarian. They get fed up with waiting for the masses to wake up, so they decide to force the changes. But, of course, the people who are in charge get into that position in part because they are seekers of power. They end up acting like their predecessors, just with different words. But the result is the same: control other people and get rich. I disagree that supporting one viewpoint over another is pointless. It may feed the greed heads, but so does everything else. We can't just stop living, buying food, paying the mortgage, paying taxes, driving cars, etc. Given that I can't change my fellow citizens into socialists, I will fight the smaller fights: civil rights, reproductive rights, anti-war, and some corporate/banking regulations instead of none. Obama has proven himself to be a war hawk, but he's still 100% better on that score than any Republican is allowed to be. I wish he would evolve faster, but at least he's doing it, unlike the return-to-a-past-that-never-really-existed Republicans, who want to put gay people, women, and blacks back in the closet/kitchen/ghetto. And they seem proud of it! Why aren't they worried about what the history books will say about them? Lester Maddox and George Wallace are not remembered as American heroes who fought to save the country. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 11:22 AM (#3358053) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 The brinkmanship game we see being played by governments, bankers, multinationals versus 'the rest of the world' is not beyond redemption. It will require that people everywhere start pushing back. The problem in North America is two-fold: 1) Avoiding the constant surveillance (video, digital) populations are under 2) Over-turning laws that have been and are available for implementation which overthrow all rights people have traditionally though they had |
|
01 Jun 12 - 11:24 AM (#3358054) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Well, if the Repubs steal the 2012 election, which with all the 3rd world style rigging of elections is entirely possible, then watch for the most "totalitarian" government in the United States will have ever seen... Oh yeah, lots of stuff will get done: all bad for the masses!!! B~ |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:06 PM (#3358098) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Well, if the Repubs.....(blah blah blah)" You'll NEVER understand 'what it is' with that kind of brain-lock. Get over it! GfS |
|
01 Jun 12 - 03:26 PM (#3358109) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 In terms of the two main parties, indeed there is little from which to choose. The question that stands is who controls your security forces? IF Obama has control and support from the various security and military forces arraigned against the American people, I think your democracy stands a chance. If not, you're truly and seriously screwed. It's hard to tell with Obama whether or not he's been 'bought' and whether the people there to protect him will do their jobs. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 04:38 PM (#3358140) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Well . . . I'd rather give my vote to someone who probably hasn't been bought than to someone I know damned well has been bought, paid for, and is owned outright. Don Firth |
|
01 Jun 12 - 04:43 PM (#3358141) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 I knew someone would respond in that manner. However, that was pretty much what I said. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 05:15 PM (#3358153) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert In every statehouse controlled by Republicans, disenfranchisement is occurring... That in itself is an alarming manner to try to hold power by denying opposition voters from voting... I donno??? We may look back at this in 10 years and go, "Yup, that was the beginning of a totalitarian fascist state... This is the kind of stuff that used to happen in 3rd world countries and the UN had to go in and supervise elections... The 4 biggest Supreme Court decisions in the last 50 years have been Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and the suit brought against the Affordable Care Act... The Republican Supreme Court has acted to bolster Republican power in 2 and is about to make it 3 for 3... Obama is the only thing standing between The Republicans and their Ayn Rand fascists state... That is not an exaggeration... B~ |
|
01 Jun 12 - 06:10 PM (#3358163) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "That is not an exaggeration..." This guy is absolutely lost!..No Bobert, you're in a fantasy! GfS |
|
01 Jun 12 - 06:15 PM (#3358167) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Bobert, You are dead-on correct. |
|
01 Jun 12 - 06:19 PM (#3358171) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA Oops. Forgot the intended link: voter suppression in FL |
|
01 Jun 12 - 07:57 PM (#3358201) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Dirty Tricks are a mainstay of US politics. That's a given. Indictable dirty tricks are not new either. Thing is, no one does serious time over it and when they do they get really great book deals, so it's easier to take than getting busted for a bag of grass or some illegal lightning. I figure that until we have elections in which the losers are shot, we'll have difficulties finding people who take the job itself seriously. I give Obama a standing ovation for the Health Act. With all its flaws--and there are many--it gives care to people who just didn't have it before. That alone would get him my vote were I an American. The bitching by the Republicans is a result of drug manufacturers, insurance companies and stock 'embezzlers' having funded their elections and now having to locate loopholes to keep their money comin' in. The Republicans are honest politicians in that once they're bought they stay bought. That said, I still have a great difficulty believing in legislators who are millionaires making decisions that affect poor people--and that means about half the USA. Most people do not chose to walk paths that make them earn less than they could at their chosen professions. One question: how many politicians are first lawyers? What's the next step up? If the figures are right, politics is it! Does that not tell us all something? (OK, so that's two questions.) |
|
01 Jun 12 - 08:24 PM (#3358212) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Dirty tricks and preventing millions of people who voted in 2008 from voting ever again are two different things, brucie... In South Carolina 80,000 older blacks have lost their right to vote for the sin of being born at home... No "certified birth certificate"... Tough shit... If you wanted to vote your parents should have have had more money and had you born in hospitals... That's the real deal... 21 states have now spent the last 2 years making voting harder and harder for blacks, students and immigrant citizens... B~ |
|
02 Jun 12 - 07:12 AM (#3358309) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 I am aware of that, Bobert. But it begs the question of why did the people of those states allow their legislators to disenfranchise people? I think the problem is much more fundamental than that. |
|
02 Jun 12 - 11:38 AM (#3358361) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Guest,999: "I am aware of that, Bobert. But it begs the question of why did the people of those states allow their legislators to disenfranchise people? I think the problem is much more fundamental than that." Right along with that, they got what they elected...and if who they elected, double crossed them, then perhaps, the electorate should wise up, learn more! One thing that the partisans count on, is that people will vote along party lines, instead of demanding better......something that partisan politics doesn't quite want people to do...that is quite evident even on here.... ...and Bobert, you are an extreme classic example of that!..(but we love you anyway). GfS |
|
02 Jun 12 - 06:48 PM (#3358535) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert They didn't allow these people to do these things... ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) has been busy since the 2010 election... They saw an opportunity to rig elections and in spite of Republicans running on "jobs, jobs, jobs" Republicans have put all their efforts in busting unions, disenfranchising voters and catering to the Pro-Life people... "Jobs, jobs, jobs" is only for elections... Once elected they never talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" again other than criticize Obama for not creating enough while knowing it their sandbagging that is keeping the economy from growing... Lowest % of increased government spending in 50 years... That means: no jobs... B~ |
|
02 Jun 12 - 06:53 PM (#3358539) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: ""Jobs, jobs, jobs" is only for elections... Once elected they never talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" again.." I agree with you on this part, Bobert....You mean, like Obama's 'shovel ready jobs', and 'Change you can believe in'? and his appointed 'jobs czar', Jeff Immelt, who took $5,000,000,000 of our tax dollars to start jobs in China. How come you NEVER address that?...I know, its a Republican plot..they made him do it, huh? GfS |
|
02 Jun 12 - 10:14 PM (#3358612) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I think Bobert is choking on another swig of moonshine...he can't answer that one....with an answer...instead he'll dish out another flimsy insult, thinking that will wash! ...It won't, nor will he THINK! GfS |
|
03 Jun 12 - 12:14 AM (#3358640) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,TIA If I am stuck in a paper bag, I would prefer Bobert in there with me. |
|
03 Jun 12 - 01:03 AM (#3358646) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage Gust, it is truly rich that you rant on with your nonsense and taunt and accuse others who post rational statements of "not thinking." Since you yourself are a few cards short of a deck, all of your name calling is extremely ironic. You need professional help. SRS |
|
03 Jun 12 - 09:44 AM (#3358735) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert One of the Republicans favorite BIG LIES is "The stimulus didn't create any jobs"... Of course, it created jobs... And lots of them... But the Republicans have their Citizens United so they can shout down facts... That is their strategy... Just pump as much $$$ as is required to buy up the government... American Future Fund??? What a joke... Wonder what the Repubs will do when Putin wakes up one day and decides that Russia oughta make buy up a chunk of the government for itself??? Or China??? Or the Taliban??? Citizens United says, "If you got the money, I got the time..." This country is headed toward Boss Hog's fascist little totalitarian state... Way may be there in short order... Then wonder what the GfinS's and TeaWorld will think??? "Well, gee, how did this happen???" Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Dupes... B~ |
|
03 Jun 12 - 01:20 PM (#3358811) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: ".."The stimulus didn't create any jobs"...Of course, it created jobs... And lots of them..." Yeah, manufacturing imaginary shovels for those 'shovel ready jobs'..only thing, is that the real ones were made in China!!! BTW, where did all that money go??? I guess you don't keep up with the jobs numbers...or you think the economy is thriving.... Actually, you can't make up stuff any weirder than you come up with!..must be that bag over your head, smelling TIA! GfS |
|
03 Jun 12 - 02:48 PM (#3358834) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage The job numbers - that is an old "glass half-full or half-empty" argument. They are increasing, they just aren't increasing as fast consistently as bean counters want each and every month, so markets take a plunge. But the point is, they are growing. You must be a glass-half-empty kind of guy, Gust. SRS |
|
03 Jun 12 - 07:50 PM (#3358925) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stringsinger Frank Rich tells us that these early primaries are no indicator of who will be elected. The problem Obama has is that the base is disappointed in him and may not show up to vote. That along with Florida's dictatorial governor disenfranchising voters daily may weaken Dems chances. If Romney gets in, prepare for a hot year. Occupy the U.S. |
|
03 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM (#3358990) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Silly DriveL Rage: "They are increasing, they just aren't increasing as fast consistently as bean counters want each and every month, so markets take a plunge. But the point is, they are growing. You must be a glass-half-empty kind of guy, Gust." Now, there's a great attempt at 'spin'!! GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 12:04 AM (#3359000) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST Yes, GfS does need professional help. This is not an insult. There is ample evidence of true mental problems and I am sympathetic. I recommend to Bobert and SRS to simply not engage. There really is a mental issue here. I have the evidence. |
|
04 Jun 12 - 12:53 AM (#3359009) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Stilly River Sage We can see it, but ignoring it (which I mostly do) or engaging, either one, are equally ineffective. He needs a cooling off period, away from Mudcat. If he keeps up the harping and sniping, one of these days a moderator will act and his absence will be involuntary. He would do himself a big favor to seek professional counseling and spend less time ranting at rational people. SRS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 01:43 AM (#3359014) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth He is certainly as much of a disruption of any attempts at rational discussion as "Martin Gibson" was, and often even more rudely insulting. MG was eventually blocked. I'm expecting the same to happen to GfS any time now. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 04:15 AM (#3359033) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Richard Bridge I would welcome that. Rational discussion is impossible. |
|
04 Jun 12 - 09:20 AM (#3359093) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Wow... Virginia Republican Governor Bob McDonald has broken from the pack and admitted that the Stimulus did indeed save and create jobs in Virginia... What next??? Someone is going to notice that Romney isn't wearing any pants??? B~ |
|
04 Jun 12 - 10:57 AM (#3359127) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 Can't tell about the pants, Bobert. |
|
04 Jun 12 - 11:15 AM (#3359130) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Just more personal attacks, to avoid the facts, and entering a rational exchange....and then blame it on me..or anyone else who calls you on it!! So what's new? GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 11:37 AM (#3359135) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,999 There is one ray of light. Occupy and the Tea Party both protested outside the Bilderberg meeting in Virginia. They even got along. I expect these folks are remnants of the Tea Party from before it was bought by Republican-leaning arseholes. . |
|
04 Jun 12 - 12:04 PM (#3359143) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 999, I suspect you are correct. Don Firth simply denies any credibility to the Bilderbergs, and accused me of being into 'conspiracy theories' when I brought them up before. You'd think, he, as a self adorned 'news director', would want to get in on COVERING a story, rather than COVERING UP a story!!!! GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 01:18 PM (#3359169) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Goofus, once again you are DO try to get it right! (Goofus get it right? What am I saying!??) Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 01:26 PM (#3359172) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Nice try. GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 02:39 PM (#3359204) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Goofus, before you go off half-cocked, you need spend less time squeezing your zits and do a bit more fact-checking. Fact-checking is a skill I learned during my stint as a broadcast journalist. ". . . they (the Bilderberg group) have at their disposal powerful transnational and national instruments for bringing about what it is they want to come to pass. That their consensus design is not always achieved is a reflection of the strength of competing resisting forces outside the capitalist ruling class and within it." [Emphasis mine--DF]Which is, in essence, what I said. Further: "According to chairman Étienne Davignon, a major attraction of Bilderberg group meetings is that they provide an opportunity for participants to speak and debate candidly and to find out what major figures really think, without the risk of off-the-cuff comments becoming fodder for controversy in the media.And, of course, our own beloved Goofus. The above gleaned from several articles on power groups and "conspiracy theories." Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 02:52 PM (#3359210) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don Firth: "I did not deny anything about the various cabals and conspiracies like the Bilderbergs or the various others (who, incidentally, often work against each other). What I DID say was that there have always been such conspiracy groups and there probably always will be. But since they DO often compete with each other, they are not that important a factor. DO try to get it right! (Goofus get it right? What am I saying!??)" I already got it right. Why did you bring up conspiracies, in regards to my post on the Bilderbergs?. You were either unaware of them, OR tried misleading people through innuendo...which is subtle deception, but nonetheless deception..is it not? Bilderbergs and conspiracy theories are two completely different subjects..apples and sawhorses!..What are you trying to steer people away from??..The FACT that some of your phony ideologue heroes are in concert with the banksters?..Which happens to be, what I've been saying all along...or the FACT that a lot of social issues, which the 'so-called liberal' dupes, are nothing more than distractions, from what is what is REALLY going on, of which, your puppets have been working together with the very people you say you oppose??? If you were a 'news director' of any worth, you would have seen (or could see), that the depth of the TRUTH(remember that?), has far more depth, and far worth more, that propping up, and championing the fairy tale follies, which were meant to mislead and deceive people. Then you conscript people to slander anyone who refutes your imaginary spin!! So, for your enjoyment while turning your 'booll-shit' around here's a piece of musical advice, for you and your blues guy. Great advice..TAKE IT!! ...and for Bobert..a delightful theme song Wonderfully Yours!! GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 02:57 PM (#3359212) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert Cha-cha-cha... B~ |
|
04 Jun 12 - 03:01 PM (#3359214) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Then why did you present them as the same thing? Unless you were deliberately trying to be deceptive? Even Fred Astaire couldn't tap dance that fast! Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 03:05 PM (#3359215) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth "Unless you were deliberately trying to be deceptive?" Or didn't know any better until you read what I posted above! Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 03:06 PM (#3359217) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity More spin...don't you ever learn? You combined them! GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 03:09 PM (#3359220) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Okay..you tell us...why when I mentioned the Bilderbergs, in ANY post, did you come back with 'conspiracy theories'. This should be interesting! GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 03:37 PM (#3359229) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth I didn't. You presented them as conspiracy theories. I've been hearing about conspiracy theories since I was a kid. "The Rockefellers are trying to take over the world," "The Masons are trying to take over the world," "The Jews are trying to take over the world," "The Girl Scouts are trying to take over the world," "Left handed ukulele players are trying to take over the world," ad nauseum. I've long since learned to take other peoples' paranoia with a large grain of salt. Once again, you're indulging in flights of fantasy. Maybe you better just get back to your zits. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 04:29 PM (#3359250) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ...is that a fact???? GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 05:01 PM (#3359257) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Very amusing, but--that's all you've got? Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 05:40 PM (#3359271) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Clarification. The claim that the Bilderberg Group is masterminding everything is a "conspiracy theory." This is a paranoid delusion of a lot of people. But the Bilderberg Group, or the Masons, or the Jews, or the Girl Scouts don't control the world any more than the East Podunk Chamber of Commerce does. Making such claims are simple-minded attempts to find easy answers to difficult questions. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 05:46 PM (#3359272) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Funny you should say that..I was thinking the same about you! You'd think after approx. 500 posts regarding that, and the banksters, and corruption of both parties, with them being merely puppets of this group, that you would have come up with something..ummm...just a 'little' more realistic??? Come on, Don, you could be a monster with the truth, but you've elected to be a worm...WHY??? Some day, when you get over yourself, you might realize that, besides being an 'entertaining challenge to you' (your words), and being as you pride yourself as a 'news' guy, I've been the best friend you've had in decades! I have another friend, a disabled in the line of duty, cop, who is confined to a wheelchair for life. I visit him, and we play chess. He is one of the best chess players, of whom I've played, in my life...and at first he's whoop me a lot(not so much as of our last games, and I've provided him with some of the 'best games that he's played in his life'(his words). If you want to play chess(if you do), let's do that...but let's not play games with the truth, or the news. You could be a force..but you've settled for being a farce. P.S. As I've told you before.."I'm on YOUR side"....Stop making things up to validate a false agenda. Peace(?), GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 05:59 PM (#3359278) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth GoofuS, I have NEVER made the claim that the Bilderberg Group is controlling the banks or the the Democrats or the Republicans. That has been YOUR schtick all along. The truth is not in you. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 06:30 PM (#3359297) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth And don't try to cozy up to me. Sorry, but you've displayed the nature of your character often enough on these threads. That's all I need to know about you. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 07:01 PM (#3359315) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert What??? GfinS invent stuff that the insane one wishes you'd said, then attack you for saying something you never said and then prance around like a peacock doing some kinda insane victory lap??? How could that be, Don??? Oh yeah, I almost forgot... GfinS is insane... Guess that explains it... B~ |
|
04 Jun 12 - 07:01 PM (#3359316) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Little Hawk Ah well, Don, many have underestimated the power of the East Podunk Chamber of Commerce to their everlasting regret! ;-D They're everywhere. Meanwhile, I see that thundering hyperbole, snide verbal shafts, devastating accusations of moral turpitude, and unrelenting, absolutely unforgiving and vitriolic personal hostility are still the desired weapons of choice here, eh? Ah...the halcyon days of calm, considered political discussion amongst open and receptive minds! So refreshing. Why, it's like a breath of fresh air. If only everyone was this nice to one another, what a wonderful world it would be! Yes! I got drawn in again. (sigh) But not for long! |
|
04 Jun 12 - 07:37 PM (#3359326) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Not MY choice, Little Hawk. GoofuS chose the weapons you cataloged, so I suggest to talk to him. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 07:47 PM (#3359327) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Bobert I don't recall GfinS ever talking policy in these discussions... Parroting sound-bites which are readily out there in Tealand, sure... But Don, JohnP and I have gone to lengths to discuss policy... GfinS doesn't do "policy"... BTW, LH, this is not a personal attack on GfinS... It is an observation... Case in point... The Affordable Care Act... GfinS says that he will put forth an alternate proposal... Sandbags for weeks sayin' he's working on the details then... ... what we get is TeaNation's, "Repeal every word of it!" That's policy??? No better than GfinS's first policy proposal which was "Freedom"... Freedom as a health care policy??? Give me a break... B~ |
|
04 Jun 12 - 08:14 PM (#3359343) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth 'Scuse me, Little Hawk. Typo. Should read: ". . . so I suggest you talk to him." Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 10:42 PM (#3359369) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don: "That has been YOUR schtick all along." That's what I said..the rest of that post is just you falling all over yourself, contradicting yourself..and..well, all about yourself..Oh, and BTW, I'm right..not only are they trying to control the banks, but governments, as well. They certainly control both parties..or are trying to. May I suggest doing some homework...and try this..go for the truth, and work your political stance around the truth, instead of making up truth-S to fit your political stance. You might start being rational....then! Here, let's give this a look-see, Romney wants Rand Paul to run with him, to lure the voters who support him..BUT Paul is hesitant, because Romney is corrupt...so, watch Romney go for Mitch McConnell. I called the Rick Perry entrance into the primaries a week before he announced, or was even being talked about....was right about that one....feelin' lucky, are ya'?? GfS |
|
04 Jun 12 - 10:42 PM (#3359370) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Bobert, your description of what Goofus has been up to, "What??? GfinS invent stuff that the insane one wishes you'd said, then attack you for saying something you never said and then prance around like a peacock doing some kinda insane victory lap???"is both spot on and bloody brilliant!! Goofus's little caper reminds me of a word I learned some years ago. I had a very good friend (Gone now. Passed away a few years ago) who was of the Jewish persuasion. From him, I learned a whole repertoire of Jewish jokes. He taught them to me, and at parties would often ask me to tell one of them because I'm pretty good with accents and dialects and, oddly enough perhaps, he couldn't do a Jewish accent worth a damn. Anyway, among other things, I learned a number of wonderful Yiddish words from him. One of them was "chutzpah," (pronounced pretty much as it looks, except the "ch" at the beginning is pronounced like you're clearing your throat: like the "ch" in "Johann Sebastian Bach"). Roughly, it means "gall" or "nerve," but of such monumental proportions that when people observe an example of it, they can't believe it because it's so extreme it defies all sense of decency and reasonable behavior. My friend said that it can only be defined by example. Ex. 1. A family of nine come into an expensive, plush restaurant just as rush hour is starting and commandeers a large table in the middle of the dining room. A waiter goes up, puts a glass of water in front of each member of the party, and starts to hand them menus. One older man, who appears to be the head of the family stops him, saying, "We won't need menus. Just the water. We've brought our own food." He then pulls out a picnic hamper and starts distributing the food therein. The waiter, not believe the sheer gall of these people, reports the matter to the head waiter. The head waiter storms up to the table, prepared to order them out of the restaurant, when the head of the family looks at him angrily and shouts, "Waiter! Why is there no music!??" Ex. 2. A wild, psychopathic teen-ager murders his parents by setting fire to the house and burning them to death. He then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is a homeless orphan. I dunno. I think GoofuS ought to receive an Olympic medal for mental gymnastics (free-style), or perhaps a Pee-you-litzer Prize for sheer—well—chutzpah. Don Firth |
|
04 Jun 12 - 11:57 PM (#3359397) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don: "...who was of the Jewish persuasion." Persuasion???? I'm surprised Bobert didn't jump all over you for being racist. Judging from your frantic posts, methinks you are losing it! ..and by the way, 'insane' is only a legal term, not a medical one...BUT 'insane' is usually to indicate if someone is detached from reality, right?.....but what if a person sees reality, before it arrives?...and 'other' people either can't see it, or understand it? what would you call that?....and the 'other' people as well? oh well, you can go back to calling names now....and BTW(again), does it make you feel good? GfS |
|
05 Jun 12 - 12:06 AM (#3359402) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth MY FRIEND of whom I spoke described HIMSELF as "being of the Jewish persuasion." What is "racist" about that? You're groping, desparate to make points, man. You're LOOSING it!! Why don't you have yourself a good night's sleep. You're getting punchy. Don Firth (Nighty night.) |
|
05 Jun 12 - 12:35 AM (#3359411) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Being Jewish is not a 'persuasion'. Go back to sleep. GfS |
|
05 Jun 12 - 12:58 AM (#3359415) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: Don Firth Well, it's not really genetic is it? It might be the religion of one's forefathers, as it was in my friend's case. He was Hungarian by nationality, but that doesn't dictate one's choice of faith. Since when does embracing the Jewish faith determine one's race? Except, of course, under Hitler. Or with the KKK. Or various other white supremacist groups, who can't accept the fact that most Jews are members of the "white" race. This is not the first thing you've been confused about, as to whether it's genetic or a matter of choice. You're screwed up. Examine your own principles, Goofus. Don Firth. (z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z) |
|
05 Jun 12 - 01:34 AM (#3359431) Subject: RE: BS: Obama Battles 'Uncommitted' in Primary From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Actually, it's a bloodline. GfS |
