# Bill Maher: New Rules for Teabaggers



## P F Tinmore

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBaxckBCS_M]YouTube - Bill Maher: New Rules for Teabaggers[/ame]


----------



## GHook93

New rule for Titmore:


----------



## Truthmatters

yeah it was a good one.


----------



## del

if your thread has the word *tea* in it, and it's not about the beverage, what sub forum do you think is the most likely place for it?


----------



## Madeline

P F Tinmore said:


> YouTube - Bill Maher: New Rules for Teabaggers



Bill Maher for President in 2012.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGpK5g1-gwQ&feature=related]YouTube - Maher on Catholicism[/ame]

Bill Maher for Bankruptcy Trustee of the Holy Fuck It's the Catholic Church in 2010.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGpK5g1-gwQ&feature=related]YouTube - Maher on Catholicism[/ame]

Bil Maher is mah gawd.  LOLOLOL.


----------



## Truthmatters

before Bush hes was very libertarian leaning, Bush set him straight


----------



## ihopehefails

Truthmatters said:


> before Bush hes was very libertarian leaning, Bush set him straight



I wish you people can see things from out point of view and realize how unliberal you sound sometimes..


----------



## ihopehefails

Bill is a piece of shit


----------



## Stephanie

what is it with lefties-liberals comedians, not only are they ugly from the heart, they are ugly as hell to look at.

must be all that haten they do.


----------



## California Girl

ihopehefails said:


> Bill is a piece of shit



Really? See, I would have said that, as shit serves a purpose, it has more value.


----------



## mudwhistle

P F Tinmore said:


> YouTube - Bill Maher: New Rules for Teabaggers



I love America..even though Maher doesn't. 

The guy gets rich off of making fun of patriotism and making fun of the country he makes most of his dough in.

I stopped listening to him years ago...and I'm not about to go back now.

Call him a poor man's Rush Limbaugh for the left only less honest.


----------



## teapartysamurai

> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​




Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; now
​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!  

Typical that Obama has it backwards.  

But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."

This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.  

When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.  

"Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.

After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them. 

YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.  

YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!  

The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.


​


----------



## Si modo

I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.


----------



## California Girl

I guess what Obama meant by 'civility' was 'shut the fuck up and do as I tell you'.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.



Yea, in a work environment. I refer to the messiah by his given name or his job title. It would be nice if he showed the same respect to his bosses.


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, in a work environment. I refer to the messiah by his given name or his job title. It would be nice if he showed the same respect to his bosses.
Click to expand...

Respect for Americans is above his pay grade.


----------



## WillowTree

thats why they and their ilk are asswipes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bill Maher is one of them "White *******" Robert Byrd talked about


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Up yours, Barry!


----------



## midcan5

Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title.  They are not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows?  Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?

http://www.indecisionforever.com/20...nspiracy-theories-according-to-fox-news-poll/


----------



## Skull Pilot

Do you expect anything but hypocrisy from a guy who constantly tells us not to jump to conclusions but can then jump to a conclusion like "The police acted stupidly"?


----------



## Si modo

midcan5 said:


> Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title.  They are a not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows?  Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?
> 
> Teabagger Movement "Fruitless Mix of Racism, Conspiracy Theories" According to Fox News Poll | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central


And Gallup shows them as mainstream.

Obama shows no respect for the mainstream in America.

Cool, huh?


----------



## California Girl

What I fail to understand is how people can, with an apparent straight face, agree with Mayer and slam 'Faux News'. No wonder that the rest of the world says 'Americans don't get irony'.


----------



## midcan5

Si modo said:


> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.



If those signs reflect 'mainstream' America, we lost our way - or they did.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Like I said before.

I don't listen to the opinions of any man that my wife could kick the shit out of.


----------



## Skull Pilot

If a few signs define an entire range of people then we can label all you libbys because of the few who carried "Kill Bush " signs.

Oh the hypocrisy.


----------



## Si modo

midcan5 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those signs reflect 'mainstream' America, we lost our way - or they did.
Click to expand...

If whatever signs to which you are referring reflected the Tea Party, you would have a point.  We could play the game of protest-sign war again, though.  That's always fun, in a pointless sense.


----------



## VaYank5150

Learn to Speak Tea Bag | Mark Fiore's Animated Cartoon Site


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> I guess what Obama meant by 'civility' was 'shut the fuck up and do as I tell you'.



Either that, or simply go to the official TeaBagger website....jeez, you people are thick!
the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People


----------



## CrusaderFrank

midcan5 said:


> Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title.  They are a not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows?  Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?
> 
> Teabagger Movement "Fruitless Mix of Racism, Conspiracy Theories" According to Fox News Poll | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central



I don't know, ******, you tell me why people might find a word offensive?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have replaced Cronkite and Jennings as the Liberal Favorite anchormen


----------



## NYcarbineer

Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.


----------



## Si modo

Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.



Sho'nuff My Nigga!


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.



How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?

the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


I thought the tea parties existed BEFORE the stimulus? Yet now you are claiming the stimuls is part of what "created" it. So which is it?

Furthermore, teabaggers called themselves teabaggers until they realized that it gave a different impression than they were hoping for. Now that they don't like the connotation that comes with the name they are whining and complaining about being called what they originally called themselves. Talk about hypersensitive.

I seem to remember tea baggers talking about "tea bagging" the white house. Don't you? 

However, thanks for your usualy hypocritical and hyperpartisan rant to finish up your post as you try once again to tell everyone how liberals think based on your own biased and baseless opinions.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.



If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
Click to expand...

If is a good word.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.



LOL I guess you were in a coma for the entirety of bush's presidency??


----------



## Murf76

Let's see Professor Barry use one of his gazillion TV appearances to explain to ordinary, concerned Americans like these.... exactly what that term means.  












Note the riot police in the background.  Those grannies look dangerous, don't they?


----------



## Qball

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.



What if we tried acting like liberals?


----------



## drsmith1072

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
Click to expand...


Good luck getting a REAL response. THis thread is not meant to bring about debate it is meant to draw in those of like mind so they can all mindless agree with each other in an attempt to validate their own opinions. 

One starts a rant and the others chime in to agree with it without question and in order to keep the facade they will never admit that they called themselves tea baggers to begin with.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
Click to expand...

Your thinking that site is THE site of the Tea Party is idiotic, but expected of you.

I bet you want me to prove that's not the site of the Tea Party now, huh?


----------



## Bfgrn

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasn&#8217;t aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I can&#8217;t recall a single instance of him saying &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesn&#8217;t know the term&#8217;s impolitic, how come he hasn&#8217;t innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alter&#8217;s &#8220;The Promise: President Obama, Year One,&#8221; President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills &#8220;set the tenor for the whole year &#8230; That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.&#8221;
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term &#8220;tea baggers,&#8221; which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  *But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.*  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


I can't decide if your fear of people that are 100 times smarter than you (liberals) or your stupidity comes first...it's a chicken/egg conundrum.

Maybe the teabaggers would prefer being called what really are...Bushies







February 5, 2009

Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
*Seven in 10 favor some type of stimulus legislation*

Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title.  They are a not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows?  Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?
> 
> Teabagger Movement "Fruitless Mix of Racism, Conspiracy Theories" According to Fox News Poll | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central
> 
> 
> 
> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.
> 
> Obama shows no respect for the mainstream in America.
> 
> Cool, huh?
Click to expand...



Actually, right now, the Democratic Party does represent the mainstream, and if it maintains congressional majorities this fall as I expect, you will continue to be on the fringes.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I guess you were in a coma for the entirety of bush's presidency??
Click to expand...

  So, it's OK for the office of thePOTUS to be classless.  LMAO!


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.



More like your president couldn't be a bigger thinskinned pussy if he tried.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  *But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.*  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't decide if your fear of people that are 100 times smarter than you (liberals) or your stupidity comes first...it's a chicken/egg conundrum.
> 
> Maybe the teabaggers would prefer being called what really are...Bushies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> February 5, 2009
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
> *Seven in 10 favor some type of stimulus legislation*
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
Click to expand...


Maybe you should keep your stupid opinions to yourself, fuckface


----------



## jillian

Bfgrn said:


> I can't decide if your fear of people that are 100 times smarter than you (liberals) or your stupidity comes first...it's a chicken/egg conundrum.
> 
> Maybe the teabaggers would prefer being called what really are...Bushies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> February 5, 2009
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
> *Seven in 10 favor some type of stimulus legislation*
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%



what's funny is that they're the ones who run around insulting everyone else.

they need to get a thicker skin. 

or not have animals like michelle bachman, and loons like glen beck as spokespeople ... but maybe that's asking too much.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title.  They are a not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows?  Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?
> 
> Teabagger Movement "Fruitless Mix of Racism, Conspiracy Theories" According to Fox News Poll | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central
> 
> 
> 
> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.
> 
> Obama shows no respect for the mainstream in America.
> 
> Cool, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, right now, the Democratic Party does represent the mainstream, and if it maintains congressional majorities this fall as I expect, you will continue to be on the fringes.
Click to expand...


What can I say.  Gallup shows the Tea Party to be mainstream.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

drsmith1072 said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck getting a REAL response. THis thread is not meant to bring about debate it is meant to draw in those of like mind so they can all mindless agree with each other in an attempt to validate their own opinions.
> 
> One starts a rant and the others chime in to agree with it without question and in order to keep the facade they will never admit that they called themselves tea baggers to begin with.
Click to expand...


I'm happy to have an honest debate with you, Scumbag


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like your president couldn't be a bigger thinskinned pussy if he tried.
Click to expand...


Translation: "I know you are, but what am I"


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide if your fear of people that are 100 times smarter than you (liberals) or your stupidity comes first...it's a chicken/egg conundrum.
> 
> Maybe the teabaggers would prefer being called what really are...Bushies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> February 5, 2009
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
> *Seven in 10 favor some type of stimulus legislation*
> 
> Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's funny is that they're the ones who run around insulting everyone else.
> 
> they need to get a thicker skin.
> 
> or not have animals like michelle bachman, and loons like glen beck as spokespeople ... but maybe that's asking too much.
Click to expand...


Or terrorist pigs and pieces of shit like Bill Ayers?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If is a good word.
Click to expand...


Actually the better "IF" is that If you have ever done it would you be honest enough to admit it?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the better "IF" is that If you have ever done it would you be honest enough to admit it?
Click to expand...

Of course.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If is a good word.
Click to expand...


its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab... 

all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab...
> 
> all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.
Click to expand...

And the cycle continues.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I guess you were in a coma for the entirety of bush's presidency??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, it's OK for the office of thePOTUS to be classless.  LMAO!
Click to expand...


Did i say that it's OK?? NO. 
You asked a question and I referred you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless.

So for future reference, when you think about putting words into my mouth based on opinions that you made up, DON'T. 

Thanks for showing what classless really is.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I guess you were in a coma for the entirety of bush's presidency??
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's OK for the office of thePOTUS to be classless.  LMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did i say that it's OK?? NO.
> You asked a question and I referred you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless.
> ....
Click to expand...

OK.  And your point?


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Office of the POTUS become so classless?  It's quite sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your thinking that site is THE site of the Tea Party is idiotic, but expected of you.
> 
> I bet you want me to prove that's not the site of the Tea Party now, huh?
Click to expand...


According to morons like you, there is no such this an "THE Tea party"....do you even listen to yourselves anymore.  Make up your fucking minds already.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Civility = Go along with everything we want; no questions asked.


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives could not be a bigger bunch of thinskinned pussies if they tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like your president couldn't be a bigger thinskinned pussy if he tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I"
Click to expand...


Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab...
> 
> all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the cycle continues.
Click to expand...


so break the cycle. *shrug*


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> Your thinking that site is THE site of the Tea Party is idiotic, but expected of you.
> 
> I bet you want me to prove that's not the site of the Tea Party now, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to morons like you, there is no such this an "THE Tea party"....do you even listen to yourselves anymore.  Make up your fucking minds already.
Click to expand...

Oh, you DON'T want me or someone else to prove that it's NOT the Tea Party's site?  Maybe you actually DID learn how idiotic it is to ask that.  Took you a few days, though. But a lesson learned is good.


----------



## VaYank5150

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like your president couldn't be a bigger thinskinned pussy if he tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
Click to expand...


True.  They call themselves that.  Duh?!
the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab...
> 
> all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.
> 
> 
> 
> And the cycle continues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so break the cycle. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Why tell me to do so?    YOU'RE the one saying it's deserved.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  They call themselves that.  Duh?!
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
Click to expand...

And you think that is the website of the Tea Party, right?  

Damn, you are dense.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your thinking that site is THE site of the Tea Party is idiotic, but expected of you.
> 
> I bet you want me to prove that's not the site of the Tea Party now, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to morons like you, there is no such this an "THE Tea party"....do you even listen to yourselves anymore.  Make up your fucking minds already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you DON'T want me or someone else to prove that it's NOT the Tea Party's site?  Maybe you actually DID learn how idiotic it is to ask that.  Took you a few days, though. But a lesson learned is good.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection....point?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I don't know about the rest of the Conservatives here, but I'm happy to have a civil debate with any of the Liberal cocksuckers that want to talk about the Tea Parties


----------



## midcan5

CrusaderFrank said:


> [I don't know, ******, you tell me why people might find a word offensive?




LOL  WHAT!  you have stooped to a new low with all your name calling in this thread. 

Is that word some sort of cover all ? No, you are!  LOL

*Teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers where were all you teabaggers when Bush was spending us into debt but rewarding the rich. Oh, Teabaggers where were you!*

Soon you TEAbgggers will be in the Flame zone, teaBAGGERS.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  They call themselves that.  Duh?!
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think that is the website of the Tea Party, right?
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
Click to expand...


Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to morons like you, there is no such this an "THE Tea party"....do you even listen to yourselves anymore.  Make up your fucking minds already.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you DON'T want me or someone else to prove that it's NOT the Tea Party's site?  Maybe you actually DID learn how idiotic it is to ask that.  Took you a few days, though. But a lesson learned is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection....point?
Click to expand...

My point is that you are failing in whatever it is you want to say.


----------



## VaYank5150

CrusaderFrank said:


> I don't know about the rest of the Conservatives here, but I'm happy to have a civil debate with any of the Liberal cocksuckers that want to talk about the Tea Parties



Oh please.  You are too stupid to take part in a debate and everyone on these boards knows it...


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  They call themselves that.  Duh?!
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that is the website of the Tea Party, right?
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....
Click to expand...

Oh


my


God.

You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.

The stupid is thick in your posts.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that is the website of the Tea Party, right?
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
Click to expand...


So, then we agree.  the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People

IS A Tea Party website.  Yes?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.
> 
> Obama shows no respect for the mainstream in America.
> 
> Cool, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, right now, the Democratic Party does represent the mainstream, and if it maintains congressional majorities this fall as I expect, you will continue to be on the fringes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can I say.  Gallup shows the Tea Party to be mainstream.
Click to expand...


Actually the poll says "fairly" mainstream but then it tries to prove that assertion by only showing where the tea party is "similar to national adults." while it doesn't make a complete comparison which would be required to make the claim that the tea party is mainstream.



> Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their DemographicsSkew right politically, but have typical profile by age, education, and employment



Furthermore, similar to mainstream is by no means a claim to a majority.

Also, based on the polling data 62-63% view republicans and conservatives favorably. That right there shows that it is NOT mainstream. LOL


----------



## Murf76

Lean on in, folks.  I'd just like to show you VAYank's idea of a "troll post", worthy of neg-repping. 

Talk about some "thin skin"... and this, from a guy who I've _tried_ to be patient with 
(because I seriously doubt he's 'all there'), and who routinely uses the most vile insults he can think up when he's frustrated by the lack of depth in his faulty ideology.






Murf76 said:


> Let's see Professor Barry use one of his gazillion TV appearances to explain to ordinary, concerned Americans like these.... exactly what that term means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the riot police in the background.  Those grannies look dangerous, don't they?


----------



## VaYank5150

Awwwww....I will pos you back.  I hate it when you cry.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, then we agree.  the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> IS A Tea Party website.  Yes?
Click to expand...


'A' and 'the' are funny words with actual definitions, so I use them accordingly and as I intend to use them. Now, I have yet to receive my government issued lexicon of Newspeak  (but am making noise about it) so your mileage may vary.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, then we agree.  the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> IS A Tea Party website.  Yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'A' and 'the' are funny words with actual definitions, so I use them accordingly and as I intend to use them. Now, I have yet to receive my government issued lexicon of Newspeak  (but am making noise about it) so your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...


So, this has come down to the definition of "a" and "the"?  Neither of which I used....why did you get your panties all in a wad again?


----------



## jillian

Murf76 said:


> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".



it's kind of what one would call someone who hangs tea bags from their hat though. i figure it's no different than the people who call liberals names, call our president names, call democrats, 'democRATS' or whatever silliness people engage in.

the sensitivity over one name when the right has such a wealth of insults they like to toss about is what's kind of funny.

people shouldn't be thin-skinned when they insult everyone else.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> Your thinking that site is THE site of the Tea Party is idiotic, but expected of you.
> 
> I bet you want me to prove that's not the site of the Tea Party now, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to morons like you, there is no such this an "THE Tea party"....do you even listen to yourselves anymore.  Make up your fucking minds already.
Click to expand...


Huh?  When have I ever said that?

Liar.

Again, you just can't help being dishonest about what I say.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's kind of what one would call someone who hangs tea bags from their hat though. i figure it's no different than the people who call liberals names, call our president names, call democrats, 'democRATS' or whatever silliness people engage in.
> 
> the sensitivity over one name when the right has such a wealth of insults they like to toss about is what's kind of funny.
> 
> people shouldn't be thin-skinned when they insult everyone else.
Click to expand...




you never call people names right loon eerrr jill?


----------



## Vanquish

Is there any doubt that TeaParty people called themselves "teabaggers" at the beginning of the movement before they realized the negative connotations?  No.

Should Obama change from calling them "teabaggers"? Probably.  While his opponents say the vilest things they can think of about him and drum up lies and half-truths to peddle hatred, that doesnt mean that he should stoop to his opponents' level.

Of course it's a double-standard, conservatives can call him the anti-christ (with fundies thinking he is the ACTUAL, LITERAL anti-christ) but he's supposed to stop using a mildly-derisive term.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, then we agree.  the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> IS* A* Tea Party website.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'A' and 'the' are funny words with actual definitions, so I use them accordingly and as I intend to use them. Now, I have yet to receive my government issued lexicon of Newspeak  (but am making noise about it) so your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this has come down to the definition of "a" and "the"?  Neither of which I used....why did you get your panties all in a wad again?
Click to expand...

[Emphasis added]  Liar.


----------



## drsmith1072

CrusaderFrank said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling them by their chosen name, classless, exactly?
> 
> the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck getting a REAL response. THis thread is not meant to bring about debate it is meant to draw in those of like mind so they can all mindless agree with each other in an attempt to validate their own opinions.
> 
> One starts a rant and the others chime in to agree with it without question and in order to keep the facade they will never admit that they called themselves tea baggers to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy to have an honest debate with you, Scumbag
Click to expand...


That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks. 

Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??


----------



## VaYank5150

Vanquish said:


> Is there any doubt that TeaParty people called themselves "teabaggers" at the beginning of the movement before they realized the negative connotations?  No.
> 
> Should Obama change from calling them "teabaggers"? Probably.  While his opponents say the vilest things they can think of about him and drum up lies and half-truths to peddle hatred, that doesnt mean that he should stoop to his opponents' level.
> 
> Of course it's a double-standard, conservatives can call him the anti-christ (with fundies thinking he is the ACTUAL, LITERAL anti-christ) but he's supposed to stop using a mildly-derisive term.



The bigger, and in my opinion, funnier question now is do these idiots realize just how insignificant they have made themselves by their own childish behavior?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the better "IF" is that If you have ever done it would you be honest enough to admit it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.
Click to expand...


LOL I will be sure to remember that. BTW have you ever changed obama's name or referrred to him as the messiah?


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like your president couldn't be a bigger thinskinned pussy if he tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
Click to expand...

_
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands._
Douglas Adams


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's OK for the office of thePOTUS to be classless.  LMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did i say that it's OK?? NO.
> You asked a question and I referred you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  And your point?
Click to expand...


I made my point by referring you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless and you tried to put words into my mouth. 

You asked a question and I answered it. If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions.


----------



## Murf76

jillian said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's kind of what one would call someone who hangs tea bags from their hat though. i figure it's no different than the people who call liberals names, call our president names, call democrats, 'democRATS' or whatever silliness people engage in.
> 
> the sensitivity over one name when the right has such a wealth of insults they like to toss about is what's kind of funny.
> 
> people shouldn't be thin-skinned when they insult everyone else.
Click to expand...


Those people aren't all here on this board though, are they?  You don't KNOW if they engage in any "name-calling".  And neither does Obama.

I'd be really interested to see proof that any of our elected officials are routinely referring to liberals in terms that graphically describe a sexual fetish.


----------



## VaYank5150

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did i say that it's OK?? NO.
> You asked a question and I referred you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  And your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made my point by referring you to a time when the office of the POTUS was so classless and you tried to put words into my mouth.
> 
> You asked a question and I answered it. If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions.
Click to expand...


You are dealing with Si Modo here.  You can go round and round all day with her if you are not careful.


----------



## drsmith1072

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Civility = Go along with everything we want; no questions asked.



Soggy want a cracker?? Just thought a parrot would like a reward for doing it's job.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's kind of what one would call someone who hangs tea bags from their hat though. i figure it's no different than the people who call liberals names, call our president names, call democrats, 'democRATS' or whatever silliness people engage in.
> 
> the sensitivity over one name when the right has such a wealth of insults they like to toss about is what's kind of funny.
> 
> people shouldn't be thin-skinned when they insult everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you never call people names right loon eerrr jill?
Click to expand...


if you're asking if i'm nice to people who are nasty .... no. but i never said i am. 

you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Vanquish said:


> Is there any doubt that TeaParty people called themselves "teabaggers" at the beginning of the movement before they realized the negative connotations?  No.
> 
> Should Obama change from calling them "teabaggers"? Probably.  While his opponents say the vilest things they can think of about him and drum up lies and half-truths to peddle hatred, that doesnt mean that he should stoop to his opponents' level.
> 
> Of course it's a double-standard, conservatives can call him the anti-christ (with fundies thinking he is the ACTUAL, LITERAL anti-christ) but he's supposed to stop using a mildly-derisive term.



I think you're wrong, Scumbag. The word is derogatory and used by Liberal Douchebags and cocksuckers to denigrate what they cannot honestly debate


----------



## VaYank5150

Murf76 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I'm not the one going around calling little old ladies "teabaggers".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's kind of what one would call someone who hangs tea bags from their hat though. i figure it's no different than the people who call liberals names, call our president names, call democrats, 'democRATS' or whatever silliness people engage in.
> 
> the sensitivity over one name when the right has such a wealth of insults they like to toss about is what's kind of funny.
> 
> people shouldn't be thin-skinned when they insult everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people aren't all here on this board though, are they?  You don't KNOW if they engage in any "name-calling".  And neither does Obama.
> 
> I'd be really interested to see proof that any of our elected officials are routinely referring to liberals in terms that graphically describe a sexual fetish.
Click to expand...


Just because you can't seem to stop thinking about getting tea bagged in the sexual fetish way, does not mean everyone thinks like you.


----------



## jillian

Murf76 said:


> Those people aren't all here on this board though, are they?  You don't KNOW if they engage in any "name-calling".  And neither does Obama.
> 
> I'd be really interested to see proof that any of our elected officials are routinely referring to liberals in terms that graphically describe a sexual fetish.



you know, i'd agree with you. and i always try to be polite in discussion. i actually had one friend here ask me not to call them tea baggers becuase it offended him. so i stopped. in return, i suggested that perhaps he not call the president and anyone who voted for him names.

he declined. 

i still haven't called them tea baggers since. or at least try to avoid it. of course, that doesn't stop the loons from calling me names.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

drsmith1072 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck getting a REAL response. THis thread is not meant to bring about debate it is meant to draw in those of like mind so they can all mindless agree with each other in an attempt to validate their own opinions.
> 
> One starts a rant and the others chime in to agree with it without question and in order to keep the facade they will never admit that they called themselves tea baggers to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to have an honest debate with you, Scumbag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
Click to expand...


Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming where all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.

The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that


----------



## VaYank5150

CrusaderFrank said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to have an honest debate with you, Scumbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
Click to expand...


*REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you DON'T want me or someone else to prove that it's NOT the Tea Party's site?  Maybe you actually DID learn how idiotic it is to ask that.  Took you a few days, though. But a lesson learned is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection....point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is that you are failing in whatever it is you want to say.
Click to expand...


If you claim to not know what he is trying to say then how can you know that he is failing?? Or are you merely claiming he is failing to avoid giving a valid response?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

VaYank5150 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about the rest of the Conservatives here, but I'm happy to have a civil debate with any of the Liberal cocksuckers that want to talk about the Tea Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  You are too stupid to take part in a debate and everyone on these boards knows it...
Click to expand...


If that's how you rationalize your inability to get any point across, feel free.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection....point?
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that you are failing in whatever it is you want to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim to not know what he is trying to say then how can you know that he is failing?? Or are you merely claiming he is failing to avoid giving a valid response?
Click to expand...

Well, to me, asking someone to prove a negative is no point at all. But, that's just me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

VaYank5150 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
Click to expand...


Some blacks and Democrat Presidents call blacks *******. You found maybe one guy who uses that phrase, that does not make it ok to call everyone a Teabagger, Scumbag.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that is the website of the Tea Party, right?
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
Click to expand...



No one asked you to prove a negative but nice deflection. Yank asked you to provide THE tea party website because you insinuated that he was presenting the site he linked as THE tea party website which he never did. He provided a website of tea partiers that refer to themselves as tea baggers which is at the core of this thread. Avoidance is not a valid response.


----------



## VaYank5150

CrusaderFrank said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some blacks and Democrat Presidents call blacks *******. You found maybe one guy who uses that phrase, that does not make it ok to call everyone a Teabagger, Scumbag.
Click to expand...


No, dumbass.  I found a "party" of people.  Can you even READ, fuckstick?


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> Lean on in, folks.  I'd just like to show you VAYank's idea of a "troll post", worthy of neg-repping.
> 
> Talk about some "thin skin"... and this, from a guy who I've _tried_ to be patient with
> (because I seriously doubt he's 'all there'), and who routinely uses the most vile insults he can think up when he's frustrated by the lack of depth in his faulty ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see Professor Barry use one of his gazillion TV appearances to explain to ordinary, concerned Americans like these.... exactly what that term means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the riot police in the background.  Those grannies look dangerous, don't they?
Click to expand...


Uh in case you missed it, whining about being neg repped on a message board is the epitome of being thin skinned.


----------



## Sarah G

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong?  Pleas provide me the link to THE Tea Party site....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative but nice deflection. Yank asked you to provide THE tea party website because you insinuated that he was presenting the site he linked as THE tea party website which he never did. He provided a website of tea partiers that refer to themselves as tea baggers which is at the core of this thread. Avoidance is not a valid response.
Click to expand...

Really?  Well, one doesn't even know when a proof of a negative is asked, what're'ya gonna do?


----------



## Murf76

jillian said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those people aren't all here on this board though, are they?  You don't KNOW if they engage in any "name-calling".  And neither does Obama.
> 
> I'd be really interested to see proof that any of our elected officials are routinely referring to liberals in terms that graphically describe a sexual fetish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you know, i'd agree with you. and i always try to be polite in discussion. i actually had one friend here ask me not to call them tea baggers becuase it offended him. so i stopped. in return, i suggested that perhaps he not call the president and anyone who voted for him names.
> 
> he declined.
> 
> i still haven't called them tea baggers since. or at least try to avoid it. of course, that doesn't stop the loons from calling me names.
Click to expand...


Well, being polite in discussion is a good thing.  Typically, I'm not nasty with people unless they 'go there' first.  And even then, I'm not going to pull out a Sherman tank if a flyswatter will do.

All that said, we're not talking about how we, anonymous posters on a message board, interact with one another.  We're talking about the President of the United States using the most vile epithet that he can lay his hands on... to describe retirees and moms with strollers. 

Now, as far as I'm concerned... he can 'go for it'.  Americans don't like bullies, and he's only showing himself to be the thug that he is.  But I really do think that "moderate" Democrats, if there's still such a thing, should take note.  Not only is this guy behaving in ways that are beneath the dignity of the office, but he's deliberately dividing the country for political purposes at a time when we face significant economic turmoil and a global terrorist threat.

Sometimes, you just have to reexamine your direction and see if you're REALLY on the path you want to be on.  Given all that we now know about this guy, all the spending and the crazy power-grabs, I can't imagine, (seriously and without any of my usual flippancy)... WHY anyone would support this guy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

VaYank5150 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some blacks and Democrat Presidents call blacks *******. You found maybe one guy who uses that phrase, that does not make it ok to call everyone a Teabagger, Scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  I found a "party" of people.  Can you even READ, fuckstick?
Click to expand...


Look Scumbag, you found one guys website.  Even a stupid jackoff like you can understand that was one guys website, right fuckstain?


----------



## Vanquish

CrusaderFrank said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any doubt that TeaParty people called themselves "teabaggers" at the beginning of the movement before they realized the negative connotations?  No.
> 
> Should Obama change from calling them "teabaggers"? Probably.  While his opponents say the vilest things they can think of about him and drum up lies and half-truths to peddle hatred, that doesnt mean that he should stoop to his opponents' level.
> 
> Of course it's a double-standard, conservatives can call him the anti-christ (with fundies thinking he is the ACTUAL, LITERAL anti-christ) but he's supposed to stop using a mildly-derisive term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong, Scumbag. The word is derogatory and used by Liberal Douchebags and cocksuckers to denigrate what they cannot honestly debate
Click to expand...


Does anyone else thing its completely farcical that Frank is calling for civility but calls people "scumbag" and "douchebag"?  Apparently the only "bag" he cares to protect is his own.

I was trying to be nice. I was trying to see things from your point of view...you seem to have glossed over the FUCKING FACT THAT I AGREED WITH YOU!!!!

Asking for you to use some common sense is apparently asking way too much.


----------



## WillowTree

actually obie wan messiah is not a hypocrite. he is who he is, a librul, libruls don't know what civillity is.. they izz too dumb. so he just is what he izz dumb. and he is pres. for his side only, the other side are his enemies, he has made that quite clear. so don't expect him to say anything nice about old white republican people he won't do it.


----------



## Si modo

Vanquish said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any doubt that TeaParty people called themselves "teabaggers" at the beginning of the movement before they realized the negative connotations?  No.
> 
> Should Obama change from calling them "teabaggers"? Probably.  While his opponents say the vilest things they can think of about him and drum up lies and half-truths to peddle hatred, that doesnt mean that he should stoop to his opponents' level.
> 
> Of course it's a double-standard, conservatives can call him the anti-christ (with fundies thinking he is the ACTUAL, LITERAL anti-christ) but he's supposed to stop using a mildly-derisive term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're wrong, Scumbag. The word is derogatory and used by Liberal Douchebags and cocksuckers to denigrate what they cannot honestly debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone else thing its completely farcical that Frank is calling for civility but calls people "scumbag" and "douchebag"?  Apparently the only "bag" he cares to protect is his own.
> 
> I was trying to be nice. I was trying to see things from your point of view...you seem to have glossed over the FUCKING FACT THAT I AGREED WITH YOU!!!!
> 
> Asking for you to use some common sense is apparently asking way too much.
Click to expand...


I actually found your post surprisingly refreshing.   I should have said so sooner.


----------



## drsmith1072

CrusaderFrank said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to have an honest debate with you, Scumbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
Click to expand...


Actually I never debated global warming in that manner but if you could show me how and where I did I will gladly admit that I am wrong.

BTW I am still waiting on your proof but as usual you have none. BTW I am still waiting on your proof in this thread.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/113650-the-left-is-getting-ugly-13.html


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Personally, I think the time for civility is over.  The majority of Americans said NO to Obamacare.. and we got it shoved up our asses anyway.  The majority of Americans said NO to massive defcit spending... and we got that too.  The current Marxist regime in DC will not respond to civility, nor will their mignons and brainwashed lackeys.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that you are failing in whatever it is you want to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim to not know what he is trying to say then how can you know that he is failing?? Or are you merely claiming he is failing to avoid giving a valid response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, to me, asking someone to prove a negative is no point at all. But, that's just me.
Click to expand...


No one asked you to prove a negative. 

He provided a site that belond to tea partiers referring to themselves as tea baggers. on topic.

You tried to insinuate that he was claiming this was THE tea party website when he made no such claim.

So he asked you to provide a lin to THE tea party website.

There is NO negative and he did not ask you to prove one. Are you going engage in an actual debate or are you going to continue to avoid them??


----------



## jillian

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Personally, I think the time for civility is over.  The majority of Americans said NO to Oamacare.. and we got it shoved up our asses anyway.  The majority of Americans said NO to massive defcit spending... and we got that too.  The current Marxist regime in DC will not respond to civility, nor will their mignons and brainwashed lackeys.



funny... numbers look pretty much as they did on election day. sorry you're in a snit because you lost the election. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

but thanks for proving our point.


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Uh in case you missed it, whining about being neg repped on a message board is the epitome of being thin skinned.



Naw...I don't think so.   But then again, I don't neg-rep anybody, no matter how vile the post, except in retaliation.  And I certainly wouldn't do it because I was offended at photos of retirees and children. 

I kind of figure it this way, if you're man enough to chastise someone for the _content_ of their free speech, you're man enough to do it in public.  Not creeping around like a spider in a dark corner.

You have my word then... that if I ever do start neg-repping people,  I'll post it right on the board for everyone to see.


----------



## Zoom-boing

VaYank5150 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> *The "Tea Bagger" Phrase *is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
Click to expand...


The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.  

Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.

The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.  

Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim to not know what he is trying to say then how can you know that he is failing?? Or are you merely claiming he is failing to avoid giving a valid response?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to me, asking someone to prove a negative is no point at all. But, that's just me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative..
> ....
Click to expand...

Really?  When one cannot even recognize when a proof of a negative is asked there is no point in continuing any discussion.

(I guess even that wasn't too clear to you earlier. Special ed is not my forte, though.)


----------



## VaYank5150

Zoom-boing said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> *The "Tea Bagger" Phrase *is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
Click to expand...


Of course I read it.  The website is small and simplistic and didn't take long to consume.  SO?
Are you now saying you are speaking for the Tea Baggers.  If not, how do you know any of what you said is true?


----------



## rikules

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...



considering how cons delight in calling liberals and democrats names

and mocking and ridiculing them

personally

I think YOU are the hypocrite

you teabagging moronicons have been the epitome on uncivil and rude....

so, mr deranged lunatic teabagger

STFU

and STOP whining about incivility and namecalling

as long as you continue to behave like rude, spoiled, uncivilized louts...

you DESERVE a few names


----------



## VaYank5150

Are you on to their hypocrisy????


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> my
> 
> 
> God.
> 
> You actually did it again...asked someone to prove a negative.
> 
> The stupid is thick in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative but nice deflection. Yank asked you to provide THE tea party website because you insinuated that he was presenting the site he linked as THE tea party website which he never did. He provided a website of tea partiers that refer to themselves as tea baggers which is at the core of this thread. Avoidance is not a valid response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Well, one doesn't even know when a proof of a negative is asked, what're'ya gonna do?
Click to expand...


How about this?
When one (YOU) doesn't know, then perhaps one (you) should refrain from making that argument?


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I read it.  ....
Click to expand...

And, true to your dishonesty, you lied about it.

Way to go, VAYank.    You are so very easy.


----------



## Sherry

I don't believe for one second that Obama doesn't sit around with people like Rahm and snicker about the term. He's just pissed at all the outward opposition and chose to strike out with childish behavior. I find it amusing that he allows the mask to slip and show his true colors. He's really not so poised and in control as some would like to think.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative but nice deflection. Yank asked you to provide THE tea party website because you insinuated that he was presenting the site he linked as THE tea party website which he never did. He provided a website of tea partiers that refer to themselves as tea baggers which is at the core of this thread. Avoidance is not a valid response.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Well, one doesn't even know when a proof of a negative is asked, what're'ya gonna do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this?
> When one (YOU) doesn't know, then perhaps one (you) should refrain from making that argument?
Click to expand...


  And, yet you continue.

Idiot.


----------



## Si modo

Obama has no class.  At all.  How embarassing he is.


----------



## NYcarbineer

teapartysamurai said:


> [
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> ]



The president called you a 'teabagger'?

I'd have gone with 'double bagger'.


----------



## VaYank5150

Sherry said:


> I don't believe for one second that Obama doesn't sit around with people like Rahm and snicker about the term. He's just pissed at all the outward opposition and chose to strike out with childish behavior. I find it amusing that he allows the mask to slip and show his true colors. *He's really not so poised and in control as some would like to think.*



PLEASE tell me you don't believe Bush showed "poise and control"?


----------



## drsmith1072

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Personally, I think the time for civility is over.  The majority of Americans said NO to Obamacare.. and we got it shoved up our asses anyway.  The majority of Americans said NO to massive defcit spending... and we got that too.  The current Marxist regime in DC will not respond to civility, nor will their mignons and brainwashed lackeys.



In my time on this board and based on your history from the msncb boards you have never been civil. 

So are you saying that we should run our government based on polls and that anytime you go against the polls that you are going against the will of the people??

Does that apply to righties too??


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> Obama has no class.  At all.  How embarassing he is.



Are you related to LiarFrank and Libocalypse?


----------



## Zoom-boing

VaYank5150 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I read it.  The website is small and simplistic and didn't take long to consume.  SO?
> Are you now saying you are speaking for the Tea Baggers.  If not, how do you know any of what you said is true?
Click to expand...


  If you read the link and my post above, you sure didn't comprehend it. . . . or are playing deliberately dumb.  Nice dodge on the point of my post, btw.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh in case you missed it, whining about being neg repped on a message board is the epitome of being thin skinned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw...I don't think so.   But then again, I don't neg-rep anybody, no matter how vile the post, except in retaliation.  And I certainly wouldn't do it because I was offended at photos of retirees and children.
> 
> I kind of figure it this way, if you're man enough to chastise someone for the _content_ of their free speech, you're man enough to do it in public.  Not creeping around like a spider in a dark corner.
> 
> You have my word then... that if I ever do start neg-repping people,  I'll post it right on the board for everyone to see.
Click to expand...


The thin skinned rarely see or admit to their own thin skin.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has no class.  At all.  How embarassing he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you related to LiarFrank and Libocalypse?
Click to expand...


----------



## Sherry

VaYank5150 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for one second that Obama doesn't sit around with people like Rahm and snicker about the term. He's just pissed at all the outward opposition and chose to strike out with childish behavior. I find it amusing that he allows the mask to slip and show his true colors. *He's really not so poised and in control as some would like to think.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE tell me you don't believe Bush showed "poise and control"?
Click to expand...


Who the fuck cares?? I didn't realize this was a compare/contrast study. Does Obama use Bush as his measuring stick on how to conduct himself??


----------



## Si modo

Sherry said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for one second that Obama doesn't sit around with people like Rahm and snicker about the term. He's just pissed at all the outward opposition and chose to strike out with childish behavior. I find it amusing that he allows the mask to slip and show his true colors. *He's really not so poised and in control as some would like to think.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE tell me you don't believe Bush showed "poise and control"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares?? I didn't realize this was a compare/contrast study. Does Obama use Bush as his measuring stick on how to conduct himself??
Click to expand...

Apparently.    "He's not Bush" got him plenty of followers.


----------



## WillowTree

rikules said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doubtless the defense here will be that the one wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, i cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. For running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> in jonathan alters the promise: President obama, year one, president obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of house republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  that helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the republican party to where it now controls the agenda for the republicans.
> 
> tea party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hot air  good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​now as usual, obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the tea party.  But it wasn't the republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law despite people like me and you calling our congressman and senators and telling them not to vote for it, and they voted for it anyway.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> this reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, kkkonservatives.
> 
> When i pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "civility" to a liberal means you can't say anything critical about them.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about you.
> 
> After all, they, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> You, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  You are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of you towards liberals to be directed back at you you.
> 
> You are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> considering how cons delight in calling liberals and democrats names*we do it because we put up with it from libtards for the eight years president bush was in office. We do it because you made it evident you vile behavior would continue should mccain and palin be elected we do it because you have earned it. We do it because you deserve no r e s p e c t and we know it..*
> 
> and mocking and ridiculing them*yes that too, you deserve every ounce of mock you get.. *
> 
> personally
> 
> i think you are the hypocrite*and we think you are.. Sad.. And pathetic,, you mock and ridicule and demonize then you get down on your knees and beg for r e s p e c t  *
> 
> you teabagging moronicons have been the epitome on uncivil and rude....
> 
> So, mr deranged lunatic teabagger
> 
> stfu*nope.. Not now.. Not ever*
> 
> and stop whining about incivility and namecalling*okay,, we will if you will.. *
> 
> as long as you continue to behave like rude, spoiled, uncivilized louts...
> 
> You deserve a few names
Click to expand...

*yes,, that's what she said when the bed broke, you deserve all the d i s r e p e c t that is thrown your way.. So suck it up*

..


----------



## Dr Gregg

More hack whining. Every idiotic whining post from conservative that has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing as president, just shows he's doing a great job. Keep making yourselves look like idiots with this petty, pathetic bullshit.


----------



## Si modo

Dr Gregg said:


> More hack whining. Every idiotic whining post from conservative that has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing as president, just shows he's doing a great job. Keep making yourselves look like idiots with this petty, pathetic bullshit.


Part of the job is being a leader.  Classlessness doesn't cut it.


----------



## Vanquish

Zoom-boing said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> *The "Tea Bagger" Phrase *is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
Click to expand...


When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> The thin skinned rarely see or admit to their own thin skin.



That's certainly true of Barack Obama.  Otherwise, he wouldn't let his alligator mouth run away with his tadpole ass.


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> More hack whining. Every idiotic whining post from conservative that has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing as president, just shows he's doing a great job. Keep making yourselves look like idiots with this petty, pathetic bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the job is being a leader.  Classlessness doesn't cut it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> every time he opens his class less mouth and makes such stupid left wing utterances his popularity rises  in the left and sinks in the right.. we can whine at the polls. I'm gonna request the KKK stand next to the Black Panthers at my poll.  equal intimidation under the law.
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

Vanquish said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
Click to expand...

I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.

There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  Denying that is dishonest.


----------



## Vanquish

Agreed totally. If anyone says it doesnt have a sexual meaning, they're trying to pull a fast one.


----------



## bodecea

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Maybe you guys in the Teabagger Brigade shouldn't have used it yourselves first....


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you guys in the Teabagger Brigade shouldn't have used it yourselves first....
Click to expand...


oh yes,, blame the victims.. that's the style.


----------



## Si modo

Vanquish said:


> Agreed totally. If anyone says it doesnt have a sexual meaning, they're trying to pull a fast one.


Yes.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Qball

The Tea Partiers should stop letting the "tea-bagger" thing bother them. Trust me, that does more for the liberals than it does for them. It's kind of like if I really liked calling other dudes "queer" and "fag". At a certain point, you'd start thinking maybe I'm...deflecting rather than cracking wise. So let them keep saying "tea-bagger" as if it's cute. Maybe one day we'll find out why many of them derive a certain amusement by that double entendre.


----------



## Bfgrn

Zoom-boing said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> *The "Tea Bagger" Phrase *is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
Click to expand...


Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.

The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.

A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.


----------



## Si modo

Qball said:


> The Tea Partiers should stop letting the "tea-bagger" thing bother them. Trust me, that does more for the liberals than it does for them. It's kind of like if I really liked calling other dudes "queer" and "fag". At a certain point, you'd start thinking maybe I'm...deflecting rather than cracking wise. So let them keep saying "tea-bagger" as if it's cute. Maybe one day we'll find out why many of them derive a certain amusement by that double entendre.


 At some point making up names based on the real name went from being cute to just acting like a moron.  For most of us, that was sometime before thrid grade.


----------



## Vanquish

Victims...now who's whining? Seriously though, there has to be some responsibility for the inital bad choice of the name.  But continuing to use this term is a bit bad form....well until the TP Patriots spew something vile at someone else...

5    4     3    2   1....


----------



## DiamondDave

bodecea said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you guys in the Teabagger Brigade shouldn't have used it yourselves first....
Click to expand...


Debunked that urban myth before

Trying to misuse the protest request to send boxes of tea bags to representatives was then warped by many a liberal activist and commentator who then started calling the group the teabaggers


----------



## CrusaderFrank

drsmith1072 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny considering the last few times we were in the same thread you pretty much ignored the debate and engaged in pointless attacks.
> 
> Your current response is about all the debate you usually engage in but since you brought it up how about debating the fact that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers to begin with??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Douchebag, I recall we "Debated" Global Warming we're all you assholes do is point to someplace where it's warmer and say, "See that?!  Global Warming!" and then ask for an "Amen" as peer review.
> 
> The "Tea Bagger" Phrase is an invention of Liberal Cocksuckers and Douchebags. I'm sure of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I never debated global warming in that manner but if you could show me how and where I did I will gladly admit that I am wrong.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on your proof but as usual you have none. BTW I am still waiting on your proof in this thread.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/113650-the-left-is-getting-ugly-13.html
Click to expand...


Like I said, Ray Nagin is giving you guys cover. The perps will never be caught because they were Marxists (Democrats) and they beat up Republicans


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Vanquish said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
Click to expand...


You're lying, Numbnuts. They called themselves Tea Party and other Liberal scumbags like yourself used the derogatory Teabagger phrase


----------



## jillian

Sherry said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for one second that Obama doesn't sit around with people like Rahm and snicker about the term. He's just pissed at all the outward opposition and chose to strike out with childish behavior. I find it amusing that he allows the mask to slip and show his true colors. *He's really not so poised and in control as some would like to think.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE tell me you don't believe Bush showed "poise and control"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares?? I didn't realize this was a compare/contrast study. Does Obama use Bush as his measuring stick on how to conduct himself??
Click to expand...


in other words, you have no answer and were just spewing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.
Click to expand...


That may be one of the dumbest thing you every posted you stupid fucking cocksucker. Do you know HOW dumb that had to be to surpass your lowbrow standards?


----------



## Sherry

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE tell me you don't believe Bush showed "poise and control"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares?? I didn't realize this was a compare/contrast study. Does Obama use Bush as his measuring stick on how to conduct himself??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in other words, you have no answer and were just spewing.
Click to expand...


Awwww you're pissy because I didn't bite at the attempted deflection.


----------



## jillian

Sherry said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares?? I didn't realize this was a compare/contrast study. Does Obama use Bush as his measuring stick on how to conduct himself??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have no answer and were just spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awwww you're pissy because I didn't bite at the attempted deflection.
Click to expand...


i'm not pissy at all, actually. i'm more amused. 

i didn't know that expecting you not to be a hypocrite was a deflection.


----------



## rightwinger

Poor TPs....

I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have no answer and were just spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww you're pissy because I didn't bite at the attempted deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not pissy at all, actually. i'm more amused.
> 
> i didn't know that expecting you not to be a hypocrite was a deflection.
Click to expand...

Well, the thread IS about Obama, in case you didn't notice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Vanquish said:


> Victims...now who's whining? Seriously though, there has to be some responsibility for the inital bad choice of the name.  But continuing to use this term is a bit bad form....well until the TP Patriots spew something vile at someone else...
> 
> POTUS said it.


----------



## Sherry

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have no answer and were just spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww you're pissy because I didn't bite at the attempted deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not pissy at all, actually. i'm more amused.
> 
> i didn't know that expecting you not to be a hypocrite was a deflection.
Click to expand...


Yes, your knickers are in a knot because I don't give a shit about how Bush conducted himself in comparison to Obama. If you can't make it about Bush, then you're not happy. Now have a cookie and quit pouting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him



Obama's a Marxist Community Organizer in a big boys job and it couldn't be clearer that he's in way over his nappy head


----------



## WillowTree

Pissy Pissy Pissy!


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him


He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
Click to expand...


president for his side. we are his enemies, we presently do not have anyone who represent us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

WillowTree said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> president for his side. we are his enemies, we presently do not have anyone who represent us.
Click to expand...


Obama, President of the Marxists


----------



## LuckyDan

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ever called obama a messiah or any other rephrasing of his name to be derogatory then how would you go about exlpaining away that contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab...
> 
> all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.
Click to expand...

 
Danforth. Danforth. What the hell kind of name is Danforth? Sounds like an out of touch Republican.


----------



## jillian

LuckyDan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If is a good word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its rude, obnoxious and insulting and intended to destroy any discussion. using his middle name in caps is simply a racist jab...
> 
> all fine, but the people who foster that kind of thing... along with lumping everyone they disagree with as 'libruls' or whatever other derrogatory derivation they come up with on a given day... really have no right to complain about what they're called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danforth. Danforth. What the hell kind of name is Danforth? Sounds like an out of touch Republican.
Click to expand...


wouldn't have been so bad if he could spell potato.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
Click to expand...


he's not an embarrassment. now the guy before him... THAT was an embarrassment.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he's not an embarrassment. now the guy before him... THAT was an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

To you, Obama is not an embarrassment.  To many of us, his classlessness is just one area where he is an embarrassment.






(Bush has nothing to do with that, but you already know that.  )


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If I were black Id be very upset that a fucking dummy like Obama was the first black President. He really does nothing to counter the idea that but for Affirmative Action, he'd be running an ACORN office trying to set up a brothel for underage illegal prostitutes.

We see none of his college or law school papers but we're treated to his unending gaffes and stupidity 24/7. How smart can he be?


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be one of the dumbest thing you every posted you stupid fucking cocksucker. Do you know HOW dumb that had to be to surpass your lowbrow standards?
Click to expand...


Well thank you Frank. If you feel it's the dumbest thing I every posted, that means it is the smartest thing I ever posted...because, herein lies YOUR problem; bad breath; you couldn't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it...


----------



## VaYank5150

CrusaderFrank said:


> If I were black Id be very upset that a fucking dummy like Obama was the first black President,. He really does nothing to counter the idea that but for Affirmative Action, he'd be running an ACORN office trying to set up a brothel for underage illegal prostitutes.
> 
> We see none of his college or law school papers but we're treated to his unending gaffes and stupidity 24/7. How smart can he be?



Thanks for ONCE AGAIN proving that your angst has nothing to do with race....


----------



## Truthmatters

Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See how confused people become when they spew hate for history, science and higher education


----------



## Richard-H

I just call them TPs...

It's easier to type and reflects what a bunch of ass wipes for the wealthy that they truly are!


----------



## Si modo

Truthmatters said:


> Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See how confused people become when they spew hate for history, science and higher education


Does anyone speak drivel and can translate for me?


----------



## rightwinger

WillowTree said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> president for his side. we are his enemies, we presently do not have anyone who represent us.
Click to expand...


Poor baby...

I suggest you find a good candidate for 2012 and maybe your side will win.

I doubt it....but you can always try


----------



## JakeStarkey

I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!

Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.


----------



## boedicca

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See how confused people become when they spew hate for history, science and higher education
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone speak drivel and can translate for me?
Click to expand...



I've developed a layperson's knowledge of TMese; here's a rough translation:

"I'm a brain damaged idiot who parrots bromides and cuts and pastes things which I don't bother to read."


----------



## Si modo

jakestarkey said:


> i read si modo, willow, and others, and i can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  ....


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.




I'll translate this too:

"I have no reasonable response to the valid critiques of Obama's comments, actions, and policies, so I will play the Race Card as it's the only card I have in my trick deck of 52 Race Cards."


----------



## VaYank5150

JakeStarkey said:


> I read si modo, willow, and others, and *I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race*.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.



Well, that and their own stupidty...


----------



## Truthmatters

boedicca said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See how confused people become when they spew hate for history, science and higher education
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone speak drivel and can translate for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've developed a layperson's knowledge of TMese; here's a rough translation:
> 
> "I'm a brain damaged idiot who parrots bromides and cuts and pastes things which I don't bother to read."
Click to expand...


The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.


----------



## Si modo

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll translate this too:
> 
> "I have no reasonable response to the valid critiques of Obama's comments, actions, and policies, so I will play the Race Card as it's the only card I have in my trick deck of 52 Race Cards."
Click to expand...

  I am impressed.  I would be afraid that my brain would atrophy just a bit if I tried a translation.  You are a braver person than I.


----------



## boedicca

I've lived in the Berkeley-Oakland-San Francisco triangle my entire adult life.   I had to learn the language in order to understand many of the natives.


----------



## Si modo

Truthmatters said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone speak drivel and can translate for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've developed a layperson's knowledge of TMese; here's a rough translation:
> 
> "I'm a brain damaged idiot who parrots bromides and cuts and pastes things which I don't bother to read."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.
> 
> The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.
Click to expand...


See, Boe?  It can cut and paste just as you said!


----------



## Si modo

boedicca said:


> I've lived in the Berkeley-Oakland-San Francisco triangle my entire adult life.   I had to learn the language in order to understand many of the natives.


I recall your saying you went to UC Berkeley, too.  I am impressed that you have the views you do.


----------



## boedicca

There are a lot of moderates and conservatives in the Bay Area - we just don't get the attention that the liberals do.  

It just takes a few years (or less) in the workforce and as a home owner for an intelligent person to realize how destructive the progressive politics of CA really are.


----------



## boedicca

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've developed a layperson's knowledge of TMese; here's a rough translation:
> 
> "I'm a brain damaged idiot who parrots bromides and cuts and pastes things which I don't bother to read."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.
> 
> The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, closed Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, Boe?  It can cut and paste just as you said!
Click to expand...



It's a simple life organism - it's habits are few and predictable.   Observation, however, is less than enjoyable.


----------



## Truthmatters

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be one of the dumbest thing you every posted you stupid fucking cocksucker. Do you know HOW dumb that had to be to surpass your lowbrow standards?
Click to expand...


history is not open for your rewriting


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> history is not open for your rewriting




You dim bulb.

Do you know what Wikipedia, your source for cutting and pasting, is?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Truthmatters said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be one of the dumbest thing you every posted you stupid fucking cocksucker. Do you know HOW dumb that had to be to surpass your lowbrow standards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> history is not open for your rewriting
Click to expand...


Are you upset that Bfgrn pulled ahead of you as the "Dumbest Fuck in the Thread"?  I think you reclaimed the lead


----------



## boedicca

Truthmatters said:


> history is not open for your rewriting




Here is what your source is, idiot:

_Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay.* Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption and/or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity,* if they choose, though the latter is discouraged for safety reasons. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia, however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia  has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting nearly 68 million visitors monthly as of January 2010. There are more than 91,000 active contributors  working on more than 15,000,000 articles in more than 270 languages. As of today, there are 3,283,129 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia  encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.)

*Every contribution may be reviewed or changed. The expertise or qualifications of the user are usually not considered*._

Help:About - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*THEY ARE REWRITING HISTORY.*


----------



## The T

boedicca said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> history is not open for your rewriting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what your source is, idiot:
> 
> _Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay.* Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption and/or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity,* if they choose, though the latter is discouraged for safety reasons. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia, however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting nearly 68 million visitors monthly as of January 2010. There are more than 91,000 active contributors working on more than 15,000,000 articles in more than 270 languages. As of today, there are 3,283,129 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.)_
> 
> _*Every contribution may be reviewed or changed. The expertise or qualifications of the user are usually not considered*._
> 
> Help:About - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *THEY ARE REWRITING HISTORY.*
Click to expand...

 

"You must spread some REP around before..." Yaddi Yaddah...


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too. Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History. People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.


----------



## The T

boedicca said:


> There are a lot of moderates and conservatives in the Bay Area - we just don't get the attention that the liberals do.
> 
> It just takes a few years (or less) in the workforce and as a home owner for an intelligent person to realize how destructive the progressive politics of CA really are.


 

It has oft been said that KaleeFornya sets the precident for the rest of the nation...If that's the case?

WE haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Why not disparage stupid Teabaggers who disparage Obama with their stupid conspiracies? They made their bed by disparaging others with their pathetic signs and extremist protests so they can now lay in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll translate this too:
> 
> "I have no reasonable response to the valid critiques of Obama's comments, actions, and policies, so I will play the Race Card as it's the only card I have in my trick deck of 52 Race Cards."
Click to expand...


That's just it.  Personal attacks are not valid.  For heavens sake, boedicca, grow up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too. Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History. People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.



You are like a sheep following a crazy ram, fellow.  You need to do the Changy Thinky thing before commenting again, or the great, great majority of informed American citizens are going to continue to be laughing at the defenders of libertarianism.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

JakeStarkey said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too. Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History. People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a sheep following a crazy ram, fellow.  You need to do the Changy Thinky thing before commenting again, or the great, great majority of informed American citizens are going to continue to be laughing at the defenders of libertarianism.
Click to expand...


Maybe so,but that doesn't mean they're right.


----------



## VaYank5150

JakeStarkey said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too. Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History. People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *like* a sheep following a crazy ram, fellow.  You need to do the Changy Thinky thing before commenting again, or the great, great majority of informed American citizens are going to continue to be laughing at the defenders of libertarianism.
Click to expand...


What do you mean "like"??


----------



## boedicca

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too.




Well, he did Change The Tone.  He made it nastier.    I can't recall any other President publicly calling those who disagree with his policies a vulgar sexual epithet.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll translate this too:
> 
> "I have no reasonable response to the valid critiques of Obama's comments, actions, and policies, so I will play the Race Card as it's the only card I have in my trick deck of 52 Race Cards."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it.  Personal attacks are not valid.  For heavens sake, boedicca, grow up.
Click to expand...



What is it when you call Si Modo, Willow and others racists?

If the foo shits, bub.

You play the Race Card cuz it's the only one you've got - and it's not a winning hand.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

boedicca said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he did Change The Tone.  He made it nastier.    I can't recall any other President publicly calling those who disagree with his policies a vulgar sexual epithet.
Click to expand...


Perfectly stated. Nothing more to add.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LibocalypseNow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too. Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History. People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a sheep following a crazy ram, fellow.  You need to do the Changy Thinky thing before commenting again, or the great, great majority of informed American citizens are going to continue to be laughing at the defenders of libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe so,but that doesn't mean they're right.
Click to expand...


It means that you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll translate this too:
> 
> "I have no reasonable response to the valid critiques of Obama's comments, actions, and policies, so I will play the Race Card as it's the only card I have in my trick deck of 52 Race Cards."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it.  Personal attacks are not valid.  For heavens sake, boedicca, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is it when you call Si Modo, Willow and others racists?
> 
> If the foo shits, bub.
> 
> You play the Race Card cuz it's the only one you've got - and it's not a winning hand.
Click to expand...


The card does fit, because what they (and you) are saying.  The Obamas have more class than the second pair of Bushes as well as the Clintons.  You guys are the ones who have no taste, no class, no sense of what is proper.


----------



## geauxtohell

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just another Hopey Changey lie. Yup and he was going to "change the tone of Washington" too.* Man,this has been by far the most partisan White House & Congress in History.* People really can be like cattle. They can be herded into believing anything. This White House & Congress have been anything but "Civil" since seizing power. What a scam.



I predict you are going to make that statement about every president until Dr. Paul gets elected  (in other words, you are going to be making that and similar statements for the rest of your life).


----------



## Sherry




----------



## Zoom-boing

Bfgrn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation)*and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.*
Click to expand...

*

You're an idiot. 

"The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already."*


----------



## geauxtohell

Why should President Obama try and accommodate a group who has no interest in trying to work with him and whose only real position is to oppose everything he does?  

I think it's hilarious that the President called them teabaggers.  People who have no capacity to laugh at themselves a little only means others will do it for them.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it.  Personal attacks are not valid.  For heavens sake, boedicca, grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it when you call Si Modo, Willow and others racists?
> 
> If the foo shits, bub.
> 
> You play the Race Card cuz it's the only one you've got - and it's not a winning hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The card does fit, because what they (and you) are saying.  The Obamas have more class than the second pair of Bushes as well as the Clintons.  You guys are the ones who have no taste, no class, no sense of what is proper.
Click to expand...

Saying someone has no class is raaaaaacccccciiiiiiist, dontcha know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only when the Tea Party idiocy of claiming taxing without representation was exposed.  Let's not change history, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it when you call Si Modo, Willow and others racists?
> 
> If the foo shits, bub.
> 
> You play the Race Card cuz it's the only one you've got - and it's not a winning hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The card does fit, because what they (and you) are saying.  The Obamas have more class than the second pair of Bushes as well as the Clintons.  You guys are the ones who have no taste, no class, no sense of what is proper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying someone has no class is raaaaaacccccciiiiiiist, dontcha know.
Click to expand...


You are silly as your argument falls apart around you.


----------



## geauxtohell

Zoom-boing said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation)*and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> "The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already."*
Click to expand...

*

And held up signs that said "Tea bag congress before it tea bags you."  So, I guess sexual innuendo for comedy is okay when one side does it, huh?

Welcome to Tea Bag Congress

I mean, I get the notion behind the tea bag thing.  I just think it's funny how people go into conniption fits over others referring to them as teabaggers.  

But, as I said, since that's the principle issue that we are debating over this, it basically shows that the teabaggers have little, if anything, relevant to say and debate.*


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> "The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And held up signs that said "Tea bag congress before it tea bags you."  So, I guess sexual innuendo for comedy is okay when one side does it, huh?
> 
> Welcome to Tea Bag Congress
> 
> I mean, I get the notion behind the tea bag thing.  I just think it's funny how people go into conniption fits over others referring to them as teabaggers.
> 
> But, as I said, since that's the principle issue that we are debating over this, it basically shows that the teabaggers have little, if anything, relevant to say and debate.
Click to expand...


OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.  Now, the left continues this inanity as their 'driving' rebuttal to the Tea Party.  And, the Tea Party has nothing?  TFF!  That's some spin.  You must be dizzy.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Vanquish said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REALLY?????*the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
Click to expand...


And they used the term in reference to the Boston Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already, and as a way to have congress hear them.  The_ liberals_ are the ones who pointed out the sexual meaning of it and are the ones who continue to use the tea bagger term as a slur.


----------



## boedicca

GTH is too busy choking on the object of his fetish to think clearly.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.



The people who came up with the phrase "tea bag congress before they tea bag you!" which was prevalent early on in the movement obviously were using the "street phrase" of the word.

I think it's actually funny.  Comedy and politics usually go hand in hand.  What I find absurd, is the notion that you tea party folks have that you are above radical or silly political banter simply because you are a mock "grass roots organization".   



> Now, the left continues this inanity as their 'driving' rebuttal to the Tea Party.  And, the Tea Party has nothing?  TFF!  That's some spin.  You must be dizzy.



The tea party really is working off an empty bank account though.  The movement has taken on a strange form where it means different things to different people.  There is no unified message and leader.  

Without someone to take charge, eventually the movement will just fizzle out.  However, you all are too contentious to agree on anything so, like most populist movements, I predict that your high water mark will be the 2010 elections.  

If you help the GOP get a majority in either the house or senate, then you will have served your purpose, the money will stop flowing in, and the movement will just "fade away".


----------



## Si modo

boedicca said:


> GTH is too busy choking on the object of his fetish to think clearly.


The funny thing is, he usually does think clearly except when it comes to the Tea Party.  

Emotions are often the biggest roadblock to rational thought.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Should i sum up your average Hopey Changey on this issue? Ok,you talked me into it. Average Hopey Changey when the other side had power: "We really do believe in Bi-Partisanship and we're really really mad at these guys for being so partisan." Average Hopey Changey now that they have the power: "Screw the Republicans and Bi-Partisanship! I think the President should just force his agenda through whether the Republicans like it or not." That about sum them up? You're welcome.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who came up with the phrase "tea bag congress before they tea bag you!" which was prevalent early on in the movement obviously were using the "street phrase" of the word.
> ....
Click to expand...

I'll just repeat a post I made earlier:  





Si modo said:


> I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.
> 
> There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  *Denying that is dishonest.*


[Emphasis added]

You know what you are doing and frankly, it's lame.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> GTH is too busy choking on the object of his fetish to think clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, he usually does think clearly except when it comes to the Tea Party.
> 
> Emotions are often the biggest roadblock to rational thought.
Click to expand...


The really funny thing is, the only reason I have been deemed "irrational" on this issue is that I use the term "teabaggers" which drives you guys five shades of crazy.  If you removed that facet from my posts, you guys might disagree with what I say but you wouldn't be going bonkers over my posts.  

Like I said, the hypersensitivity over some political satire isn't my problem and it certainly isn't going to stop me.  

Nor are the lame names thrown at me or boe's even lamer attempts at reverse psychology.

However, at least the term "shiteater" isn't being thrown at me.  That's a pretty lame insult.  Surely you guys can do better than that.


----------



## Sherry

I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do. However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> GTH is too busy choking on the object of his fetish to think clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, he usually does think clearly except when it comes to the Tea Party.
> 
> Emotions are often the biggest roadblock to rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The really funny thing is, the only reason I have been deemed "irrational" on this issue is that I use the term "teabaggers" which drives you guys five shades of crazy.  If you removed that facet from my posts, you guys might disagree with what I say but you wouldn't be going bonkers over my posts.
> 
> Like I said, the hypersensitivity over some political satire isn't my problem and it certainly isn't going to stop me.
> 
> Nor are the lame names thrown at me or boe's even lamer attempts at reverse psychology.
> 
> However, at least the term "shiteater" isn't being thrown at me.  That's a pretty lame insult.  Surely you guys can do better than that.
Click to expand...


If you are actually saying anything about the Tea Party other than some sexual reference, you might have a point.  But, you're not.  That's all you have.  It's beneath you, IMO.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who came up with the phrase "tea bag congress before they tea bag you!" which was prevalent early on in the movement obviously were using the "street phrase" of the word.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just repeat a post I made earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.
> 
> There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  *Denying that is dishonest.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [Emphasis added]
> 
> You know what you are doing and frankly, it's lame.
Click to expand...


I didn't deny it.  I pointed out that people from the "Tea Party Movement" were using the "street term" early on for comedy as well.  If you think a sign that says "Tea bag congress before they tea bag you." isn't a comedic way of saying "Mail congress tea bags as a sign of protest before they screw you over and stick their balls in your mouth" then you are being lame.

My point:  it's okay when you guys do it, but when we poke fun at you all it's a mortal sin.


----------



## geauxtohell

Sherry said:


> I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do. However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.



That's my point.  And since adults can't seem to keep their emotions in line over a silly term, I have determined that it is my mission to help them get thicker skin.

I'll even concede the second part of your post.  But I still think it's funny.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who came up with the phrase "tea bag congress before they tea bag you!" which was prevalent early on in the movement obviously were using the "street phrase" of the word.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just repeat a post I made earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.
> 
> There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  *Denying that is dishonest.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [Emphasis added]
> 
> You know what you are doing and frankly, it's lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deny it.  I pointed out that people from the "Tea Party Movement" were using the "street term" early on for comedy as well.  If you think a sign that says "Tea bag congress before they tea bag you." isn't a comedic way of saying "Mail congress tea bags as a sign of protest before they screw you over and stick their balls in your mouth" then you are being lame.
> 
> My point:  it's okay when you guys do it, but when we poke fun at you all it's a mortal sin.
Click to expand...

No, the left came up with it before.  Rachel Maddow last April.

At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.

I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.


----------



## geauxtohell

Zoom-boing said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they used the term in reference to the Boston Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already, and as a way to have congress hear them.  The_ liberals_ are the ones who pointed out the sexual meaning of it and are the ones who continue to use the tea bagger term as a slur.
Click to expand...


http://www.bobcesca.com/images/tea_baggin.jpg
Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent

Yeah, I am sure the freepers were in no way pointing out the sexual connotations of the term when they made these signs.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> No, the left came up with it before.  Rachel Maddow last April.



Nope.

Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent



> At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.



There's nothing else to discuss since no one really knows what in the hell the tea party stands for.



> I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.



Thank God I root for the Cardinals, who could actually beat a T-ball team.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do. However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point.  And since adults can't seem to keep their emotions in line over a silly term, I have determined that it is my mission to help them get thicker skin.
> 
> I'll even concede the second part of your post.  But I still think it's funny.
Click to expand...

Soooooo, for example:  If there is a discussion about the possible dangers of vaccines and all they do is call you a shitstain, they are doing us a service in advancing the discussion of the possible dangers of vaccines.  Got it.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the left came up with it before.  Rachel Maddow last April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing else to discuss since no one really knows what in the hell the tea party stands for.
> ....
Click to expand...

Really?

I suggest you cure your ignorance.  (Funny thing is, you posted 26 times in that thread, so you DO know what the Tea Party wants.)



> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God I root for the Cardinals, who could actually beat a T-ball team.
Click to expand...

Another funny thing is, I cannot stand the Orioles.  Good for you being a Cards fan.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> Soooooo, for example:  If there is a discussion about the possible dangers of vaccines and all they do is call you a shitstain, they are doing us a service in advancing the discussion of the possible dangers of vaccines.  Got it.



Well, that's basically how the anti-vaccination crowd operates anyways.

If someone calls me names, I don't go into convulsions and throw a fit about the name.  

That's the difference here.


----------



## Si modo

I guess this isn't really beneath you, GTH.  I don't like being wrong about posters, but c'est la vie.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, for example:  If there is a discussion about the possible dangers of vaccines and all they do is call you a shitstain, they are doing us a service in advancing the discussion of the possible dangers of vaccines.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's basically how the anti-vaccination crowd operates anyways.
> 
> If someone calls me names, I don't go into convulsions and throw a fit about the name.
> 
> That's the difference here.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole?  Lame again.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> Really?



I've already discussed, at length, how silly the contract is. "Protect the constitution"?  WTF does that mean?  Would any two people agree on what that entails?  And that's the first plank.  

It's just vague window dressing.

But I will say this, if this is the "official position" of the tea party then at least it's a start.

Is it the official position?  Because I was under the impression that no single person or group spoke for the movement.



> I suggest you cure your ignorance.  (Funny thing is, you posted 26 times in that thread, so you DO know what the Tea Party wants.)



I didn't read the whole thread.  



> Another funny thing is, I cannot stand the Orioles.  Good for you being a Cards fan.



It's a Missouri tradition.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> I guess this isn't really beneath you, GTH.  I don't like being wrong about posters, but c'est la vie.



No it's not.  Like I said, if you all didn't go into fits over the matter then my job wouldn't be so much fun.

BTW, you noticed that the freepers were using the phrase "Tea bag" in the pejorative sense from the beginning?


----------



## Murf76

geauxtohell said:


> That's my point.  And since adults can't seem to keep their emotions in line over a silly term, I have determined that it is my mission to help them get thicker skin.



By all means... it's still a semi-free country afterall.  In fact, the more disgusting the behavior of Obama and his supporters, the more undecided voters you turn off.

Conservatives should make it their mission to make sure that every voter going to the polls in November know exactly what that term means.... and that there are Democrats in the White House and on Capital Hill who use it to describe American citizens who are concerned about reckless spending and government growth.


You wanna roll in the mud?... we're gonna make you WEAR it.


----------



## Zoom-boing

geauxtohell said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they used the term in reference to the Boston Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already, and as a way to have congress hear them.  The_ liberals_ are the ones who pointed out the sexual meaning of it and are the ones who continue to use the tea bagger term as a slur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.bobcesca.com/images/tea_baggin.jpg
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> Yeah, I am sure the freepers were in no way pointing out the sexual connotations of the term when they made these signs.
Click to expand...


Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?   You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:

The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent

The left continues to use teabagger as a slur . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.


----------



## The T

Sherry said:


> I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do.* However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard*. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.


 

Which we should do. Shame some don't. Especially when the President lowers the Standard of the office he holds, to meet his OWN low standard. We have those that applaud the POTUS playing in the 'gutter' with them...because he cannot get used to the higher standard...and neither can they.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already discussed, at length, how silly the contract is. "Protect the constitution"?  WTF does that mean?  Would any two people agree on what that entails?  And that's the first plank.
> 
> It's just vague window dressing.
> 
> But I will say this, if this is the "official position" of the tea party then at least it's a start.
> 
> Is it the official position?  Because I was under the impression that no single person or group spoke for the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you cure your ignorance.  (Funny thing is, you posted 26 times in that thread, so you DO know what the Tea Party wants.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread.
> ....
Click to expand...

You read OP then posted 26 times.

Either you are being disingenous in saying you don't know what the Tea Party is about or your 26 posts in that thread were meaningless.

You can't have both.

But, the fact that you so vehemently defend your consistent use of a logical fallacy tells many of us the lameness of any point you think you have on this topic. 



> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another funny thing is, I cannot stand the Orioles.  Good for you being a Cards fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a Missouri tradition.
Click to expand...

I spent my high school years in St. Louis.  Won a bunch of Cards tickets for academics and took pity on my jock friends by taking them to the games.  Had a blast.


----------



## geauxtohell

Murf76 said:


> You wanna roll in the mud?... we're gonna make you WEAR it.



By all means.  Turnabout is fair play.


----------



## boedicca

At this point, it is quite clear that the Tea Partiers refer to themselves as Tea Partiers and find the T-word to be quite offensive.

Anyone who continues to use the T-Word is doing so with an objective to insult and demean the Tea Partiers - which says a great deal about the character of the former, and nothing whatsoever about the latter.


----------



## The T

Lest we forget where Obama got his start in politics? He can NEVER shake it no matter what.


----------



## geauxtohell

Zoom-boing said:


> Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?



No.  Not at all.  Just the fact that it had sexual connotations that were well known (at least to my generation) long before any of this.  It was bound to happen and both side were bound to use it for humor.

I just don't get the complete lack of humor by the people on your side.  And that's after eight years of being called every name in the book by conservatives.  



> You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:
> 
> The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent
> 
> The left continues to use teabagger as a *slur* . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.



Not so much a slur.  I don't really think your guy's interest is in a sexual act.  It's just a funny perjorative.

As I said, when the right does it it's "satire" or "comedy" when the left does it, you guys go into your kung fu stance.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this isn't really beneath you, GTH.  I don't like being wrong about posters, but c'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Like I said, if you all didn't go into fits over the matter then my job wouldn't be so much fun.
> ....
Click to expand...

I guess when the _ad hominems_ fail, you try hyperbole still.



> ....  BTW, you noticed that the freepers were using the phrase "Tea bag" in the pejorative sense from the beginning?


Really?  When did they do that - using it in a pergorative sense?  We'll compare dates.  I'm being serious.  If your date is earlier than mine, I will accept your point and call us whiners.


----------



## boedicca

I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests.   Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff).  The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies.  There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.


----------



## Vast LWC

Aww, too bad.

Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".

LOL.  Tea-Baggers.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> ....


You read OP then posted 26 times.[/quote]

Yep.  If you tell me that you make it a habit to read every post on a thread before posting, I am going to be somewhat dubious about your statement.

But if you do do that, then you deserve a gold star for being an "Awesome Poster".  Eventually these threads all look alike and it all gets redundant.



> Either you are being disingenous in saying you don't know what the Tea Party is about or your 26 posts in that thread were meaningless.



I've seen and commented on the "contract" in the past.  As I said, it's meaningless window dressing.  Very little of the wording has any teeth or argues for a tangible effect. 



> I spent my high school years in St. Louis.  Won a bunch of Cards tickets for academics and took pity on my jock friends by taking them to the games.  Had a blast.



On of the best, if not the best, baseball towns in the country.  I miss Busch Stadium.  I remember driving up to watch the games back when they'd let Ozzie do flips before the game.


----------



## Si modo

Vast LWC said:


> Aww, too bad.
> 
> Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".
> 
> LOL.  Tea-Baggers.


Idiot.

You want me to prove a negative again?  Go ahead, you know you want to ask it, yet again.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww you're pissy because I didn't bite at the attempted deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not pissy at all, actually. i'm more amused.
> 
> i didn't know that expecting you not to be a hypocrite was a deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the thread IS about Obama, in case you didn't notice.
Click to expand...


and? one isn't allowed to point out the hypocrisy of partisan hacks?

like i said... it's amusing.


----------



## boedicca

Vast LWC said:


> Aww, too bad.
> 
> Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".
> 
> LOL.  Tea-Baggers.




Calling someone what they have factually demonstrated is quite different than lobbying a vulgar epithet for which there is no evidence.

Considering the frequency with which you use the t-word, the only logical conclusion is that you yourself have a fetish for the practice.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this isn't really beneath you, GTH.  I don't like being wrong about posters, but c'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Like I said, if you all didn't go into fits over the matter then my job wouldn't be so much fun.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess when the _ad hominems_ fail, you try hyperbole still.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  BTW, you noticed that the freepers were using the phrase "Tea bag" in the pejorative sense from the beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  When did they do that - using it in a pergorative sense?  We'll compare dates.  I'm being serious.  If your date is earlier than mine, I will accept your point and call us whiners.
Click to expand...


In the link I posted to you:
Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not pissy at all, actually. i'm more amused.
> 
> i didn't know that expecting you not to be a hypocrite was a deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thread IS about Obama, in case you didn't notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and? one isn't allowed to point out the hypocrisy of partisan hacks?
> 
> like i said... it's amusing.
Click to expand...


What the *fuck* are you talking about?  Seriously, have you had a recent closed head injury?

Recap:  Someone says another's attempt to deflect from the topic....ummm, that would be Obama....by bringing up Bush is a deflection.

YOU tell them they have nothing to offer.

Of course they don't, as the topic is Obama.

Then it's hypocrisy in your clearly brain damaged head.

Duck next time the stupid stick is being swung, Jillian.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests.   Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff).  The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies.



Yes, we all know that.



> There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.



Except by the people in the protests who held up signs that said "Tea bag the liberal dems before they teabag you!"

See my link to Si Modo if you are curious (I know you aren't).


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, too bad.
> 
> Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".
> 
> LOL.  Tea-Baggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone what they have factually demonstrated is quite different than lobbying a vulgar epithet for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Considering the frequency with which you use the t-word, the only logical conclusion is that you yourself have a fetish for the practice.
Click to expand...


So how long have you been a shrink?


----------



## The T

boedicca said:


> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests. Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff). The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies. There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.


 

Exactly. The intent was to remind Government that our forebearers voiced their disgust with One tyrant not so long ago. As things are? The left _prostituted_ the notion in a way they normally do while failing to acknowledge histroy.


----------



## Zoom-boing

geauxtohell said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Not at all. *Just the fact that it had sexual connotations that were well known (at least to my generation) long before any of this.*  It was bound to happen and both side were bound to use it for humor.
> 
> I just don't get the complete lack of humor by the people on your side.  And that's after eight years of being called every name in the book by conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:
> 
> The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent
> 
> The left continues to use teabagger as a *slur* . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so much a slur.  I don't really think your guy's interest is in a sexual act.  It's just a funny perjorative.
> 
> As I said, when the right does it it's "satire" or "comedy" when the left does it, you guys go into your kung fu stance.
Click to expand...


And goes to the point of the OP . . . Barry calls for civility then turns around and uses the 'well known term' tea bagger.  He is a classless hypocrite.

Sure the left uses it a slur, wink, wink, nudge, nudge and all that.  At least be honest about it.

Don't know about how others perceive the teabagger term, but I usually ignore the post when I come across the term teabagger because the poster is only interested in insulting.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thread IS about Obama, in case you didn't notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and? one isn't allowed to point out the hypocrisy of partisan hacks?
> 
> like i said... it's amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you talking about?  Seriously, have you had a recent closed head injury?
> 
> Recap:  Someone says another's attempt to deflect from the topic....ummm, that would be Obama....by bringing up Bush is a deflection.
> 
> YOU tell them they have nothing to offer.
> 
> Of course they don't, as the topic is Obama.
> 
> Then it's hypocrisy in your clearly brain damaged head.
> 
> Duck next time the stupid stick is being swung, Jillian.
Click to expand...


you talking to me, dear?

for someone who's sounded like a blithering idiot (yes, i'm talking about you) through the better part of this thread... and yet, i've been fairly indulgent.... you really need to stop talking sometimes cause it might be better for you next time to let people think you're stupid then to prove them right.

now shove it up your deranged butt. 

and go whine some more about why people aren't civil to you.


----------



## boedicca

Zoom-boing said:


> Don't know about how others perceive the teabagger term, but I usually ignore the post when I come across the term teabagger because the poster is only interested in insulting.




Indeed, the use of the T-word has reached the point of deserving it's own version of Godwin's Law.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Like I said, if you all didn't go into fits over the matter then my job wouldn't be so much fun.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when the _ad hominems_ fail, you try hyperbole still.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  BTW, you noticed that the freepers were using the phrase "Tea bag" in the pejorative sense from the beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  When did they do that - using it in a pergorative sense?  We'll compare dates.  I'm being serious.  If your date is earlier than mine, I will accept your point and call us whiners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
Click to expand...

I saw that.  That is from December of last year.

Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.

The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.

As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8

1:01.


----------



## Zoom-boing

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests.   Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff).  The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except by the* people *in the protests who held up signs that said "Tea bag the liberal dems before they teabag you!"
> 
> See my link to Si Modo if you are curious (I know you aren't).
Click to expand...


People? I saw one person with one sign in the link you provided.


----------



## G.T.

Balls in yo mouff!


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and? one isn't allowed to point out the hypocrisy of partisan hacks?
> 
> like i said... it's amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you talking about?  Seriously, have you had a recent closed head injury?
> 
> Recap:  Someone says another's attempt to deflect from the topic....ummm, that would be Obama....by bringing up Bush is a deflection.
> 
> YOU tell them they have nothing to offer.
> 
> Of course they don't, as the topic is Obama.
> 
> Then it's hypocrisy in your clearly brain damaged head.
> 
> Duck next time the stupid stick is being swung, Jillian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you talking to me, dear?
> 
> for someone who's sounded like a blithering idiot (yes, i'm talking about you) through the better part of this thread... and yet, i've been fairly indulgent.... you really need to stop talking sometimes cause it might be better for you next time to let people think you're stupid then to prove them right.
> 
> now shove it up your deranged butt.
> 
> and go whine some more about why people aren't civil to you.
Click to expand...

Awwwww.  Jillian doesn't like it when she is being illogical and others call her on it.

Get a grip.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you talking about?  Seriously, have you had a recent closed head injury?
> 
> Recap:  Someone says another's attempt to deflect from the topic....ummm, that would be Obama....by bringing up Bush is a deflection.
> 
> YOU tell them they have nothing to offer.
> 
> Of course they don't, as the topic is Obama.
> 
> Then it's hypocrisy in your clearly brain damaged head.
> 
> Duck next time the stupid stick is being swung, Jillian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you talking to me, dear?
> 
> for someone who's sounded like a blithering idiot (yes, i'm talking about you) through the better part of this thread... and yet, i've been fairly indulgent.... you really need to stop talking sometimes cause it might be better for you next time to let people think you're stupid then to prove them right.
> 
> now shove it up your deranged butt.
> 
> and go whine some more about why people aren't civil to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awwwww.  Jillian doesn't like it when she is being illogical and others call her on it.
> 
> Get a grip.
Click to expand...


actually, i don't like it when people like you who demand civility from others (for no reason, since you haven't earned any) are course, low class and rude.... 

as well as stupid. 

you called me on nothing. but don't worry, i'm sure some of the wingnuttiest nuts approved.


----------



## G.T.

BAWWz in yo mouffFF!!~


----------



## G.T.




----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when the _ad hominems_ fail, you try hyperbole still.
> 
> Really?  When did they do that - using it in a pergorative sense?  We'll compare dates.  I'm being serious.  If your date is earlier than mine, I will accept your point and call us whiners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
Click to expand...


From the article:



> Actually, the first Tea Party rallies occurred on Feb. 27. I was at the Washington, D.C., event, where I snapped the picture Nordlinger is talking about.



February-March-April

I remember the first teaparty events being mentioned on TV and the net, because I remember thinking it was strange to start protesting the President after he had been in office for a little over a month.  At that point, I came to the conclusion that I have now, the movement was really just a GOP wolf in sheep's clothing.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you talking to me, dear?
> 
> for someone who's sounded like a blithering idiot (yes, i'm talking about you) through the better part of this thread... and yet, i've been fairly indulgent.... you really need to stop talking sometimes cause it might be better for you next time to let people think you're stupid then to prove them right.
> 
> now shove it up your deranged butt.
> 
> and go whine some more about why people aren't civil to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwww.  Jillian doesn't like it when she is being illogical and others call her on it.
> 
> Get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually, i don't like it when people like you who demand civility from others (for no reason, since you haven't earned any) are course, low class and rude....
> 
> as well as stupid.
> 
> you called me on nothing. but don't worry, i'm sure some of the wingnuttiest nuts approved.
Click to expand...

Jillian, you have lost it.  Get a grip.

You were illogical and still are.

Forgive me for asking what the fuck sort of brain damage you have, but your post is one a brain damaged idiot would post.  I'll apologize for my harshness.  I was impressed with the profound level of stupidity of your post.

Or, maybe you have just decided that dishonesty is a better route.

Shall I recap, AGAIN?  Or do you finally get it?


----------



## geauxtohell

Zoom-boing said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests.   Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff).  The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except by the* people *in the protests who held up signs that said "Tea bag the liberal dems before they teabag you!"
> 
> See my link to Si Modo if you are curious (I know you aren't).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People? I saw one person with one sign in the link you provided.
Click to expand...


Like I said.  Not everyone uses it for humor.  Some do and it's occurred from both sides.  Unless you want to argue that the person holding that sign was really scared that congress would mail tea bags to the American people and it had no sexual connotation.

The point is you guys are deliberately thin skinned on this issue and that's why you are easy targets.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the first Tea Party rallies occurred on Feb. 27. I was at the Washington, D.C., event, where I snapped the picture Nordlinger is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> February-March-April
> 
> I remember the first teaparty events being mentioned on TV and the net, because I remember thinking it was strange to start protesting the President after he had been in office for a little over a month.  At that point, I came to the conclusion that I have now, the movement was really just a GOP wolf in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...


Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term.  That was after the pig Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of teabag in April 2009.

No bait and switch.

No sale, GTH.

So, keep up the _ad hominem_.  You earned the reputation for it by now.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about how others perceive the teabagger term, but I usually ignore the post when I come across the term teabagger because the poster is only interested in insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the use of the T-word has reached the point of deserving it's own version of Godwin's Law.
Click to expand...


LMAO.  You wish.

But you can try that tactic if you want.  We will still laugh at you.


----------



## boedicca

Actually, the first tea party protests were Porkulus Protests in February 2009 - notably the one in Seattle the day before Obama signed the Stimulus Bill.   That one was a particular inspiration for the Tea Parties, which adopted that name after Santelli's rant on CNBC.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term.
> 
> No bait and switch.
> 
> No sale, GTH.
> 
> So, keep up the _ad hominem_.  You earned the reputation for it by now.



You don't think that sign had a derogatory connotation?  

It's okay.  I knew you'd find a way to not honor your word.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Actually, the first tea party protests were Porkulus Protests in February 2009 - notably the one in Seattle the day before Obama signed the Stimulus Bill.   That one was a particular inspiration for the Tea Parties, which adopted that name after Santelli's rant on CNBC.



Which is when this guy took the picture of the sign from a teabagger that said:

"Tea bag the liberal dems before they teabag you!"


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term.
> 
> No bait and switch.
> 
> No sale, GTH.
> 
> So, keep up the _ad hominem_.  You earned the reputation for it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that sign had a derogatory connotation?
> 
> It's okay.  I knew you'd find a way to not honor your word.
Click to expand...

You did?  On what basis?

I looked again.  If one is to assume the blog is valid, and I see no reason initially to think otherwise, then you have a point.

This is nothing that any of us should whine about.

Sorry to disappoint your prejudice about me.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term.
> 
> No bait and switch.
> 
> No sale, GTH.
> 
> So, keep up the _ad hominem_.  You earned the reputation for it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that sign had a derogatory connotation?
> 
> It's okay.  I knew you'd find a way to not honor your word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did?  On what basis?
> 
> I looked again.  If one is to assume the blog is valid, and I see no reason initially to think otherwise, then you have a point.
> 
> This is nothing that any of us should whine about.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint your prejudice about me.
Click to expand...


If you are being serious, then I retract my statement.  However, I'll note that my statement was made after you stated you had read the blog and weren't going to do what you said you would if the dates matched up.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that sign had a derogatory connotation?
> 
> It's okay.  I knew you'd find a way to not honor your word.
> 
> 
> 
> You did?  On what basis?
> 
> I looked again.  If one is to assume the blog is valid, and I see no reason initially to think otherwise, then you have a point.
> 
> This is nothing that any of us should whine about.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint your prejudice about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are being serious, then I retract my statement.  However, I'll note that my statement was made after you stated you had read the blog and weren't going to do what you said you would if the dates matched up.
Click to expand...

I DID read the blog.  I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through.  I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.

But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.


----------



## WillowTree

tsk tsk tsk,, all this toooo dooo about a saggy old ball sack.. and where to put it.. I know I know,, ask madcow.. shel'' tell ya.


----------



## G.T.

Big Johnson Tea-Bagging:

"Fall asleep by the pantry, get a mouth full of pants free"


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did?  On what basis?
> 
> I looked again.  If one is to assume the blog is valid, and I see no reason initially to think otherwise, then you have a point.
> 
> This is nothing that any of us should whine about.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint your prejudice about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are being serious, then I retract my statement.  However, I'll note that my statement was made after you stated you had read the blog and weren't going to do what you said you would if the dates matched up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DID read the blog.  I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through.  I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.
> 
> But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.
Click to expand...


No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter.  You don't see that often here.  So I retract what I said on that matter.

The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.  

If that's not the case, then it's not the case.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are being serious, then I retract my statement.  However, I'll note that my statement was made after you stated you had read the blog and weren't going to do what you said you would if the dates matched up.
> 
> 
> 
> I DID read the blog.  I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through.  I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.
> 
> But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter.  You don't see that often here.  So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
Click to expand...




This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.  

From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.


----------



## Cuyo

Skull Pilot said:


> Do you expect anything but hypocrisy from a guy who constantly tells us not to jump to conclusions but can then jump to a conclusion like "The police acted stupidly"?



The police _did_ act stupidly in that case, SP.  Arresting a guy in his own house?  God damn right they acted stupidly, so cut it out with the faux outrage.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DID read the blog.  I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through.  I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.
> 
> But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter.  You don't see that often here.  So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Holy cow.  Political message board middle ground.  Somewhere in the galaxy something significant must have just happened.  

Thanks though.  I'll do my best to operate on good faith with you over the matter.

FWIW; I think a lot of the disconnect comes from a generational thing.  MY mom is a professor of political science and used the term in front of her class and didn't know why her students started snickering.  (I told her to wiki it).  She wasn't intending to insult the movement, she just didn't know.

I would venture to say that people in my generation in the movement saw the comedy behind using teabags in any form from the onset and that's why they perceive it as humorous (notice the person holding that sign is pretty young)  while some of you more *ahem* seasoned tea party individuals get angry over it.


----------



## rdean

Yea, I think it's humiliating calling this a "teabagger":







or this:






Course, these guys aren't wearing teabags:






You gotta take them at their word:


----------



## Vanquish

THIS is a kinder, gentler, more rational USMB.

Love this


----------



## G.T.

lol balls in yo mouff!


----------



## Si modo

Vanquish said:


> THIS is a kinder, gentler, more rational USMB.
> 
> Love this


Fuck off.  


*kidding*


----------



## geauxtohell

rdean said:


> You gotta take them at their word:



I am a big fan of the woman holding that sign.  I love her for her mind.


----------



## G.T.

geauxtohell said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta take them at their word:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a big fan of the woman holding that sign.  I love her for her mind.
Click to expand...


the ledge on her forehead casts a shadow on her eyes like quasi moto(sp?). not a fan. her brain may be cool but she admits she's all these bad things. *shrugs* 




























































*runs away*


----------



## Si modo

G.T. said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta take them at their word:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a big fan of the woman holding that sign.  I love her for her mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the ledge on her forehead casts a shadow on her eyes like quasi moto(sp?). not a fan. her brain may be cool but she admits she's all these bad things. *shrugs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *runs away*
Click to expand...


A bit of trivia:  Quasimodo is taken from Latin, quasi modo geniti infantes, which means 'what would be as if they are newborn infants'.  Hugo used the name to apply some innocence to the character as well as his being found at Notre Dame on Low Sunday.  Si modo means, 'if only', 'but wait', or other variations, depending on context.  Quasi modo means 'what [would be] if only', again, depending on context.

Useless trivia, but some may like it.


----------



## G.T.

I am some.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> A bit of trivia:  Quasimodo is taken from Latin, quasi modo geniti infantes, which means 'what would be as if they are newborn infants'.  Hugo used the name to apply some innocence to the character as well as his being found at Notre Dame on Low Sunday.  Si modo means, 'if only', 'but wait', or other variations, depending on context.  Quasi modo means 'what [would be] if only', again, depending on context.
> 
> Useless trivia, but some may like it.



More useless trivia:  cretinism is a condition children have when their mothers fail to deliver enough thyroid hormone to them in gestation.  It's generally seen as a perjorative term now that persists in medical literature for whatever reason.  

However the root of the word (if I remember right) is "Christ like" due to the view that the mentally retarded (which is a symptom of cretinism) are incapable of sin.


----------



## L.K.Eder

boedicca said:


> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests.   Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff).  The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies.  There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.



if the teabag-symbolism does not work out you could try to find new gimmicks. 

like advocating tax cuts resulting in golden showers for real americans.


----------



## Si modo

G.T. said:


> I am some.


Thanks.  Hugo was simply a genius.  He had a purpose for almost every word he chose.  I am no literature expert at all - not even close - just a big Hugo fan.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am some.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Hugo was simply a genius.  He had a purpose for almost every word he chose.  I am no literature expert at all - not even close - just a big Hugo fan.
Click to expand...


He certainly was a great writer.  I read Les Miserables at a young age and really couldn't comprehend the whole story until I re-read it in college.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of trivia:  Quasimodo is taken from Latin, quasi modo geniti infantes, which means 'what would be as if they are newborn infants'.  Hugo used the name to apply some innocence to the character as well as his being found at Notre Dame on Low Sunday.  Si modo means, 'if only', 'but wait', or other variations, depending on context.  Quasi modo means 'what [would be] if only', again, depending on context.
> 
> Useless trivia, but some may like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More useless trivia:  cretinism is a condition children have when their mothers fail to deliver enough thyroid hormone to them in gestation.  It's generally seen as a perjorative term now that persists in medical literature for whatever reason.
> 
> However the root of the word (if I remember right) is "Christ like" due to the view that the mentally retarded (which is a symptom of cretinism) are incapable of sin.
Click to expand...

Cool!  I did not know that, and I love using the word cretin. LOL.

Thanks.


----------



## The T

rdean said:


> Yea, I think it's humiliating calling this a "teabagger":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course, these guys aren't wearing teabags:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta take them at their word:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <PHOTOSHOPPED...especially the 'Stupid one' in the background...


 
Enough said...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.



Jake, because I know for a fact you're a phony lying sack of shit who is getting paid to pass himself off as a Republican, I'm going to explain the difference between Democrats and everyone else.

Like all Modern Democrats Obama is a Marxist. He answers every question with the phrase "Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!"

Observe.

Q. How can we bring down Health Care costs?

A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!

Q. How can we reform our financial system?

A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!

Q. How can we get a better handle on Immigration?

A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!

Q. How can we capitalize on the totally phony and discredited quasi-science of Global Climate Warming Change?

A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!

That's how it works, Jake and that's why we loath the Marxist in the White House


----------



## Vast LWC

boedicca said:


> Calling someone what they have factually demonstrated is quite different than lobbying a vulgar epithet for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Considering the frequency with which you use the t-word, the only logical conclusion is that you yourself have a fetish for the practice.



LOL, and you wonder why people make fun of you.

Poor little tea-baggers.


----------



## Stephanie

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Civility = Go along with everything we want; no questions asked.



Bingo.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Barry calls for civility then turns around and uses the 'well known sexual connotation term' tea bagger.   He is a classless hypocrite.


----------



## boedicca

Zoom-boing said:


> Barry calls for civility then turns around and uses the 'well known sexual connotation term' tea bagger.   He is a classless hypocrite.




That pretty much sums up the situation.


----------



## Qball

Weren't liberals the ones decrying the "socialist" label for Obama? But you gleefully indulge in calling these protesters "tea-baggers"? Maybe the classless hypocrites elected one of their own to lead the country.


----------



## boedicca

Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Qball

boedicca said:


> Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.
> 
> Just sayin'.



You're right, but my point is, liberals seem to think a legitimate criticism like "Obama endorses socialist policies" is incendiary while they snicker like school girls because apparently it's cute to call these people "tea-baggers". The Right is supposed to water-down, or totally keep quiet, about a legitimate charge while the Left gets to indulge in baseless name-calling only meant to piss people off.


----------



## boedicca

What the Left wants is for the Right to give up and stay quiet.


----------



## geauxtohell

Qball said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but my point is, liberals seem to think a legitimate criticism like "Obama endorses socialist policies" is incendiary while they snicker like school girls because apparently it's cute to call these people "tea-baggers". The Right is supposed to water-down, or totally keep quiet, about a legitimate charge while the Left gets to indulge in baseless name-calling only meant to piss people off.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because the right has been the very epitome of civilized debate over the past eight years.

9-11 happened, the right wrapped their asses up in the flag, and started calling anyone who dared to question our actions cowards, traitors, terrorist sympathizers, trooper haters, and worse. 

I wouldn't claim that either side has clean hands here.  Anyone who does is a retard.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither side has clean hands, and it is classless for the whinger fringers on the right to suggest they do.  History proves that false.


----------



## geauxtohell

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither side has clean hands, and it is classless for the whinger fringers on the right to suggest they do.  History proves that false.



The selective amnesia from the right is amazing.  Ann Coulter wrote an entire book accusing the left of 60 years of systematic treason and it was a best-seller.

But the second someone starts swinging back, they go into victim mode.

Give me a fucking break.  Like I said, some of these righties are the stereotypical schoolyard bully that got punched in the nose.


----------



## Qball

geauxtohell said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither side has clean hands, and it is classless for the whinger fringers on the right to suggest they do.  History proves that false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The selective amnesia from the right is amazing.  Ann Coulter wrote an entire book accusing the left of 60 years of systematic treason and it was a best-seller.
> 
> But the second someone starts swinging back, they go into victim mode.
> 
> Give me a fucking break.  Like I said, some of these righties are the stereotypical schoolyard bully that got punched in the nose.
Click to expand...


Because Ann Coulter's thesis is the same as a large contingency of people on one of the political spectrum indulging in slurring a grassroots protest.

That would like if I characterized a left-wing women's group as being nothing but a bunch of fat lesbians on their period, and when someone called me out, I said, "so what?! Jon Stewart insults the right all the time and he has one of the highest ranking shows on TV!"


----------



## geauxtohell

Qball said:


> Because Ann Coulter's thesis is the same as a large contingency of people on one of the political spectrum indulging in slurring a grassroots protest.



It was the slurring a large contengent of Americans based purely on their political beliefs.  I don't remember the wingers being upset over her moxie either.

BTW, the teabaggers are about as grass roots as astroturf.



> That would like if I characterized a left-wing women's group as being nothing but a bunch of fat lesbians on their period, and when someone called me out, I said, "so what?! Jon Stewart insults the right all the time and he has one of the highest ranking shows on TV!"



No shit.  Like I said, both sides have dirty  hands.  Only knuckleheads think otherwise.


----------



## rdean

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read si modo, willow, and others, and I can only conclude their hatred for our president is based on race.  There is nothing else to personally detest the man.  Amazing!
> 
> Classlessness?  We have fringe whingers from the right here who are receiving federal assistance while biting the same hand that is giving to them.  That is an utter lack of class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, because I know for a fact you're a phony lying sack of shit who is getting paid to pass himself off as a Republican, I'm going to explain the difference between Democrats and everyone else.
> 
> Like all Modern Democrats Obama is a Marxist. He answers every question with the phrase "Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!"
> 
> Observe.
> 
> Q. How can we bring down Health Care costs?
> 
> A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!
> 
> Q. How can we reform our financial system?
> 
> A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!
> 
> Q. How can we get a better handle on Immigration?
> 
> A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!
> 
> Q. How can we capitalize on the totally phony and discredited quasi-science of Global Climate Warming Change?
> 
> A. Mo' n Bigga Gubbamint!
> 
> That's how it works, Jake and that's why we loath the Marxist in the White House
Click to expand...


I like yours, but mine are true:

Q.  How can we make mines as unsafe as possible?

A.  Republican Deregulation we call "Voluntary Compliance".

Q.  How can we destroy the world economy?

A.  Republican Deregulation of Wall Street.

Q.  How can we destroy the Gulf Coast?

A.  Republican Deregulation we call "Voluntary Compliance".

Q.  How do you help suffering Americans after a disastrous Hurricane?

A.  You ignore them because you are extremely busy having a party.

Q.  How do you take a secular country that was no threat to us and turn them into a hard right wing extreme Islamic theocracy who hates our guts, vows revenge, becomes friends with our worst enemy and throws shoes at our president?

A.  You invade them and then give them the military we thought they had when we invaded.

Q.  How do you take a country, a democratic country, split it right down the middle, demonize the duly elected President, fight everything he does working to fix eight years of incompetency and global humiliation while publicly calling him, "A boy who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ"?"

A.  You take your talking points from the political party that was behind eight years of incompetency and global humiliation. 

Q.  What health care plan do you promote over the one that is bankrupting the US?

A.  "Die Quickly".

Q.  What do you say when people point out that only 6% of scientists in this country are Republican?

A.  You say, "Good, scientists just sit on their ass, they don't really add anything to the country, their so-called "contributions" are over hyped, they lie about evolution, global warming and vaccinations.  We don't need them".

Q.  How do you dumb down a country?

A.  You tell your children that eduction is for elitist who don't have common sense and "it's only a meaningless piece of worthless paper".

Q.  How do you destroy your own livelihood?

A.  You vote for Republicans who work with big business who want to strip away benefits and pay as little as possible and if they can't turn you into cheap labor, ship your job overseas to people who will work for almost nothing.

I hope I was able to clear things up.  I wish I was able to give a more positive picture, but I find the truth is best.  

The truth is something substantive that you can work with to turn the negative into a positive.  

The truth will help Republicans to understand that our government is made up of American Citizens who mostly want to help this country become a better place, made up of neighbors we voted into office, not some communist, dark mysterious entity who wants to feast on your baby in the dark of night.  We have a duty to help Republicans and Conservatives to get past their fear and terror.  It's a dark place they live in.  A sad and dark place.


----------



## rdean

boedicca said:


> What the Left wants is for the Right to give up and stay quiet.



Actually, no.  We want the right to do what is best for this country and stop operating from a place of fear and terror.  We want the right to put away their lies and join the people of this century to make American a better place.  Promote eduction.  Rebuild the infrastructure.  Put down their "teabags" and pick up a "book".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-20.html#post2278876


----------



## CrusaderFrank

geauxtohell said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but my point is, liberals seem to think a legitimate criticism like "Obama endorses socialist policies" is incendiary while they snicker like school girls because apparently it's cute to call these people "tea-baggers". The Right is supposed to water-down, or totally keep quiet, about a legitimate charge while the Left gets to indulge in baseless name-calling only meant to piss people off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the right has been the very epitome of civilized debate over the past eight years.
> 
> 9-11 happened, the right wrapped their asses up in the flag, and started calling anyone who dared to question our actions cowards, traitors, terrorist sympathizers, trooper haters, and worse.
> 
> I wouldn't claim that either side has clean hands here.  Anyone who does is a retard.
Click to expand...


Democrats started cheerleading for the Insurgents and Mooky Al Sadr as soon as Saddam left.  FDR would have arrested you fuckers for treason


----------



## Vanquish

Frank you're a partisan hack with no objectivity...or frankly anything to add to any of these discussions.

Go back and sit at the kiddie table.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Vanquish said:


> Frank you're a partisan hack with no objectivity...or frankly anything to add to any of these discussions.
> 
> Go back and sit at the kiddie table.



You're just upset that your "Happy Jihad" Cards to Mooky Al Sadr are returned to you "No Forwarding Address"


----------



## Si modo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank you're a partisan hack with no objectivity...or frankly anything to add to any of these discussions.
> 
> Go back and sit at the kiddie table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just upset that your "Happy Jihad" Cards to Mooky Al Sadr are returned to you "No Forwarding Address"
Click to expand...

I have to say that Vanquish seems like a relatively open-minded adversary.  Slamming trolls is one thing, but slamming those who demonstate an ability to have an open mind is another.

Wise choices in battles often win the war.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Si modo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank you're a partisan hack with no objectivity...or frankly anything to add to any of these discussions.
> 
> Go back and sit at the kiddie table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just upset that your "Happy Jihad" Cards to Mooky Al Sadr are returned to you "No Forwarding Address"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to say that Vanquish seems like a relatively open-minded adversary.  Slamming trolls is one thing, but slamming those who demonstate an ability to have an open mind is another.
> 
> Wise choices in battles often win the war.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to ignore Democrat Leadership trying to turn Iran over to the Islamists. Pelosi and Reid and every Democrat did ALL they could, even trying to cut funding to out troops on the battlefield to hand the Insurgents a victory and I'm not going to forget that or let it slide.


----------



## Si modo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just upset that your "Happy Jihad" Cards to Mooky Al Sadr are returned to you "No Forwarding Address"
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that Vanquish seems like a relatively open-minded adversary.  Slamming trolls is one thing, but slamming those who demonstate an ability to have an open mind is another.
> 
> Wise choices in battles often win the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to ignore Democrat Leadership trying to turn Iran over to the Islamists. Pelosi and Reid and every Democrat did ALL they could, even trying to cut funding to out troops on the battlefield to hand the Insurgents a victory and I'm not going to forget that or let it slide.
Click to expand...

I agree.  But, I'm talking about slamming trolls. Just sayin' and that's all it's worth.


----------



## teapartysamurai

midcan5 said:


> Why would or does the word 'teabagger' offend those who name call all the time? Witness the thread title. They are not a party in any sense of the word, so let's call them, hmm, ' a fruitless mix of racism, and conspiracy,' as this fox survey shows? Would that work? Could we call them 'Conspiracy folk on medicare and social security?' Would that work. Maybe we need to have a contest on naming them. The name must include in some way their signs and years from now when Obama administration is passed, the name must still fit. After all they aren't just about Obama, right? Have at it, suggestions?
> 
> Teabagger Movement "Fruitless Mix of Racism, Conspiracy Theories" According to Fox News Poll | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central


 
In other this liberal agrees with the narrow mindedness and hypocrisy of Obama.

Nice of you to admit that.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DID read the blog. I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through. I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.
> 
> But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter. You don't see that often here. So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not whining about the term tea bagger.

I think liberals should go right on using the term tea bagger.  That's right, I do!  

It tells far more about liberals than it does about the tea party.  When conservative Americans started sending tea bags to their Congressmen/women or saying "let's tea bag Washington," they thought about the Boston Tea Party, Patriotism, and the proud founding of this Country.

What did liberals think about when we said tea bag?  A perverted homosexual sex act that no one even knew about.  NO ONE (with decent minds) that is, BUT LIBERALS.  

No, they knew what it meant and they were more than willing to "educate" all of us on that point as well.  

So, liberals, you go right on calling us tea baggers and educating all of us about who are what you are and what you have to sink to, in the name of avoiding real debate with real people.

It illustrates more than anything else the heart of liberalism.

I wasn't whining about Obama calling us tea baggers.  Just illustrating his hypocrisy in calling for civility, while then calling us tea baggers.

Keep it up Obama, we'll remember you in 2012, when we will use our "incivility" to vote YOU out of office.


----------



## Si modo

teapartysamurai said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter. You don't see that often here. So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not whining about the term tea bagger.
> 
> I think liberals should go right on using the term tea bagger.  That's right, I do!
> 
> It tells far more about liberals than it does about the tea party.  When conservative Americans started sending tea bags to their Congressmen/women or saying "let's tea bag Washington," they thought about the Boston Tea Party, Patriotism, and the proud founding of this Country.
> 
> What did liberals think about when we said tea bag?  A perverted homosexual sex act that no one even knew about.  NO ONE (with decent minds) that is, BUT LIBERALS.
> 
> No, they knew what it meant and they were more than willing to "educate" all of us on that point as well.
> 
> So, liberals, you go right on calling us tea baggers and educating all of us about who are what you are and what you have to sink to, in the name of avoiding real debate with real people.
> 
> It illustrates more than anything else the heart of liberalism.
> 
> I wasn't whining about Obama calling us tea baggers.  Just illustrating his hypocrisy in calling for civility, while then calling us tea baggers.
> 
> Keep it up Obama, we'll remember you in 2012, when we will use our "incivility" to vote YOU out of office.
Click to expand...

Oh, I still think Obama is being hypocritical.

And classless.

And an embarrassment.

That hasn't changed.


----------



## 007

California Girl said:


> I guess what Obama meant by 'civility' was 'shut the fuck up and do as I tell you'.



That's his ebonics.


----------



## jillian

Pale Rider said:


> That's his ebonics.



but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?


----------



## VaYank5150

jillian said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
Click to expand...


wait for it.....


----------



## Defiant1

The use of "teabagger" by the President should put the use of ****** back in the game.


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
Click to expand...


No more racist than you are against white, Christian, conservative men Jill... 

Remember Jill... it was DINGY HARRY that first pointed out obama's EBONICS. Is dingy harry a RACIST too? Oooops... he can't be right? He's a DEMOCRAT, and your hypocrisy can't label any democrats RACIST. You have to keep up your precious DOUBLE STANDARD.


----------



## VaYank5150

Pale Rider said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more racist than you are against white, Christian, conservative men Jill...
> 
> Remember Jill... it was DINGY HARRY that first pointed out obama's EBONICS. Is dingy harry a RACIST too?
Click to expand...


Maybe jilli just doesn't like white, supposed Christian, conservative men who have sex with little boys?


----------



## 007

VaYank5150 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more racist than you are against white, Christian, conservative men Jill...
> 
> Remember Jill... it was DINGY HARRY that first pointed out obama's EBONICS. Is dingy harry a RACIST too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe jilli just doesn't like white, supposed Christian, conservative men who have sex with little boys?
Click to expand...


What was your term.... "wait for it?"

Pfft... what a fucking loser.


----------



## VaYank5150

Pale Rider said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more racist than you are against white, Christian, conservative men Jill...
> 
> Remember Jill... it was DINGY HARRY that first pointed out obama's EBONICS. Is dingy harry a RACIST too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe jilli just doesn't like white, supposed Christian, conservative men who have sex with little boys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your term.... "wait for it?"
> 
> Pfft... what a fucking loser.
Click to expand...


Oh, I am just waiting for one of you wingers to claim Jilli played the race card by responding to your racist remark.


----------



## 007

VaYank5150 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe jilli just doesn't like white, supposed Christian, conservative men who have sex with little boys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was your term.... "wait for it?"
> 
> Pfft... what a fucking loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I am just waiting for one of you wingers to claim Jilli played the race card by responding to your racist remark.
Click to expand...


Not my remark bone head. It was dingy harry that coined that one. Is he a racist? Well.... no, because he's one of you, and you liberals hypocrisy won't allow you to call your own racist.

You people are so predictable it's pathetic.


----------



## VaYank5150

Pale Rider said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was your term.... "wait for it?"
> 
> Pfft... what a fucking loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am just waiting for one of you wingers to claim Jilli played the race card by responding to your racist remark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my remark bone head. It was dingy harry that coined that one. Is he a racist? Well.... no, because he's one of you, and you liberals hypocrisy won't allow you to call your own racist.
> 
> You people are so predictable it's pathetic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and you white Christian, conservative males aren't????


----------



## teapartysamurai

Si modo said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not whining about the term tea bagger.
> 
> I think liberals should go right on using the term tea bagger. That's right, I do!
> 
> It tells far more about liberals than it does about the tea party. When conservative Americans started sending tea bags to their Congressmen/women or saying "let's tea bag Washington," they thought about the Boston Tea Party, Patriotism, and the proud founding of this Country.
> 
> What did liberals think about when we said tea bag? A perverted homosexual sex act that no one even knew about. NO ONE (with decent minds) that is, BUT LIBERALS.
> 
> No, they knew what it meant and they were more than willing to "educate" all of us on that point as well.
> 
> So, liberals, you go right on calling us tea baggers and educating all of us about who are what you are and what you have to sink to, in the name of avoiding real debate with real people.
> 
> It illustrates more than anything else the heart of liberalism.
> 
> I wasn't whining about Obama calling us tea baggers. Just illustrating his hypocrisy in calling for civility, while then calling us tea baggers.
> 
> Keep it up Obama, we'll remember you in 2012, when we will use our "incivility" to vote YOU out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I still think Obama is being hypocritical.
> 
> And classless.
> 
> And an embarrassment.
> 
> That hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

 
Nor do I doubt, will Obama ever change.


----------



## teapartysamurai

VaYank5150 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am just waiting for one of you wingers to claim Jilli played the race card by responding to your racist remark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my remark bone head. It was dingy harry that coined that one. Is he a racist? Well.... no, because he's one of you, and you liberals hypocrisy won't allow you to call your own racist.
> 
> You people are so predictable it's pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you white Christian, conservative males aren't????
Click to expand...

 
Replace white and male with black and female and everyone would call you a racist and a chauvenist.

But it's okay if it's white and male?

I think we see the hypocrites all right.


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
Click to expand...

 


You want the definition of "racist?"

It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.


----------



## boedicca

The Libs are Stuck On Racism.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats started cheerleading for the Insurgents and Mooky Al Sadr as soon as Saddam left.  FDR would have arrested you fuckers for treason



Yeah, Frank.  That's exactly what we did.

/sarcasm.

In reality, anything short of being 100% behind Iraq was construed as "cheerleading" for the insurgency.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my remark bone head. It was dingy harry that coined that one. Is he a racist? Well.... no, because he's one of you, and you liberals hypocrisy won't allow you to call your own racist.
> 
> You people are so predictable it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you white Christian, conservative males aren't????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace white and male with black and female and everyone would call you a racist and a chauvenist.
> 
> But it's okay if it's white and male?
> 
> I think we see the hypocrites all right.
Click to expand...


Nope, fail.  The distributive elements are different.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the definition of "racist?"
> 
> It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.
Click to expand...


The above is why such folks will have no pull in this upcoming election and will be forgotten by next summer.


----------



## jillian

boedicca said:


> The Libs are Stuck On Racism.



only with racists.


----------



## jillian

Pale Rider said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his ebonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more racist than you are against white, Christian, conservative men Jill...
> 
> Remember Jill... it was DINGY HARRY that first pointed out obama's EBONICS. Is dingy harry a RACIST too? Oooops... he can't be right? He's a DEMOCRAT, and your hypocrisy can't label any democrats RACIST. You have to keep up your precious DOUBLE STANDARD.
Click to expand...


i love the poor put upon white man act. i actually don't have a double standard. i call black people racists when they are, too. and if you look up the term 'race hustler' on this board, i'm pretty sure you'll find the words next to my descriptions of people like al sharpton, etc. so while that might work with someone else, it won't fly with me.


----------



## boedicca

Incorrect.  Anyone who criticizes Obama's policies is labeled a Racist.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you're not racist or anything.... and your objections to him have no basis in racism. right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the definition of "racist?"
> 
> It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is why such folks will have no pull in this upcoming election and will be forgotten by next summer.
Click to expand...


Actually, the saddest thing is the Dems have so overused the racism name that REAL racism will end up being ignored by many who actually used to care about it.

Boys and wolves and stuff.


----------



## WillowTree

teapartysamurai said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my remark bone head. It was dingy harry that coined that one. Is he a racist? Well.... no, because he's one of you, and you liberals hypocrisy won't allow you to call your own racist.
> 
> You people are so predictable it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you white Christian, conservative males aren't????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace white and male with black and female and everyone would call you a racist and a chauvenist.
> 
> But it's okay if it's white and male?
> 
> I think we see the hypocrites all right.
Click to expand...


we see some ostrich azz too.


----------



## geauxtohell

Defiant1 said:


> The use of "teabagger" by the President should put the use of ****** back in the game.



Nobody is stopping you, tough guy.  You have a constitutionally protected right to be a bigot.

Go find the nearest city, then go to MLK Boulevard and walk up and down it screaming it from the top of your lungs.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the definition of "racist?"
> 
> It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why such folks will have no pull in this upcoming election and will be forgotten by next summer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the saddest thing is the Dems have so overused the racism name that REAL racism will end up being ignored by many who actually used to care about it.
> 
> Boys and wolves and stuff.
Click to expand...


You mean kind of like the term liberal?


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why such folks will have no pull in this upcoming election and will be forgotten by next summer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the saddest thing is the Dems have so overused the racism name that REAL racism will end up being ignored by many who actually used to care about it.
> 
> Boys and wolves and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
Click to expand...

Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.


----------



## geauxtohell

teapartysamurai said:


> What did liberals think about when we said tea bag?  A perverted homosexual sex act that no one even knew about.  NO ONE (with decent minds) that is, BUT LIBERALS.



And the freepers who had signs that read "Teabag the liberal dems before they teabag you!" at the February '09 Tea party rally.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the saddest thing is the Dems have so overused the racism name that REAL racism will end up being ignored by many who actually used to care about it.
> 
> Boys and wolves and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
Click to expand...


It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, even today - the meanings of liberal and conservative have become so skewed and too broad that they mean little in the USA.

I am a social liberal.  But I am a fiscal conservative.  I piss off a lot of folks with my views.  I am not anywhere close to a 'bleeding heart liberal' (to me, a 'lib'), though.  

The big difference is that it is not a bad thing to be liberal (or conservative).


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> The big difference is that it is not a bad thing to be liberal.



You don't think the term "liberal" has taken on a pejorative meaning at the hands of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative punditry?


----------



## Sherry

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.
Click to expand...


People becoming immune to political labels does not have the same impact as people ignoring racism.


----------



## Si modo

Sherry said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People becoming immune to political labels does not have the same impact as people ignoring racism.
Click to expand...

  And, more importantly, exactly that.


----------



## boedicca

Sherry said:


> People becoming immune to political labels does not have the same impact as people ignoring racism.




QFT.  The Moral Relativism is quite repugnant.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big difference is that it is not a bad thing to be liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think the term "liberal" has taken on a pejorative meaning at the hands of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative punditry?
Click to expand...

No more so than the perjoratives from the Democrats.

But, as Sherry so succinctly said, immunity to political labels has not even close to the same impact on society as immunity to racism.  THAT is the point.

Again, boys and wolves - dangerous stuff.


----------



## geauxtohell

Sherry said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People becoming immune to political labels does not have the same impact as people ignoring racism.
Click to expand...


I agree, I was just making the point that over-usage of terms leads to them being watered down and having no real meaning.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be your opinion, but it's a far point.  The right wing, especially the punditry, has thrown around the word "liberal" so much in the last 15 years that it has no real meaning these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People becoming immune to political labels does not have the same impact as people ignoring racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I was just making the point that over-usage of terms leads to them being watered down and having no real meaning.
Click to expand...

True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.


----------



## geauxtohell

Si modo said:


> True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.



I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield. 

However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.


----------



## Sherry

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
Click to expand...


There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.


----------



## Si modo

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely!  There are definitely some racists (and anti-semites) here.  I am amazed.

That's the great thing about protection of speech.  It shines a light on the cockroaches before they can scurry for cover.


----------



## geauxtohell

Sherry said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.
Click to expand...


For the record, I don't think the TP movement is made up of racists.  I think they have a some in their ranks and I think that any group that opposes Obama is a natural magnet for people who hate Obama for no other reason than he's 1/2 black.  However, I don't think that it's representative of the whole, and I certainly don't think the TP movement started simply because of racism.


----------



## Sherry

geauxtohell said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the record, I don't think the TP movement is made up of racists.  I think they have a some in their ranks and I think that any group that opposes Obama is a natural magnet for people who hate Obama for no other reason than he's 1/2 black.  However, I don't think that it's representative of the whole, and I certainly don't think the TP movement started simply because of racism.
Click to expand...


That's good to know. I was only using it as an example to illustrate how throwing the accusation out there blindly will end up missing the intended target.


----------



## Old Rocks

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Hey, we are very civil to all of you Teabaggers.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to me, asking someone to prove a negative is no point at all. But, that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative..
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  When one cannot even recognize when a proof of a negative is asked there is no point in continuing any discussion.
> 
> (I guess even that wasn't too clear to you earlier. Special ed is not my forte, though.)
Click to expand...


You know, it's quite telling when YOU feel the need to delete the content of my post all so you can avoid facts that don't suit your spin as you attack me personally. 
The story it tells is that you are losing the argument and you know but don't have the integrity to admit it. 

Why else would you edit my post and delete the facts??


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Well, one doesn't even know when a proof of a negative is asked, what're'ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this?
> When one (YOU) doesn't know, then perhaps one (you) should refrain from making that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, yet you continue.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


and yet you continue to avoid the FACTS. As usual. Sorry to disappoint you but attacking me won't change the facts.


----------



## Old Rocks

DR, Si has been on the short bus for a long time. Confront her with facts and she resorts to critizism of your "logic".


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked you to prove a negative..
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  When one cannot even recognize when a proof of a negative is asked there is no point in continuing any discussion.
> 
> (I guess even that wasn't too clear to you earlier. Special ed is not my forte, though.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, it's quite telling when YOU feel the need to delete the content of my post all so you can avoid facts that don't suit your spin as you attack me personally.
> The story it tells is that you are losing the argument and you know but don't have the integrity to admit it.
> 
> Why else would you edit my post and delete the facts??
Click to expand...

Psssst.  *looks from side to side*  Just between you and me, what's even more telling is those who cannot even recognize a fallacy AND do not grasp the use of ellipses.



Stupid exists, so what're'ya gonna do?  .


----------



## Old Rocks

Yep, stupidity surely does exist, and you have our sympathy, Si.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the movement started, teabaggers themselves used the phrase to describe themselves. Liberals have kept it going, but it didnt germinate with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves *until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.
> 
> There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  Denying that is dishonest.
Click to expand...


and that lack of knowledge is why tea baggers started calling themselves that as they ranted about teabagging the white house. Only after the other meaning became known have SOME started distancing themselves from it but it doesn't change where it started. 

BTW I doubt anyone is denying what you claim. Howerver, unless you can show how anyone denied that then it is YOU who is being dishonest as you try to criticize poeple for something they never said.


----------



## drsmith1072

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> 
> [/INDENT]Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you guys in the Teabagger Brigade shouldn't have used it yourselves first....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yes,, blame the victims.. that's the style.
Click to expand...


So they are victims because they are being called by a name that they gave themselves?? Really??


----------



## Stephanie

For the first time in my life, I am truly EMBARRASSED of a President of our United States.

He is nothing but a Progressive thug.

I hope we can survive the rest of his time in office.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Partiers should stop letting the "tea-bagger" thing bother them. Trust me, that does more for the liberals than it does for them. It's kind of like if I really liked calling other dudes "queer" and "fag". At a certain point, you'd start thinking maybe I'm...deflecting rather than cracking wise. So let them keep saying "tea-bagger" as if it's cute. Maybe one day we'll find out why many of them derive a certain amusement by that double entendre.
> 
> 
> 
> At some point making up names based on the real name went from being cute to just acting like a moron.  For most of us, that was sometime before thrid grade.
Click to expand...


and yet that is why MOST righties on this board and out in the world refer to obama as "the messiah" or "obammy" or some other made up name that they try to assign to him or the left as they call democrats "DIMocrats" and other such names I have seen parroted across this board. 

Based on your claim and the "us" that you are referring to, most righties must be in the third grade or at least have a third grade intellect. 

furthermore, the tea baggers called themselves tea baggers so they are to blame. Stop trying to attack obama for merely restating what tea baggers have said from the beginning.


----------



## Stephanie

Being called a teabagger by the thug in chief and his Comrades in Arms is the least of our worries.

getting him and his commie buddies our of our Government is the number one priority folks.

vote vote vote in November.


----------



## geauxtohell

Stephanie said:


> For the first time in my life, I am truly EMBARRASSED of a President of our United States.
> 
> He is nothing but a Progressive thug.
> 
> I hope we can survive the rest of his time in office.



Oh give it a rest.  There isn't a week that goes by where you don't say something like this.


----------



## Stephanie

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time in my life, I am truly EMBARRASSED of a President of our United States.
> 
> He is nothing but a Progressive thug.
> 
> I hope we can survive the rest of his time in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a rest.  There isn't a week that goes by where you don't say something like this.
Click to expand...


nope. I'm still free to do as I wish.
and you of all people will never tell me what to do.


----------



## geauxtohell

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time in my life, I am truly EMBARRASSED of a President of our United States.
> 
> He is nothing but a Progressive thug.
> 
> I hope we can survive the rest of his time in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a rest.  There isn't a week that goes by where you don't say something like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope. I'm still free to do as I wish.
> and you of all people will never tell me what to do.
Click to expand...


You are free to do what you want.  We are free to point out the bullshit.


----------



## Stephanie

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a rest.  There isn't a week that goes by where you don't say something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope. I'm still free to do as I wish.
> and you of all people will never tell me what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to do what you want.  We are free to point out the bullshit.
Click to expand...


have at it if it blows your mini skirt up and gives you a tingle up your leg.


----------



## drsmith1072

WillowTree said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor TPs....
> 
> I hope Obama didn't hurt their feelings....they always say such nice things about him
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't hurt my feelings.  He is just an embarrassment to me as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> president for his side. we are his enemies, we presently do not have anyone who represent us.
Click to expand...


Did you happen to feel this way when republicans were majority party and controlled congress and the white house?? Somehow I doubt it.

The sad thing is that I had a discussion with someone a while back and they tried to claim that they had no representation despite the fact that his states two senators and his district's representative where ALL republicans that he voted for. You are the minority and back when dems were the minority my guess is that like all of the rest of the hypocritical whining righties you couldn't have ccared less. 

This is the way the system works and how it was set up by the founders, a majority of Americans did NOT agree with your party so you were voted out of the majority and into the minority. 
Deal with it, grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See how confused people become when they spew hate for history, science and higher education
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone speak drivel and can translate for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've developed a layperson's knowledge of TMese; here's a rough translation:
> 
> "I'm a brain damaged idiot who parrots bromides and cuts and pastes things which I don't bother to read."
Click to expand...


Notice how the level of baseless attacks from righties increases exponentially as posters continue to try to debate a topic that righties know that they have lost and therefore refuse to debate?


----------



## drsmith1072

Zoom-boing said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'tea bagger' (as noted in CF's post) doesn't appear on the site you linked.  Not once.
> 
> Do you even understand the whole concept of the 'tea bag party', aka as 'the tea party'? Did you even bother to read the list at the bottom of your link of some of the reasons why the tea party was started?  I doubt it.
> 
> The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation)*and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already.  It was the LEFT media who brought up the sexual reference of the term 'tea bagger' and it is the LEFT who continue to use this term to try and dismiss, insult, mock, make fun of and generally blow off the entire tea party movement as nothing more than some loon fringe thing.
> 
> Stop acting as if the tea partiers had any other intention when they chose the name and the concept of sending tea bags  to congress as a way to have their voice heard.  Everyone knows it was, and continues to be, the LEFT that uses the term in a derogatory way.  And for Obama to stoop to that level?  Classless and par for the course.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Herein lies your problem...the original tea party, the Boston Tea Party, was rebellion against taxation (payments, premiums) without representation. It was being perpetrated on the colonists by a corporation, the British East India Company.
> 
> The modern day equivalent of the British East India Company is NOT the government, which is the vessel of governance WITH representation our founding father's created. It is corporations, like the modern day British East India Company; health insurance cartels that tax (payments, premiums) WITHOUT representation.
> 
> A simpler and more concise explanation...the teabaggers are PEA brains.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> "The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already."*
Click to expand...

*

And yet they have no clue as to what is REALLY going on with taxes. LOL*


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> "The tea partiers chose to use the tea bag as a nod to the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) and then modernized it  . . . Taxed Enough Already."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And held up signs that said "Tea bag congress before it tea bags you."  So, I guess sexual innuendo for comedy is okay when one side does it, huh?
> 
> Welcome to Tea Bag Congress
> 
> I mean, I get the notion behind the tea bag thing.  I just think it's funny how people go into conniption fits over others referring to them as teabaggers.
> 
> But, as I said, since that's the principle issue that we are debating over this, it basically shows that the teabaggers have little, if anything, relevant to say and debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.  Now, the left continues this inanity as their 'driving' rebuttal to the Tea Party.  And, the Tea Party has nothing?  TFF!  That's some spin.  You must be dizzy.
Click to expand...


You make a lot of claims but in then end you don't provide much substance. I wonder why?? 
Can you actually prove that the left did it first?? Somehow I doubt it. 

Oh and BTW the "driving" rebuttal to the tea partiers is that they scream about taxes when for the most part they got a break this past year, which shows that they don't know shite about their core issue, which is supposed to be TAXES.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  The left was the first to call the Tea Party teabaggers in the sense of the street term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who came up with the phrase "tea bag congress before they tea bag you!" which was prevalent early on in the movement obviously were using the "street phrase" of the word.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just repeat a post I made earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew that the term 'teabag' meant anything other than some filter paper around some dried tea leaves until Rachel Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of the term 'teabag' in April of 2009.
> 
> There are two very different definitions of the term - one originating from the street and one originating from the beverage.  *Denying that is dishonest.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [Emphasis added]
> 
> You know what you are doing and frankly, it's lame.
Click to expand...


Here is simodo with his usual avoidance and dishonesty. As usual he can't respond to the content so he deletes what he doesn't like and then parrots an earlier admission to being ignorant in a desperate attempt to feign a response while attacking another poster. 

geaux even gave you an example of the tea bagger using the term in it's "street form" and you refuse to acknowledge it as you continue to avoid facts that don't suit your spin. 

How typical.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just repeat a post I made earlier:  [Emphasis added]
> 
> You know what you are doing and frankly, it's lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't deny it.  I pointed out that people from the "Tea Party Movement" were using the "street term" early on for comedy as well.  If you think a sign that says "Tea bag congress before they tea bag you." isn't a comedic way of saying "Mail congress tea bags as a sign of protest before they screw you over and stick their balls in your mouth" then you are being lame.
> 
> My point:  it's okay when you guys do it, but when we poke fun at you all it's a mortal sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the left came up with it before.  *Rachel Maddow last April.*
> 
> At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.
> 
> I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.
Click to expand...


Still no proof of your claim. Imagine that. 

furthermore, based on your analogy and the order the orioles are the dems and YOU are the Tball team. So unless your Tball team is on steroids and well outside of the age limit then based on your analogy the left is kicking your ass. LOL Here is another taste of the ass kicking. 

Oh and since you keep referring to the april episode of rachel maddow my guess is that you have seen the clip of the kid holding up the sign "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you" at about 1:29 into this clip.

YouTube - The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging"!

so based on that FACT the tea baggers were using the "street term" BEFORE she did or else she couldn't have put it on the air. 

So based on that video I have proved that tea baggers used the "street version" earlier than that april 9 clip and I am guessing that is what you are basing your argument on I have to ask, can you prove that the left used it earlier??


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't deny it.  I pointed out that people from the "Tea Party Movement" were using the "street term" early on for comedy as well.  If you think a sign that says "Tea bag congress before they tea bag you." isn't a comedic way of saying "Mail congress tea bags as a sign of protest before they screw you over and stick their balls in your mouth" then you are being lame.
> 
> My point:  it's okay when you guys do it, but when we poke fun at you all it's a mortal sin.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the left came up with it before.  *Rachel Maddow last April.*
> 
> At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.
> 
> I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no proof of your claim. Imagine that.
> 
> furthermore, based on your analogy and the order the orioles are the dems and YOU are the Tball team. So unless your Tball team is on steroids and well outside of the age limit then based on your analogy the left is kicking your ass. LOL Here is another taste of the ass kicking.
> 
> Oh and since you keep referring to the april episode of rachel maddow my guess is that you have seen the clip of the kid holding up the sign "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you" at about 1:29 into this clip.
> 
> YouTube - The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging"!
> 
> so based on that FACT the tea baggers were using the "street term" BEFORE she did or else she couldn't have put it on the air.
> 
> So based on that video I have proved that tea baggers used the "street version" earlier than that april 9 clip and I am guessing that is what you are basing your argument on I have to ask, can you prove that the left used it earlier??
Click to expand...


Christ, you need to catch up.

What a fucking moron.


----------



## drsmith1072

Zoom-boing said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they used the term in reference to the Boston Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already, and as a way to have congress hear them.  The_ liberals_ are the ones who pointed out the sexual meaning of it and are the ones who continue to use the tea bagger term as a slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bobcesca.com/images/tea_baggin.jpg
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> Yeah, I am sure the freepers were in no way pointing out the sexual connotations of the term when they made these signs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?   You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:
> 
> The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent
> 
> The left continues to use teabagger as a slur . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is that intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated. It is a double entendre and unfortunately for self named tea baggers they missed one of the common definitions. 
The fact that you have basically conceded is that it originated with tea baggers but your spin is that they did not intend it to mean anything other than sending a tea bag to the white house when they talked about tea bagging the white house. 

So once again intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated and it originated with the tea baggers.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the left came up with it before.  *Rachel Maddow last April.*
> 
> At this point, if that's all the left has to rebutt the Tea Party, I'm OK with it because it's so easy.
> 
> I would prefer something more challenging, because this is like having the Orioles play our local T-ball team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no proof of your claim. Imagine that.
> 
> furthermore, based on your analogy and the order the orioles are the dems and YOU are the Tball team. So unless your Tball team is on steroids and well outside of the age limit then based on your analogy the left is kicking your ass. LOL Here is another taste of the ass kicking.
> 
> Oh and since you keep referring to the april episode of rachel maddow my guess is that you have seen the clip of the kid holding up the sign "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you" at about 1:29 into this clip.
> 
> YouTube - The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging"!
> 
> so based on that FACT the tea baggers were using the "street term" BEFORE she did or else she couldn't have put it on the air.
> 
> So based on that video I have proved that tea baggers used the "street version" earlier than that april 9 clip and I am guessing that is what you are basing your argument on I have to ask, can you prove that the left used it earlier??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ, you need to catch up.
> 
> What a fucking moron.
Click to expand...


I am starting where I left off and you are too as you continue to avoid the debate because you know that you have lost. LOL 

Care to respond to how I countered your lame attempt to blame it on rachel or are you merely going to attack me as you run away?? 

How can you honestly blame rachel maddow when on the april program she showed a clip of a person holding a sign that uses the "street" version of the term tea bag which means it was used by tea baggers BEFORE she aired it?? Answer: YOU CAN'T. LOL


----------



## boedicca

Danger USMB, Danger!   drsmith is being an idiot again!


----------



## Sherry

drsmith1072 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bobcesca.com/images/tea_baggin.jpg
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> Yeah, I am sure the freepers were in no way pointing out the sexual connotations of the term when they made these signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?   You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:
> 
> The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent
> 
> The left continues to use teabagger as a slur . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated. It is a double entendre and unfortunately for self named tea baggers they missed one of the common definitions.
> The fact that you have basically conceded is that it originated with tea baggers but your spin is that they did not intend it to mean anything other than sending a tea bag to the white house when they talked about tea bagging the white house.
> 
> So once again intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated and it originated with the tea baggers.
Click to expand...


I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.


----------



## drsmith1072

The T said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do.* However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard*. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which we should do. Shame some don't. Especially when the President lowers the Standard of the office he holds, to meet his OWN low standard. We have those that applaud the POTUS playing in the 'gutter' with them...because he cannot get used to the higher standard...and neither can they.
Click to expand...


It's funny how righties didn't believe that when they elected a moron because they wanted to have a drink with him. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no proof of your claim. Imagine that.
> 
> furthermore, based on your analogy and the order the orioles are the dems and YOU are the Tball team. So unless your Tball team is on steroids and well outside of the age limit then based on your analogy the left is kicking your ass. LOL Here is another taste of the ass kicking.
> 
> Oh and since you keep referring to the april episode of rachel maddow my guess is that you have seen the clip of the kid holding up the sign "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you" at about 1:29 into this clip.
> 
> YouTube - The Rachel Maddow Show: Insani-Tea: Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging"!
> 
> so based on that FACT the tea baggers were using the "street term" BEFORE she did or else she couldn't have put it on the air.
> 
> So based on that video I have proved that tea baggers used the "street version" earlier than that april 9 clip and I am guessing that is what you are basing your argument on I have to ask, can you prove that the left used it earlier??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ, you need to catch up.
> 
> What a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am starting where I left off and you are too as you continue to avoid the debate because you know that you have lost. LOL
> 
> Care to respond to how I countered your lame attempt to blame it on rachel or are you merely going to attack me as you run away??
> 
> How can you honestly blame rachel maddow when on the april program she showed a clip of a person holding a sign that uses the "street" version of the term tea bag which means it was used by tea baggers BEFORE she aired it?? Answer: YOU CAN'T. LOL
Click to expand...


I don't really give a shit WHY you look like a fool, you still do.

Keep it up.    This is entertaining.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> At this point, it is quite clear that the Tea Partiers refer to themselves as Tea Partiers and find the T-word to be quite offensive.
> 
> Anyone who continues to use the T-Word is doing so with an objective to insult and demean the Tea Partiers - which says a great deal about the character of the former, and nothing whatsoever about the latter.



LOL that's hilarious. Thanks but since when do you get the right to define another poster's intent??


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ, you need to catch up.
> 
> What a fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am starting where I left off and you are too as you continue to avoid the debate because you know that you have lost. LOL
> 
> Care to respond to how I countered your lame attempt to blame it on rachel or are you merely going to attack me as you run away??
> 
> How can you honestly blame rachel maddow when on the april program she showed a clip of a person holding a sign that uses the "street" version of the term tea bag which means it was used by tea baggers BEFORE she aired it?? Answer: YOU CAN'T. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really give a shit WHY you look like a fool, you still do.
> 
> Keep it up.    This is entertaining.
Click to expand...


As usual, when YOU are proven WRONG you resort to name calling and avoidance. Thanks for the spin but AS USUAL, you lose. LOL 

The video doesn't lie but apparently YOU do. tea baggers usued the term in it's "street" form before rachel did and the proof is the fact that she aired the proof on her show in which you claimed to have learned it. 

Go ahead and run away, it's not as if i expected you to have the integrity to admit that you were WRONG.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, it is quite clear that the Tea Partiers refer to themselves as Tea Partiers and find the T-word to be quite offensive.
> 
> Anyone who continues to use the T-Word is doing so with an objective to insult and demean the Tea Partiers - which says a great deal about the character of the former, and nothing whatsoever about the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that's hilarious. Thanks but since when do you get the right to define another poster's intent??
Click to expand...



When you broadcast your objective with your insulting posts, it doesn't take much effort to see what you are doing.

Just sayin'.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, too bad.
> 
> Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".
> 
> LOL.  Tea-Baggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone what they have factually demonstrated is quite different than lobbying a vulgar epithet for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Considering the frequency with which you use the t-word, the only logical conclusion is that you yourself have a fetish for the practice.
Click to expand...


It is a double entendre that tea baggers chose out of ignorance and they only have themselves to blame. 
Grow up and deal it like an adult instead of acting like spoiled child.


----------



## boedicca

Heed thy own advice, bub.


----------



## WillowTree

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am starting where I left off and you are too as you continue to avoid the debate because you know that you have lost. LOL
> 
> Care to respond to how I countered your lame attempt to blame it on rachel or are you merely going to attack me as you run away??
> 
> How can you honestly blame rachel maddow when on the april program she showed a clip of a person holding a sign that uses the "street" version of the term tea bag which means it was used by tea baggers BEFORE she aired it?? Answer: YOU CAN'T. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really give a shit WHY you look like a fool, you still do.
> 
> Keep it up.    This is entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As usual, when YOU are proven WRONG you resort to name calling and avoidance. Thanks for the spin but AS USUAL, you lose.* LOL
> 
> The video doesn't lie but apparently YOU do. tea baggers usued the term in it's "street" form before rachel did and the proof is the fact that she aired the proof on her show in which you claimed to have learned it.
> 
> Go ahead and run away, it's not as if i expected you to have the integrity to admit that you were WRONG.
Click to expand...


Oh spare us your stupid indignation you stupid hypocrite.


----------



## WillowTree

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, too bad.
> 
> Maybe you all should have worried about name-calling before you started calling Obama a "Nazi" and a "Stalinist".
> 
> LOL.  Tea-Baggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone what they have factually demonstrated is quite different than lobbying a vulgar epithet for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Considering the frequency with which you use the t-word, the only logical conclusion is that you yourself have a fetish for the practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a double entendre that tea baggers chose out of ignorance and they only have themselves to blame.
> Grow up and deal it like an adult instead of acting like spoiled child.
Click to expand...


It's not our fault you choose to be a butt plug either..


----------



## drsmith1072

The T said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have direct knowledge of the role tea bags played in the April 15, 2009 protests. Participants were encouraged to send tea bags to the White House and Congress (actually just the label - tea bags would be thrown out by mail processing staff). The tea bag labels were symbols of disgust with Obama and the Dems' tax and spend policies. There was absolutely no intent of a sexual connotation; that was promoted by the Left, led by Rachel Maddow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The intent was to remind Government that our forebearers voiced their disgust with One tyrant not so long ago. As things are? The left _prostituted_ the notion in a way they normally do while failing to acknowledge histroy.
Click to expand...


What history are you talking about?? Is it the one where a bunch of drunken men painted themselves to frame indians as they dumped tea into the boston harbor?? 

Is that the history that you are referring to??


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ, you need to catch up.
> 
> What a fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am starting where I left off and you are too as you continue to avoid the debate because you know that you have lost. LOL
> 
> Care to respond to how I countered your lame attempt to blame it on rachel or are you merely going to attack me as you run away??
> 
> How can you honestly blame rachel maddow when on the april program she showed a clip of a person holding a sign that uses the "street" version of the term tea bag which means it was used by tea baggers BEFORE she aired it?? Answer: YOU CAN'T. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really give a shit WHY you look like a fool, you still do.
> 
> Keep it up.    This is entertaining.
Click to expand...


Quit the whining, si modo, you have lost.  Move along.  That goes for the óinseach as well.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the term is worth getting all riled up over. Poking sticks at each other is what we like to do.* However, most people are going to hold the president to a higher standard*. There is nothing but a lot of weak ass reasoning as to why Obama is justified in getting down in the mud with the rest of us poor slobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which we should do. Shame some don't. Especially when the President lowers the Standard of the office he holds, to meet his OWN low standard. We have those that applaud the POTUS playing in the 'gutter' with them...because he cannot get used to the higher standard...and neither can they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny how righties didn't believe that when they elected a moron because they wanted to have a drink with him. LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when the _ad hominems_ fail, you try hyperbole still.
> 
> Really?  When did they do that - using it in a pergorative sense?  We'll compare dates.  I'm being serious.  If your date is earlier than mine, I will accept your point and call us whiners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
Click to expand...


Nice LIE.

That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28. 

So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.

Thanks for the spin you LOSE.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which we should do. Shame some don't. Especially when the President lowers the Standard of the office he holds, to meet his OWN low standard. We have those that applaud the POTUS playing in the 'gutter' with them...because he cannot get used to the higher standard...and neither can they.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how righties didn't believe that when they elected a moron because they wanted to have a drink with him. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


aww I know that you are whining like a spoiled child but perhaps you could get some tissue from Si. That is unless he's used it all himself. LOL 

In case you missed it, if you apply different standards to another that you refuse to hold yourself to that makes you a HYPOCRITE.

Thanks for playing and thanks for the cut and paste bumper sticker response. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Got to go for now but will be back tomorrow. Tearing your spin to shreads has been highly entertiaining. And don't worry, I will start where I left off tomorrow too so I won't miss any of the BS that you tried to spread. LOL


----------



## WillowTree

good nite buttplug..


----------



## boedicca

I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped changing the names  of persons and organizations into something similar yet derogatory when I got promoted to second grade.  I wanted to live up to my position at the time, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, in a work environment. I refer to the messiah by his given name or his job title. It would be nice if he showed the same respect to his bosses.
Click to expand...


You do actual work?...for a paycheck?   Like regular folks?   You actually applied for a job...and have a real boss?  yes?..No?   Just curious......What kind of work?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
Click to expand...


LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.

 

What a fucking idiot!


----------



## Murf76

Sherry said:


> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.



Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility". 

The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.  

And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.


----------



## WillowTree

Murf76 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
Click to expand...


he's not the president of the united states, he is president for his side, the rest of us are his enemies he thinks..  having said that,, he lectured us on not being bilingual then went down to da border and spoke to the hispanics in Englese'


----------



## JakeStarkey

Willow, you are a loon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the link I posted to you:
> Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
Click to expand...


si modo, Willow, and the óinseach are all losers big time on this one.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> si modo, Willow, and the óinseach are all losers big time on this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## oreo

Murf76 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
Click to expand...



And the more politicians and this President verbally attack the tea party movement the tea party membership grows---

In my over 50 years I have never witnessed a sitting President trying to ridicule protestors that were against some of his policies.

This is how arrogant Barack Obama is:  He just doesn't get it.  Americans will tolerate other Americans making fun of one another--but hey--when politicians or the POTUS does it--Americans get a very *sour* taste in their mouths.  And that is what has happened to this administration and those who continually attack the tea party movement in this country.


----------



## Sherry

oreo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the more politicians and this President verbally attack the tea party movement the tea party membership grows---
> 
> In my over 50 years I have never witnessed a sitting President trying to ridicule protestors that were against some of his policies.
> 
> This is how arrogant Barack Obama is:  He just doesn't get it.  *Americans will tolerate other Americans making fun of one another--but hey--when politicians or the POTUS does it--Americans get a very sour taste in their mouths.*  And that is what has happened to this administration and those who continually attack the tea party movement in this country.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

teapartysamurai said:


> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."


Gee.....I guess *you folks shouldn't have started using the term*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37006745....*TEABAGGERS!!!*


----------



## JakeStarkey

The facts remain that the Tea Party is very, very small and still burdened with fringe whingers that the party should get rid of, and that the American people still find BHO far more popular than the GOP and its policies and its personalities.

In other words, cry on, little Tea Party people.


----------



## Qball

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts remain that the Tea Party is very, very small and still burdened with fringe whingers that the party should get rid of, and that the American people still find BHO far more popular than the GOP and its policies and its personalities.
> 
> In other words, cry on, little Tea Party people.



This would be a legit point if liberals had any intentions on ever taking them seriously in the first place. The vast majority of the Tea Party movement are just frustrated Americans exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The couple of extremists don't detract from that...unless you're determined to dismiss them in the first place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Qball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts remain that the Tea Party is very, very small and still burdened with fringe whingers that the party should get rid of, and that the American people still find BHO far more popular than the GOP and its policies and its personalities.
> 
> In other words, cry on, little Tea Party people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a legit point if liberals had any intentions on ever taking them seriously in the first place. The vast majority of the Tea Party movement are just frustrated Americans exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The couple of extremists don't detract from that...unless you're determined to dismiss them in the first place.
Click to expand...


Rephrase it this way, and you will be accurate: "This would be a legit point if the Democratic and Republican parties had any intentions of ever taking taxation and big government issues seriously in the first place."


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
Click to expand...


April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party

posted feb 2009.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party
> 
> posted feb 2009.
Click to expand...

Read the thread, moron.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party
> 
> posted feb 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
Click to expand...


i did, now what?

EDIT: lol, a neg rep for a link, you are cute.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party
> 
> posted feb 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i did, now what?[/QUOTEThen you are an even bigger moron.  Or, just taking dante's lead in the attention whore game.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i did, now what?[/QUOTEThen you are an even bigger moron.  Or, just taking dante's lead in the attention whore game.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> learn to quote, and get some social skills.
Click to expand...


----------



## keefer1000

im new here to this site but i hate to have my first post be this sick but here goes.....  there is no shame in being called a teabagger by a salad tosser. think kiss my sen. leahy


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> learn to quote, and get some social skills.


TFF!  Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> TFF!  Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?



most probably, you never shut up.

i summarize your posts thusly:


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> TFF!  Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most probably, you never shut up.
> 
> i summarize your posts thusly:
Click to expand...

You and Dante both have no point here.  Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> TFF!  Do examples of overly emotional fools get any better than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most probably, you never shut up.
> 
> i summarize your posts thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and Dante both have no point here.  Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.
Click to expand...


what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> most probably, you never shut up.
> 
> i summarize your posts thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Dante both have no point here.  Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.
Click to expand...

Still upset?  Get a grip.  Or at least a tissue.  Supposedly grown men crying is cringeworthy.

*shudders*


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Dante both have no point here.  Well, one that sane persons can see, at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your obsession with dante? continue cleaning up your fucked up quotes. then i can clean up mine that was caused by your fat finger mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still upset?  Get a grip.  Or at least a tissue.  Supposedly grown men crying is cringeworthy.
> 
> *shudders*
Click to expand...


i am not upset. i am also not crying. 

i must say i find you rather illogical, clouded by emotions, maybe?

i'd lash out, too, probably, with an abysmal personality and track record like yours.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the first Tea Party rallies occurred on Feb. 27. I was at the Washington, D.C., event, where I snapped the picture Nordlinger is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> February-March-April
> 
> I remember the first teaparty events being mentioned on TV and the net, because I remember thinking it was strange to start protesting the President after he had been in office for a little over a month.  At that point, I came to the conclusion that I have now, the movement was really just a GOP wolf in sheep's clothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slick, but the question is when the Tea Party first used the DEROGATORY term.  That was after the pig Maddow so crassly introduced me to another meaning of teabag in April 2009.
> 
> No bait and switch.
> 
> No sale, GTH.
> 
> So, keep up the _ad hominem_.  You earned the reputation for it by now.
Click to expand...


Apparently you never learned to read.

The picture that geaux is talking about shows tea partiers using the DEROGATORY term BEFORE maddow aired them using on her show in april.

You lose AGAIN.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DID read the blog.  I did not look at the link to the picture in the blog thoroughly the first time through.  I have a mouse that likes to over scroll.
> 
> But if you still want to assume I have no honor, go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter.  You don't see that often here.  So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
Click to expand...



LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL 

As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.

I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter.  You don't see that often here.  So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL
> 
> As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.
> 
> I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.
Click to expand...


Do you have a point, or do you just want to keep making a fool of yourself?


----------



## drsmith1072

Stephanie said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civility = Go along with everything we want; no questions asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
Click to expand...


What is funny is that is kind of how righties view patriotism. 

When they are for blindly supporting a republican president then any dissenters are called unpatriotic and un-American because questioning a president during a time of war gives aid and comfort to the enemy

and yet, When they are against a democrat president then dissent is called patriotic and if you are with them against the democrat president then you are unpatriotic and un-American. The fact that we are still at war means nothing.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Calling someone a socialist based on policies that have been used or recommended in the past by non-socialist republicans in an attempt to gain politically is far worse than using a name whose double meaning was used by the very group who are only now upset with it because they think that they can use it to gain politically.

What "socialist" policies are you talking about?? Please explain.


----------



## drsmith1072

Qball said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone who advocates socialist policies a socialist is not the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes those policies a vulgar term for a sexual act.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but my point is, liberals seem to think a legitimate criticism like "Obama endorses socialist policies" is incendiary while they snicker like school girls because apparently it's cute to call these people "tea-baggers". The Right is supposed to water-down, or totally keep quiet, about a legitimate charge while the Left gets to indulge in baseless name-calling only meant to piss people off.
Click to expand...


yeah he is FAR right but hardly correct. 

calling obama a socialist, communist, nazi, fascist is NOT legitimate critcism. It is fear tactics as the right tries to bring about another red scare so they can gain politically. 

The whole reason "tea baggers" is hilarious is becuase tea partiers used it indiscriminently in the beginning and only backed off from it AFTER they realized it's alternate meaning. The fact that they didn't know is what is hilarious. Oh but hilary going overseas with a reset button that has the incorrect word on it, now that is hilarious according to republicans. 

Righties love to take every tiny thing that anyone on the left says and will even go so far as to take it out of context in order to smear the lefties and will harp on it endlessly. However, when that microscope ios turned on them they take offence and pretend to take the high road temporarily to try and make it go away. 
They hope that the lefties will agree based on their conscience to take the high road and give the righties a break and they usually do. An example if this is in this very thread. 

BTW since you to are vague how about some specifics as to obama's socialist policies?


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Incorrect.  Anyone who criticizes Obama's policies is labeled a Racist.



actually IF you could read the poster being called out for racism introduced race into the discussion when he brought up ebonics. 

I really wish posters would just ignore losers like pale with his...



Pale Rider said:


> That's his ebonics.




 remarks, because it is a waste of time and all calling them out for their racist based remarks does is open the door for lemming righties to parrot the same tired old baseless defenses and excuses for one of their own introducing race into the discussion.  

i.e.



boedicca said:


> The Libs are Stuck On Racism.



and 



boedicca said:


> Incorrect.  Anyone who criticizes Obama's policies is labeled a Racist.



and



teapartysamurai said:


> You want the definition of "racist?"
> 
> It's a liberal losing an argument and that's all they have left is calling you racist.



It's nothing but a ploy to change the subject because they know that they are losing the debate and so they can make BS claims like those above.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the saddest thing is the Dems have so overused the racism name that REAL racism will end up being ignored by many who actually used to care about it.
> 
> Boys and wolves and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
Click to expand...


Like I said, he played nice when he was proven wrong in an attempt to make it go away and then reverts back to his usual confrontational self.

Geaux asked you a question of comparison. It was NOT an edit.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kind of like the term liberal?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
> 
> But, thanks for your unsolicited edit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, he played nice when he was proven wrong in an attempt to make it go away and then reverts back to his usual confrontational self.
> 
> Geaux asked you a question of comparison. It was NOT an edit.
Click to expand...



This is quite the show.


----------



## Stephanie

Is anyone really "surprised" the Obama would call the people of this country who is against his "VISIONS" a derogatory name?

Don't forget though, we are reminded daily that his is the Uniter.


----------



## Si modo

Stephanie said:


> Is anyone really "surprised" the Obama would call the people of this country who is against his "VISIONS" a derogatory name?
> 
> Don't forget though, we are reminded daily that his is the Uniter.


The Department of State employees in Juarez must have been Tea Partiers.


----------



## drsmith1072

Sherry said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But they become important when there is a significant impact on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.
Click to expand...



The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.


----------



## boedicca

Oh, he's uniting people all right.   Just not in the way he expected.   His horrible policies are increasing and uniting the opposition.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that the term "racist" is over-used (as is anti-semite) and intentionally so by some people who want to use it as a shield.
> 
> However, on the other side of the coin, that doesn't mean that the title isn't well deserved by some posters on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.
Click to expand...

So what?  Racism is a part of the Democratic party, too.  Big time.

Idiot.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.





The thing for the most part, that most of you moonbats have refused to admit is that:  in any group numbering millions of people, there will be some less than admirable people on the fringe.  They are not representative of the values or agenda of the movement.

It's also racist to assume that people are racists just for criticizing government policy.   Why did Dissent go from being Patriotic to Racist?


----------



## drsmith1072

Old Rocks said:


> DR, Si has been on the short bus for a long time. Confront her with facts and she resorts to critizism of your "logic".



Actually, Si has just attacked me personally and avoided the dabate. Which unfortunately is the typical response from righties when they are confronted with facts that counter their spin.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  When one cannot even recognize when a proof of a negative is asked there is no point in continuing any discussion.
> 
> (I guess even that wasn't too clear to you earlier. Special ed is not my forte, though.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's quite telling when YOU feel the need to delete the content of my post all so you can avoid facts that don't suit your spin as you attack me personally.
> The story it tells is that you are losing the argument and you know but don't have the integrity to admit it.
> 
> Why else would you edit my post and delete the facts??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Psssst.  *looks from side to side*  Just between you and me, what's even more telling is those who cannot even recognize a fallacy AND do not grasp the use of ellipses.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid exists, so what're'ya gonna do?  .
Click to expand...


I recognized the fallacy where you tried to insenuate a poster said something that they did not and then when called out for it you started editting out facts that didn't suit your spin and started attacking anyone who dared to disagree with your OPINIONS.

As far as "Stupid exists, so what're'ya gonna do?" Well I could ignore you but where would the fun be in that?


----------



## drsmith1072

Stephanie said:


> Being called a teabagger by the thug in chief and his Comrades in Arms is the least of our worries.
> 
> getting him and his commie buddies our of our Government is the number one priority folks.
> 
> vote vote vote in November.



LOL nice hypocrisy.

You attack him for using a name some tea partiers gave themselves to begin with even as you call him names and refers to others as "comrades". How typical.


----------



## Si modo

It's quite a show when smith, TM, and/or out newest addition to the box-of-rocks brigade, stainmaster, spam the board with their inanity.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> It's quite a show when smith, TM, and/or out newest addition to the box-of-rocks brigade, stainmaster, spam the board with their inanity.




don't worry. no matter what happens, there will always be some space left for your brilliant input.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> DR, Si has been on the short bus for a long time. Confront her with facts and she resorts to critizism of your "logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Si has just attacked me personally and avoided the dabate. Which unfortunately is the typical response from righties when they are confronted with facts that counter their spin.
Click to expand...


The debate came and went.  Any moron can recap it by quoting, and cutting and pasting.  You show off, you.


----------



## drsmith1072

Sherry said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the person holding up that one sign mean tea bag in the sexual reference?  Quite likely.  And from that ONE sign you surmise that the entire tea party protesters decided to refer to themselves as teabaggers?   You honestly thing think that this guy is implying the sexual meaning with this button . . . or is he implying that he is proud to be a person who is fighting to have his voice heard (via sending tea bags to congress)?:
> 
> The Slur That Must Not Be Named  The Washington Independent
> 
> The left continues to use teabagger as a slur . . . you yourself do, as stated earlier in this thread, you use it to insult . . . as did Obama.  He is classless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated. It is a double entendre and unfortunately for self named tea baggers they missed one of the common definitions.
> The fact that you have basically conceded is that it originated with tea baggers but your spin is that they did not intend it to mean anything other than sending a tea bag to the white house when they talked about tea bagging the white house.
> 
> So once again intent has nothing to do with the debate of where it originated and it originated with the tea baggers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
Click to expand...


It's origin as applies to the tea partiers is vitally important to the deabte being had. Furthermore, how do you know obama's intent?? According to the quote, I see nothing that show his intent is in any way meant to be offensive. So how can you prove what you believe about his intent

The other thing is that this argument is baseless based on the timeline.

He is quoted as using the term in a BOOK that was published in 2010 and describes what happened in 2009 so his call for civility came AFTER he made said the word tea bagger according to the book. 

So how is calling for civility months after the term was allegedly used by obama hypocrtical or classless?? the comment was made in 2009 and his call for civility was made, according to the article linked in the OP, on about May, 1, 2010.

The time line doesn't fit the righty argument and as usual they tend to ignore what doesn't suit their needs.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, it is quite clear that the Tea Partiers refer to themselves as Tea Partiers and find the T-word to be quite offensive.
> 
> Anyone who continues to use the T-Word is doing so with an objective to insult and demean the Tea Partiers - which says a great deal about the character of the former, and nothing whatsoever about the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that's hilarious. Thanks but since when do you get the right to define another poster's intent??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you broadcast your objective with your insulting posts, it doesn't take much effort to see what you are doing.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


So does this spin apply to your insulting posts as well?? LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.



As usual that FACTS are ignored and the rigthy engages in personal attacks in lieu of a REAL debate. 

How typical. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Rachel Maddow first used the derogatory term in April of last year.
> 
> The left started using the derogatory form of the word to refer to the Tea Party, contrary to your claim otherwise.
> 
> As I find it difficult to look at Maddow, here is the link to her in April of 2009:  www.    youtube.   com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
> 
> 1:01.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
Click to expand...



Says the poster who was proven a LIAR.

LOL 



Si modo said:


> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.



and yet it was in the very clip that YOU cited which aired in April of last year.

You proved yourself WRONG. LOL

Talk about being a fucking idiot, You take the cake. LOL

At least now I see why you rarely post links to back up your arguments.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
Click to expand...


Acrtually you are trying to attack obama based on propaganda.

According to the article obama used the term tea bagger in 2009 and the book wasn't published until 2010 which is when the comment on civility was made, so obama used the term MONTHS BEFORE he called for civility not AFTER. So the point of this thread is that the right has no REAL point but are trying to make it up as they go along.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice LIE.
> 
> That sign was shown on a rachel maddow program in APRIL and is even shown in your own linked video at about 1:28.
> 
> So your claim that it was from last decemder is a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin you LOSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster who was proven a LIAR.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet it was in the very clip that YOU cited which aired in April of last year.
> 
> You proved yourself WRONG. LOL
> 
> Talk about being a fucking idiot, You take the cake. LOL
> 
> At least now I see why you rarely post links to back up your arguments.
Click to expand...


Still recapping?  Good boy.  You must be so proud of your 'skills'.


----------



## bodecea

boedicca said:


> I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.



Nasty shrews don't sell well to Left wing/Democrat audiences.   They should have gone to the Right side.   They'd be millionaires by now.


----------



## bodecea

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual that FACTS are ignored and the rigthy engages in personal attacks in lieu of a REAL debate.
> 
> How typical. LOL
Click to expand...


You have put  your finger on why Right wing talk radio is so successful.   It is their bread and butter.


----------



## Si modo

bodecea said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual that FACTS are ignored and the rigthy engages in personal attacks in lieu of a REAL debate.
> 
> How typical. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have put  your finger on why Right wing talk radio is so successful.   It is their bread and butter.
Click to expand...

And the left keeps them alive and well.


----------



## drsmith1072

oreo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the more politicians and this President verbally attack the tea party movement the tea party membership grows---
> 
> In my over 50 years I have never witnessed a sitting President trying to ridicule protestors that were against some of his policies.
> 
> This is how arrogant Barack Obama is:  He just doesn't get it.  Americans will tolerate other Americans making fun of one another--but hey--when politicians or the POTUS does it--Americans get a very *sour* taste in their mouths.  And that is what has happened to this administration and those who continually attack the tea party movement in this country.
Click to expand...


You must have been in a coma for 8 years. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Mr. Shaman said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....I guess *you folks shouldn't have started using the term*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37006745....*TEABAGGERS!!!*
Click to expand...


The sad fact is that the quote that they are all making a big deal about came from a book that describes obama's first year in office, 2009, and they are trying to change the timeline/rewrite history so they can call him names for asking for civility even as he calls them tea-baggers, which according to the OP's article is not the case. 

According to the article, the term "tea-bagger" was used by obama in 2009 and his call for civility came just a few days ago and the author of the OP and all of the other lemmings jumped on the hypocrtical bandwagon and started parroting the propaganda that he did both at the same time. 

If they had taken the time to READ and COMPREHEND the content of the article instead of running with the author's spin maybe they would have caught that?

I wonder how many of the hacks will have the integrity to come back and admit to their "mistake?"


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party
> 
> posted feb 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
Click to expand...


LOL That is hilarious coming from the poster who deletes and ignores any content that doesn't suit his spin.

If you had actually read the thread you wouldhave realized that you got your ass handed to you many pages ago and IF you had any integrity you would ahve admitted that fact. However, it's obvious that you don't read and have no integrity which IMO is why you continue to post your baseless non-responsive attacks continuously. 

You lost, you know it and engaging in baseless personal attacks is the best retort you have to offer. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> April 1, 2009 | Tea Bag the Fools in D.C. | America's Re-Tea Party
> 
> posted feb 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL That is hilarious coming from the poster who deletes and ignores any content that doesn't suit his spin.
> 
> If you had actually read the thread you wouldhave realized that you got your ass handed to you many pages ago and IF you had any integrity you would ahve admitted that fact. However, it's obvious that you don't read and have no integrity which IMO is why you continue to post your baseless non-responsive attacks continuously.
> 
> You lost, you know it and engaging in baseless personal attacks is the best retort you have to offer. LOL
Click to expand...




Pssst: The debate came and went, but continue recapping.  Someone should come along and give you a cookie for it soon.  I would, but my last cookie went to my dog for pooing outside.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL
> 
> As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.
> 
> I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, or do you just want to keep making a fool of yourself?
Click to expand...


Oh well, if only you could read then we could actually have a REAL debate. However, personal attacks laced with avoidance is all that you seem to have to offer. My point is there for anyone who can read to see it. 

In case you missed YOU were proven WRONG on multiple occasions and instead of having the integrity to admit that FACT you rant on and on while saying NOTHING of value as you avoid debating because you know that you would lose, AGAIN.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL So you were WRONG and now after all of your baseless personal attacks and accusations you try to pretend that none of it happened as you hope that your dishonesty and partisan attacks go away? LOL
> 
> As far as "reasonable arguments" go, you are presented with them a lot and most of the time you tend to ingore facts, edit posts to leave out facts that you can't respond to and just attack those who dare disagree with your opinions.
> 
> I can't see why geaux is taking it so easy on you after all you have said to him. Based on your history you will just engage in teh same petty and baseless personal attacks in the future so I can't see why geaux should let you off so easilly now. LOL I guess geaux is far better person that you could ever dream of being because I sincerely doubt that you would be so gracious if the shoe was on the other foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point, or do you just want to keep making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well, if only you could read then we could actually have a REAL debate. However, personal attacks laced with avoidance is all that you seem to have to offer. My point is there for anyone who can read to see it.
> 
> In case you missed YOU were proven WRONG on multiple occasions and instead of having the integrity to admit that FACT you rant on and on while saying NOTHING of value as you avoid debating because you know that you would lose, AGAIN.
Click to expand...


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are true racists in every group. However, when it's used to generalize the majority, such as the Tea Party Movement, then it fails. Too many people who aren't affiliated with the TPM know people who are associated with it, and they would not describe them as racists. So when the MSM and others characterize them as such, they not only lose credibility and are seen as instigators, but then real victims of racism are lost in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  Racism is a part of the Democratic party, too.  Big time.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


The difference, IDIOT, is that I don't deny that racism exists in the democrat party. Tea partiers and their supporters have tried to deny that racism is a part of their movement and there in lies the dishonesty.

Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Racism is a part of the Democratic party, too.  Big time.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, IDIOT, is that I don't deny that racism exists in the democrat party. Tea partiers and their supporters have tried to deny that racism is a part of their movement and there in lies the dishonesty.
> 
> Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are. LOL
Click to expand...


Again, so what that there are racists in any large population?  What is your point?

Or, are you just showing off your prowess in quoting what others say some more?


----------



## bodecea

Si modo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual that FACTS are ignored and the rigthy engages in personal attacks in lieu of a REAL debate.
> 
> How typical. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have put  your finger on why Right wing talk radio is so successful.   It is their bread and butter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the left keeps them alive and well.
Click to expand...


But, didn't someone just say that Left wing radio was failing?    We know why....that shrill lie doesn't sell to the Left.  The Right just eats that kind of stuff up.  That's why Right wing talk is so very successful.   They know their audience.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when its real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing for the most part, that most of you moonbats have refused to admit is that:  in any group numbering millions of people, there will be some less than admirable people on the fringe.  They are not representative of the values or agenda of the movement.
> 
> It's also racist to assume that people are racists just for criticizing government policy.   Why did Dissent go from being Patriotic to Racist?
Click to expand...


Actually I don't remember anyone refusing to admit that. Furthermore, I have NEVER said that the racist fringe of the tea partiers represented the whole. My point is that it does exist and any person denying that fact is dishonest. 

Furthermore, your strawman BS can stop right there. No one is calling people who criticize governmetn policy racist. It's when they make comments like the one i cited earlier, where they introduce race into the debate, that make them racist. 

Dissent did not go from being patriotic to racist that is just morebaseless BS propaganda. However, where righties are concerned dissent did go from being unpatriotic and un-American to being patriotic when it became politically expedient for republicans to engage in dissent.


----------



## Si modo

bodecea said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have put  your finger on why Right wing talk radio is so successful.   It is their bread and butter.
> 
> 
> 
> And the left keeps them alive and well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, didn't someone just say that Left wing radio was failing?    We know why....that shrill lie doesn't sell to the Left.  The Right just eats that kind of stuff up.  That's why Right wing talk is so very successful.   They know their audience.
Click to expand...

It's funny to watch the left insult the talk radio hosts for insulting.

I never know the subject matter of talk radio until someone on the left tells me.  Seems like they are at least the bread (or the butter) of the audience.  These entertainers know their audience and that's why they rake it in.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> It's quite a show when smith, TM, and/or out newest addition to the box-of-rocks brigade, stainmaster, spam the board with their inanity.



It's funny how you try to make excuses for you avoidance of facts by claiming that i am spamming when in fact i am responding to posts. 

Face it, your arguments and spin have been shot down and your only recourse is to continually attack the messenger as you avoid the facts. 

How typical. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite a show when smith, TM, and/or out newest addition to the box-of-rocks brigade, stainmaster, spam the board with their inanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you try to make excuses for you avoidance of facts by claiming that i am spamming when in fact i am responding to posts.
> 
> Face it, your arguments and spin have been shot down and your only recourse is to continually attack the messenger as you avoid the facts.
> 
> How typical. LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> DR, Si has been on the short bus for a long time. Confront her with facts and she resorts to critizism of your "logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Si has just attacked me personally and avoided the dabate. Which unfortunately is the typical response from righties when they are confronted with facts that counter their spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate came and went.  Any moron can recap it by quoting, and cutting and pasting.  You show off, you.
Click to expand...


You mean the debateS that you lost?? LOL there have been a few debates within this thread, you avoided them after being proven wrong and started attacking anyone who dared to call you on your spin. 

This post of yours is just more of the same avoidance.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Si has just attacked me personally and avoided the dabate. Which unfortunately is the typical response from righties when they are confronted with facts that counter their spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate came and went.  Any moron can recap it by quoting, and cutting and pasting.  You show off, you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the debateS that you lost?? LOL there have been a few debates within this thread, you avoided them after being proven wrong and started attacking anyone who dared to call you on your spin.
> 
> This post of yours is just more of the same avoidance.
Click to expand...

What am I avoiding, exactly?  Debating something with a moron that I've already debated with a thinking poster?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  STILL making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster who was proven a LIAR.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that.  That is from December of last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet it was in the very clip that YOU cited which aired in April of last year.
> 
> You proved yourself WRONG. LOL
> 
> Talk about being a fucking idiot, You take the cake. LOL
> 
> At least now I see why you rarely post links to back up your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still recapping?  Good boy.  You must be so proud of your 'skills'.
Click to expand...


LOL as long as you continue to run away from the truth, I will continue to show it. 

Keep running, it's ok everyone knows that you've got NOTHING. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster who was proven a LIAR.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> and yet it was in the very clip that YOU cited which aired in April of last year.
> 
> You proved yourself WRONG. LOL
> 
> Talk about being a fucking idiot, You take the cake. LOL
> 
> At least now I see why you rarely post links to back up your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still recapping?  Good boy.  You must be so proud of your 'skills'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL as long as you continue to run away from the truth, I will continue to show it.
> 
> Keep running, it's ok everyone knows that you've got NOTHING. LOL
Click to expand...

Again, what exactly am I 'running away from'?


----------



## drsmith1072

bodecea said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched that Maddow-Cox video clip - now it's very clear why Air America went bankrupt and why MSNBC viewership is in the toilet.  What a couple of nasty shrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual that FACTS are ignored and the rigthy engages in personal attacks in lieu of a REAL debate.
> 
> How typical. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have put  your finger on why Right wing talk radio is so successful.   It is their bread and butter.
Click to expand...


So being dishonest as they engage in personal attacks is their bread and butter?? 

OK.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL That is hilarious coming from the poster who deletes and ignores any content that doesn't suit his spin.
> 
> If you had actually read the thread you wouldhave realized that you got your ass handed to you many pages ago and IF you had any integrity you would ahve admitted that fact. However, it's obvious that you don't read and have no integrity which IMO is why you continue to post your baseless non-responsive attacks continuously.
> 
> You lost, you know it and engaging in baseless personal attacks is the best retort you have to offer. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: The debate came and went, but continue recapping.  Someone should come along and give you a cookie for it soon.  I would, but my last cookie went to my dog for pooing outside.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wouldn't want to relive the fact that you got owned if I were you either. LOL Attacking me won't change the facts.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL That is hilarious coming from the poster who deletes and ignores any content that doesn't suit his spin.
> 
> If you had actually read the thread you wouldhave realized that you got your ass handed to you many pages ago and IF you had any integrity you would ahve admitted that fact. However, it's obvious that you don't read and have no integrity which IMO is why you continue to post your baseless non-responsive attacks continuously.
> 
> You lost, you know it and engaging in baseless personal attacks is the best retort you have to offer. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: The debate came and went, but continue recapping.  Someone should come along and give you a cookie for it soon.  I would, but my last cookie went to my dog for pooing outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't want to relive the fact that you got owned if I were you either. LOL Attacking me won't change the facts.
Click to expand...

And, your point is?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: The debate came and went, but continue recapping.  Someone should come along and give you a cookie for it soon.  I would, but my last cookie went to my dog for pooing outside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't want to relive the fact that you got owned if I were you either. LOL Attacking me won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, your point is?
Click to expand...


stop spamming, bot.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Racism is a part of the Democratic party, too.  Big time.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference, IDIOT, is that I don't deny that racism exists in the democrat party. *Tea partiers and their supporters have tried to deny that racism is a part of their movement and there in lies the dishonesty.*
> 
> Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, so what that there are racists in any large population?  What is your point?
> 
> Or, are you just showing off your prowess in quoting what others say some more?
Click to expand...


Ok, I don't mean this to insult you but am asking honestly and sincerely, Are you retarded?? 

You ask for my point when I explain my point within the very post that you responded to. If you aren't even going to read what is written then why post?? 

So, Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite a show when smith, TM, and/or out newest addition to the box-of-rocks brigade, stainmaster, spam the board with their inanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you try to make excuses for you avoidance of facts by claiming that i am spamming when in fact i am responding to posts.
> 
> Face it, your arguments and spin have been shot down and your only recourse is to continually attack the messenger as you avoid the facts.
> 
> How typical. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Imagine that, more avoidance. LOL


----------



## L.K.Eder

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference, IDIOT, is that I don't deny that racism exists in the democrat party. *Tea partiers and their supporters have tried to deny that racism is a part of their movement and there in lies the dishonesty.*
> 
> Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so what that there are racists in any large population?  What is your point?
> 
> Or, are you just showing off your prowess in quoting what others say some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I don't mean this to insult you but am asking honestly and sincerely, Are you retarded??
> 
> You ask for my point when I explain my point within the very post that you responded to. If you aren't even going to read what is written then why post??
> 
> So, Thanks for the spin and thanks for proving once again how idiotic you truly are.
Click to expand...


cut her some slack, she can't help herself.

it is her hedgehog defense.


----------



## rdean

Obama Liberal Hypocrite watch. Calls for "Civility" but then calls us "teabaggers." 

Just be glad he only calls you "teabaggers".

After, "A &#8220;boy&#8221; who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ", you deserve worse.  Much worse.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still recapping?  Good boy.  You must be so proud of your 'skills'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL as long as you continue to run away from the truth, I will continue to show it.
> 
> Keep running, it's ok everyone knows that you've got NOTHING. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what exactly am I 'running away from'?
Click to expand...


In your own words.

"Read the thread, moron."

LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst: The debate came and went, but continue recapping.  Someone should come along and give you a cookie for it soon.  I would, but my last cookie went to my dog for pooing outside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't want to relive the fact that you got owned if I were you either. LOL Attacking me won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, your point is?
Click to expand...


"Read the thread, moron."

HAHA


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you try to make excuses for you avoidance of facts by claiming that i am spamming when in fact i am responding to posts.
> 
> Face it, your arguments and spin have been shot down and your only recourse is to continually attack the messenger as you avoid the facts.
> 
> How typical. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that, more avoidance. LOL
Click to expand...

As I keep posting, I'm not avoiding you, moron.

And, as I've already debated with a thinking poster, I have no need nor an inclination to debate anew with a moron.

So, your point is what?


----------



## drsmith1072

rdean said:


> Obama Liberal Hypocrite watch. Calls for "Civility" but then calls us "teabaggers."
> 
> Just be glad he only calls you "teabaggers".
> 
> After, "A boy who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ", you deserve worse.  Much worse.



The sad thing is that their argument is completely baseless because obama used the term in 2009 and his call for civility was a few days ago. 

They did not occur at or near the same time but that didn't stop the OP and other from posting baseless propaganda and running with it. 

This thread is based on a LIE. Not that any of them ahve the integrity to come back an admit it, especially not the author of the OP who once attacked liberals saying that they never engage in an honest debate. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Obama has no class.

He is an embarrassment as POTUS.


----------



## bodecea

Si modo said:


> Obama has no class.
> 
> He is an embarrassment as POTUS.



Says you.....and your level of class is..................?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that, more avoidance. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I keep posting, I'm not avoiding you, moron.
> 
> And, as I've already debated with a thinking poster, I have no need nor an inclination to debate anew with a moron.
> 
> So, your point is what?
Click to expand...


I have already made my points, restated them again and you posting a  is not a response, it is avoidance. 

You skipping posts while you attack me with a quick response calling the facts that I posted "inanity" when they are FACTS that counter the propaganda put forth and perpetuated by morons like you, is avoidance

Fact is you were WRONG on several accounts and your only response is to attack the messenger and avoid a debate that you know you can't win.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Obama has no class.
> 
> He is an embarrassment as POTUS.



Thanks for proving my point. Despite the fact that the core argument of this thread is based on a LIE you continue to present your same baseless attacks.

And as typical when given the opportunity to admit that you were wrong, you show that you lack the integrity to do so and instead decide to perpetuate the lie with more of your baseless attacks.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that, more avoidance. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> As I keep posting, I'm not avoiding you, moron.
> 
> And, as I've already debated with a thinking poster, I have no need nor an inclination to debate anew with a moron.
> 
> So, your point is what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already made my points, restated them again and you posting a  is not a response, it is avoidance.
> 
> You skipping posts while you attack me with a quick response calling the facts that I posted "inanity" when they are FACTS that counter the propaganda put forth and perpetuated by morons like you, is avoidance
> 
> Fact is you were WRONG on several accounts and your only response is to attack the messenger and avoid a debate that you know you can't win.
Click to expand...


Actually, all you did was parrot points already made by thinking posters a few days ago.

I don't debate with morons especially after I had an excellent debate with a thinking poster.

Is that dumbed down enough for you?  Or do you still need your fix of bandwidth?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I keep posting, I'm not avoiding you, moron.
> 
> And, as I've already debated with a thinking poster, I have no need nor an inclination to debate anew with a moron.
> 
> So, your point is what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already made my points, restated them again and you posting a  is not a response, it is avoidance.
> 
> You skipping posts while you attack me with a quick response calling the facts that I posted "inanity" when they are FACTS that counter the propaganda put forth and perpetuated by morons like you, is avoidance
> 
> Fact is you were WRONG on several accounts and your only response is to attack the messenger and avoid a debate that you know you can't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, all you did was parrot points already made by thinking posters a few days ago.
> 
> I don't debate with morons especially after I had an excellent debate with a thinking poster.
> 
> Is that dumbed down enough for you?  Or do you still need your fix of bandwidth?
Click to expand...


aw, thanks for playing but once again you avoid the content of my post and only engage in more of your typical and baseless personal attacks. You asked a question and I responded, you avoided the response and attacked. Why ask if you don't want an answer?? LOL

I have to go for now but it's been more than fun shooting down your spin as well as the argument that this thread and your own attack were based upon, which I originally pointed out did not fit the timeline and you chose to avoid. So what is your excuse for avoiding that debate?? 

LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already made my points, restated them again and you posting a  is not a response, it is avoidance.
> 
> You skipping posts while you attack me with a quick response calling the facts that I posted "inanity" when they are FACTS that counter the propaganda put forth and perpetuated by morons like you, is avoidance
> 
> Fact is you were WRONG on several accounts and your only response is to attack the messenger and avoid a debate that you know you can't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all you did was parrot points already made by thinking posters a few days ago.
> 
> I don't debate with morons especially after I had an excellent debate with a thinking poster.
> 
> Is that dumbed down enough for you?  Or do you still need your fix of bandwidth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aw, thanks for playing but once again you avoid the content of my post and only engage in more of your typical and baseless personal attacks. You asked a question and I responded, you avoided the response and attacked. Why ask if you don't want an answer?? LOL
> 
> I have to go for now but it's been more than fun shooting down your spin as well as the argument that this thread and your own attack were based upon, which I originally pointed out did not fit the timeline and you chose to avoid. So what is your excuse for avoiding that debate??
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


You haven't added anything to the discussion that hasn't already been discussed at length days ago.  Thus, you haven't a point and never did.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all you did was parrot points already made by thinking posters a few days ago.
> 
> I don't debate with morons especially after I had an excellent debate with a thinking poster.
> 
> Is that dumbed down enough for you?  Or do you still need your fix of bandwidth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aw, thanks for playing but once again you avoid the content of my post and only engage in more of your typical and baseless personal attacks. You asked a question and I responded, you avoided the response and attacked. Why ask if you don't want an answer?? LOL
> 
> I have to go for now but it's been more than fun shooting down your spin as well as the argument that this thread and your own attack were based upon, which I originally pointed out did not fit the timeline and you chose to avoid. So what is your excuse for avoiding that debate??
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't added anything to the discussion that hasn't already been discussed at length days ago.  Thus, you haven't a point and never did.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr Natural

If the hat fits . . .


----------



## Sherry

rdean said:


> Obama Liberal Hypocrite watch. Calls for "Civility" but then calls us "teabaggers."
> 
> Just be glad he only calls you "teabaggers".
> 
> After, "A boy who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ", you deserve worse.  Much worse.



Do you think he assumed the average person associated with the TPM referred to him as such??


----------



## Zona

Without reading this entire thread, you all do realize it was the righty's who first coined the term teabagger....dont you?


----------



## Si modo

Zona said:


> Without reading this entire thread,....


Obviously.


----------



## Modbert

Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being called teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.

I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Modbert said:


> Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.
> 
> I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.



What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?


----------



## Modbert

CrusaderFrank said:


> What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?



Like I said previously, you won't see me using the word teabagger to describe the tea people anymore, partly because I don't want to hear their members whining about it instead of addressing the issues.

So do tell me what I said was wrong.


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the intent of the OP was to debate where the term originated from, but rather that Obama chose to use it after calling for civility. I don't really think there's much to argue there. He meant the term to be offensive, and it would seem he succeeded to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acrtually you are trying to attack obama based on propaganda.
> 
> According to the article obama used the term tea bagger in 2009 and the book wasn't published until 2010 which is when the comment on civility was made, so obama used the term MONTHS BEFORE he called for civility not AFTER. So the point of this thread is that the right has no REAL point but are trying to make it up as they go along.
Click to expand...



Propaganda??  Are Democrat Congressmen, the source of the story, engaging in "propaganda" against their own party these days?  

Seriously.  Get real.  Your guy gets a head-start on 'flinging the monkey poo'... and THEN wants to jump back and say "Ho, ho.... hold up there... no need to be flinging monkey poo."  THAT's your mitigating factor?... that HE started it?  

This guy has had a nasty attitude toward dissenting American citizens since _before_ he took office, or do we forget how the flyover peoples are just "bitter clingers"?  And he hasn't let up yet.  So, his hypocritical ass can get bent on the subject of "civility" as far as I'm concerned.  

As I said, he's an embarrassment to his office, utterly lacking in self-control and unable to resist an opportunity to fling some poo for the simple joy of poo-flinging.  One would think he'd send out his toadies to do his dirty work like any other mob boss.  But no, he _enjoys_ the dirt.


----------



## bodecea

CrusaderFrank said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.
> 
> I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?
Click to expand...


Why are you questioning him as a Mod instead of addressing his post?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Modbert

CrusaderFrank said:


> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



Except I wasn't calling you a teabagger.

By the way, man up there princess.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Modbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't calling you a teabagger.
> 
> By the way, man up there princess.
Click to expand...


But you trotted out the "Some Conservative once used the phrase" bullshit excuse.


----------



## Modbert

CrusaderFrank said:


> But you trotted out the "Some Conservative once used the phrase" bullshit excuse.



No, I spoke about the truth of the situation you sensitive crybaby. Conservatives were using the word teabag and teabagging before some of them actually found out what anyone under 30 knows it is. Then they want to act like they never used it in the first place. It's hilarious.

Figures this sniveling comes from the guy who uses the word Libtard.


----------



## bodecea

CrusaderFrank said:


> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Modbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you trotted out the "Some Conservative once used the phrase" bullshit excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I spoke about the truth of the situation you sensitive crybaby. Conservatives were using the word teabag and teabagging before some of them actually found out what anyone under 30 knows it is. Then they want to act like they never used it in the first place. It's hilarious.
> 
> Figures this sniveling comes from the guy who uses the word Libtard.
Click to expand...


1. Again, no matter how many times you want to mention it, one guy with a sign does not speak for all of us, even if you manage to find an old article by a Bush Speech talking about one guys sign.  It's a fucking offensive term!

2. Check and see the last time I used "Libtard" and I can't think of any sexual connotation with Libtard


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?
Click to expand...


Are you fucking stupid?


----------



## Modbert

CrusaderFrank said:


> 1. Again, no matter how many times you want to mention it, one guy with a sign does not speak for all of us, even if you manage to find an old article by a Bush Speech talking about one guys sign.  It's a fucking offensive term!
> 
> 2. Check and see the last time I used "Libtard" and I can't think of any sexual connotation with Libtard



1.) It wasn't just one guy there princess. By the way, I wouldn't be able to find any tea party stuff before Obama, because all of these tea partiers suddenly gave a shit when Obama was in the White House. Didn't give two shits when Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans were running this country down the sewer though.

2.) You've used the word Libtard several times. It doesn't have to have any sexual connotations to be offensive.

Honestly, man the hell up Frank. The word teabagger was around long before the tea party. What do you think was going to happen when you call yourselves the tea party? 

Hell, I find it hilarious that these groups are calling themselves tea parties, when taxes are at their lowest levels in sixty years.

But keep it up Frank, I can use the laughs.


----------



## Mr Natural

They probably should have come up with a better symbol. 

Too late now.

Or as the saying goes: "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Modbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Again, no matter how many times you want to mention it, one guy with a sign does not speak for all of us, even if you manage to find an old article by a Bush Speech talking about one guys sign.  It's a fucking offensive term!
> 
> 2. Check and see the last time I used "Libtard" and I can't think of any sexual connotation with Libtard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) It wasn't just one guy there princess. By the way, I wouldn't be able to find any tea party stuff before Obama, because all of these tea partiers suddenly gave a shit when Obama was in the White House. Didn't give two shits when Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans were running this country down the sewer though.
> 
> 2.) You've used the word Libtard several times. It doesn't have to have any sexual connotations to be offensive.
> 
> Honestly, man the hell up Frank. The word teabagger was around long before the tea party. What do you think was going to happen when you call yourselves the tea party?
> 
> Hell, I find it hilarious that these groups are calling themselves tea parties, when taxes are at their lowest levels in sixty years.
> 
> But keep it up Frank, I can use the laughs.
Click to expand...


I've used Libtard about 10 times here including my secret new identity, Libtard J Moonbat,  where I pretend to be a Liberal but am having second thought a la the fake Republicans here.

In closing, because I'm done debating this, call me or the Tea Party "TeaBaggers" and I respond in kind.

Tea Party is not just about taxes, is about not letting Marxists sink the final harpoon into American freedoms and the country we once knew


----------



## Modbert

CrusaderFrank said:


> In closing, because I'm done debating this, call me or the Tea Party "TeaBaggers" and I respond in kind.
> 
> Tea Party is not just about taxes, is about letting not letting Marxists sink the final harpoon into American freedoms and the country we once knew



Debating this? We're not debating the facts here Frank, you are trying to however. You're the type of person who likes to dish and spew some hatred, but even at the possibility of getting back in kind, you can't handle it. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen princess.

By the way, Tea Parties are about getting Big Government Republicans into office so they can continue to shove their agenda onto others, whether they like it or not. You and the others can try to hide behind the whole "Obama's a Marxist" crap, but then you go and complain he's taking bribes and contributions from all these capitalist companies. 

The amount of doublethink involved for you to even post here must be so ridiculous that you can no longer even tell what left and right is due to being so blinded by your partisan hackery. War is Peace to you Frank, and it's quite a sad sight to see.

My only regret about the tea parties are people like Pilgrim being roped into them, because they see it as their own opportunity as to make a difference with the two party death grip that the Democrats and Republicans have on Washington D.C. and in the states currently. However, they are battling against the more vocal side of the tea party, the part that supports people like Palin, Bush, and Bachmann. And in that aspect, the tea party isn't that much different as a whole than the Republican Party. Two battles going on for the souls of these groups.


----------



## Mr Natural

Sending teabags to Washington and wearing funny hats with teabags hanging off of them.

What the fuck did they expect to be called?

Dosen't say a whole lot for their ability to forecast future events now does it?


----------



## Maple

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?
Click to expand...


They never did, I know, I am a proud member of the tea party and have been since the get-go. We have always called ourselves TEA PARTIERS NOT TEA BAGGERS.

You are considered a racist or a tea-bagger if you disagree with the SOCIALIST OBAMA and his agenda, and we can all see how socialism has worked in Greece with street rioting going on over there and the total and complete collapse of their country.


----------



## Si modo

Modbert said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In closing, because I'm done debating this, call me or the Tea Party "TeaBaggers" and I respond in kind.
> 
> Tea Party is not just about taxes, is about letting not letting Marxists sink the final harpoon into American freedoms and the country we once knew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debating this? We're not debating the facts here Frank, you are trying to however. You're the type of person who likes to dish and spew some hatred, but even at the possibility of getting back in kind, you can't handle it. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen princess.
> 
> By the way, Tea Parties are about getting Big Government Republicans into office so they can continue to shove their agenda onto others, whether they like it or not. You and the others can try to hide behind the whole "Obama's a Marxist" crap, but then you go and complain he's taking bribes and contributions from all these capitalist companies.
> 
> The amount of doublethink involved for you to even post here must be so ridiculous that you can no longer even tell what left and right is due to being so blinded by your partisan hackery. War is Peace to you Frank, and it's quite a sad sight to see.
> 
> My only regret about the tea parties are people like Pilgrim being roped into them, because they see it as their own opportunity as to make a difference with the two party death grip that the Democrats and Republicans have on Washington D.C. and in the states currently. However, they are battling against the more vocal side of the tea party, the part that supports people like Palin, Bush, and Bachmann. And in that aspect, the tea party isn't that much different as a whole than the Republican Party. Two battles going on for the souls of these groups.
Click to expand...


'Getting Republicans into office'?    Right.  That's why they run against them and just adore Graham, McConnell, Kyl, and Boehner.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> 'Getting Republicans into office'?    Right.  That's why they run against them and just adore Graham, McConnell, Kyl, and Boehner.



Yes, they want to replace them with more right-wing Republicans, not independents. They consider moderates to be RINOs.

But if one thinks about it, consider who would be "RINOs" in the GOP today. Reagan and Goldwater.

Hell, Goldwater, a real Conservative for the most part was right when he said he would one day be considered a Liberal in his own party.


----------



## Si modo

Modbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Getting Republicans into office'?    Right.  That's why they run against them and just adore Graham, McConnell, Kyl, and Boehner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they want to replace them with more right-wing Republicans, not independents. ....
Click to expand...

That simply isn't true.  But keep trying.

Or, don't parrot what you read somewhere and think for yourself.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> That simply isn't true.  But keep trying.
> 
> Or, don't parrot what you read somewhere and think for yourself.



It most certainly is true. Why the hell would the tea partiers as a whole support Sarah Palin over Gary Johnston then? That's a Republican I can get behind and vote for in 2012. Least what I've heard from him and read on his website so far.


----------



## Si modo

Modbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.  But keep trying.
> 
> Or, don't parrot what you read somewhere and think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly is true. Why the hell would the tea partiers as a whole support Sarah Palin over Gary Johnston then? That's a Republican I can get behind and vote for in 2012. Least what I've heard from him and read on his website so far.
Click to expand...

Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.  

And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maple said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They never did, I know, I am a proud member of the tea party and have been since the get-go. We have always called ourselves TEA PARTIERS NOT TEA BAGGERS.
> 
> You are considered a racist or a tea-bagger if you disagree with the SOCIALIST OBAMA and his agenda, and we can all see how socialism has worked in Greece with street rioting going on over there and the total and complete collapse of their country.
Click to expand...


Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.



Of course, it's a what if type of poll. It's not quite 2012 yet, I was using 2012 as a example.

However, any group that has favorable ratings of both Palin and Bush is certainly going to be pushing for putting in more Republicans.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.




That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.

The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.


----------



## Si modo

Modbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's a what if type of poll. It's not quite 2012 yet, I was using 2012 as a example.
> 
> However, any group that has favorable ratings of both Palin and Bush is certainly going to be pushing for putting in more Republicans.
Click to expand...

So, you're just guessing and presenting that as fact.  

Christ on a cracker.  Take that course.  You need it.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> So, you're just guessing and presenting that as fact.
> 
> Christ on a cracker.  Take that course.  You need it.



Guessing? No.

But do tell me Si Modo, do you support Sarah Palin for President in 2012? Or how about George W. Bush if he were running for a 2nd term?


----------



## boedicca

It really doesn't matter cause were all gonna die per the Mayan calendar in 2012.


----------



## Modbert

boedicca said:


> It really doesn't matter cause were all gonna die per the Mayan calendar in 2012.



Sure, but we got a election first.


----------



## Zona

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.
> 
> I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you questioning him as a Mod instead of addressing his post?
Click to expand...


Its what they do.


----------



## Zona

Si modo said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading this entire thread,....
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.
Click to expand...


Ah so someone already stated it was the teabaggers who first called themselves teabaggers?  Good.  I am surprised you guys admitted it, but good.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
Click to expand...


Misdirection.  I wrote "members of the Tea Party used the term long before . . .", however you are correct those who used in your group were "clueless and used the stupid phrase."


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misdirection.  I wrote "members of the Tea Party used the term long before . . .", however you are correct those who used in your group were "clueless and used the stupid phrase."
Click to expand...



Wrong bub.  You are attempting, unsuccessfully, to portray the T-word as a common phrase with which the Tea Party Movement self identified.  You found a few pics of a few misguided people.  The Lefties use the phrase orders of magnitude more often than any one in the Tea Party, which just proves that you are obsessed with sucking on sweaty male balls.   Not that there is anything wrong with that - just don't assume that everyone else celebrates your festish.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that for the most part, most of the tea party defenders I have seen and heard have refused to even admit that racism is a part of the movement and have ignored or excused it when it did rear its ugly head, thereby minimizing the effect of the act. If they refuse to recognize it and minimize it when it&#8217;s real then they lose credibility and are seen as collaborators, but the real victims are swept under the rug and ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing for the most part, that most of you moonbats have refused to admit is that:  in any group numbering millions of people, there will be some less than admirable people on the fringe.  They are not representative of the values or agenda of the movement.
> 
> It's also racist to assume that people are racists just for criticizing government policy.   Why did Dissent go from being Patriotic to Racist?
Click to expand...


Actually, I stated that almost ver batum on this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2280874-post348.html


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.
> 
> I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?
Click to expand...


Jealousy is a stinky perfume on you, Francis.



CrusaderFrank said:


> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



That would be a shocking turn-around for you considering the degree of civility that you handle yourself with around this joint.

Got anymore Palin-Zombie pics?


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.



You are such a dim-bulb.  The "same few pics" area from freepers were using the term in the derogatory sense in February of '09 and they sure as hell knew what it meant.

Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent

Again, it's okay when the right utilizes sexual connotations to mock, but when we do it, you guys go into conniption fits.  I might be willing to concede the whole civility issue, if you guys had a leg to stand on.  However, save for a select few conservatives on this board, you guys are as nasty as you claim we are.  You certainly don't have a leg to stand on as this is just one example of you trying to "elevate the debate":

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2278489-post129.html

(Which I found patently hilarious considering you complete ignorance of psychiatry)

Personally, I am fine with it.  Name-calling doesn't really bother me, and I realize that this is really just entertainment for most people who would otherwise be civil in real life.  What pisses me off is when you guys act like your shit doesn't stink.  Don't throw punches if you don't want to be punched back.  

Secondly, no one has ever disputed that the vast majority of the decrepit tea-party member had no idea of the sexual connotations behind it.  However, the younger ones certainly did.  Like I said, it's a generational thing.  So to claim it's all one side is just stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking stupid?
Click to expand...


No.  Just correct.

Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent


----------



## geauxtohell

Maple said:


> They never did, I know, I am a proud member of the tea party and have been since the get-go. We have always called ourselves TEA PARTIERS NOT TEA BAGGERS.



And again:

Correcting Jay Nordlinger  The Washington Independent


----------



## CrusaderFrank

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly? The tea party people getting upset at being teabaggers (which they used first, until they found out what it was) is only getting upset at their own ignorance.
> 
> I remember reading recently on one of the news sites (forget which one) where some people in the tea party said using the word teabagger is like using the N-word. I had a good laugh until I realized they were serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck was anyone thinking to make you a Mod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jealousy is a stinky perfume on you, Francis.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a shocking turn-around for you considering the degree of civility that you handle yourself with around this joint.
> 
> Got anymore Palin-Zombie pics?
Click to expand...


The CDC is considering making the Palin Zombie pic their Warning Label for PDS which they're thinking of upgrading to a Level 4 Biohazard.

I'm civil -- even to Liberal cocksuckers and motherfuckers who use the phrase TeaBagger

Oh, I'm nowhere near jealous about Dogbert being a Mod, I'm just stunned at the poor judgment at the upgrade.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> The CDC is considering making the Palin Zombie pic their Warning Label for PDS which they're thinking of upgrading to a Level 4 Biohazard.
> 
> I'm civil -- even to Liberal cocksuckers and motherfuckers who use the phrase TeaBagger



Please.  You dish it out as well as you take it.  Like I said, this would be a non-issue if the right leaning members on here and elsewhere had made a systematic effort to be "civil" for the past several years.  We both know that's not true, which is why I don't feel any sort of remorse for slinging some mud too.  



> Oh, I'm nowhere near jealous about Dogbert being a Mod, I'm just stunned at the poor judgment at the upgrade.



I am just glad they didn't pick you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

geauxtohell said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CDC is considering making the Palin Zombie pic their Warning Label for PDS which they're thinking of upgrading to a Level 4 Biohazard.
> 
> I'm civil -- even to Liberal cocksuckers and motherfuckers who use the phrase TeaBagger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please.  You dish it out as well as you take it.  Like I said, this would be a non-issue if the right leaning members on here and elsewhere had made a systematic effort to be "civil" for the past several years.  We both know that's not true, which is why I don't feel any sort of remorse for slinging some mud too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm nowhere near jealous about Dogbert being a Mod, I'm just stunned at the poor judgment at the upgrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just glad they didn't pick you.
Click to expand...


Sling all you want just remember to duck if you're slinging it my way

I wouldn't accept a Mod position if anyone was brain damaged enough to even think about offering it


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sling all you want just remember to duck if you're slinging it my way



I have no problem with that.  I doubt you'll hear me whine about it.  I doubt you can recollect me ever whining about it.



> I wouldn't accept a Mod position if anyone was brain damaged enough to even think about offering it



"I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member."


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aw, thanks for playing but once again you avoid the content of my post and only engage in more of your typical and baseless personal attacks. You asked a question and I responded, you avoided the response and attacked. Why ask if you don't want an answer?? LOL
> 
> I have to go for now but it's been more than fun shooting down your spin as well as the argument that this thread and your own attack were based upon, which I originally pointed out did not fit the timeline and you chose to avoid. So what is your excuse for avoiding that debate??
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't added anything to the discussion that hasn't already been discussed at length days ago.  Thus, you haven't a point and never did.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Kudos to Eder.  Is this not the cutest picture? I love it.


----------



## Cuyo

boedicca said:


> What the Left wants is for the Right to give up and stay quiet.



Well, in a way, yes; but it's only because so much of what you guys say is so dumb.


----------



## Cuyo

teapartysamurai said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually have tremendous respect for you if you are going to keep your word on the matter. You don't see that often here. So I retract what I said on that matter.
> 
> The only reason I said it is because I assumed you had read and comprehended the article and were going to try and split hairs over the issue.
> 
> If that's not the case, then it's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames. It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not whining about the term tea bagger.
> 
> I think liberals should go right on using the term tea bagger.  That's right, I do!
> 
> It tells far more about liberals than it does about the tea party.  When conservative Americans started sending tea bags to their Congressmen/women or saying "let's tea bag Washington," they thought about the Boston Tea Party, Patriotism, and the proud founding of this Country.
Click to expand...


Wow....... _What _an *Idiot!!!*

See what I'm talking about here?  When the logical, not-batshit-insane, _normal_ conservatives start rejecting this sort of idiocy instead of embracing it, maybe the "eeevil libruls" will be more interested in what you have to say?  eh?  Whaddyathink?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's the point.  The sensible moderate and centrist Republicans abhor stupidity espoused by the likes of TeaPartySamurai both personally and politically.  First, it is not based on reality.  Second, the centrist majority of America rejects TeaPartySamurai's nonsense.  He and those who think like that are in the vast minority.


----------



## bodecea

boedicca said:


> What the Left wants is for the Right to give up and stay quiet.



Actually, the more you talk the more ridiculous stuff to show the average voter.   And the more laughs, too.


----------



## boedicca

That must be why the Tea Party Movement is growing faster than OFA.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Specific evidence, please, because your statement is apparently false.

Enlighten us.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> Specific evidence, please, because your statement is apparently false.
> 
> Enlighten us.




18% of Americans self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.

_In April, 2010, a New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party supporters are wealthier, more educated, more conservative and more likely to be Republican  than the general public.[110]The poll, which was said to be the &#8220;first reliable look at the tea party supporters&#8221; by the Los Angeles Times, [111]  found that:

    * 18% or about 1 in 5 Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

72.4% of the U.S. is over age 20, making the adult population approximately 223M.   18% of 223M is 40M.  40M people in the U.S. are Tea Party Supporters.  On January 1, 2009, this figure was 0.   That is quite a growth rate.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizing for America, which is a largely a recycling of the Obama Campaign database, has 13 million members.

_13 million email addresses from Obama campaign, unknown membership_

Organizing for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

40M is a much bigger number than 13M.

Perhaps someday you'll learn that I don't post things which are not factual.


----------



## Modbert

It's quite sad when we've gotten to the point in our politics where if you have a larger group than the other, that supposedly makes you right. Might does not make right.

"They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesnt abide by majority rule is a persons conscience."
- Atticus Finch


----------



## boedicca

Poor Doggie.  He doesn't realize that these people will vote, and that votes matter.

Carry on.


----------



## Modbert

boedicca said:


> Poor Doggie.  He doesn't realize that these people will vote, and that votes matter.
> 
> Carry on.



Yes, they will vote Republican for the most part, as they always have. Real "change" there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specific evidence, please, because your statement is apparently false.
> 
> Enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18% of Americans self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> _In April, 2010, a New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party supporters are wealthier, more educated, more conservative and more likely to be Republican  than the general public.[110]The poll, which was said to be the first reliable look at the tea party supporters by the Los Angeles Times, [111]  found that:
> 
> * 18% or about 1 in 5 Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters._
> 
> Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 72.4% of the U.S. is over age 20, making the adult population approximately 223M.   18% of 223M is 40M.  40M people in the U.S. are Tea Party Supporters.  On January 1, 2009, this figure was 0.   That is quite a growth rate.
> 
> Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Organizing for America, which is a largely a recycling of the Obama Campaign database, has 13 million members.
> 
> _13 million email addresses from Obama campaign, unknown membership_
> 
> Organizing for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 40M is a much bigger number than 13M.
> 
> Perhaps someday you'll learn that I don't post things which are not factual.
Click to expand...


Extrapolation of believing in similar principles is not the same as identifying with a particular party.

Give us an unequivocal proof that 50 millions of Americans agree with the Tea Party.

You can't.


----------



## boedicca

No, they will support Conservative Candidates for the most part.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specific evidence, please, because your statement is apparently false.
> 
> Enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18% of Americans self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> _In April, 2010, a New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party supporters are wealthier, more educated, more conservative and more likely to be Republican  than the general public.[110]The poll, which was said to be the first reliable look at the tea party supporters by the Los Angeles Times, [111]  found that:
> 
> * 18% or about 1 in 5 Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters._
> 
> Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 72.4% of the U.S. is over age 20, making the adult population approximately 223M.   18% of 223M is 40M.  40M people in the U.S. are Tea Party Supporters.  On January 1, 2009, this figure was 0.   That is quite a growth rate.
> 
> Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Organizing for America, which is a largely a recycling of the Obama Campaign database, has 13 million members.
> 
> _13 million email addresses from Obama campaign, unknown membership_
> 
> Organizing for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 40M is a much bigger number than 13M.
> 
> Perhaps someday you'll learn that I don't post things which are not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extrapolation of believing in similar principles is not the same as identifying with a particular party.
> 
> Give us an unequivocal proof that 50 millions of Americans agree with the Tea Party.
> 
> You can't.
Click to expand...



I didn't say 50M.  I said 40M, and have already provided the proof.


----------



## Modbert

boedicca said:


> No, they will support Conservative Candidates for the most part.



And that's the fun part, how does one "define" Conservative? Small-Government? Or _their brand_ of Small-Government?

That's the hilarious thing about all of this. I keep hearing small government and lower taxes. Taxes are at their lowest point federally in the past sixty years.

No. They will run as Republicans or vote for Republicans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18% of Americans self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> _In April, 2010, a New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party supporters are wealthier, more educated, more conservative and more likely to be Republican  than the general public.[110]The poll, which was said to be the first reliable look at the tea party supporters by the Los Angeles Times, [111]  found that:
> 
> * 18% or about 1 in 5 Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters._
> 
> Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 72.4% of the U.S. is over age 20, making the adult population approximately 223M.   18% of 223M is 40M.  40M people in the U.S. are Tea Party Supporters.  On January 1, 2009, this figure was 0.   That is quite a growth rate.
> 
> Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Organizing for America, which is a largely a recycling of the Obama Campaign database, has 13 million members.
> 
> _13 million email addresses from Obama campaign, unknown membership_
> 
> Organizing for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 40M is a much bigger number than 13M.
> 
> Perhaps someday you'll learn that I don't post things which are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extrapolation of believing in similar principles is not the same as identifying with a particular party.
> 
> Give us an unequivocal proof that 50 millions of Americans agree with the Tea Party.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say 50M.  I said 40M, and have already provided the proof.
Click to expand...


No, you have not.  Saying it does not make it so, but if it were, then at least 95% of that would be folks to the right and far right.  Unimportant.


----------



## Sherry

Modbert said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Doggie.  He doesn't realize that these people will vote, and that votes matter.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they will vote Republican for the most part, as they always have. Real "change" there.
Click to expand...


Except that they don't want the same sort of Republicans. So if they can influence the sort of candidates who run, then they will have produced a change.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extrapolation of believing in similar principles is not the same as identifying with a particular party.
> 
> Give us an unequivocal proof that 50 millions of Americans agree with the Tea Party.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say 50M.  I said 40M, and have already provided the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not.  Saying it does not make it so, but if it were, then at least 95% of that would be folks to the right and far right.  Unimportant.
Click to expand...



Yes, I have provided proof - but you lack the intellectual capacity to grok it.

That's your issue, not mine.


----------



## Modbert

Sherry said:


> Except that they don't want the same sort of Republicans. So if they can influence the sort of candidates who run, then they will have produced a change.



That's right, they want Republicans who are more right wing. I wonder what's going to happen when tea party candidate views on social issues start conflicting with the small government mantra. Get the spin machine ready for that one.


----------



## Sherry

Modbert said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they don't want the same sort of Republicans. So if they can influence the sort of candidates who run, then they will have produced a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, they want Republicans who are more right wing. I wonder what's going to happen when tea party candidate views on social issues start conflicting with the small government mantra. Get the spin machine ready for that one.
Click to expand...


I see it as a movement more interested in fiscal conservatism, and less about social conservatism.


----------



## boedicca

Sherry said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they don't want the same sort of Republicans. So if they can influence the sort of candidates who run, then they will have produced a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, they want Republicans who are more right wing. I wonder what's going to happen when tea party candidate views on social issues start conflicting with the small government mantra. Get the spin machine ready for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it as a movement more interested in fiscal conservatism, and less about social conservatism.
Click to expand...



That is correct.   The TPM is focused on fiscal and economic issues.


----------



## Modbert

Sherry said:


> I see it as a movement more interested in fiscal conservatism, and less about social conservatism.



But see, it's just not that simple. Any elected official is just not going to be dealing with fiscal issues. Especially if they are elected to Congress and or the Presidency.

That's a side of the tea party that not many want to talk about. Because when you're not Pro-Choice, you're Anti-Civil Union, Anti-Gambling, Anti-Porn, and want Intelligent Design being forced into schools, the whole "Small Government" mantra looks a little less sleek.

Or if you don't want to stop the War on Drugs, or expand Defense Spending, and I could go on really.

The reason why the tea parties for the most part are sticking to the taxes issue at the moment (despite taxes being at their lowest federally in sixty years) is because nobody likes to pay taxes. It's a safe issue to attack. However, once you venture outside of that, things are going to get muddled and it will sure be entertaining when it does.


----------



## Sherry

Modbert said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a movement more interested in fiscal conservatism, and less about social conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But see, it's just not that simple. Any elected official is just not going to be dealing with fiscal issues. Especially if they are elected to Congress and or the Presidency.
> 
> That's a side of the tea party that not many want to talk about. Because when you're not Pro-Choice, you're Anti-Civil Union, Anti-Gambling, Anti-Porn, and want Intelligent Design being forced into schools, the whole "Small Government" mantra looks a little less sleek.
> 
> Or if you don't want to stop the War on Drugs, or expand Defense Spending, and I could go on really.
> 
> The reason why the tea parties for the most part are sticking to the taxes issue at the moment (despite taxes being at their lowest federally in sixty years) is because nobody likes to pay taxes. It's a safe issue to attack. However, once you venture outside of that, things are going to get muddled and it will sure be entertaining when it does.
Click to expand...


I don't know. This could be a great opportunity for the Republican Party to move away from the moral high ground. Too many conservatives I know care less and less about that stuff in comparison to the economic side. Maybe they are being forced to do a priority check.


----------



## Modbert

Sherry said:


> I don't know. *This could be a great opportunity for the Republican Party to move away from the moral high ground*. Too many conservatives I know care less and less about that stuff in comparison to the economic side. Maybe they are being forced to do a priority check.



Like I said previously, good luck with that. 

Republicans like Gary Johnston (whom I support) will never get the support of the majority of the party or even from the tea party folk. If you recall, Barry Goldwater (one of the last true Conservatives) said he would one day be considered a Liberal in his own party. And if he were around today, he would be considered as such.


----------



## Sherry

Modbert said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. *This could be a great opportunity for the Republican Party to move away from the moral high ground*. Too many conservatives I know care less and less about that stuff in comparison to the economic side. Maybe they are being forced to do a priority check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said previously, good luck with that.
> 
> Republicans like Gary Johnston (whom I support) will never get the support of the majority of the party or even from the tea party folk. If you recall, Barry Goldwater (one of the last true Conservatives) said he would one day be considered a Liberal in his own party. And if he were around today, he would be considered as such.
Click to expand...


If we were just talking about the Republican Party, it might be a wasted effort. However, within the Republican Party, some have moved more towards the center on social issues. I know some who don't care if we all have civil union contracts, and then find a religious institution if you want a ceremony to have your higher power bless it. I also know plenty who aren't trying to keep anyone down, and who enjoy gambling and/or porn. It's too bad that even the religious Republicans who weren't comfortable with all of the moral authority stuff from a generation ago sat quietly by. I think the most influence on the party though will come from those who consider themselves Independent and will move toward the Republican side if they can keep their voices strong enough to maintain the attention of the GOP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All parties change, and so will the Republicans.  I believe it was PBS that reported something like 10 - 15% of American adults, 18 to 34, go to church at least once a month.   That means almost an entire generation of unchurched Americans will be making the decisions beginning the next ten years.  I doubt they are going to be impresses with the social conservative values ideology.  If not, then the GOP, in order to compete, must move toward the center not the right.

Let the far right conservatives start their own party.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> All parties change, and so will the Republicans.  I believe it was PBS that reported something like 10 - 15% of American adults, 18 to 34, go to church at least once a month.   That means almost an entire generation of unchurched Americans will be making the decisions beginning the next ten years.  I doubt they are going to be impresses with the social conservative values ideology.  If not, then the GOP, in order to compete, must move toward the center not the right.
> 
> Let the far right conservatives start their own party.



Moving to the center worked great for Juan McCain! He got outflanked to the right by a genuine Marxist

Jake, thanks for your advise, I'm sure your friends at Media Matters, the DU, the DNC, etc all get a big kick out it. 

Now kindly pack up your "I'm really, truly a Republican" Act and go fuck yourself.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Yes, I have provided proof - but you lack the intellectual capacity to *grok* it.
> 
> That's your issue, not mine.



Seriously.  

Is your dorkometer pegged out after that last post?


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca is has GDD: grok deficit disorder.


----------



## geauxtohell

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca is has GDD: grok deficit disorder.



I've got to be honest and say I couldn't make it through _Stranger_.  I thought it sucked and put it down about 1/2 way through it.  I know some people say it changed there lives.  I thought it was torture.

I thought _Starship Troopers_ was brilliant though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Starship Troopers _defined my introduction to science fiction.  I still read a few pages each year.


----------



## blu

he can't help it you like having balls drug across your face


----------



## geauxtohell

JakeStarkey said:


> _Starship Troopers _defined my introduction to science fiction.  I still read a few pages each year.



I am not a huge Sci-Fi fan, but I'd have to say 2001 is my favorite Sci Fi book.


----------



## drsmith1072

Zona said:


> Without reading this entire thread, you all do realize it was the righty's who first coined the term teabagger....dont you?



Yeah they realize it but since it counters their spin, which was to originally try to claim that rachel maddow was the first to apply it to the tea party in april, despite the FACT that there is evidence in the very broadcast from april that shows that tea partiers used the term FIRST, the righties wish to ignore the FACT that they were shown to be WRONG and their spin has been completely countered. 

Then you have the fact that the OP was based on LIES.

They try to claim that obama requested civility and THEN referred to the tea partiers as "tea-baggers" and yet the comment that obama made calling them "tea-baggers" was made WAAAAAY back in 2009 according to the OP's own source and his call for civility cam last week.

So all of the attacks that came from the righties in this thread were based solely on right wing propaganda that they swallowed whole, like the good little lemmings we all know them to be, and ran with it. 

As usual the righties have NOTHING and yet continue to talk. LOL


----------



## boedicca

The Left has used the T-word orders of magnitude more frequently than the few clueless tea partiers did in 2009.   The vast majority of Tea Partiers use the Tea Party as their self-identification.  The fact that the Left continues to spew the sexual epithet in response to something that happened over a year ago and was abandoned says a great deal about their immaturity, lack of class, and fixation on a sexual fetish (which given their frequent repetition, most certainly remains unfulfilled).


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, exactly.  We've got 25 pages of liberal deflections and not one legitimate explanation for why the President of the United States CHOOSES to debase American citizens and then lecture to them about "civility".
> 
> The guy's a low-life, no-class, flinger of monkey poo, and unworthy of his office.
> 
> And his supporters are no better.  You'd think people would be less willing to compromise their own integrity than to stand up for such an obvious hypocrite... but hey, after the past year and a half, I can't say I'm really surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acrtually you are trying to attack obama based on propaganda.
> 
> According to the article obama used the term tea bagger in 2009 and the book wasn't published until 2010 which is when the comment on civility was made, so obama used the term MONTHS BEFORE he called for civility not AFTER. So the point of this thread is that the right has no REAL point but are trying to make it up as they go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda??  Are Democrat Congressmen, the source of the story, engaging in "propaganda" against their own party these days?
> 
> Seriously.  Get real.  Your guy gets a head-start on 'flinging the monkey poo'... and THEN wants to jump back and say "Ho, ho.... hold up there... no need to be flinging monkey poo."  THAT's your mitigating factor?... that HE started it?
> 
> This guy has had a nasty attitude toward dissenting American citizens since _before_ he took office, or do we forget how the flyover peoples are just "bitter clingers"?  And he hasn't let up yet.  So, his hypocritical ass can get bent on the subject of "civility" as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> As I said, he's an embarrassment to his office, utterly lacking in self-control and unable to resist an opportunity to fling some poo for the simple joy of poo-flinging.  One would think he'd send out his toadies to do his dirty work like any other mob boss.  But no, he _enjoys_ the dirt.
Click to expand...


What are you babbling about?? 

The FACT is that the OP and several righties in this thread have tried to attack obama based on the FALSE claim that he called for civility and THEN called tea partiers "tea baggers" and YET the FACTS show that the tea-bagger comment in question was made back in 2009, back when tea partiers were calling themselves tea baggers, and his call for civility was made just last week.

So YEAH, this whole attack thread is based on right wing propaganda and your spin and baseless opinions won't change that FACT.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> The Left has used the T-word orders of magnitude more frequently than the few clueless tea partiers did in 2009.   The vast majority of Tea Partiers use the Tea Party as their self-identification.  The fact that the Left continues to spew the sexual epithet in response to something that happened over a year ago and was abandoned says a great deal about their immaturity, lack of class, and fixation on a sexual fetish (which given their frequent repetition, most certainly remains unfulfilled).



So you've accepted the notion that some on the right were using the term "tea bag" in a pejorative manner?  

You had previously denied that.


----------



## drsmith1072

CrusaderFrank said:


> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



So you are going to call anyone who calls you a "tea-bagger" a "tea-bagger?" 


LOL

What's funny is that all you usually offer to a thread are baseless personal attacks and offensive comments so that for you is hardly anything NEW. However, it's hilarious that you would try to back track and use that as an excuse to CYA over your almost always offensive posts. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

CrusaderFrank said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't calling you a teabagger.
> 
> By the way, man up there princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you trotted out the "Some Conservative once used the phrase" bullshit excuse.
Click to expand...


Stating a FACT is hardly what an honest person would call a "BS excuse." but then since when have you ever been honest.

BTW still waiting on you to prove your claims in this thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/113650-the-left-is-getting-ugly-14.html 
and if you can't i am sure that you will post and admit that you were wrong. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Maple said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling us "TeaBagger" is fucking knowingly offensive and as long as anyone does it I will respond in kind.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why did Tea Party people call themselves Teabaggers in the beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They never did, I know, I am a proud member of the tea party and have been since the get-go. We have always called ourselves TEA PARTIERS NOT TEA BAGGERS.
> 
> You are considered a racist or a tea-bagger if you disagree with the SOCIALIST OBAMA and his agenda, and we can all see how socialism has worked in Greece with street rioting going on over there and the total and complete collapse of their country.
Click to expand...


WOW more strawman arguments.

NO ONE considers you a racist merely because you disagree with obama but thanks for showing that you believe it's oka to falsely label obama even as you attack him for accurately labeling tea partiers back in 2009 when he made that comment. 

Where racism comes into is when you have people post comments like this,



Pale Rider said:


> That's his ebonics.



who bring racism into the discussion and then when called out for it are defended by right wing trolls who try to claim that the left is palying the race card for calling out a righty for being racist. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-29.html#post2283340


BTW I posted this earlier and didn't get a response from the righties, i can't imagine why?



			
				drsmith1072 said:
			
		

> Calling someone a socialist based on policies that have been used or recommended in the past by non-socialist republicans in an attempt to gain politically is far worse than using a name whose double meaning was used by the very group who are only now upset with it because they think that they can use it to gain politically.
> 
> What "socialist" policies are you talking about?? Please explain.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In closing, because I'm done debating this, call me or the Tea Party "TeaBaggers" and I respond in kind.
> 
> Tea Party is not just about taxes, is about letting not letting Marxists sink the final harpoon into American freedoms and the country we once knew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debating this? We're not debating the facts here Frank, you are trying to however. You're the type of person who likes to dish and spew some hatred, but even at the possibility of getting back in kind, you can't handle it. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen princess.
> 
> By the way, Tea Parties are about getting Big Government Republicans into office so they can continue to shove their agenda onto others, whether they like it or not. You and the others can try to hide behind the whole "Obama's a Marxist" crap, but then you go and complain he's taking bribes and contributions from all these capitalist companies.
> 
> The amount of doublethink involved for you to even post here must be so ridiculous that you can no longer even tell what left and right is due to being so blinded by your partisan hackery. War is Peace to you Frank, and it's quite a sad sight to see.
> 
> My only regret about the tea parties are people like Pilgrim being roped into them, because they see it as their own opportunity as to make a difference with the two party death grip that the Democrats and Republicans have on Washington D.C. and in the states currently. However, they are battling against the more vocal side of the tea party, the part that supports people like Palin, Bush, and Bachmann. And in that aspect, the tea party isn't that much different as a whole than the Republican Party. Two battles going on for the souls of these groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Getting Republicans into office'?    Right.  That's why they run against them and just adore Graham, McConnell, Kyl, and Boehner.
Click to expand...


Uh correct me if I am wrong but aren't you running republicans against republicans in the primary?? If you wish to claim the tea party as an actually party then go about establishing it as a party and actually running candidates as tea party candidates or even independents. 
However, until then and as long as you choose to run them as republcians you are "getting republicans into office" and returning the same republican leadership to power that expanded the size of government when they last had the power.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.  But keep trying.
> 
> Or, don't parrot what you read somewhere and think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly is true. Why the hell would the tea partiers as a whole support Sarah Palin over Gary Johnston then? That's a Republican I can get behind and vote for in 2012. Least what I've heard from him and read on his website so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.
Click to expand...


Says the loser who NEVER supports any claim that he makes. LOL

The one website that you posted in this thread that I can remember ended up proving you WRONG? LOL

How many claims have you made that you have FAILED to support?? All you seem to offer are personal attacks and avoidance as you try to claim someone is wrong even as you never offer proof of any of your own claims and in fact have been proven WRONG several times within this thread.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
Click to expand...


Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves. 

The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL


----------



## geauxtohell

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL
Click to expand...


The freepers were using it at the "first rally" and using it in the derogatory sense.  By the time you get to to this post, you will see a meeting of the minds by some posters on the issue.  

Others, not so much.


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acrtually you are trying to attack obama based on propaganda.
> 
> According to the article obama used the term tea bagger in 2009 and the book wasn't published until 2010 which is when the comment on civility was made, so obama used the term MONTHS BEFORE he called for civility not AFTER. So the point of this thread is that the right has no REAL point but are trying to make it up as they go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda??  Are Democrat Congressmen, the source of the story, engaging in "propaganda" against their own party these days?
> 
> Seriously.  Get real.  Your guy gets a head-start on 'flinging the monkey poo'... and THEN wants to jump back and say "Ho, ho.... hold up there... no need to be flinging monkey poo."  THAT's your mitigating factor?... that HE started it?
> 
> This guy has had a nasty attitude toward dissenting American citizens since _before_ he took office, or do we forget how the flyover peoples are just "bitter clingers"?  And he hasn't let up yet.  So, his hypocritical ass can get bent on the subject of "civility" as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> As I said, he's an embarrassment to his office, utterly lacking in self-control and unable to resist an opportunity to fling some poo for the simple joy of poo-flinging.  One would think he'd send out his toadies to do his dirty work like any other mob boss.  But no, he _enjoys_ the dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about??
> 
> The FACT is that the OP and several righties in this thread have tried to attack obama based on the FALSE claim that he called for civility and THEN called tea partiers "tea baggers" and YET the FACTS show that the tea-bagger comment in question was made back in 2009, back when tea partiers were calling themselves tea baggers, and his call for civility was made just last week.
> 
> So YEAH, this whole attack thread is based on right wing propaganda and your spin and baseless opinions won't change that FACT.
Click to expand...


Can you not grasp, Mr. Thickie, that it doesn't matter?  There's not a hair's difference between the guy referring to American citizens by a pornagraphic epithet _before_ or _after_ his lip-service to "civility".   Either way, he's guilty of hypocrisy.

You seem to be under the impression that you've happened upon some magical reason, based on timing, for why the President of the United States shouldn't  be  criticized for being a hypocritical  potty-mouth.  But it couldn't have escaped even  his august attention that he'd already been engaged in poo-flinging before his grand call to "civility".   What that amounts to is... _"Do as I say, not as I do"_.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly is true. Why the hell would the tea partiers as a whole support Sarah Palin over Gary Johnston then? That's a Republican I can get behind and vote for in 2012. Least what I've heard from him and read on his website so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the loser who NEVER supports any claim that he makes. LOL
> 
> The one website that you posted in this thread that I can remember ended up proving you WRONG? LOL
> 
> How many claims have you made that you have FAILED to support?? All you seem to offer are personal attacks and avoidance as you try to claim someone is wrong even as you never offer proof of any of your own claims and in fact have been proven WRONG several times within this thread.
Click to expand...


Somebody butt-fucked you AGAIN and you need to vent?

Try therapy.  I don't give sympathy.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's a what if type of poll. It's not quite 2012 yet, I was using 2012 as a example.
> 
> However, any group that has favorable ratings of both Palin and Bush is certainly going to be pushing for putting in more Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're just guessing and presenting that as fact.
> 
> Christ on a cracker.  Take that course.  You need it.
Click to expand...


Actually Mod presented an OPINION as an OPINION and never claimed it to be fact.

Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's a what if type of poll. It's not quite 2012 yet, I was using 2012 as a example.
> 
> However, any group that has favorable ratings of both Palin and Bush is certainly going to be pushing for putting in more Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're just guessing and presenting that as fact.
> 
> Christ on a cracker.  Take that course.  You need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Mod presented an OPINION as an OPINION and never claimed it to be fact.
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
Click to expand...

You can't even tell the difference between an opinion and assertion?

LMAO!


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misdirection.  I wrote "members of the Tea Party used the term long before . . .", however you are correct those who used in your group were "clueless and used the stupid phrase."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong bub.  You are attempting, unsuccessfully, to portray the T-word as a common phrase with which the Tea Party Movement self identified.  You found a few pics of a few misguided people.  The Lefties use the phrase orders of magnitude more often than any one in the Tea Party, which just proves that you are obsessed with sucking on sweaty male balls.   Not that there is anything wrong with that - just don't assume that everyone else celebrates your festish.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand the concept of time.

You refer to CURRENT statements/beliefs and believe that they apply to the PAST events such as back when some tea partiers used the term before they realized it's double meaning and it just doesn't work that way. You admit that SOME did it, so that is an agreed upon FACT therefore claiming that some tea partiers used the term is CORRECT. However, you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION that jake is wrong merely because you believe it to be the case as you attack him personally is NOT a valid argument.


----------



## drsmith1072

Sherry said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they don't want the same sort of Republicans. So if they can influence the sort of candidates who run, then they will have produced a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, they want Republicans who are more right wing. I wonder what's going to happen when tea party candidate views on social issues start conflicting with the small government mantra. Get the spin machine ready for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see it as a movement more interested in fiscal conservatism, and less about social conservatism.
Click to expand...


I have a friend who is running as a tea party candidate locally based on his ficsal beliefs in the hopes that his opponent won't bring up some of the social issues he sits squarely in the left on. I just don't see it happening and i don't see it working well nationally. When push comes to shove people want to know where you stand on most issues. 

Hoping that no one talks about them and only focuses on the issues your candidate fairs better with is beyond belief.


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left has used the T-word orders of magnitude more frequently than the few clueless tea partiers did in 2009.   The vast majority of Tea Partiers use the Tea Party as their self-identification.  The fact that the Left continues to spew the sexual epithet in response to something that happened over a year ago and was abandoned says a great deal about their immaturity, lack of class, and fixation on a sexual fetish (which given their frequent repetition, most certainly remains unfulfilled).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've accepted the notion that some on the right were using the term "tea bag" in a pejorative manner?
> 
> You had previously denied that.
Click to expand...



No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.   

That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> The Left has used the T-word orders of magnitude more frequently than the few clueless tea partiers did in 2009.   The vast majority of Tea Partiers use the Tea Party as their self-identification.  The fact that the Left continues to spew the sexual epithet in response to something that happened over a year ago and was abandoned says a great deal about their immaturity, lack of class, and fixation on a sexual fetish (which given their frequent repetition, most certainly remains unfulfilled).



as if righties have NEVER taken anything that someone the left has either said or done and applied it to the WHOLE as they laugh at and make fun of them?? Clinton asking to define the word "is" for example. How long have righties used any number of clinton faux pas to attack the left as a whole?? 
This is the way the world works, your side screws up and does something stupid and after you have berated the other side you don't get to call a "time out" and decide what is off limits when it puts you in a negative light. 
Grow up, you don't get to change the rules merely because you are losing. LOL

Again, what they NOW CHOOSE to USE and what they ONCE CHOSE to USED in the past are TWO completely different things.


----------



## drsmith1072

geauxtohell said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freepers were using it at the "first rally" and using it in the derogatory sense.  By the time you get to to this post, you will see a meeting of the minds by some posters on the issue.
> 
> Others, not so much.
Click to expand...


I doubt there will be a "meeting of the minds" because most of the righties in this thread never admit that they are wrong. They just spin, avoid and then go away.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biting again the hand that feeds you?  Hypocrite.  Yes, membes of the Tea Party used the term long before it was gleefully appropriated by the liberals to have fun with you guys when you act the morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL
Click to expand...



Wrong moron.  A few individuals cluelessly using a phrase are not representative of the hundreds of thousands who used Tea Party.

Pajamas TV tracked the attendance for the hundreds of tea parties across the country last year.     The info is no longer on their site; the latest figure I can find is a mention on Pajamas Media.

Pajamas Media  PJTV&#8217;s Crowd Estimates for Tea Parties Still Climbing

Two of the major sites that helped provide information regarding the location of tea parties are:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Tax Day Tea Party


Neither one ever labeled the movement with the T-word about which you obsess.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda??  Are Democrat Congressmen, the source of the story, engaging in "propaganda" against their own party these days?
> 
> Seriously.  Get real.  Your guy gets a head-start on 'flinging the monkey poo'... and THEN wants to jump back and say "Ho, ho.... hold up there... no need to be flinging monkey poo."  THAT's your mitigating factor?... that HE started it?
> 
> This guy has had a nasty attitude toward dissenting American citizens since _before_ he took office, or do we forget how the flyover peoples are just "bitter clingers"?  And he hasn't let up yet.  So, his hypocritical ass can get bent on the subject of "civility" as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> As I said, he's an embarrassment to his office, utterly lacking in self-control and unable to resist an opportunity to fling some poo for the simple joy of poo-flinging.  One would think he'd send out his toadies to do his dirty work like any other mob boss.  But no, he _enjoys_ the dirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about??
> 
> The FACT is that the OP and several righties in this thread have tried to attack obama based on the FALSE claim that he called for civility and THEN called tea partiers "tea baggers" and YET the FACTS show that the tea-bagger comment in question was made back in 2009, back when tea partiers were calling themselves tea baggers, and his call for civility was made just last week.
> 
> So YEAH, this whole attack thread is based on right wing propaganda and your spin and baseless opinions won't change that FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you not grasp, Mr. Thickie, that it doesn't matter?  There's not a hair's difference between the guy referring to American citizens by a pornagraphic epithet _before_ or _after_ his lip-service to "civility".   Either way, he's guilty of hypocrisy.
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that you've happened upon some magical reason, based on timing, for why the President of the United States shouldn't  be  criticized for being a hypocritical  potty-mouth.  But it couldn't have escaped even  his august attention that he'd already been engaged in poo-flinging before his grand call to "civility".   What that amounts to is... _"Do as I say, not as I do"_.
Click to expand...


Actually it DOES matter and there is a HUGE difference based on the content of this thread and the FALSE claims that he called for civility and THEN called them "tea-baggers" when the timeline doesn't fit that description. PLease do try to keep up. LOL

Furthermore, you ASSUME that obama meant the "pornographic epithet" when you have NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION to support that conclusion and tea partiers used the term themselves at that time. I would add, that he did not PUBLICLY "fling poo" and then call for civility. He allegedly said it in an interview for a book so all you continue to offer is your opinion based SPIN which is light on the substance. However, that really isn't a surprise. 

It has already been shown that tea partiers used it first and were talking about tea bagging the white house. The fact that they did not know the alternate meaning has NO bearing on ths discussion and obama only referred to them as some of them did themselves. So in the end you've got NOTHING but right wing propaganda.


----------



## geauxtohell

drsmith1072 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The freepers were using it at the "first rally" and using it in the derogatory sense.  By the time you get to to this post, you will see a meeting of the minds by some posters on the issue.
> 
> Others, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt there will be a "meeting of the minds" because most of the righties in this thread never admit that they are wrong. They just spin, avoid and then go away.
Click to expand...


Si Modo did.  

The others continue their pathetic spin.


----------



## boedicca

Of course Obama meant the vulgar epithet.   The only reason the Left uses it is because it Is A Vulgar Epithet.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.
> 
> That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.



LMFAO.  How embarrassing it must be for you to have to admit that the term "tea bag" and the use of it by the freepers in the pejorative sense pre-dates liberals using it to mock you guys.

As I said, I don't doubt that the people who used it in a pejorative sense among the right was a small number, but it still existed.  Unlike your prior claims that it was a creation of the liberals that reflected their sexual deviance.  

Like I said, you live by the "we are completely decentralized" mantra, you die by it.

Now embrace it.  Teabagger.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.  Palin is not running for a thing.
> 
> And, FYI, if you make a claim, support it.  Otherwise be prepared to have it called bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the loser who NEVER supports any claim that he makes. LOL
> 
> The one website that you posted in this thread that I can remember ended up proving you WRONG? LOL
> 
> How many claims have you made that you have FAILED to support?? All you seem to offer are personal attacks and avoidance as you try to claim someone is wrong even as you never offer proof of any of your own claims and in fact have been proven WRONG several times within this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody butt-fucked you AGAIN and you need to vent?
> 
> Try therapy.  I don't give sympathy.
Click to expand...


see how he attacks and avoids all debate? He can't even have his own standard applied to him. and he calls obama a hypocrite? LOL 

Just as expected.


----------



## L.K.Eder

geauxtohell said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freepers were using it at the "first rally" and using it in the derogatory sense.  By the time you get to to this post, you will see a meeting of the minds by some posters on the issue.
> 
> Others, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there will be a "meeting of the minds" because most of the righties in this thread never admit that they are wrong. They just spin, avoid and then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Si Modo did.
> 
> The others continue their pathetic spin.
Click to expand...


she did indeed, then some posts later she thanked other posters who continued the bullshit of the OP.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Of course Obama meant the vulgar epithet.   The only reason the Left uses it is because it Is A Vulgar Epithet.



But if you make exceptions for the right wingers who used it without knowing it was vulgar, why wouldn't you extend the same latitude to Obama?

He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt?

As for the people with the signs that said:  "Tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you!", I don't think we need to debate what they were trying to say.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're just guessing and presenting that as fact.
> 
> Christ on a cracker.  Take that course.  You need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Mod presented an OPINION as an OPINION and never claimed it to be fact.
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't even tell the difference between an opinion and assertion?
> 
> LMAO!
Click to expand...


Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL

that pretty much says it all.

The sad fact is that you chose, once again to avoid the debate. Mod stated an opinion and instead of debating the content of what was said you avoid the content and attack the poster as usual. LOL That is usually a dead gie away that you have nothing valid to offer.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left has used the T-word orders of magnitude more frequently than the few clueless tea partiers did in 2009.   The vast majority of Tea Partiers use the Tea Party as their self-identification.  The fact that the Left continues to spew the sexual epithet in response to something that happened over a year ago and was abandoned says a great deal about their immaturity, lack of class, and fixation on a sexual fetish (which given their frequent repetition, most certainly remains unfulfilled).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've accepted the notion that some on the right were using the term "tea bag" in a pejorative manner?
> 
> You had previously denied that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   *The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.*  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.
> 
> That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
Click to expand...


and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Mod presented an OPINION as an OPINION and never claimed it to be fact.
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even tell the difference between an opinion and assertion?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
> 
> that pretty much says it all.
> 
> The sad fact is that you chose, once again to avoid the debate. Mod stated an opinion and instead of debating the content of what was said you avoid the content and attack the poster as usual. LOL That is usually a dead gie away that you have nothing valid to offer.
Click to expand...


Once again, I've avoided nothing of the sort.  The debate happened last week and took place among thinking posters.  I don't debate morons who feel some need to cut and paste points made by others days ago.

Maybe you can cut and paste again and parrot away?  You show off, you.


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> Teabagger.




Go find a healthy outlet for your sexual fetish. USMB is not going to provide the therapy you require.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.




I did prove it.  I provided links to sites with directories of tea parties.   The phrase they use is Tea Party.

You just would rather continue to spew your fetish like some type of Tourette's Victim.

Get help.


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Actually it DOES matter and there is a HUGE difference based on the content of this thread and the FALSE claims that he called for civility and THEN called them "tea-baggers" when the timeline doesn't fit that description. PLease do try to keep up. LOL



He's STILL a hypocritical flinger of monkey poo either way.  You must be soooooo proud. 



> Furthermore, you ASSUME that obama meant the "pornographic epithet" when you have NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION to support that conclusion and tea partiers used the term themselves at that time. I would add, that he did not PUBLICLY "fling poo" and then call for civility. He allegedly said it in an interview for a book so all you continue to offer is your opinion based SPIN which is light on the substance. However, that really isn't a surprise.
> 
> It has already been shown that tea partiers used it first and were talking about tea bagging the white house. The fact that they did not know the alternate meaning has NO bearing on ths discussion and obama only referred to them as some of them did themselves. So in the end you've got NOTHING but right wing propaganda.



It's a bit telling, at least to those of us who do our own thinking, that the guy hasn't slipped up and used the term innocently in public.  It's not like he doesn't have nearly non-stop media coverage where he might have slipped up if he didn't understand the word.  But no, we have it from a Dem Congressman, second-hand, that he used it in private.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Go find a healthy outlet for your sexual fetish. USMB is not going to provide the therapy you require.



Oh, are you going to go all Bullshit Psychiatrist on me again?  This is always entertaining.  

Maybe this time you won't fuck up your diagnosis.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  In April 2009, 750,000 people participated in tea parties - and all you can find are the same few pics of the same few people who were clueless and used the stupid phrase.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the Tea Partiers call themselves Tea Partiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that claim?? I didn't think so. furthermore, the core of this debate is about what they CALLED themselves in the beginning not what they call themselves now so they can attack obama for a term that was once sude by tea partiers to describe themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that it did exist among the tea partiers BEFORE liberals explained it to them and that is a FACT that you cannot change. How widespread is debateable but without evidence to support your claim then based on Si modo's standard you should "be prepared to have it called bullshit" LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron.  A few individuals cluelessly using a phrase are not representative of the hundreds of thousands who used Tea Party.
> 
> Pajamas TV tracked the attendance for the hundreds of tea parties across the country last year.     The info is no longer on their site; the latest figure I can find is a mention on Pajamas Media.
> 
> Pajamas Media  PJTV&#8217;s Crowd Estimates for Tea Parties Still Climbing
> 
> Two of the major sites that helped provide information regarding the location of tea parties are:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party
> 
> Tax Day Tea Party
> 
> 
> Neither one ever labeled the movement with the T-word about which you obsess.
Click to expand...


PROVE IT. You love to chime in and tell people that they are wrong even though you agree that they are correct when they say that SOME used it and yet you failed to provide proof of your claims that they are wrong and that the overwhlming majority of the tea partiers CALLLED (past tense) themselves tea partiers and not tea baggers.

So where is your proof??  

Your links to their CURRENT websites prove NOTHING about what was USED (past tense) in the past and as usual you have NOTHING. 

Oh and calling me names says more about you than it does about me. LOL


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> You just would rather continue to spew your fetish like some type of Tourette's Victim.



"Tourette's"?


----------



## boedicca

Yes.  The frequency with which some of you leftwing whackjobs repeat the T-word is indicative of some type of mental disorder.  Tourette's is a possibility - it does cause some suffers to blurt out obscenities.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Of course Obama meant the vulgar epithet.   The only reason the Left uses it is because it Is A Vulgar Epithet.



That is merely an OPINION that you are trying to apply to the whole even though only a few actually mean it that way. 

How come you guys get to do that but the left does not??

talk about being hypocrtical, you take the cake. LOL 

this whole thread is about how obama and the left are wrong to use a name that was used by some of the tea partiers to the whole and then you go an assign a belief to the whole of liberals based on your own biased opinions. LOL

Thanks for the hypocrisy. LOL


----------



## boedicca

^^^ Another whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  *The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.*  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.
Click to expand...

LMFAO!  The moron wants you to prove a negative.

What an idiot he is.


----------



## drsmith1072

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.
> 
> That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  How embarrassing it must be for you to have to admit that the term "tea bag" and the use of it by the freepers in the pejorative sense pre-dates liberals using it to mock you guys.
> 
> As I said, I don't doubt that the people who used it in a pejorative sense among the right was a small number, but it still existed.  Unlike your prior claims that it was a creation of the liberals that reflected their sexual deviance.
> 
> Like I said, you live by the "we are completely decentralized" mantra, you die by it.
> 
> Now embrace it.  Teabagger.
Click to expand...


denial ain't just a river in egypt you know. LOL


----------



## L.K.Eder

boedicca said:


> ^^^ Another whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words.




^^^^ can't see clearly. dick and nutsack in the way.


----------



## drsmith1072

L.K.Eder said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there will be a "meeting of the minds" because most of the righties in this thread never admit that they are wrong. They just spin, avoid and then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si Modo did.
> 
> The others continue their pathetic spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she did indeed, then some posts later she thanked other posters who continued the bullshit of the OP.
Click to expand...


my problem with Si is that even though proven wrong it continues to rant as if it is never wrong. It attacks to avoid arguments that it knows it can't win and that is about all i ever see it "contribute" to a thread.


----------



## boedicca

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Another whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ can't see clearly. dick and nutsack in the way.
Click to expand...



Thanks for proving my point.  You lefties really do have a fetish.   The intent is to insult people with a sexual epithet.  Obama knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## drsmith1072

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Obama meant the vulgar epithet.   The only reason the Left uses it is because it Is A Vulgar Epithet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if you make exceptions for the right wingers who used it without knowing it was vulgar, why wouldn't you extend the same latitude to Obama?
> 
> He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt?
> 
> As for the people with the signs that said:  "Tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you!", I don't think we need to debate what they were trying to say.
Click to expand...


PURE HYPOCRISY at it's worst that is all you are getting. As usual the right has different standards for others than they do their own.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Yes.  The frequency with which some of you leftwing whackjobs repeat the T-word is indicative of some type of mental disorder.  Tourette's is a possibility - it does cause some suffers to blurt out obscenities.



Other than the popular stereotypes behind it, you know nothing about Tourette's do you?

BTW coprolalia is only found in 20% of person's with Tourettes and doesn't follow any sort of logical pattern (i.e. name calling).  

Guess that blows your diagnostic criteria out of the water, huh?  

What are the other options on your differential?

If you were a real Doctor, and not someone who plays one on a messageboard, you'd know that you couldn't meet the diagnostic criteria for tourettes without observing someone directly, since motor dysfunction is the most pervasive symptom. 

But is sure is fun to act smart, isn't it?


----------



## boedicca

So sorry for trying to explore a physical condition that might cause their vulgarity.

Looks like the only other plausible theory is that they are just Tacky Boors who enjoy insulting people with sexual epithets.


----------



## L.K.Eder

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Another whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ can't see clearly. dick and nutsack in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you sucking on it dearie.
Click to expand...


tsk, tsk, such a thin veneer of pseudo-class.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> So sorry for trying to explore a physical condition that might cause their vulgarity.
> 
> Looks like the only other plausible theory is that they are just Tacky Boors who enjoy insulting people with sexual epithets.



That works with me.  Just so long as you realize how idiotic you look when you try and play shrink on the internet.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even tell the difference between an opinion and assertion?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
> 
> that pretty much says it all.
> 
> The sad fact is that you chose, once again to avoid the debate. Mod stated an opinion and instead of debating the content of what was said you avoid the content and attack the poster as usual. LOL That is usually a dead gie away that you have nothing valid to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I've avoided nothing of the sort.  The debate happened last week and took place among thinking posters.  I don't debate morons who feel some need to cut and paste points made by others days ago.
> 
> Maybe you can cut and paste again and parrot away?  You show off, you.
Click to expand...


Once again you are avoiding the debate as you chime in to attack me. I have said many things that were NOT debated last week and you avoid those comments and the content of my post as you ONLY reply to attack and avoid. In this instance MOD made an argument and instead of debating what was actually said you avoided the debate and tried to attack the poster. It is what you do. 

So go ahead and run away from debates you can't win. After all it's all that you appear to be capable of.


----------



## boedicca

You lost the debate, if you can call one side providing facts while you and your lefty pals spew the t-word a debate, long ago, bub.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did prove it.  I provided links to sites with directories of tea parties.   The phrase they use is Tea Party.
> 
> You just would rather continue to spew your fetish like some type of Tourette's Victim.
> 
> Get help.
Click to expand...


OMG please take a class and learn how time works. 

What they CURRENTLY USE (present tense) has no bearing on what they USED (past tense) in the PAST. 

The only real reason I used the term "tea-baggers" was because I thought it was hilarious that some tea partiers used it and didn't understand what they were saying when they talked about "tea bagging" the white house. I was laughing at their IGNORANCE. Now that these same people find their own comments and ignorance embarrassing they want it to just go away. Sorry but that is not how reality works. Righties make fun of things lefties do and now that you are on the receiving end you whine. 

However, thanks for showing your dishonesty as you try to lump me in and claim that I have a fetish so you can avoid the fact that you haven't proven your claims concerning what was USED (past tense).


----------



## boedicca

Wrong bub.  The Vast Majority of the Tea Party Movement never ever used the T-word to describe themselves.

Yet you desperately cling to the T-word like it's a soggy, dogged eared, over-used Hustler magazine.   It's worn out - but you still obsess about it.  Get help.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES matter and there is a HUGE difference based on the content of this thread and the FALSE claims that he called for civility and THEN called them "tea-baggers" when the timeline doesn't fit that description. PLease do try to keep up. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's STILL a hypocritical flinger of monkey poo either way.  You must be soooooo proud.
Click to expand...


Nope, he is NOT but thanks for your OPINION. LOL 



> It's a bit telling, at least to those of us who do our own thinking, that the guy hasn't slipped up and used the term innocently in public.  It's not like he doesn't have nearly non-stop media coverage where he might have slipped up if he didn't understand the word.  But no, we have it from a Dem Congressman, second-hand, that he used it in private.



do your own thinking?? and yet you are ranting on in a thread started by right wing bloggers as you repeat right wing talking points and propaganda. LOL So much for doing your own thinking. 
You assume with nothing of substance to support your assumption and allyou are left with is NOTHING. See Si modo for his standard on being called out for BS. LOL


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES matter and there is a HUGE difference based on the content of this thread and the FALSE claims that he called for civility and THEN called them "tea-baggers" when the timeline doesn't fit that description. PLease do try to keep up. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's STILL a hypocritical flinger of monkey poo either way.  You must be soooooo proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he is NOT but thanks for your OPINION. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit telling, at least to those of us who do our own thinking, that the guy hasn't slipped up and used the term innocently in public.  It's not like he doesn't have nearly non-stop media coverage where he might have slipped up if he didn't understand the word.  But no, we have it from a Dem Congressman, second-hand, that he used it in private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your own thinking?? and yet you are ranting on in a thread started by right wing bloggers as you repeat right wing talking points and propaganda. LOL So much for doing your own thinking.
> You assume with nothing of substance to support your assumption and allyou are left with is NOTHING. See Si modo for his standard on being called out for BS. LOL
Click to expand...




  Well, it's not like I had high hopes for you peeling your lips off Obama's ass for long enough to notice that his behavior is rude, partisan, hypocritical, and un-presidential.

But, you folks keep doing what you're doing.  It only highlights the ugliness of what your party stands for. 'Cause if you think anyone besides dyed-in-the-wool Obots give a crap about whether it's before or after his bogus pleas for "civility"  that Obama  badmouths American citizens... you can wish in one hand and spit in the other at election time.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Yes.  The frequency with which some of you leftwing whackjobs repeat the T-word is indicative of some type of mental disorder.  Tourette's is a possibility - it does cause some suffers to blurt out obscenities.



Actually what is more representative of a mental disorder is the obsession that righites have as they try to make something out of nothing on a regular basis in a vain attempt to justify their bias against a democrat president and the left when they gave a republican president and the right a pass when the right engaged in some of the very tactics that the righties are ALLEGEDLY so upset about.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  *The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.*  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO!  The moron wants you to prove a negative.
> 
> What an idiot he is.
Click to expand...


aww more baselss attacks. Thanks for once again showing that is all you have to offer.

BTW in case you missed it that is my point. If you can't prove a claim then why make it??
If you know that it is a negative to begin with then you know that you can't prove it. So in other words making a comment that you know can't prove and will avoid even attempting to is only further proof of the dishonesty of the poster who makes said claim and then hides behind "you can't prove a negative" so he can avoid admitting that he was WRONG. 

It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> ^^^ Another whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words.



was your post supposed to be a response to this



			
				drsmith1072 said:
			
		

> That is merely an OPINION that you are trying to apply to the whole even though only a few actually mean it that way.
> 
> How come you guys get to do that but the left does not??
> 
> talk about being hypocrtical, you take the cake. LOL
> 
> this whole thread is about how obama and the left are wrong to use a name that was used by some of the tea partiers to the whole and then you go an assign a belief to the whole of liberals based on your own biased opinions. LOL
> 
> Thanks for the hypocrisy. LOL



If so thanks for the hypocrisy.

You attribute a standard to the left as a whole with no justification even as you are trying to attack the left as you accuse them of assigning a name to the tea party as a whole. LOL

so based on that the "whinger who can't stand to be held accountable for his own words" is YOU.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> So sorry for trying to explore a physical condition that might cause their vulgarity.
> 
> Looks like the only other plausible theory is that they are just Tacky Boors who enjoy insulting people with sexual epithets.



says the poster who is obsessed with trying to assign a "tea-bagging" obsession to a group who has no such obsession merely because they wish to laugh at ignorant righties. LOL 

The fact that YOU are the one focusing on the sexual definition of the term shows that YOU are the one with the obsession.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. More opinions presented as fact. How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!  The moron wants you to prove a negative.
> 
> What an idiot he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aww more baselss attacks. Thanks for once again showing that is all you have to offer.
> 
> BTW in case you missed it that is my point. If you can't prove a claim then why make it??
> If you know that it is a negative to begin with then you know that you can't prove it. So in other words making a comment that you know can't prove and will avoid even attempting to is only further proof of the dishonesty of the poster who makes said claim and then hides behind "you can't prove a negative" so he can avoid admitting that he was WRONG.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it. LOL
Click to expand...


Cute.  YOU ask someone to prove a negative, get called on the moronic nature of doing so, then try to tell use you know it was moronic to ask all along.

Riiiiight.

But, cute....I guess.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting opinion as fact is your MO and is why you get proven wrong so often. LOL
> 
> that pretty much says it all.
> 
> The sad fact is that you chose, once again to avoid the debate. Mod stated an opinion and instead of debating the content of what was said you avoid the content and attack the poster as usual. LOL That is usually a dead gie away that you have nothing valid to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I've avoided nothing of the sort.  The debate happened last week and took place among thinking posters.  I don't debate morons who feel some need to cut and paste points made by others days ago.
> 
> Maybe you can cut and paste again and parrot away?  You show off, you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you are avoiding the debate as you chime in to attack me. I have said many things that were NOT debated last week and you avoid those comments and the content of my post as you ONLY reply to attack and avoid. In this instance MOD made an argument and instead of debating what was actually said you avoided the debate and tried to attack the poster. It is what you do.
> 
> So go ahead and run away from debates you can't win. After all it's all that you appear to be capable of.
Click to expand...


Polly want a cracker?


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> You lost the debate, if you can call one side providing facts while you and your lefty pals spew the t-word a debate, long ago, bub.



Actually the debate of this thread was lost by you righties and yet despite that FACT you continue to rant on. In the end all you have to offer is to call people names and pretend that you are making a real argument when all you have presented are unsubstantiated OPINIONS.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!  The moron wants you to prove a negative.
> 
> What an idiot he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aww more baselss attacks. Thanks for once again showing that is all you have to offer.
> 
> BTW in case you missed it that is my point. If you can't prove a claim then why make it??
> If you know that it is a negative to begin with then you know that you can't prove it. So in other words making a comment that you know can't prove and will avoid even attempting to is only further proof of the dishonesty of the poster who makes said claim and then hides behind "you can't prove a negative" so he can avoid admitting that he was WRONG.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  YOU ask someone to prove a negative, get called on the moronic nature of doing so, then try to tell use you know it was moronic to ask all along.
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> But, cute....I guess.
Click to expand...


maybe you should read the thread.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Wrong bub.  The Vast Majority of the Tea Party Movement never ever used the T-word to describe themselves.
> 
> Yet you desperately cling to the T-word like it's a soggy, dogged eared, over-used Hustler magazine.   It's worn out - but you still obsess about it.  Get help.



Still making claims that you can't prove, how typical. 

Furthermore, I am not obssessed with the "t-word" but you sure seem to be. 
The funny thing is that you attack the left claiming that they are sexually obsessed even as you rant on about a "soggy, dogged eared, over-used Hustler magazine" and based on your description it would appear that you have some experience in that area. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's STILL a hypocritical flinger of monkey poo either way.  You must be soooooo proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he is NOT but thanks for your OPINION. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit telling, at least to those of us who do our own thinking, that the guy hasn't slipped up and used the term innocently in public.  It's not like he doesn't have nearly non-stop media coverage where he might have slipped up if he didn't understand the word.  But no, we have it from a Dem Congressman, second-hand, that he used it in private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do your own thinking?? and yet you are ranting on in a thread started by right wing bloggers as you repeat right wing talking points and propaganda. LOL So much for doing your own thinking.
> You assume with nothing of substance to support your assumption and allyou are left with is NOTHING. See Si modo for his standard on being called out for BS. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not like I had high hopes for you peeling your lips off Obama's ass for long enough to notice that his behavior is rude, partisan, hypocritical, and un-presidential.
> 
> But, you folks keep doing what you're doing.  It only highlights the ugliness of what your party stands for. 'Cause if you think anyone besides dyed-in-the-wool Obots give a crap about whether it's before or after his bogus pleas for "civility"  that Obama  badmouths American citizens... you can wish in one hand and spit in the other at election time.
Click to expand...


Aww how typical, You can't deal with the facts so you continue to attack in lieu of a real argument. 

Furthermore, of course hypocritical dishonest hacks like you could care less because as usual you hacks will try to make something out of nothing anytime the opportunity presents itself. 
However, my guess is that when HONEST people view the FACT that this situation is being portrayed dishonestly by you hypocrtical righties that they will choose not to follow your blind partisan rants.

Still waiting on proof of your assumptions. You have it don't you?? You wouldn't make a claim that you can't prove would you??


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!  The moron wants you to prove a negative.
> 
> What an idiot he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aww more baselss attacks. Thanks for once again showing that is all you have to offer.
> 
> BTW in case you missed it that is my point. If you can't prove a claim then why make it??
> If you know that it is a negative to begin with then you know that you can't prove it. So in other words making a comment that you know can't prove and will avoid even attempting to is only further proof of the dishonesty of the poster who makes said claim and then hides behind "you can't prove a negative" so he can avoid admitting that he was WRONG.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.  YOU ask someone to prove a negative, get called on the moronic nature of doing so, then try to tell use you know it was moronic to ask all along.
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> But, cute....I guess.
Click to expand...


The fact that you (in general) present an argument that you know that you can't prove says far more about YOU than it does me for asking you to be honest. 

It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it.

and if you present a negative that you know you can't prove and then hide behind "you can't prove a negative" when asked to prove your claim then you are nothing but a dishonest hack. 

Your dishonesty has NO bearing on me. 

Thanks for the spin. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I've avoided nothing of the sort.  The debate happened last week and took place among thinking posters.  I don't debate morons who feel some need to cut and paste points made by others days ago.
> 
> Maybe you can cut and paste again and parrot away?  You show off, you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are avoiding the debate as you chime in to attack me. I have said many things that were NOT debated last week and you avoid those comments and the content of my post as you ONLY reply to attack and avoid. In this instance MOD made an argument and instead of debating what was actually said you avoided the debate and tried to attack the poster. It is what you do.
> 
> So go ahead and run away from debates you can't win. After all it's all that you appear to be capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polly want a cracker?
Click to expand...



LOL It's not my problem that you lack the intelligence to debate a topic and instead feel the need to attack the messenger in a vain attempt to CYA as you avoid a debate. 
If you don't like being called out for it when you do it, which seems to be all of the time, then change your tactics. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aww more baselss attacks. Thanks for once again showing that is all you have to offer.
> 
> BTW in case you missed it that is my point. If you can't prove a claim then why make it??
> If you know that it is a negative to begin with then you know that you can't prove it. So in other words making a comment that you know can't prove and will avoid even attempting to is only further proof of the dishonesty of the poster who makes said claim and then hides behind "you can't prove a negative" so he can avoid admitting that he was WRONG.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.  YOU ask someone to prove a negative, get called on the moronic nature of doing so, then try to tell use you know it was moronic to ask all along.
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> But, cute....I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you (in general) present an argument that you know that you can't prove says far more about YOU than it does me for asking you to be honest.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it.
> 
> and if you present a negative that you know you can't prove and then hide behind "you can't prove a negative" when asked to prove your claim then you are nothing but a dishonest hack.
> 
> Your dishonesty has NO bearing on me.
> 
> Thanks for the spin. LOL
Click to expand...


Damn, even the simplist things escape you.

FYI, I did not make the post that prompted you to ask that a negative be proven.  

I'm just pointing out your lack of logic in doing so.  Sorry about your butt hurt. 

Wow.  The stupid is thick with you.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.  YOU ask someone to prove a negative, get called on the moronic nature of doing so, then try to tell use you know it was moronic to ask all along.
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> But, cute....I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you (in general) present an argument that you know that you can't prove says far more about YOU than it does me for asking you to be honest.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it.
> 
> and if you present a negative that you know you can't prove and then hide behind "you can't prove a negative" when asked to prove your claim then you are nothing but a dishonest hack.
> 
> Your dishonesty has NO bearing on me.
> 
> Thanks for the spin. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, even the simplist things escape you.
> 
> FYI, I did not make the post that prompted you to ask that a negative be proven.
> 
> I'm just pointing out your lack of logic in doing so.  Sorry about your butt hurt.
> 
> Wow.  The stupid is thick with you.
Click to expand...


WOW talk about simple things escaping, in case you missed it, and it's obvious that you did, I made sure to state that i was not speaking of you specifically in response to the post. Which is why I clearly said "you (in general)" because I knew that would be YOUR avoidance response and yet in your zeal to attack me personally that simplest of things escaped YOU. LOL 

I know you did not make the post and my point that you should not make a claim that you know that you can't prove still stands. Even though it does not apply to you in this instance it does apply to you within this thread. 

So once again you choose to attack and avoid the debate as well as ignore what was actually said. 

Thanks for the spin AGAIN but as usual you fall well short of the mark. LOL


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he is NOT but thanks for your OPINION. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> do your own thinking?? and yet you are ranting on in a thread started by right wing bloggers as you repeat right wing talking points and propaganda. LOL So much for doing your own thinking.
> You assume with nothing of substance to support your assumption and allyou are left with is NOTHING. See Si modo for his standard on being called out for BS. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not like I had high hopes for you peeling your lips off Obama's ass for long enough to notice that his behavior is rude, partisan, hypocritical, and un-presidential.
> 
> But, you folks keep doing what you're doing.  It only highlights the ugliness of what your party stands for. 'Cause if you think anyone besides dyed-in-the-wool Obots give a crap about whether it's before or after his bogus pleas for "civility"  that Obama  badmouths American citizens... you can wish in one hand and spit in the other at election time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww how typical, You can't deal with the facts so you continue to attack in lieu of a real argument.
> 
> Furthermore, of course hypocritical dishonest hacks like you could care less because as usual you hacks will try to make something out of nothing anytime the opportunity presents itself.
> However, my guess is that when HONEST people view the FACT that this situation is being portrayed dishonestly by you hypocrtical righties that they will choose not to follow your blind partisan rants.
> 
> Still waiting on proof of your assumptions. You have it don't you?? You wouldn't make a claim that you can't prove would you??
Click to expand...


Proof of what "assumptions"?? 

Are you like a mental defective or something?  'Cause, honestly, you don't sound like you've got both oars in the water, and I don't like to overly excite excitable people.  It's not seemly.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not like I had high hopes for you peeling your lips off Obama's ass for long enough to notice that his behavior is rude, partisan, hypocritical, and un-presidential.
> 
> But, you folks keep doing what you're doing.  It only highlights the ugliness of what your party stands for. 'Cause if you think anyone besides dyed-in-the-wool Obots give a crap about whether it's before or after his bogus pleas for "civility"  that Obama  badmouths American citizens... you can wish in one hand and spit in the other at election time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww how typical, You can't deal with the facts so you continue to attack in lieu of a real argument.
> 
> Furthermore, of course hypocritical dishonest hacks like you could care less because as usual you hacks will try to make something out of nothing anytime the opportunity presents itself.
> However, my guess is that when HONEST people view the FACT that this situation is being portrayed dishonestly by you hypocrtical righties that they will choose not to follow your blind partisan rants.
> 
> Still waiting on proof of your assumptions. You have it don't you?? You wouldn't make a claim that you can't prove would you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof of what "assumptions"??
> 
> Are you like a mental defective or something?  'Cause, honestly, you don't sound like you've got both oars in the water, and I don't like to overly excite excitable people.  It's not seemly.
Click to expand...


LOL you attack me and ask if I am mentally defective and yet you are the one that doesn't even remember what YOU posted. LOL Go back and read your own posts and be sure to let me know when you can substantiate the assumptions made with in them. LOL 

BTW you could also let me know when you are going to respond to the content of my post. My guess is that you are wishing to avoid the fact that this thread and the attacks that are based on it are nothing but dishonest rightwing propaganda spewed by a blogger and then parroted by the right wing lemmings on this board who are now desperate to keep this propaganda alive. If I were you I wouldn't want to talk about that either. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you (in general) present an argument that you know that you can't prove says far more about YOU than it does me for asking you to be honest.
> 
> It's really simple, if you can't PROVE a claim then don't make it.
> 
> and if you present a negative that you know you can't prove and then hide behind "you can't prove a negative" when asked to prove your claim then you are nothing but a dishonest hack.
> 
> Your dishonesty has NO bearing on me.
> 
> Thanks for the spin. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, even the simplist things escape you.
> 
> FYI, I did not make the post that prompted you to ask that a negative be proven.
> 
> I'm just pointing out your lack of logic in doing so.  Sorry about your butt hurt.
> 
> Wow.  The stupid is thick with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW talk about simple things escaping, in case you missed it, and it's obvious that you did, ....
Click to expand...

*I* made the statement that prompted you to idiotically ask that a negative be proven?

What a colossal moron you are.  


drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   *The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.*  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.
> 
> That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. ....
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not like I had high hopes for you peeling your lips off Obama's ass for long enough to notice that his behavior is rude, partisan, hypocritical, and un-presidential.
> 
> But, you folks keep doing what you're doing.  It only highlights the ugliness of what your party stands for. 'Cause if you think anyone besides dyed-in-the-wool Obots give a crap about whether it's before or after his bogus pleas for "civility"  that Obama  badmouths American citizens... you can wish in one hand and spit in the other at election time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww how typical, You can't deal with the facts so you continue to attack in lieu of a real argument.
> 
> Furthermore, of course hypocritical dishonest hacks like you could care less because as usual you hacks will try to make something out of nothing anytime the opportunity presents itself.
> However, my guess is that when HONEST people view the FACT that this situation is being portrayed dishonestly by you hypocrtical righties that they will choose not to follow your blind partisan rants.
> 
> Still waiting on proof of your assumptions. You have it don't you?? You wouldn't make a claim that you can't prove would you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof of what "assumptions"??
> 
> Are you like a mental defective or something?  'Cause, honestly, you don't sound like you've got both oars in the water, and I don't like to overly excite excitable people.  It's not seemly.
Click to expand...


You're right.  Smith's a thousand ants shy of a picnic.  Or just seriously retarded.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, even the simplist things escape you.
> 
> FYI, I did not make the post that prompted you to ask that a negative be proven.
> 
> I'm just pointing out your lack of logic in doing so.  Sorry about your butt hurt.
> 
> Wow.  The stupid is thick with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW talk about simple things escaping, in case you missed it, and it's obvious that you did, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I* made the statement that prompted you to idiotically ask that a negative be proven?
> 
> What a colossal moron you are.
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that it was not the term used by the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement.  One clueless guy set up a website with the term for his personal tea party activities - and a few others used the phrase.   *The rest have not used it - and have called themselves Tea Partiers.*  Instead of accepting that the hundreds of other groups around the country use Tea Party, you and your sad little cadre grasp to the T-word with a fetish-like grip.
> 
> That says a lot about you, and nothing about the 40M people across the country who self-identify as Tea Party Supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet YOU cannot prove that statement. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


YOU really need to learn how to read. I clearly said that you did not post that and IF you had read my post and NOT editted to fit your dishoenst needs then you would have seen that.

My guess is taht you did see it and are ignoring it as you are once again acting like the the dishonest ignorant Si that evreyone knows you to be. 

Here is my ENTIRE post HACK.



> WOW talk about simple things escaping, in case you missed it, and it's obvious that you did, I made sure to state that i was not speaking of you specifically in response to the post. Which is why I clearly said "you (in general)" because I knew that would be YOUR avoidance response and yet in your zeal to attack me personally that simplest of things escaped YOU. LOL
> 
> *I know you did not make the post *and my point that you should not make a claim that you know that you can't prove still stands. Even though it does not apply to you in this instance it does apply to you within this thread.
> 
> So once again you choose to attack and avoid the debate as well as ignore what was actually said.
> 
> Thanks for the spin AGAIN but as usual you fall well short of the mark. LOL


 
Now if you only knew how to read then you would have READ in my post were I state that you did not make that statement.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww how typical, You can't deal with the facts so you continue to attack in lieu of a real argument.
> 
> Furthermore, of course hypocritical dishonest hacks like you could care less because as usual you hacks will try to make something out of nothing anytime the opportunity presents itself.
> However, my guess is that when HONEST people view the FACT that this situation is being portrayed dishonestly by you hypocrtical righties that they will choose not to follow your blind partisan rants.
> 
> Still waiting on proof of your assumptions. You have it don't you?? You wouldn't make a claim that you can't prove would you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of what "assumptions"??
> 
> Are you like a mental defective or something?  'Cause, honestly, you don't sound like you've got both oars in the water, and I don't like to overly excite excitable people.  It's not seemly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Smith's a thousand ants shy of a picnic.  Or just seriously retarded.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving once again that all you have to offer are personal attacks. 
Thanks for trolling have a nice day. LOL


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> LOL you attack me and ask if I am mentally defective and yet you are the one that doesn't even remember what YOU posted. LOL Go back and read your own posts and be sure to let me know when you can substantiate the assumptions made with in them. LOL
> 
> BTW you could also let me know when you are going to respond to the content of my post. My guess is that you are wishing to avoid the fact that this thread and the attacks that are based on it are nothing but dishonest rightwing propaganda spewed by a blogger and then parroted by the right wing lemmings on this board who are now desperate to keep this propaganda alive. If I were you I wouldn't want to talk about that either. LOL



What "content"?  
 Basically, you keep spouting the same drivel over and over again, interspersed with occasional hysterical outbursts about "partisan hackery".

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OBAMA USED DEROGATORY AND PORNAGRAPHIC TERMINOLOGY BEFORE OR AFTER HE PREACHED ABOUT "CIVILITY".   
He's still a giant hypocrite, who thinks he has the right to demand that other people  speak civilly when all along he's incapable of it himself.

Your "point" is pointless.  Your continued defense of it is irrational. 

But whatever... you keep on doing what you do.  It just illustrates to any lurking, unbiased,  observers that you Obots will blindly support your Dear Leader in any behavior he choose to engage in and that it doesn't have to make sense.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you attack me and ask if I am mentally defective and yet you are the one that doesn't even remember what YOU posted. LOL Go back and read your own posts and be sure to let me know when you can substantiate the assumptions made with in them. LOL
> 
> BTW you could also let me know when you are going to respond to the content of my post. My guess is that you are wishing to avoid the fact that this thread and the attacks that are based on it are nothing but dishonest rightwing propaganda spewed by a blogger and then parroted by the right wing lemmings on this board who are now desperate to keep this propaganda alive. If I were you I wouldn't want to talk about that either. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "content"?
> Basically, you keep spouting the same drivel over and over again, interspersed with occasional hysterical outbursts about "partisan hackery".
Click to expand...


I stated the gist of the content in my post above, but as usual you missed it.



> IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OBAMA USED DEROGATORY AND PORNAGRAPHIC TERMINOLOGY BEFORE OR AFTER HE PREACHED ABOUT "CIVILITY".
> He's still a giant hypocrite, who thinks he has the right to demand that other people  speak civilly when all along he's incapable of it himself.



"you keep spouting the same drivel over and over again, interspersed with occasional hysterical outbursts about 'partisan hackery'" LOL 




> Your "point" is pointless.  Your continued defense of it is irrational.



so says the irrational hack who is desperately trying to make something out of nothing. 



> But whatever... you keep on doing what you do.  It just illustrates to any lurking, unbiased,  observers that you Obots will blindly support your Dear Leader in any behavior he choose to engage in and that it doesn't have to make sense.



Actually what this thread illustrates to any unbiased observers is that you have NOTHING and this thread was based on a LIE and then after getting shown it was a lie you are now trying to spin desperately to keep the propaganda alive as you claim that NOW the original LIE based argument of this thread doesn't matter. 

Attacking the messenger by claiming I am your opposite does nothing to counter the message but thanks for the spin.


----------



## boedicca

It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.



and yet I have countered your spin at every turn and the digging has been done by you morons who continue to try to make this into something despite the fact that your original argument was proven to be false after I read the article cited in the OP and found out that the "tea-bagger" comment made was made last year and his call for civility was made last week. The FACTS run counter top the claim that



> Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."



It's funny how desperate hacks like you will try to claim victory even when you know that you already lost the debate. LOL


----------



## boedicca

Think that if it gives you comfort, bub.   Given the Epic Fail of your posts here, it's good for you to have a fantasy life as a form of consolation.


----------



## Murf76

boedicca said:


> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.



Is he just _simple_? 
Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?

There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Murf76 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
Click to expand...


timelines, they are a bitch.


----------



## boedicca

Murf76 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
Click to expand...



I'm going to hazard a guess that he's 17 or 18 years old.   His posts result from a combination of lack of education, knowledge, and experience.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Think that if it gives you comfort, bub.   Given the Epic Fail of your posts here, it's good for you to have a fantasy life as a form of consolation.



HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail. 

The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position. 
In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.  

Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
Click to expand...


Once again only attacks and no response. How typical.

Thanks for trolling have a nice day. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

L.K.Eder said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> timelines, they are a bitch.
Click to expand...


Exactly, nvm the fact that their original argument was shot down based on the timeline, NOW they are trying to claim that proximity where time is concerned doesn't matter when it was the core of their argument to begin with. They were proven WRONG and then despite that keep going as they try to spin a new line of propaganda. 

The funny thing is murf tried to call me an Obot when he is nothing but an Ohater. He and others like him do nothing but troll and try to make up anything that they think they can spin if they believe they can use it to attack obama. 

All they have left is spin and personal attacks as they try to keep the propaganda alive. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sadly amusing watching drsmith continue to dig himself into a deeper hole, but at some point, his shovel has got to wear out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to hazard a guess that he's 17 or 18 years old.   His posts result from a combination of lack of education, knowledge, and experience.
Click to expand...


LOL the more you engage in trolling with your baseless personal attacks the more you tell anyone not a rightwing hack reading that you know you lost and that attacking the messenger is all that you have left.


----------



## L.K.Eder

drsmith1072 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he just _simple_?
> Honestly, I can't figure out what the hell he's on about.  Am I missing something?
> 
> There's no "content" that I'm aware of that hasn't been hashed and rehashed... and rehashed again.  He seems under the impression that Obama's despicable use of the epithet, "teabagger" is somehow mitigated by the timing of it.  Like it's some kind of magical explanation for why the President of the United States should behave like a big hypocritical douche-bag.   I'm just not seeing why he thinks the timing makes it more acceptable somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timelines, they are a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, nvm the fact that their original argument was shot down based on the timeline, NOW they are trying to claim that proximity where time is concerned doesn't matter when it was the core of their argument to begin with. They were proven WRONG and then despite that keep going as they try to spin a new line of propaganda.
> 
> The funny thing is murf tried to call me an Obot when he is nothing but an Ohater. He and others like him do nothing but troll and try to make up anything that they think they can spin if they believe they can use it to attack obama.
> 
> All they have left is spin and personal attacks as they try to keep the propaganda alive. LOL
Click to expand...


their "argument" has been from the beginning: "grrrrr, i don't like obama." this, of course will not change. therefore "obama is classless, a hypocrite etc."

can't beat that "argument".


----------



## Murf76

boedicca said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess that he's 17 or 18 years old.   His posts result from a combination of lack of education, knowledge, and experience.



Ahhh... THAT would explain some things. 

Heck, I was a "liberal" back when I was a youngster.  And  I still remember how strong and important my opinions seemed to be.  Ain't that just the way of it though. 




My apologies, Dr., if you are indeed a young person.  It takes time and life experience to solidify one's personal philosophy.  My responses would have been unnecessarily harsh in that light.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think that if it gives you comfort, bub.   Given the Epic Fail of your posts here, it's good for you to have a fantasy life as a form of consolation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.
> 
> The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position.
> In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.
> 
> Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.
Click to expand...

Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.

But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think that if it gives you comfort, bub.   Given the Epic Fail of your posts here, it's good for you to have a fantasy life as a form of consolation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.
> 
> The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position.
> In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.
> 
> Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.
Click to expand...


Actually NO I did not parrot but thanks for the spin. I even asked about that time line argument when I presented it and you couldn't show me when that argument was made by someone else PRIOR to me making it and in fact you never even responded to it. 

So care to prove it NOW?? Or is this just another one of your BS spin attempts where you make an argument that you know that you can't prove?? 

What is hilarious is that this thread is full of nothing but one righty parroting another based on some propaganda from a blog and you are actually trying to call me a parrot. LOL

Oh and just so you don't get confused I am talking about the timeline concerning when obama made the "tea-bagger" statement (back in 2009) and when he called for civility (last week). I know you tend to get confused like you did in your previous post where you LIED after editting my post so i thought I would be specific just for you.

BTW I notice that you didn't respond after I called you out for your dishonest edit of my post. I wonder why??


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.
> 
> The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position.
> In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.
> 
> Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually NO I did not parrot but thanks for the spin. I even asked about that time line argument when I presented it and you couldn't show me when that argument was made by someone else PRIOR to me making it and in fact you never even responded to it.
> 
> So care to prove it NOW?? Or is this just another one of your BS spin attempts where you make an argument that you know that you can't prove??
> 
> What is hilarious is that this thread is full of nothing but one righty parroting another based on some propaganda from a blog and you are actually trying to call me a parrot. LOL
Click to expand...


Prove what?  Something already discussed last fucking week?  Or , you want me to prove a negative?  I bet that's what you still want.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually NO I did not parrot but thanks for the spin. I even asked about that time line argument when I presented it and you couldn't show me when that argument was made by someone else PRIOR to me making it and in fact you never even responded to it.
> 
> So care to prove it NOW?? Or is this just another one of your BS spin attempts where you make an argument that you know that you can't prove??
> 
> What is hilarious is that this thread is full of nothing but one righty parroting another based on some propaganda from a blog and you are actually trying to call me a parrot. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove what?  Something already discussed last fucking week?  Or , you want me to prove a negative?  I bet that's what you still want.
Click to expand...


How typical, you claimed I parroted the timeline concerning when obama actually made the "tea-bagger" compared to when he asked for civility and when asked to prove your claim you avoid doing so and therefore you LOSE. 

Thanks for running away AGAIN and proving how much of a dishonest hack you truly are. LOL


----------



## boedicca

I wish I had a dollar for every time drsmith posted the T-Word.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually NO I did not parrot but thanks for the spin. I even asked about that time line argument when I presented it and you couldn't show me when that argument was made by someone else PRIOR to me making it and in fact you never even responded to it.
> 
> So care to prove it NOW?? Or is this just another one of your BS spin attempts where you make an argument that you know that you can't prove??
> 
> What is hilarious is that this thread is full of nothing but one righty parroting another based on some propaganda from a blog and you are actually trying to call me a parrot. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what?  Something already discussed last fucking week?  Or , you want me to prove a negative?  I bet that's what you still want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How typical, you claimed I parroted the timeline concerning when obama actually made the "tea-bagger" compared to when he asked for civility and when asked to prove your claim you avoid doing so and therefore you LOSE.
> 
> Thanks for running away AGAIN and proving how much of a dishonest hack you truly are. LOL
Click to expand...

Although I do usually just scroll past your posts, the fact that I am still posting in this thread several days after the debate came and went, indicates (at least to those with two brain cells to rub together) that I have no intention of going anywhere.  I know you WISH I and others would go away.  We just don't seem to be going anywhere.


----------



## drsmith1072

Let's see in the past few pages I have shown si to be dishonest on at least a few occasions. 

First post # 633, his ignoring of the FACT that I used the general form of YOU and even specified that I was doing so, and then he attacks me with his false allegation that I stated he posted something when I clearly said that he did NOT. 

Second post# 637 his editting of my post so he can repeat said LIES where he claims I said he posted something he did not when I admit within that post that he did not post it.

Third post #655 Si lies and claims that I parroted the argument that the timeline doesn't fit the OP's argument concerning when obama used the term "tea-bagger" in reference to when he called for civility.

Poor Si, he keeps coming at me and then turns tail and runs from the debate when I call him out for his BS.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> I wish I had a dollar for every time drsmith posted the T-Word.



You know that might mean something IF I were applying it to YOU instead of using the term as part of the debate. I am not directing it anyone so why do you whine?

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I had to spell something out for you and my guess is that i would have more money. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what?  Something already discussed last fucking week?  Or , you want me to prove a negative?  I bet that's what you still want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How typical, you claimed I parroted the timeline concerning when obama actually made the "tea-bagger" compared to when he asked for civility and when asked to prove your claim you avoid doing so and therefore you LOSE.
> 
> Thanks for running away AGAIN and proving how much of a dishonest hack you truly are. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although I do usually just scroll past your posts, the fact that I am still posting in this thread several days after the debate came and went, indicates (at least to those with two brain cells to rub together) that I have no intention of going anywhere.  I know you WISH I and others would go away.  We just don't seem to be going anywhere.
Click to expand...


More avoidance from you, imagine that. 
It should be easy. I am not asking you to prove a negative and IF you could prove your claim, you could  do it easily by looking back into this thread and showing when and where someone made that timeline argument concerning when obama used the word "tea-baggers" inreferense to when he called for civility and you would actually prove your argument.

*You made the claim how about you PROVE IT and stop running away*

However, you and I both know that you can't which is why you are still avoiding doing so. 

BTW IF you usually just scroll past my thread then how can you say my arguments are parroted?? Kind of shot your own spin in the foot there moron. LOL 

P.S. it's sad that i have to explain this to you but "running away" is used to describe how YOU continue to avoid debates that you know you are going to lose. I actually wish that you and others had the ability to debate a topic but as usual all you have to offer are avoidance and personal attacks. 

oh well it's time to go but I will be back tomorrow to watch you spin and squirm some more. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How typical, you claimed I parroted the timeline concerning when obama actually made the "tea-bagger" compared to when he asked for civility and when asked to prove your claim you avoid doing so and therefore you LOSE.
> 
> Thanks for running away AGAIN and proving how much of a dishonest hack you truly are. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Although I do usually just scroll past your posts, the fact that I am still posting in this thread several days after the debate came and went, indicates (at least to those with two brain cells to rub together) that I have no intention of going anywhere.  I know you WISH I and others would go away.  We just don't seem to be going anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More avoidance from you, imagine that.
> It should be easy. I am not asking you to prove a negative and IF you could prove your claim, you could  do it easily by looking back into this thread and showing when and where someone made that timeline argument concerning when obama used the word "tea-baggers" inreferense to when he called for civility and you would actually prove your argument.
> 
> *You made the claim how about you PROVE IT and stop running away*
> 
> However, you and I both know that you can't which is why you are still avoiding doing so.
> 
> BTW IF you usually just scroll past my thread then how can you say my arguments are parroted?? Kind of shot your own spin in the foot there moron. LOL
> 
> P.S. it's sad that i have to explain this to you but "running away" is used to describe how YOU continue to avoid debates that you know you are going to lose. I actually wish that you and others had the ability to debate a topic but as usual all you have to offer are avoidance and personal attacks.
> 
> oh well it's time to go but I will be back tomorrow to watch you spin and squirm some more. LOL
Click to expand...


See, more idiotic insanity from you.  What the fuck do your delusions allow you to think 'my claim' is?

Idiot.


----------



## boedicca

At least he's consistently idiotic.  He does deserve recognition for that.


----------



## Si modo

boedicca said:


> At least he's consistently idiotic.  He does deserve recognition for that.


  Yes, but I'm avoiding him, doncha know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's consistently idiotic.  He does deserve recognition for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm avoiding him, doncha know.
Click to expand...


si got his ass kicked, and now he can slouch on out.  The slob lies like Stephanie.


----------



## boedicca

Only in your anti-logic Universe bub.

All drsmith did was repeat the same nonsense over and over and over again until it became just too dang dull to warrant a response.  That's not victory.


----------



## JakeStarkey

boedicca said:


> Only in your anti-logic Universe bub.
> 
> All drsmith did was repeat the same nonsense over and over and over again until it became just too dang dull to warrant a response.  That's not victory.



boedicca you have earlier been caught in falsehoods, so your endorsement is squashed.  You can get in step with si and stephanie.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least he's consistently idiotic.  He does deserve recognition for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm avoiding him, doncha know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> si got his ass kicked, and now he can slouch on out.  The slob lies like Stephanie.
Click to expand...

Strawmen always kick my ass.    They are so cool that way.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yeah, si, lies do that to you.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, si, lies do that to you.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I do usually just scroll past your posts, the fact that I am still posting in this thread several days after the debate came and went, indicates (at least to those with two brain cells to rub together) that I have no intention of going anywhere.  I know you WISH I and others would go away.  We just don't seem to be going anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More avoidance from you, imagine that.
> It should be easy. I am not asking you to prove a negative and IF you could prove your claim, you could  do it easily by looking back into this thread and showing when and where someone made that timeline argument concerning when obama used the word "tea-baggers" inreferense to when he called for civility and you would actually prove your argument.
> 
> *You made the claim how about you PROVE IT and stop running away*
> 
> However, you and I both know that you can't which is why you are still avoiding doing so.
> 
> BTW IF you usually just scroll past my thread then how can you say my arguments are parroted?? Kind of shot your own spin in the foot there moron. LOL
> 
> P.S. it's sad that i have to explain this to you but "running away" is used to describe how YOU continue to avoid debates that you know you are going to lose. I actually wish that you and others had the ability to debate a topic but as usual all you have to offer are avoidance and personal attacks.
> 
> oh well it's time to go but I will be back tomorrow to watch you spin and squirm some more. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, more idiotic insanity from you.  What the fuck do your delusions allow you to think 'my claim' is?
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


WOW so more avoidance from you. imagine that.

I really wish you were inteligent enough to follow along. However, since you are NOT i will spell it out for you in the hopes that even someone as SLOW as you can keep up.

post # 655 you made the following claim



Si modo said:


> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.



Which was in reference to the time line argument "I" made concerning when obama used the term "tea-bagger" (2009) in reference to when he called for civility (2010).

So I asked you to prove YOUR claim and then you started your standard attack and avoidance tactics instead of trying to prove a claim that you know that you can't.

So once again, can you prove your claim or will you continue to spin and run away because you know that you can't?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More avoidance from you, imagine that.
> It should be easy. I am not asking you to prove a negative and IF you could prove your claim, you could  do it easily by looking back into this thread and showing when and where someone made that timeline argument concerning when obama used the word "tea-baggers" inreferense to when he called for civility and you would actually prove your argument.
> 
> *You made the claim how about you PROVE IT and stop running away*
> 
> However, you and I both know that you can't which is why you are still avoiding doing so.
> 
> BTW IF you usually just scroll past my thread then how can you say my arguments are parroted?? Kind of shot your own spin in the foot there moron. LOL
> 
> P.S. it's sad that i have to explain this to you but "running away" is used to describe how YOU continue to avoid debates that you know you are going to lose. I actually wish that you and others had the ability to debate a topic but as usual all you have to offer are avoidance and personal attacks.
> 
> oh well it's time to go but I will be back tomorrow to watch you spin and squirm some more. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, more idiotic insanity from you.  What the fuck do your delusions allow you to think 'my claim' is?
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW so more avoidance from you. imagine that.
> 
> I really wish you were inteligent enough to follow along. However, since you are NOT i will spell it out for you in the hopes that even someone as SLOW as you can keep up.
> 
> post # 655 you made the following claim
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was in reference to the time line argument "I" made concerning when obama used the term "tea-bagger" (2009) in reference to when he called for civility (2010).
> 
> So I asked you to prove YOUR claim and then you started your standard attack and avoidance tactics instead of trying to prove a claim that you know that you can't.
> 
> So once again, can you prove your claim or will you continue to spin and run away because you know that you can't?
Click to expand...


If I quoted your posts showing you are nothing but a parrot, that would be a waste of my time.  Your parroting posts are there for all to see, Johnny-come-lately.

Do you have a point?  Or are you just parroting others' posts, AGAIN?


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> At least he's consistently idiotic.  He does deserve recognition for that.



And then come the group attacks, because they can't debate the facts they resort to personal attacks in lieu of a real argument. 

How typical.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, more idiotic insanity from you.  What the fuck do your delusions allow you to think 'my claim' is?
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW so more avoidance from you. imagine that.
> 
> I really wish you were inteligent enough to follow along. However, since you are NOT i will spell it out for you in the hopes that even someone as SLOW as you can keep up.
> 
> post # 655 you made the following claim
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them.
> 
> But, we DO know that you can quote others who made a point last week.  Obviously, simple mimicking gives you some sense of accomplishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was in reference to the time line argument "I" made concerning when obama used the term "tea-bagger" (2009) in reference to when he called for civility (2010).
> 
> So I asked you to prove YOUR claim and then you started your standard attack and avoidance tactics instead of trying to prove a claim that you know that you can't.
> 
> So once again, can you prove your claim or will you continue to spin and run away because you know that you can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I quoted your posts showing you are nothing but a parrot, that would be a waste of my time.  Your parroting posts are there for all to see, Johnny-come-lately.
> 
> Do you have a point?  Or are you just parroting others' posts, AGAIN?
Click to expand...


HAHA how typical.

YOU made a claim and then when asked to prove it you run away from doing so because you know that you can't prove it. First you hide behind "you can't prove a negative" and then you hide behind other lame excuses. Face it, you've got nothing. 

If you showed where I parroted the timeline argument that I am referring to then you would prove that I parroted it and i would admit I was wrong. However, since being asked to substantiate your claim all you have done is try to avoid even attempting to prove your argument. You even went so far as to pretend that you didn't know what claim you were being asked to prove. 

In the end, you got owned and have been busted for being nothing but a dishonest hack several times in this thread. You have ZERO credibiltiy and only continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW so more avoidance from you. imagine that.
> 
> I really wish you were inteligent enough to follow along. However, since you are NOT i will spell it out for you in the hopes that even someone as SLOW as you can keep up.
> 
> post # 655 you made the following claim
> 
> 
> 
> Which was in reference to the time line argument "I" made concerning when obama used the term "tea-bagger" (2009) in reference to when he called for civility (2010).
> 
> So I asked you to prove YOUR claim and then you started your standard attack and avoidance tactics instead of trying to prove a claim that you know that you can't.
> 
> So once again, can you prove your claim or will you continue to spin and run away because you know that you can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I quoted your posts showing you are nothing but a parrot, that would be a waste of my time.  Your parroting posts are there for all to see, Johnny-come-lately.
> 
> Do you have a point?  Or are you just parroting others' posts, AGAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHA how typical.
> 
> YOU made a claim and then when asked to prove it you run away from doing so because you know that you can't prove it. First you hide behind "you can't prove a negative" and then you hide behind other lame excuses. Face it, you've got nothing.
> 
> If you showed where I parroted the timeline argument that I am referring to then you would prove that I parroted it and i would admit I was wrong. However, since being asked to substantiate your claim all you have done is try to avoid even attempting to prove your argument. You even went so far as to pretend that you didn't know what claim you were being asked to prove.
> 
> In the end, you got owned and have been busted for being nothing but a dishonest hack several times in this thread. You have ZERO credibiltiy and only continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper. LOL
Click to expand...


Do you have ANYTHING original and/or of significance to add to a debate that took place last week?

Anything?

Anything at all?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I quoted your posts showing you are nothing but a parrot, that would be a waste of my time.  Your parroting posts are there for all to see, Johnny-come-lately.
> 
> Do you have a point?  Or are you just parroting others' posts, AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA how typical.
> 
> YOU made a claim and then when asked to prove it you run away from doing so because you know that you can't prove it. First you hide behind "you can't prove a negative" and then you hide behind other lame excuses. Face it, you've got nothing.
> 
> If you showed where I parroted the timeline argument that I am referring to then you would prove that I parroted it and i would admit I was wrong. However, since being asked to substantiate your claim all you have done is try to avoid even attempting to prove your argument. You even went so far as to pretend that you didn't know what claim you were being asked to prove.
> 
> In the end, you got owned and have been busted for being nothing but a dishonest hack several times in this thread. You have ZERO credibiltiy and only continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have ANYTHING original and/or of significance to add to a debate that took place last week?
> 
> Anything?
> 
> Anything at all?
Click to expand...



YES I have added items of both original and of significance to the debate and out of desperation to avoid a debate you know that you are going to lose you are trying to claim I parroted it when I did NOT. The only poster to respond to that debate was Murf after it caused him to change his argument as he NOW tries to claim that it doesn't matter that the two comments are not linked the way the author of the OP suggested and many righties agreed with.  

You made the claim that I parroted it, PROVE IT.

It's really simple, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.  LOL 

The FACT that you continue to run away from proving your claim shows that you know that you can't. YOU LOSE. However, you are more than welcome to continue spinning, your squirming to avoid admitting that you are WRONG is quite entertaining. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA how typical.
> 
> YOU made a claim and then when asked to prove it you run away from doing so because you know that you can't prove it. First you hide behind "you can't prove a negative" and then you hide behind other lame excuses. Face it, you've got nothing.
> 
> If you showed where I parroted the timeline argument that I am referring to then you would prove that I parroted it and i would admit I was wrong. However, since being asked to substantiate your claim all you have done is try to avoid even attempting to prove your argument. You even went so far as to pretend that you didn't know what claim you were being asked to prove.
> 
> In the end, you got owned and have been busted for being nothing but a dishonest hack several times in this thread. You have ZERO credibiltiy and only continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have ANYTHING original and/or of significance to add to a debate that took place last week?
> 
> Anything?
> 
> Anything at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YES I have added both original and of significance items to the debate and out of desperation to avoid a debate you know that you are going to lose you are trying to claim I parroted it when I did NOT. The only poster to respond to that debate was Murf after it caused him to change his argument as he NOW tries to claim that it doesn't matter that the two comments are not linked the way the author of the OP suggested and many righties agreed with.
> 
> You made the claim that I parroted it, PROVE IT.
> 
> It's really simple, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.  LOL
> 
> The FACT that you continue to run away from proving your claim shows that you know that you can't. YOU LOSE. However, you are more than welcome to continue spinning, your squirming to avoid admitting that you are WRONG is quite entertaining. LOL
Click to expand...


What the fuck is your point, moron?

Make it.

Try to be significant to a debate that happened LAST WEEK when (or IF) you make one.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have ANYTHING original and/or of significance to add to a debate that took place last week?
> 
> Anything?
> 
> Anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES I have added both original and of significance items to the debate and out of desperation to avoid a debate you know that you are going to lose you are trying to claim I parroted it when I did NOT. The only poster to respond to that debate was Murf after it caused him to change his argument as he NOW tries to claim that it doesn't matter that the two comments are not linked the way the author of the OP suggested and many righties agreed with.
> 
> You made the claim that I parroted it, PROVE IT.
> 
> It's really simple, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.  LOL
> 
> The FACT that you continue to run away from proving your claim shows that you know that you can't. YOU LOSE. However, you are more than welcome to continue spinning, your squirming to avoid admitting that you are WRONG is quite entertaining. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck is your point, moron?
> 
> Make it.
> 
> Try to be significant to a debate that happened LAST WEEK when (or IF) you make one.
Click to expand...


I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.

Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.

Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL


----------



## Murf76

drsmith1072 said:


> I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.
> 
> Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.
> 
> Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL



Murf didn't try to "change the argument. 
  Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.

It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.

The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States. 

Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.


> He called on the crowd to "rededicate ourselves to fulfilling the sacred charge the American people have given to us. I'd like all of us to come together with a sense of purpose and *civility* and urgency."
> 
> (more...)
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls on lawmakers to join in &#8216;civility and urgency&#8217;  - Blogs from CNN.com



Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?

The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.


----------



## boedicca

And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".

How classy!


----------



## Stephanie

boedicca said:


> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!



that is their idea of "being civil".
and class and Obama don't even go together, the guy is a thug, nothing more.


----------



## Sherry

boedicca said:


> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!


----------



## JakeStarkey

BHO is class, Steph is trash, and the Dems are going to beat GOP butt on that this fall.

Guys, you have restricted the GOP to the whacky 30% of American voters.  Everyone else laughs at you.


----------



## Stephanie

JakeStarkey said:


> BHO is class, Steph is trash, and the Dems are going to beat GOP butt on that this fall.
> 
> Guys, you have restricted the GOP to the whacky 30% of American voters.  Everyone else laughs at you.



lol, now there is some of that civility from the "so called" republican.
if it quacks like a lefty then.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nah, you guys were uncivil from the very beginning, and now you whine that you get it put in your face.

Tuff luck, Steph.


----------



## Stephanie

JakeStarkey said:


> Nah, you guys were uncivil from the very beginning, and now you whine that you get it put in your face.
> 
> Tuff luck, Steph.


----------



## Si modo

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.
> 
> Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.
> 
> Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> He called on the crowd to "rededicate ourselves to fulfilling the sacred charge the American people have given to us. I'd like all of us to come together with a sense of purpose and *civility* and urgency."
> 
> (more...)
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls on lawmakers to join in civility and urgency  - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
Click to expand...

Do you ever think of the term, 'broken record' whenever Smith is in a thread?

I know this is at least the second time you've said this to him.

(He's not too bright, eh.)


----------



## Si modo

boedicca said:


> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!


Link?

And, if so, again:  Obama is an embarrassment to the office of the POTUS.  He is classless.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stephanie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is their idea of "being civil".
> and class and Obama don't even go together, the guy is a thug, nothing more.
Click to expand...


You folks are having real problems.  This may help you:

Purdue OWL


----------



## bodecea

Sherry said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!
Click to expand...


Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'
Click to expand...


boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.


----------



## drsmith1072

Murf76 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.
> 
> Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.
> 
> Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> He called on the crowd to "rededicate ourselves to fulfilling the sacred charge the American people have given to us. I'd like all of us to come together with a sense of purpose and *civility* and urgency."
> 
> (more...)
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls on lawmakers to join in civility and urgency  - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
Click to expand...


and yet you did try to change the argument.

here is where this thread began



> Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."



and then after I presented my argument exposing how the timeline didn't fit you tried to argue that the timeline doesn't matter AFTER it showed that the original argument was based on a LIE. 

Furthermore, i am still waiting on you to PROVE that obama's intent was to use "a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens." I have asked you this already but your only defense is that you BELIEVE that he is using that form. 

Oh and the only ones who seem to have an "adolescent preoccupation" with the term "tea-baggers" are posters like you who are trying to make something out of NOTHING as you try to denegrate anoyone who mentions the term no matter what context it is used in. 

The sad thing for you is that the core of your argument is the ASSUMPTION that you claim to know what obama's intent was when he made that comment when the reality is that you have no clue. There in lies your "adolescent preoccupation" with the word as you try to define what others were and are thinking based on your own obsession with the sexual form of the word. 

Then in the end you run with more assumption based hypocritical propaganda that is based on more your spin. LOL 
I think it's sad based on what mccain and palin were saying about obama DURING THE CAMPAIGN that you would even think about him replying in kind with a few counters of his own. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. LOL 

BTW I think it's hilarious that in one instance you claim he has self control because he hasn't used "tea-bagger" publically and then in another that he has no self control all so you could attack him. Your contradictions show that you are spinning desperately.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.
> 
> Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.
> 
> Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> He called on the crowd to "rededicate ourselves to fulfilling the sacred charge the American people have given to us. I'd like all of us to come together with a sense of purpose and *civility* and urgency."
> 
> (more...)
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls on lawmakers to join in civility and urgency  - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever think of the term, 'broken record' whenever Smith is in a thread?
> 
> I know this is at least the second time you've said this to him.
> 
> (He's not too bright, eh.)
Click to expand...


aww imagine that, you still can't prove your accusation against me so you have to jump on someone elses coat tails to attack me personally in a desperate attempt to CYA and avoid admitting that you were and are WRONG. LOL 

The sad thing is that you try to call me a broken record and then call out murf for repeating the same baseless argument like a broken record. LOL


----------



## Stephanie

drsmith1072 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point which is why murf tried to change the argument. Your problem is that you have zero integrity and can't be honest enough to admit that FACT and you can't stop trolling and attacking me as you avoid the FACT that you have been proven to be dishonest on several occasions throughout this thread.
> 
> Your latest LIE is that I parroted the argument concerning when obama actually said "tea-bagger" compared to when he called for civility. Once again YOU made a claim you can't prove which shows you to be a LIAR.
> 
> Thanks for trolling have a nice day loser. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet you did try to change the argument.
> 
> here is where this thread began
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then after I presented my argument exposing how the timeline didn't fit you tried to argue that the timeline doesn't matter AFTER it showed that the original argument was based on a LIE.
> 
> Furthermore, i am still waiting on you to PROVE that obama's intent was to use "a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens." I have asked you this already but your only defense is that you BELIEVE that he is using that form.
> 
> Oh and the only ones who seem to have an "adolescent preoccupation" with the term "tea-baggers" are posters like you who are trying to make something out of NOTHING as you try to denegrate anoyone who mentions the term no matter what context it is used in.
> 
> The sad thing for you is that the core of your argument is the ASSUMPTION that you claim to know what obama's intent was when he made that comment when the reality is that you have no clue. There in lies your "adolescent preoccupation" with the word as you try to define what others were and are thinking based on your own obsession with the sexual form of the word.
> 
> Then in the end you run with more assumption based hypocritical propaganda that is based on more your spin. LOL
> I think it's sad based on what mccain and palin were saying about obama DURING THE CAMPAIGN that you would even think about him replying in kind with a few counters of his own. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that in one instance you claim he has self control because he hasn't used "tea-bagger" publically and then in another that he has no self control all so you could attack him. Your contradictions show that you are spinning desperately.
Click to expand...


good grief.
talk about baffling you with BS.


----------



## drsmith1072

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.
Click to expand...


that's kind of where this thread (and a lot of other threads) started.

Some rightwing nut job posts some BS propaganda and then other right-wingers chime in to add to the attacks based on that propaganda despite the fact that the so-called evidence that they are basing it on is either very shaky or non-existent. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Stephanie said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you did try to change the argument.
> 
> here is where this thread began
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then after I presented my argument exposing how the timeline didn't fit you tried to argue that the timeline doesn't matter AFTER it showed that the original argument was based on a LIE.
> 
> Furthermore, i am still waiting on you to PROVE that obama's intent was to use "a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens." I have asked you this already but your only defense is that you BELIEVE that he is using that form.
> 
> Oh and the only ones who seem to have an "adolescent preoccupation" with the term "tea-baggers" are posters like you who are trying to make something out of NOTHING as you try to denegrate anoyone who mentions the term no matter what context it is used in.
> 
> The sad thing for you is that the core of your argument is the ASSUMPTION that you claim to know what obama's intent was when he made that comment when the reality is that you have no clue. There in lies your "adolescent preoccupation" with the word as you try to define what others were and are thinking based on your own obsession with the sexual form of the word.
> 
> Then in the end you run with more assumption based hypocritical propaganda that is based on more your spin. LOL
> I think it's sad based on what mccain and palin were saying about obama DURING THE CAMPAIGN that you would even think about him replying in kind with a few counters of his own. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that in one instance you claim he has self control because he hasn't used "tea-bagger" publically and then in another that he has no self control all so you could attack him. Your contradictions show that you are spinning desperately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good grief.
> talk about baffling you with BS.
Click to expand...


LOL thanks for showing you have NOTHING valid to offer. 

Thanks for trolling and have a nice day.


----------



## Stephanie

drsmith1072 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's kind of where this thread (and a lot of other threads) started.
> 
> Some rightwing nut job posts some BS propaganda and then other right-wingers chime in to add to the attacks based on that propaganda despite the fact that the so-called evidence that they are basing it on is either very shaky or non-existent. LOL
Click to expand...


oh brother.


----------



## drsmith1072

Stephanie said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's kind of where this thread (and a lot of other threads) started.
> 
> Some rightwing nut job posts some BS propaganda and then other right-wingers chime in to add to the attacks based on that propaganda despite the fact that the so-called evidence that they are basing it on is either very shaky or non-existent. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh brother.
Click to expand...


Nice bumper sticker mentality. Not that I am surprised, after all that is typcially what is expected when trolls enter a thread and offer nothing to the debate. LOL


----------



## Stephanie

drsmith1072 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's kind of where this thread (and a lot of other threads) started.
> 
> Some rightwing nut job posts some BS propaganda and then other right-wingers chime in to add to the attacks based on that propaganda despite the fact that the so-called evidence that they are basing it on is either very shaky or non-existent. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice bumper sticker mentality. Not that I am surprised, after all that is typcially what is expected when trolls enter a thread and offer nothing to the debate. LOL
Click to expand...


what is with lefties, everyone they don't like they call trolls?
and honey, all that crap that you spewed is not even worth being "debated".


----------



## drsmith1072

Stephanie said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice bumper sticker mentality. Not that I am surprised, after all that is typcially what is expected when trolls enter a thread and offer nothing to the debate. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is with lefties, everyone they don't like they call trolls?
> and honey, all that crap that you spewed is not even worth being "debated".
Click to expand...


When YOU chime in ONLY to attack/smear/demean then YOU are a TROLL.

So thanks for trying to dishonestly claim that this applies to EVERYONE when it specifically applies to YOU. 

however, as usual righties don't like debating statements that are based in fact so it's no surprise that you would refuse to talk about how YOU chimed in to agree with this



boedicca said:


> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!



as you claim this



Stephanie said:


> that is their idea of "being civil".
> and class and Obama don't even go together, the guy is a thug, nothing more.



when no proof has been offered to support the accusation that obama said anything of the kind. 

Your own posts prove my point, so I can see why you would try to claim it's not worth debating. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murf didn't try to "change the argument.
> Murf said outright and straight up that your "point" is pointless.
> 
> It doesn't matter _when_ Obama used a pornagraphic and utterly inappropriate epithet to describe concerned American citizens.  He's still a giant hypocrite for doing it.
> 
> The adolescent preoccupation with the word "teabagger" is one thing, when it comes from actual adolescents.  It's something entirely different when it's the President of the United States.
> 
> Now, this guy has been nattering on about "civility" since he started taking flak.  It's easy enough to find plenty of examples of it on the web if you bother to look.  Here's one such, article dated January 20, 2009.  Bear in mind that his "teabagger" quote was from November 30, 2009.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Warren's prayer at his inauguration called for "civility".  It's a word that Obama, himself, has used frequently.  So, it didn't matter if the original article said that the book had been released "just three days after Obama's call for civility".  It's been an ongoing situation in which Obama has consistently set one standard for himself and his administration, and another for his critics.   Or have we forgotten him snickering like a 10 year-old as he intimated that Sarah Palin was pig in lipstick way back during the campaign?
> 
> The issue isn't timing.  It's that the guy is a total hypocrite, utterly lacking in self-control.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think of the term, 'broken record' whenever Smith is in a thread?
> 
> I know this is at least the second time you've said this to him.
> 
> (He's not too bright, eh.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aww imagine that, you still can't prove your accusation against me so you have to jump on someone elses coat tails to attack me personally in a desperate attempt to CYA and avoid admitting that you were and are WRONG. LOL
> 
> The sad thing is that you try to call me a broken record and then call out murf for repeating the same baseless argument like a broken record. LOL
Click to expand...




It's now an 'accusation'?

Make up your mind. I can only imagine the disordered thoughts in your head as being similar to some turbulent flow system, but I would bet good money that is a reaching simile.  Likely, random number generators have more organization than the firing of synapses in the space encapsulated by your skull.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Steph is a troll, no question, except by other trolls.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think of the term, 'broken record' whenever Smith is in a thread?
> 
> I know this is at least the second time you've said this to him.
> 
> (He's not too bright, eh.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aww imagine that, you still can't prove your accusation against me so you have to jump on someone elses coat tails to attack me personally in a desperate attempt to CYA and avoid admitting that you were and are WRONG. LOL
> 
> The sad thing is that you try to call me a broken record and then call out murf for repeating the same baseless argument like a broken record. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's now an 'accusation'?
> 
> Make up your mind. I can only imagine the disordered thoughts in your head as being similar to some turbulent flow system, but I would bet good money that is a reaching simile.  Likely, random number generators have more organization than the firing of synapses in the space encapsulated by your skull.
Click to expand...


WOW you must be really desperate if you are trying to focus on the definition of the terminology I used so you can avoid proving your argument/claim/accusation. 

The terminology I used is quite appropriate since you "accused" me of parroting an early argument and as of yet have completely failed to prove that accusation/claim/argument. 

So can you prove that I parroted it or NOT? 

The fact that you keep running away from doing so shows that you can't.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.
Click to expand...



You never learn.  I don't post things which are not true:

_ "You guys are both golfers," Chafets told Limbaugh. "Would you play a round with the president and show the country that there are no hard feelings?"

"He's the president of the United States," Limbaugh told Chafets. "If any president asked me to meet him, or play golf with him, I'd do it. But I promise you that will never happen. His base on the left would have a s--t-fit."

"How about letting me ask?" Chafets said.

"Go ahead," Limbaugh said. "Nothing will come of it."

Chafets writes that he reached out to Obama adviser David Axelrod, "whom I know slightly," but Axelrod didn't return calls. Then Chafets spoke to "a very senior Democratic activist with whom I'm friendly" who said he would convey the message.

A day or two later the adviser responded, "Limbaugh can play with himself." Chafets wouldn't name the aide or say whether the quote was directly from Obama. _

Obama to Limbaugh:go play with yourself - NYPOST.com


The response from the White House was "Limbaugh can play with himself".  As Obama is President, he is responsible for such communications.  

Very low class.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aww imagine that, you still can't prove your accusation against me so you have to jump on someone elses coat tails to attack me personally in a desperate attempt to CYA and avoid admitting that you were and are WRONG. LOL
> 
> The sad thing is that you try to call me a broken record and then call out murf for repeating the same baseless argument like a broken record. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's now an 'accusation'?
> 
> Make up your mind. I can only imagine the disordered thoughts in your head as being similar to some turbulent flow system, but I would bet good money that is a reaching simile.  Likely, random number generators have more organization than the firing of synapses in the space encapsulated by your skull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW you must be really desperate if you are trying to focus on the definition of the terminology I used so you can avoid proving your argument/claim/accusation.
> 
> The terminology I used is quite appropriate since you "accused" me of parroting an early argument and as of yet have completely failed to prove that accusation/claim/argument.
> 
> So can you prove that I parroted it or NOT?
> 
> The fact that you keep running away from doing so shows that you can't.
Click to expand...


All you've done so far is quote others' points (points made a week ago, ), demonstrate that you post before reading (classic knee-jerk behavior), cannot articulate a clear original thought, can't make up your mind, etc.

Do you have ANY point to make of ANY significance?

I guess you really wish I would 'run away' and 'avoid' you, but that's not happening right now.  The forum is rather boring as it's slow news this week, so you've got me and others highlighting your idiocy.

Tell me I'm running away/avoiding you again.  It makes me laugh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Boedicca and si modo continue to ignore context, either willfully creating falsehoods or revealing inherent cognitive difficulties.

Gotta give the whole story, guys.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Boedicca and si modo continue to ignore context, either willfully creating falsehoods or revealing inherent cognitive difficulties.
> 
> Gotta give the whole story, guys.




Jake relishes in the sidelines.






But, honestly, Jake, I bet you look cuter than that in your little outfits.

Oh well, better a cheerleader than a waterboy, like Smith.


----------



## boedicca

JakeStarkey said:


> Boedicca and si modo continue to ignore context, either willfully creating falsehoods or revealing inherent cognitive difficulties.
> 
> Gotta give the whole story, guys.




That's pretty funny coming from someone who promotes the T-word myth.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect any evidence.   Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca is a liar, pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never learn.  I don't post things which are not true:
> 
> _ "You guys are both golfers," Chafets told Limbaugh. "Would you play a round with the president and show the country that there are no hard feelings?"
> 
> "He's the president of the United States," Limbaugh told Chafets. "If any president asked me to meet him, or play golf with him, I'd do it. But I promise you that will never happen. His base on the left would have a s--t-fit."
> 
> "How about letting me ask?" Chafets said.
> 
> "Go ahead," Limbaugh said. "Nothing will come of it."
> 
> Chafets writes that he reached out to Obama adviser David Axelrod, "whom I know slightly," but Axelrod didn't return calls. Then Chafets spoke to "a very senior Democratic activist with whom I'm friendly" who said he would convey the message.
> 
> A day or two later the adviser responded, "Limbaugh can play with himself." Chafets wouldn't name the aide or say whether the quote was directly from Obama. _
> 
> Obama to Limbaugh:go play with yourself - NYPOST.com
> 
> 
> The response from the White House was "Limbaugh can play with himself".  As Obama is President, he is responsible for such communications.
> 
> Very low class.
Click to expand...


what is very low class is YOU trying to attack obama for something an advisor said. The advisor making that comment is a far cry from 



boedicca said:


> And now The One has told Rush Limbaugh to "play with himself".
> 
> How classy!



Furthermore, what do you assume the advisor meant by "play with himself"? Did your mind go straight to the gutter?? 

The other thing that is hilarious is that this thread is all about calling people names and then you go and refer to obama as "The One." Thanks for the blatantly obvious hypocrisy. LOL 
It's funny how NOW that a democrat is in office that everything that comes from the white house is to be taken as obama's own words and yet i don't seem to remember right-wingers applying that standard to W's whitehouse. I wonder why the differing standards?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's now an 'accusation'?
> 
> Make up your mind. I can only imagine the disordered thoughts in your head as being similar to some turbulent flow system, but I would bet good money that is a reaching simile.  Likely, random number generators have more organization than the firing of synapses in the space encapsulated by your skull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you must be really desperate if you are trying to focus on the definition of the terminology I used so you can avoid proving your argument/claim/accusation.
> 
> The terminology I used is quite appropriate since you "accused" me of parroting an early argument and as of yet have completely failed to prove that accusation/claim/argument.
> 
> So can you prove that I parroted it or NOT?
> 
> The fact that you keep running away from doing so shows that you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you've done so far is quote others' points (points made a week ago, ), demonstrate that you post before reading (classic knee-jerk behavior), cannot articulate a clear original thought, can't make up your mind, etc.
> 
> Do you have ANY point to make of ANY significance?
> 
> I guess you really wish I would 'run away' and 'avoid' you, but that's not happening right now.  The forum is rather boring as it's slow news this week, so you've got me and others highlighting your idiocy.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away/avoiding you again.  It makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


Parroting the false claim that you have yet to prove as you engage in personal attacks is just more of your usual avoidance. 

Prove your claim/accusation/argument.  The sad FACT is that you know that you can't or else you would have. 

BTW nice avoidance of the fact that you exposed yourself as a tool when you tried to attack me for using the term "accusation" instead of claim or argument when all applied to what you were doing.

You just can't help showing how dishonest you truly are can you? LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you must be really desperate if you are trying to focus on the definition of the terminology I used so you can avoid proving your argument/claim/accusation.
> 
> The terminology I used is quite appropriate since you "accused" me of parroting an early argument and as of yet have completely failed to prove that accusation/claim/argument.
> 
> So can you prove that I parroted it or NOT?
> 
> The fact that you keep running away from doing so shows that you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you've done so far is quote others' points (points made a week ago, ), demonstrate that you post before reading (classic knee-jerk behavior), cannot articulate a clear original thought, can't make up your mind, etc.
> 
> Do you have ANY point to make of ANY significance?
> 
> I guess you really wish I would 'run away' and 'avoid' you, but that's not happening right now.  The forum is rather boring as it's slow news this week, so you've got me and others highlighting your idiocy.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away/avoiding you again.  It makes me laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parroting the false claim that you have yet to prove as you engage in personal attacks is just more of your usual avoidance.
> 
> Prove your claim/accusation/argument.  The sad FACT is that you know that you can't or else you would have.
> 
> BTW nice avoidance of the fact that you exposed yourself as a tool when you tried to attack me for using the term "accusation" instead of claim or argument when all applied to what you were doing.
> 
> You just can't help showing how dishonest you truly are can you? LOL
Click to expand...


You STILL can't figure out what you want?  And you STILL can't make any point with any significance?

Amazing, waterboy.


----------



## drsmith1072

JakeStarkey said:


> Boedicca and si modo continue to ignore context, either willfully creating falsehoods or revealing inherent cognitive difficulties.
> 
> Gotta give the whole story, guys.



LOL boedicca just seems to run with whatever propaganda he is fed without question and Si just continues to parrot the same basless accusation over and over again so he can avoid proving his claims. 

The sad thing is that I actually believe that they know they have nothing but my guess is that they believe that if they just continue posting and endless amount of trolling baseless attack posts that they are actually responding to what has been written when nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith makes the mistake of assuming I'm a man.

I would never make the mistake of thinking he is one.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you've done so far is quote others' points (points made a week ago, ), demonstrate that you post before reading (classic knee-jerk behavior), cannot articulate a clear original thought, can't make up your mind, etc.
> 
> Do you have ANY point to make of ANY significance?
> 
> I guess you really wish I would 'run away' and 'avoid' you, but that's not happening right now.  The forum is rather boring as it's slow news this week, so you've got me and others highlighting your idiocy.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away/avoiding you again.  It makes me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parroting the false claim that you have yet to prove as you engage in personal attacks is just more of your usual avoidance.
> 
> Prove your claim/accusation/argument.  The sad FACT is that you know that you can't or else you would have.
> 
> BTW nice avoidance of the fact that you exposed yourself as a tool when you tried to attack me for using the term "accusation" instead of claim or argument when all applied to what you were doing.
> 
> You just can't help showing how dishonest you truly are can you? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You STILL can't figure out what you want?  And you STILL can't make any point with any significance?
> 
> Amazing, waterboy.
Click to expand...


WOW you really are retarded aren't you??

I have specified what I want and have asked you multiple times to prove your repeated false allegation that I parroted the argument concerning when obama used the "tea-bagger" term in reference to when he called for civility according to the original argument.

You claim that I parroted it, then PROVE that I did. It's simple enough to do IF you can. all you have to do is show ONE post prior to me making that timeline argument in which the poster made that same argument and you can prove your claim. However, you continue to avoid doing so as you keep parroting the same lame defenses of your indefensible position. LOL 

How many time does it have to be spelled out to you before you begin to comprehend??


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith makes the mistake of assuming I'm a man.
> 
> I would never make the mistake of thinking he is one.



Whether you are a man or a woman it has NO bearing on the fact that you are troll and you like Si cannot offer anything REAL to substantiate your claims.

Attacking the messenger will not substantiate your claims either.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parroting the false claim that you have yet to prove as you engage in personal attacks is just more of your usual avoidance.
> 
> Prove your claim/accusation/argument.  The sad FACT is that you know that you can't or else you would have.
> 
> BTW nice avoidance of the fact that you exposed yourself as a tool when you tried to attack me for using the term "accusation" instead of claim or argument when all applied to what you were doing.
> 
> You just can't help showing how dishonest you truly are can you? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL can't figure out what you want?  And you STILL can't make any point with any significance?
> 
> Amazing, waterboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW you really are retarded aren't you??
> 
> I have specified what I want and have asked you multiple times to prove your repeated false allegation that I parroted the argument concerning when obama used the "tea-bagger" term in reference to when he called for civility according to the original argument.
> 
> You claim that I parroted it, then PROVE that I did. It's simple enough to do IF you can. all you have to do is show ONE post prior to me making that timeline argument in which the poster made that same argument and you can prove your claim. However, you continue to avoid doing so as you keep parroting the same lame defenses of your indefensible position. LOL
> 
> How many time does it have to be spelled out to you before you begin to comprehend??
Click to expand...


I'm impressed with your projections.  You come into this thread looking like a fool by thinking you are debating while simply parroting posts others made last week.

Then, you think you've come up with some earth-shattering point of great significance to 'refute' the opinions of so many that Obama is classless since he used the term teabagger and that Obama is a hypocrite in asking for civility.

You are nothing but a waterboy who has found a pebble thinking it is of some significance to the game.

What a fucking moron you are.

Now, go make yourself useful and get us some water, boy.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL can't figure out what you want?  And you STILL can't make any point with any significance?
> 
> Amazing, waterboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you really are retarded aren't you??
> 
> I have specified what I want and have asked you multiple times to prove your repeated false allegation that I parroted the argument concerning when obama used the "tea-bagger" term in reference to when he called for civility according to the original argument.
> 
> You claim that I parroted it, then PROVE that I did. It's simple enough to do IF you can. all you have to do is show ONE post prior to me making that timeline argument in which the poster made that same argument and you can prove your claim. However, you continue to avoid doing so as you keep parroting the same lame defenses of your indefensible position. LOL
> 
> How many time does it have to be spelled out to you before you begin to comprehend??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed with your projections.  You come into this thread looking like a fool by thinking you are debating while simply parroting posts others made last week.
> 
> Then, you think you've come up with some earth-shattering point of great significance to 'refute' the opinions of so many that Obama is classless since he uses the term teabagger and that Obama is a hypocrite in doing so.
> 
> You are nothing but a waterboy who has found a pebble thinking it is of some significance.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
Click to expand...


OK so when are you going to prove your accusation that i parroted the argument that I have asked you about for most of the week?? 

You keep "responding" with baseless accusations and personal attacks and yet fail to provide PROOF of your accusations that I parroted. 

As usual when push comes to shove all you do is show that you have NOTHING as you parrot the same false allegation over and over and over again. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you really are retarded aren't you??
> 
> I have specified what I want and have asked you multiple times to prove your repeated false allegation that I parroted the argument concerning when obama used the "tea-bagger" term in reference to when he called for civility according to the original argument.
> 
> You claim that I parroted it, then PROVE that I did. It's simple enough to do IF you can. all you have to do is show ONE post prior to me making that timeline argument in which the poster made that same argument and you can prove your claim. However, you continue to avoid doing so as you keep parroting the same lame defenses of your indefensible position. LOL
> 
> How many time does it have to be spelled out to you before you begin to comprehend??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm impressed with your projections.  You come into this thread looking like a fool by thinking you are debating while simply parroting posts others made last week.
> 
> Then, you think you've come up with some earth-shattering point of great significance to 'refute' the opinions of so many that Obama is classless since he uses the term teabagger and that Obama is a hypocrite in doing so.
> 
> You are nothing but a waterboy who has found a pebble thinking it is of some significance.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so when are you going to prove your accusation that i parroted the argument that I have asked you about for most of the week??
> 
> You keep "responding" with baseless accusations and personal attacks and yet fail to provide PROOF of your accusations that I parroted.
> 
> As usual when push comes to shove all you do is show that you have NOTHING as you parrot the same false allegation over and over and over again. LOL
Click to expand...

Oh

my

God.



Once again, waterboy:  I am NOT going to inanely repost your parroting - and my days-ago-and-already pointing it out - pages back in the thread.  Unlike you, most posters (the thinking ones) actually READ the fucking threads.

Those who don't, like you, are morons and I really don't care if morons agree with me or not.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm impressed with your projections.  You come into this thread looking like a fool by thinking you are debating while simply parroting posts others made last week.
> 
> Then, you think you've come up with some earth-shattering point of great significance to 'refute' the opinions of so many that Obama is classless since he uses the term teabagger and that Obama is a hypocrite in doing so.
> 
> You are nothing but a waterboy who has found a pebble thinking it is of some significance.
> 
> What a fucking moron you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so when are you going to prove your accusation that i parroted the argument that I have asked you about for most of the week??
> 
> You keep "responding" with baseless accusations and personal attacks and yet fail to provide PROOF of your accusations that I parroted.
> 
> As usual when push comes to shove all you do is show that you have NOTHING as you parrot the same false allegation over and over and over again. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh
> 
> my
> 
> God.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, waterboy:  I am NOT going to inanely repost your parroting - and my days-ago-and-already pointing it out - pages back in the thread.  Unlike you, most posters (the thinking ones) actually READ the fucking threads.
> 
> Those who don't, like you, are morons and I really don't care if morons agree with me or not.
Click to expand...


Thanks for admitting that you won't and can't prove your accusation. All you have done "days-ago" and since was make the same unsubstantiated accusation that you are parroting now. You never proved it back then and you still haven't.

Keep running loser, parroting the same lame excuses over and over again is not a valid defense and makes you look ridiculous and hypocritical. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so when are you going to prove your accusation that i parroted the argument that I have asked you about for most of the week??
> 
> You keep "responding" with baseless accusations and personal attacks and yet fail to provide PROOF of your accusations that I parroted.
> 
> As usual when push comes to shove all you do is show that you have NOTHING as you parrot the same false allegation over and over and over again. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> my
> 
> God.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, waterboy:  I am NOT going to inanely repost your parroting - and my days-ago-and-already pointing it out - pages back in the thread.  Unlike you, most posters (the thinking ones) actually READ the fucking threads.
> 
> Those who don't, like you, are morons and I really don't care if morons agree with me or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you won't and can't prove your accusation. All you have done "days-ago" was make the same unsubstantiated claim that you are making now. You never proved it back then and you still haven't
> 
> Keep running loser, parroting the same lame excuses over and over again is not a valid defense and makes you look ridiculous and hypocritical. LOL
Click to expand...


Your thought processes allow you to think that my already doing what you asked is equvalent to admitting that it wasn't done.



I know you WISH I would run away, but I haven't.


----------



## drsmith1072

Let's see, here is the cycle that you have engaged in. 
You attacked me claiming I parroted an argument, then i ask you to prove your accusation, you attack me even more repeating said claim that I parroted my claim while you still fail to offer anything of substance to support that accusation. Then after parroting the same accusation a few more times you then ask "what is your point?" so I spell out my point AGAIN and then you start the cycle over again. You have been down this same cycle of avoidance a few times already so it will be no surprise when you ask me "what is your point?" again. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Let's see, here is the cycle that you have engaged in.
> You attacked me claiming I parroted an argument, then i ask you to prove your accusation, you attack me even more repeating said claim that I parroted my claim while you still fail to offer anything of substance to support that accusation. Then after parroting the same accusation a few more times you then ask "what is your point?" so I spell out my point AGAIN and then you start the cycle over again. You have been down this same cycle of avoidance a few times already so it will be no surprise when you ask me "what is your point?" again. LOL


Still need a fix of bandwidth?  Not getting enough attention, waterboy?

I know it's hard for the insane to grasp simple facts, but seriously, does the home know that you're out and about?

Come on, tell me that I'm running away, again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dr. in #723 above correctly identifies the whinge fringe's arguing tactics.  They are dishonest, period, and make for a disinformed electorate.

The far right has to have that or they can't win elections.

Consider the above in reference to si modo, california girl, diamondave and so many other far right whackos.  The can't win on the merits, so they twist the information.

America is on to their tactics, and the 70% is laughing at the far right 30%, who are going to lose again this fall.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh
> 
> my
> 
> God.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, waterboy:  I am NOT going to inanely repost your parroting - and my days-ago-and-already pointing it out - pages back in the thread.  Unlike you, most posters (the thinking ones) actually READ the fucking threads.
> 
> Those who don't, like you, are morons and I really don't care if morons agree with me or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you won't and can't prove your accusation. All you have done "days-ago" was make the same unsubstantiated claim that you are making now. You never proved it back then and you still haven't
> 
> Keep running loser, parroting the same lame excuses over and over again is not a valid defense and makes you look ridiculous and hypocritical. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought processes allow you to think that telling you I've already done what you asked is equvalent to admitting that it wasn't done.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you WISH I would run away, but I haven't.
Click to expand...


You have't done what I asked you lying sack of shite. LOL I suppose I could ask you to go back and find the post where you provided said proof but my guess is that would be as futile as asking you to provide the proof since you know you don't have it.
over the last few days all you have done is parroted tha same baseless accusation and not once have you provided on shred of proof that I parroted the argument in question. 

Merely posting the same unsubstantiated claim in a thread as you RUN AWAY from providing proof of your own claims is a perfect example of you RUNNING AWAY. The fact that you are still parroting your mindless drivel has no bearing on your avoidance of proving your own claim.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you won't and can't prove your accusation. All you have done "days-ago" was make the same unsubstantiated claim that you are making now. You never proved it back then and you still haven't
> 
> Keep running loser, parroting the same lame excuses over and over again is not a valid defense and makes you look ridiculous and hypocritical. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your thought processes allow you to think that telling you I've already done what you asked is equvalent to admitting that it wasn't done.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you WISH I would run away, but I haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have't done what I asked you lying sack of shite. LOL I suppose I could ask you to go back and find the post where you provided said proof but my guess is that would be as futile as asking you to provide the proof since you know you don't have it.
> over the last few days all you have done is parroted tha same baseless accusation and not once have you provided on shred of proof that I parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Merely posting the same unsubstantiated claim in a thread as you RUN AWAY from providing proof of your own claims is a perfect example of you RUNNING AWAY. The fact that you are still parroting your mindless drivel has no bearing on your avoidance of proving your own claim.
Click to expand...


Just because you haven't read the thread does not mean something already hasn't been posted.

But, you are a moron, so I can understand why you would think it does.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, here is the cycle that you have engaged in.
> You attacked me claiming I parroted an argument, then i ask you to prove your accusation, you attack me even more repeating said claim that I parroted my claim while you still fail to offer anything of substance to support that accusation. Then after parroting the same accusation a few more times you then ask "what is your point?" so I spell out my point AGAIN and then you start the cycle over again. You have been down this same cycle of avoidance a few times already so it will be no surprise when you ask me "what is your point?" again. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Still need a fix of bandwidth?  Not getting enough attention, waterboy?
> 
> I know it's hard for the insane to grasp simple facts, but seriously, does the home know that you're out and about?
> 
> Come on, tell me that I'm running away, again.
Click to expand...


parroting your mindless unsubstantiated drivel in a thread does nothing prove that you are not running away from proving your claims.

If you could have done so, then you would have and IF you did prove it earlier as you claim then pointing me to that post would be even easier. However, since you and I both know that you haven't provided the proof, that your claim that you have is nothing but a LIE. 

Thanks for the spin troll. YOU LOSE AGAIN.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, here is the cycle that you have engaged in.
> You attacked me claiming I parroted an argument, then i ask you to prove your accusation, you attack me even more repeating said claim that I parroted my claim while you still fail to offer anything of substance to support that accusation. Then after parroting the same accusation a few more times you then ask "what is your point?" so I spell out my point AGAIN and then you start the cycle over again. You have been down this same cycle of avoidance a few times already so it will be no surprise when you ask me "what is your point?" again. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Still need a fix of bandwidth?  Not getting enough attention, waterboy?
> 
> I know it's hard for the insane to grasp simple facts, but seriously, does the home know that you're out and about?
> 
> Come on, tell me that I'm running away, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> parroting your mindless unsubstantiated drivel in a thread does nothing prove that you are not running away from proving your claims.
> 
> If you could have done so, then you would have and IF you did prove it earlier as you claim then pointing me to that post would be even easier. However, since you and I both know that you haven't provided the proof, that your claim that you have is nothing but a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin troll. YOU LOSE AGAIN.
Click to expand...


You need to catch up, boy.

Now, do something useful and fetch me some water.


----------



## JakeStarkey

si modo has almost always been a fail.  Si can't or won't logically follow the premise, then accuses others of not posting responses to the opinions.  Anyone who follows the thread knows that his arguments fail.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> si modo has almost always been a fail.  Si can't or won't logically follow the premise, then accuses others of not posting responses to the opinions.  Anyone who follows the thread knows that his arguments fail.


  You look so cute on the sidelines.  Now, tell waterboy to fetch you some water, too.  I bet you're thirsty, too.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your thought processes allow you to think that telling you I've already done what you asked is equvalent to admitting that it wasn't done.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you WISH I would run away, but I haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have't done what I asked you lying sack of shite. LOL I suppose I could ask you to go back and find the post where you provided said proof but my guess is that would be as futile as asking you to provide the proof since you know you don't have it.
> over the last few days all you have done is parroted tha same baseless accusation and not once have you provided on shred of proof that I parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Merely posting the same unsubstantiated claim in a thread as you RUN AWAY from providing proof of your own claims is a perfect example of you RUNNING AWAY. The fact that you are still parroting your mindless drivel has no bearing on your avoidance of proving your own claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you haven't read the thread does not mean something already hasn't been posted.
> 
> But, you are a moron, so I can understand why you would think it does.
Click to expand...


I have read through the WHOLE thread which is why I know that you haven't proven anything other than you are a complete dishonest hack, as well as the FACT that the ONE time you tried to provide a link in this thread that the content of that very link proved you WRONG. LOL 

The funny thing is that yet ONCE again you avoid the content of my post and choose to only troll and baselessly attack me AGAIN. Posting attacks while avoiding the content is RUNNING AWAY little troll. 

If you had proof then you would have provided and since you haven't provided as you continue to avoid doing so that means that you don't have it.

Keep on trolling it's apparently all you have to offer. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still need a fix of bandwidth?  Not getting enough attention, waterboy?
> 
> I know it's hard for the insane to grasp simple facts, but seriously, does the home know that you're out and about?
> 
> Come on, tell me that I'm running away, again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> parroting your mindless unsubstantiated drivel in a thread does nothing prove that you are not running away from proving your claims.
> 
> If you could have done so, then you would have and IF you did prove it earlier as you claim then pointing me to that post would be even easier. However, since you and I both know that you haven't provided the proof, that your claim that you have is nothing but a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin troll. YOU LOSE AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to catch up, boy.
> 
> Now, do something useful and fetch me some water.
Click to expand...


Si modo want a cracker?? Keep trolling and parroting, all you do is show is that you have nothing valid to say. 

There is nothing to catch up with, you have been shown to be dishonest throughout this thread and this spin and avoidance is nothing new.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have't done what I asked you lying sack of shite. LOL I suppose I could ask you to go back and find the post where you provided said proof but my guess is that would be as futile as asking you to provide the proof since you know you don't have it.
> over the last few days all you have done is parroted tha same baseless accusation and not once have you provided on shred of proof that I parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Merely posting the same unsubstantiated claim in a thread as you RUN AWAY from providing proof of your own claims is a perfect example of you RUNNING AWAY. The fact that you are still parroting your mindless drivel has no bearing on your avoidance of proving your own claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you haven't read the thread does not mean something already hasn't been posted.
> 
> But, you are a moron, so I can understand why you would think it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read through the WHOLE thread which is why I know that you haven't proven anything other than you are a complete dishonest hack, as well as the FACT that the ONE time you tried to provide a link in this thread that the content of that very link proved you WRONG. LOL
> 
> The funny thing is that yet ONCE again you avoid the content of my post and choose to only troll and baselessly attack me AGAIN. Posting attacks while avoiding the content is RUNNING AWAY little troll.
> 
> If you had proof then you would have provided and since you haven't provided as you continue to avoid doing so that means that you don't have it.
> 
> Keep on trolling it's apparently all you have to offer. LOL
Click to expand...


Yeah, you've read the thread. That's why you came into it days after the debate was had and parroted the points of others and thinking, even more days later, that you have some earth-shattering pont to make.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> parroting your mindless unsubstantiated drivel in a thread does nothing prove that you are not running away from proving your claims.
> 
> If you could have done so, then you would have and IF you did prove it earlier as you claim then pointing me to that post would be even easier. However, since you and I both know that you haven't provided the proof, that your claim that you have is nothing but a LIE.
> 
> Thanks for the spin troll. YOU LOSE AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to catch up, boy.
> 
> Now, do something useful and fetch me some water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Si modo want a cracker?? Keep trolling and parroting, all you do is show is that you have nothing valid to say.
> 
> There is nothing to catch up with, you have been shown to be dishonest throughout this thread and this spin and avoidance is nothing new.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right.  I AM parroting...MYSELF.  Good God, you are dense.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you haven't read the thread does not mean something already hasn't been posted.
> 
> But, you are a moron, so I can understand why you would think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read through the WHOLE thread which is why I know that you haven't proven anything other than you are a complete dishonest hack, as well as the FACT that the ONE time you tried to provide a link in this thread that the content of that very link proved you WRONG. LOL
> 
> The funny thing is that yet ONCE again you avoid the content of my post and choose to only troll and baselessly attack me AGAIN. Posting attacks while avoiding the content is RUNNING AWAY little troll.
> 
> If you had proof then you would have provided and since you haven't provided as you continue to avoid doing so that means that you don't have it.
> 
> Keep on trolling it's apparently all you have to offer. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you've read the thread. That's why you came into it days after the debate was had and parroted the points of others and thinking even more days later that you have some earth-shattering pont to make.
Click to expand...


I didn't parrot anything. I did read through the thread and respond to what I read as i read it and did my own research as I went. That is NOT parroting. The fact that a couple of my posts were similar but hardly the same to responses *that came later in the thread and that I had not read yet *is not parroting. In order to parrot it I would have had to read it FIRST then repeat it. 
Furthermore, those FEW responses have NO bearing on the last one that you continue to claim was parroted while you cannot prove that it was. You claimed I parroted it, so I asked you to prove that i did and you ran away from doing so and have been running away from providing anything of substance ever since.

I am certain that you will keep running since it's obvious that you don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, you are, Si modo.  Your opinion, _mo francach uisce_, is not evidence.  You have to support it with facts, analysis, stats, etc.  You don't do that.  Thus, we all go around and around with you, asking for your evidence, as you demand we refute your opinion.  While we don't have to, you do if you wish to make a convincing argument.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to catch up, boy.
> 
> Now, do something useful and fetch me some water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo want a cracker?? Keep trolling and parroting, all you do is show is that you have nothing valid to say.
> 
> There is nothing to catch up with, you have been shown to be dishonest throughout this thread and this spin and avoidance is nothing new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right.  I AM parroting...MYSELF.  Good God, you are dense.
Click to expand...


Yes you are. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again that fits the definition of parroting. 

So, Si modo want a cracker?? LOL 

There is nothing to catch up with, you have been shown to be dishonest throughout this thread and this spin and avoidance is nothing new


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read through the WHOLE thread which is why I know that you haven't proven anything other than you are a complete dishonest hack, as well as the FACT that the ONE time you tried to provide a link in this thread that the content of that very link proved you WRONG. LOL
> 
> The funny thing is that yet ONCE again you avoid the content of my post and choose to only troll and baselessly attack me AGAIN. Posting attacks while avoiding the content is RUNNING AWAY little troll.
> 
> If you had proof then you would have provided and since you haven't provided as you continue to avoid doing so that means that you don't have it.
> 
> Keep on trolling it's apparently all you have to offer. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you've read the thread. That's why you came into it days after the debate was had and parroted the points of others and thinking even more days later that you have some earth-shattering pont to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't parrot anything. I did read through the thread and respond to what I read as i read it and did my own research as I went. That is NOT parroting. The fact that a couple of my posts were similar but hardly the same to responses *that came later in the thread and that I had not read yet *is not parroting. In order to parrot it I would have had to read it FIRST then repeat it.
> Furthermore, those FEW responses have NO bearing on the last one that you continue to claim was parroted while you cannot prove that it was. You claimed I parroted it, so I asked you to prove that i did and you ran away from doing so and have been running away from providing anything of substance ever since.
> 
> I am certain that you will keep running since it's obvious that you don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong.
Click to expand...


I love it!  He said I am running, AGAIN!


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are running, Si modo, until you prove Dr. parroted the statement.  You can't, thus you fail.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> You are running, Si modo, until you prove Dr. parroted the statement.  You can't, thus you fail.


Once again, I play the broken record.  I've already done that - showing Smith as parroting others' points - days ago. Actually, Smith did a bang-up job himself of using the quote function to quote the points of others and making the same point.  For those who don't read threads, they can take your and Smith's word that I haven't.  That's fine by me.

Now, cue Smith to tell me I'm running away. It's a slow news week, just more lib whining about Arizona, so this is quite entertaining.


----------



## Si modo

God, I don't know how you trolls do it.  I feel like my brains are pouring out of my ears, now - EVEN with a slow news week.

Aaaaaaargh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Si modo, (if you are being honest in the post above), it simply means that you do not know how to craft an argument.

You think your opinion counts as evidence (DiamondDaved has this problem, too), but it does not.

If you wish to become creditibile, go secretly and look at Purdue University's OWL site.  Really, it will help you and save us all tremendous frustration.


----------



## Old Rocks

Si will not look at anything. She just cries "logic", and then avoids that whenever possible.


----------



## Si modo

Old Rocks said:


> Si will not look at anything. She just cries "logic", and then avoids that whenever possible.


If there  is anything logical about debating something debated over a week ago, you let us all know, OldRocks.  

Of course, it's very logical making me the topic of the thread, right old boy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo, once again, your opinion is not evidence.  No one has to refute it, but just give his own opinion. Where you demonstrate your ignorance is when you give your opinion then demand that it be refuted.  That's asinine.


----------



## MarcATL

This thread was an EPIC....







LOL!!!


----------



## AquaAthena

Skull Pilot said:


> Do you expect anything but hypocrisy from a guy who constantly tells us not to jump to conclusions but can then jump to a conclusion like "The police acted stupidly"?



No, I have learned the hard way from him, never to believe much less respect, anything he says or does. He is an enemy to traditional American values.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo, once again, your opinion is not evidence.  No one has to refute it, but just give his own opinion. Where you demonstrate your ignorance is when you give your opinion then demand that it be refuted.  That's asinine.


Okie Doke. Than, I'll change my opinion, m'kay?

I no longer think that anyone whining about the name teabagger is being ridiculous.

You and smith have convinced me to change my mind.

Kudos to you and smith.  









Careful, knee jerks are not wise.  Both of you are so dense that you've been arguing with one who USED to agree with you.  You win and have changed my mind. Bravo.








What a couple of morons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In other words, Si, you cannot critically think and have a fail here.  Got that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And Si's latest action does prove a fail as well.  Neg repping me for telling the truth means nothing to me, Si.  Go for it.  The point is that you literally are shallow, ignorant, illiterate, or a combination of them.

So, stop the whining, Si up and let's debate.  Your opinion is not debate.  Evidence is.  Go for it.  But I mean it, stop whining.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you've read the thread. That's why you came into it days after the debate was had and parroted the points of others and thinking even more days later that you have some earth-shattering pont to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't parrot anything. I did read through the thread and respond to what I read as i read it and did my own research as I went. That is NOT parroting. The fact that a couple of my posts were similar but hardly the same to responses *that came later in the thread and that I had not read yet *is not parroting. In order to parrot it I would have had to read it FIRST then repeat it.
> Furthermore, those FEW responses have NO bearing on the last one that you continue to claim was parroted while you cannot prove that it was. You claimed I parroted it, so I asked you to prove that i did and you ran away from doing so and have been running away from providing anything of substance ever since.
> 
> I am certain that you will keep running since it's obvious that you don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it!  He said I am running, AGAIN!
Click to expand...



Yes you are running and this is nothing but more of the same from you. You can't prove your claim that I parroted the argument in question which is why you continue to run away from even attempting to do so because you know that you can't and you still refuse to admit that you are WRONG.


----------



## drsmith1072

JakeStarkey said:


> You are running, Si modo, until you prove Dr. parroted the statement.  You can't, thus you fail.



Exactly. However, he tries to spin and claim that merely because he continues to post that he is not running despite the fact that he can't prove his claim and continues to avoid doing so.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are running, Si modo, until you prove Dr. parroted the statement.  You can't, thus you fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I play the broken record.  *I've already done that *- showing Smith as parroting others' points - days ago. Actually, Smith did a bang-up job himself of using the quote function to quote the points of others and making the same point.  For those who don't read threads, they can take your and Smith's word that I haven't.  That's fine by me.
> 
> Now, cue Smith to tell me I'm running away. It's a slow news week, just more lib whining about Arizona, so this is quite entertaining.
Click to expand...


NO you have not "already done that" and the last time that you LIED and tried to claim that you had "already done that" i asked you to show the post in which you PROVED that I had and you failed to provide it. 

You making a claim is NOT proof but thanks for the dishonest spin. 

Fact is that you have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your claims and you have failed to do so on every occasion and NOW you are lying as you try to claim that you have proven your claims despite the fact that all you have done is repeated your false claims over and over while providing nothing to substantiate them. 

Even IF I did parrot every single argument in this thread, which is not the case, it doesn't change the FACT that you were shown to be WRONG no matter who said it first. In the end all you have succeded at was avoidance and spin and as far as the argument goes you fail.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are running, Si modo, until you prove Dr. parroted the statement.  You can't, thus you fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I play the broken record.  *I've already done that *- showing Smith as parroting others' points - days ago. Actually, Smith did a bang-up job himself of using the quote function to quote the points of others and making the same point.  For those who don't read threads, they can take your and Smith's word that I haven't.  That's fine by me.
> 
> Now, cue Smith to tell me I'm running away. It's a slow news week, just more lib whining about Arizona, so this is quite entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO you have not "already done that" and the last time that you LIED and tried to claim that you had "already done that" i asked you to show the post in which you PROVED that I had and you failed to provide it.
> 
> You making a claim is NOT proof but thanks for the dishonest spin.
> 
> Fact is that you have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your claims and you have failed to do so on every occasion and NOW you are lying as you try to claim that you have proven your claims despite the fact that all you have done is repeated your false claims over and over while providing nothing to substantiate them.
> 
> Even IF I did parrot every single argument in this thread, which is not the case, it doesn't change the FACT that you were shown to be WRONG no matter who said it first. In the end all you have succeded at was avoidance and spin and as far as the argument goes you fail.
Click to expand...

Don't fret so much, Smith.  You're successful in changing my mind.  I no longer think that anyone who complains about the tea partiers being called teabaggers is ridiculous.

Good job.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo, once again, your opinion is not evidence.  No one has to refute it, but just give his own opinion. Where you demonstrate your ignorance is when you give your opinion then demand that it be refuted.  That's asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> Okie Doke. Than, I'll change my opinion, m'kay?
> 
> I no longer think that anyone whining about the name teabagger is being ridiculous.
> 
> You and smith have convinced me to change my mind.
> 
> Kudos to you and smith.
> 
> 
> Careful, knee jerks are not wise.  Both of you are so dense that you've been arguing with one who USED to agree with you.  You win and have changed my mind. Bravo.
> 
> 
> What a couple of morons.
Click to expand...


Who is arguing with you over an agreed upon point?? Not me but nice failed attempt to change the subject. I am merely calling you out over the fact that you attacked ME and made claims about ME that you could NOT support with anything of substance. 
What's truly sad is that even when shown to be WRONG and full of shite you still try to attack as if your baseless attacks and repetition are in some way a replacement for a valid argument when they are NOT.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo, once again, your opinion is not evidence.  No one has to refute it, but just give his own opinion. Where you demonstrate your ignorance is when you give your opinion then demand that it be refuted.  That's asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> Okie Doke. Than, I'll change my opinion, m'kay?
> 
> I no longer think that anyone whining about the name teabagger is being ridiculous.
> 
> You and smith have convinced me to change my mind.
> 
> Kudos to you and smith.
> 
> 
> Careful, knee jerks are not wise.  Both of you are so dense that you've been arguing with one who USED to agree with you.  You win and have changed my mind. Bravo.
> 
> 
> What a couple of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is arguing with you over an agreed upon point?? Not me but nice failed attempt to change the subject. I am merely calling you out over the fact that you attacked ME and made claims about ME that you could NOT support with anything of substance.
> What's truly sad is that even when shown to be WRONG and full of shite you still try to attack as if your baseless attacks and repetition are in some way a replacement for a valid argument when they are NOT.
Click to expand...


Still fretting? 

Nope, don't you worry your pretty little head, there smith.  You've changed my mind with all your parroting of points made two weeks ago.  I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okie Doke. Than, I'll change my opinion, m'kay?
> 
> I no longer think that anyone whining about the name teabagger is being ridiculous.
> 
> You and smith have convinced me to change my mind.
> 
> Kudos to you and smith.
> 
> 
> Careful, knee jerks are not wise.  Both of you are so dense that you've been arguing with one who USED to agree with you.  You win and have changed my mind. Bravo.
> 
> 
> What a couple of morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is arguing with you over an agreed upon point?? Not me but nice failed attempt to change the subject. I am merely calling you out over the fact that you attacked ME and made claims about ME that you could NOT support with anything of substance.
> What's truly sad is that even when shown to be WRONG and full of shite you still try to attack as if your baseless attacks and repetition are in some way a replacement for a valid argument when they are NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still fretting?
> 
> Nope, don't you worry your pretty little head, there smith.  You've changed my mind with all your parroting of points made two weeks ago.  I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous.
Click to expand...


WOW more of your usual baseless attacks. The sad thing is that you are now flip flopping AGAIN. You argued that same spiel to begin with and then after being shown you were wrong you flipped and said, 



Si modo said:


> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.


 (see how EASY it is to quote a post?)

and now you have flipped AGAIN showing that you have zero credibility to 



> I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous



LOL the other sad thing is that in the post I quoted you talked about "This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames." when all you TRY to do is flame. However, you are an attack dog that barks A LOT but has no bite as you make the same baseless accusation over and over again.  

BTW I am still waiting on you to PROVE your claim that I parroted that last timeline argument. You made the claim and have ran away from proving it because you know that you can't. However, go ahead and attack me with your lies again. Please, continue to show how your attempt at flaming me is all that you have to offer. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is arguing with you over an agreed upon point?? Not me but nice failed attempt to change the subject. I am merely calling you out over the fact that you attacked ME and made claims about ME that you could NOT support with anything of substance.
> What's truly sad is that even when shown to be WRONG and full of shite you still try to attack as if your baseless attacks and repetition are in some way a replacement for a valid argument when they are NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still fretting?
> 
> Nope, don't you worry your pretty little head, there smith.  You've changed my mind with all your parroting of points made two weeks ago.  I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW more of your usual baseless attacks. The sad thing is that you are now flip flopping AGAIN. You argued that same spiel to begin with and then after being shown you were wrong you flipped and said,
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames.  It opens my mind.
> 
> From this point forward, I believe that any whining about the term teabagger is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (see how EASY it is to quote a post?)
> 
> and now you have flipped AGAIN showing that you have zero credibility to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL the other sad thing is that in the post I quoted you talked about "This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames." when all you TRY to do is flame. However, you are an attack dog that barks A LOT but has no bite as you make the same baseless accusation over and over again.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to PROVE your claim that I parroted that last timeline argument. You made the claim and have ran away from proving it because you know that you can't. However, go ahead and attack me with your lies again. Please, continue to show how your attempt at flaming me is all that you have to offer. LOL
Click to expand...


LMAO!  Like clockwork.

Idiot.


----------



## geauxtohell

Unsubscribing time..... now.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still fretting?
> 
> Nope, don't you worry your pretty little head, there smith.  You've changed my mind with all your parroting of points made two weeks ago.  I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW more of your usual baseless attacks. The sad thing is that you are now flip flopping AGAIN. You argued that same spiel to begin with and then after being shown you were wrong you flipped and said,
> 
> (see how EASY it is to quote a post?)
> 
> and now you have flipped AGAIN showing that you have zero credibility to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I no longer think that those who complain about the term teabagger are being ridiculous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL the other sad thing is that in the post I quoted you talked about "This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames." when all you TRY to do is flame. However, you are an attack dog that barks A LOT but has no bite as you make the same baseless accusation over and over again.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to PROVE your claim that I parroted that last timeline argument. You made the claim and have ran away from proving it because you know that you can't. However, go ahead and attack me with your lies again. Please, continue to show how your attempt at flaming me is all that you have to offer. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Like clockwork.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Yes you are like clockwork with the same moronic repetitious and baseless claims in the face of your own contradictions and lack of credibility. 

and yes you are an idiot. Thanks for the admission and the trolling have a nice day. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW more of your usual baseless attacks. The sad thing is that you are now flip flopping AGAIN. You argued that same spiel to begin with and then after being shown you were wrong you flipped and said,
> 
> (see how EASY it is to quote a post?)
> 
> and now you have flipped AGAIN showing that you have zero credibility to
> 
> 
> 
> LOL the other sad thing is that in the post I quoted you talked about "This is why I like reasonable arguments - folks using links, sources, etc - rather than just flames." when all you TRY to do is flame. However, you are an attack dog that barks A LOT but has no bite as you make the same baseless accusation over and over again.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to PROVE your claim that I parroted that last timeline argument. You made the claim and have ran away from proving it because you know that you can't. However, go ahead and attack me with your lies again. Please, continue to show how your attempt at flaming me is all that you have to offer. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Like clockwork.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are like clockwork with the same moronic repetitious and baseless claims in the face of your own contradictions and lack of credibility.
> 
> and yes you are an idiot. Thanks for the admission and the trolling have a nice day. LOL
Click to expand...


Are you REALLY going to go away?  You've been promising for days, yet you keep coming back.


----------



## drsmith1072

geauxtohell said:


> Unsubscribing time..... now.



LOL The sad thing is that all si has to offer after being shown to be and admitting that he was wrong is namecalling in a thread about righties whining about namecalling. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Like clockwork.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are like clockwork with the same moronic repetitious and baseless claims in the face of your own contradictions and lack of credibility.
> 
> and yes you are an idiot. Thanks for the admission and the trolling have a nice day. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Are you REALLY going to go away?  You've been promising for days, yet you keep coming back.*
Click to expand...




drsmith1072 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubscribing time..... now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL The sad thing is that all si has to offer after being shown to be and admitting that he was wrong is namecalling in a thread about righties whining about namecalling. LOL
Click to expand...

Diiiiiiiidn't think so.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!  Like clockwork.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are like clockwork with the same moronic repetitious and baseless claims in the face of your own contradictions and lack of credibility.
> 
> and yes you are an idiot. Thanks for the admission and the trolling have a nice day. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you REALLY going to go away?  You've been promising for days, yet you keep coming back.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about going away?? I mean, you have been avoiding the FACT that you have been busted for being dishonest, contradictory, lacking of any integrity and that you have zero credibility so the only one going anywhere is YOU as you run away from the facts. LOL So what are you whining about now??


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are like clockwork with the same moronic repetitious and baseless claims in the face of your own contradictions and lack of credibility.
> 
> and yes you are an idiot. Thanks for the admission and the trolling have a nice day. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you REALLY going to go away?  You've been promising for days, yet you keep coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about going away?? I mean, you have been avoiding the FACT that you have been busted for being dishonest, contradictory, lacking of any integrity and that you have zero credibility so the only one going anywhere is YOU as you run away from the facts. LOL So what are you whining about now??
Click to expand...

Ohhhh.  You were hoping *I* would go away?

Not gonna happen.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you REALLY going to go away?  You've been promising for days, yet you keep coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about going away?? I mean, you have been avoiding the FACT that you have been busted for being dishonest, contradictory, lacking of any integrity and that you have zero credibility so the only one going anywhere is YOU as you run away from the facts. LOL So what are you whining about now??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhh.  You were hoping *I* would go away?
> 
> Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


Nice baseless assumption by you as you try to put words in my mouth that I never actually said. How typical, more dishonesty from you. LOL So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
Furthermore, any attempt by you to make an actual substantiated argument left the thread a while back so in essence "you" have left and what has been posting under your name is nothing but a troll who has nothing real to offer as it avoids facts and contradicts itself as it shows it has zero credibility. LOL 

Posting for postings sake to pretend that your attacks are a valid response when you have ran away from proving your claims so many times already is NOT a viable way to try and claim that you are still here. LOL Yes you are still posting but the fact that you aren't saying anything of value and can only attack me personally shows that you left the thread a while ago. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about going away?? I mean, you have been avoiding the FACT that you have been busted for being dishonest, contradictory, lacking of any integrity and that you have zero credibility so the only one going anywhere is YOU as you run away from the facts. LOL So what are you whining about now??
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh.  You were hoping *I* would go away?
> 
> Not gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice baseless assumption by you as you try to put words in my mouth that I never actually said. How typical, more dishonesty from you. LOL So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> Furthermore, any attempt by you to make an actual substantiated argument left the thread a while back so in essence "you" have left and what has been posting under your name is nothing but a troll who has nothing real to offer as it avoids facts and contradicts itself as it shows it has zero credibility. LOL
> 
> Posting for postings sake to pretend that your attacks are a valid response when you have ran away from proving your claims so many times already is NOT a viable way to try and claim that you are still here. LOL Yes you are still posting but the fact that you aren't saying anything of value and can only attack me personally shows that you left the thread a while ago. LOL
Click to expand...


Yup.  I'm really 'running away' and/or 'avoiding' you.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasn&#8217;t aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I can&#8217;t recall a single instance of him saying &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesn&#8217;t know the term&#8217;s impolitic, how come he hasn&#8217;t innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alter&#8217;s &#8220;The Promise: President Obama, Year One,&#8221; President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills &#8220;set the tenor for the whole year &#8230; That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.&#8221;
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term &#8220;tea baggers,&#8221; which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...






Funny how the teabaggers are so concerned about political correctness when its THEM who is offended.


Fuck you teabaggers! For the past 20 years you've made it a practice to offend others as much as possible and then act like you have no idea why anyone would be offended. Now its your turn you filthy TEABAGGERS!


----------



## Si modo

SpidermanTuba said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the teabaggers are so concerned about political correctness when its THEM who is offended.
> 
> 
> Fuck you teabaggers! For the past 20 years you've made it a practice to offend others as much as possible and then act like you have no idea why anyone would be offended. Now its your turn you filthy TEABAGGERS!
Click to expand...


Angry tuba is angry!


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The teabagger party is just a bunch of idiots who don't wanna pay taxes, that's it.


----------



## Si modo

SpidermanTuba said:


> The teabagger party is just a bunch of idiots who don't wanna pay taxes, that's it.


Angry tuba's strawman makes him feel a little better, now.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh.  You were hoping *I* would go away?
> 
> Not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice baseless assumption by you as you try to put words in my mouth that I never actually said. How typical, more dishonesty from you. LOL So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> Furthermore, any attempt by you to make an actual substantiated argument left the thread a while back so in essence "you" have left and what has been posting under your name is nothing but a troll who has nothing real to offer as it avoids facts and contradicts itself as it shows it has zero credibility. LOL
> 
> Posting for postings sake to pretend that your attacks are a valid response when you have ran away from proving your claims so many times already is NOT a viable way to try and claim that you are still here. LOL Yes you are still posting but the fact that you aren't saying anything of value and can only attack me personally shows that you left the thread a while ago. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  I'm really 'running away' and/or 'avoiding' you.
Click to expand...


Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL 

So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??

Notice how I keep going back to your unsubstantiated claim and how you keep avoiding it?? 
Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice baseless assumption by you as you try to put words in my mouth that I never actually said. How typical, more dishonesty from you. LOL So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> Furthermore, any attempt by you to make an actual substantiated argument left the thread a while back so in essence "you" have left and what has been posting under your name is nothing but a troll who has nothing real to offer as it avoids facts and contradicts itself as it shows it has zero credibility. LOL
> 
> Posting for postings sake to pretend that your attacks are a valid response when you have ran away from proving your claims so many times already is NOT a viable way to try and claim that you are still here. LOL Yes you are still posting but the fact that you aren't saying anything of value and can only attack me personally shows that you left the thread a while ago. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I'm really 'running away' and/or 'avoiding' you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
Click to expand...


If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.

I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I'm really 'running away' and/or 'avoiding' you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
Click to expand...

You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?

Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!

But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I'm really 'running away' and/or 'avoiding' you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I made that claim, I would. As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
Click to expand...


REALLY??

read em and weep LIAR.



Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think that if it gives you comfort, bub.   Given the Epic Fail of your posts here, it's good for you to have a fantasy life as a form of consolation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.*
> 
> The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position.
> In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.
> 
> Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them*.
Click to expand...


So based on your own words, you claimed I parroted it and then FAILED to prove YOUR claim.

Now you have claimed that you never said it and yet here is the proof that you DID which proves you a LIAR.

Keep on lying, I can see why you avoid debates, with your failing record I would probably run away from them too. LOL


----------



## boedicca

All drsmith has proven is his obsession with the T-word and his complete inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.

Just sayin'.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?
> 
> Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!
> 
> But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!
Click to expand...


Aww it's my stalker from the msnbc message boards?? Long time no see, but look at how he chimes in to attack and then runs away like he did after he vandalized that girls car because she had a code pink sticker on it. LOL Such a brave phoney soldier that he has to run away from a little girl after he vandalizes her car. The funny thing I that I remember you bragging shortly after this that your father taught you to respect other people's property. LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

boedicca said:


> All drsmith has proven is his obsession with the T-word and his complete inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.
> 
> Just sayin'.


He's ALWAYS been that way.

It's nothing but, "but you said this, then I said that. Then you ran away, but I didn't run away. And, and, and, and, and, and, and.

It's about time the lil' asshat grew up.

But then, he's nothing but a paid propoigandist anyway so, taking him seriously on any issue is just plain laughable.


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?
> 
> Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!
> 
> But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww it's my stalker from the msnbc message boards?? Long time no see, but look at how he chimes in to attack and then runs away like he did after he vandalized that girls car because she had a code pink sticker on it. LOL Such a brave phoney soldier that he has to run away from a little girl after he vandalizes her car. The funny thing I that I remember you bragging shortly after this that your father taught you to respect other people's property. LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah, uh huh!

LMAO!

You're such a fucking dolt!


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> All drsmith has proven is his obsession with the T-word and his complete inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.
> 
> Just sayin'.



LOL and yet YOU are the one focussing on it as you attempt to make something out of nothing. 

How many times have I used the "t-word" in this thread and directed it at someone??

I admit I used it a few times directed at someone in the beginning of this thread when the debate was ongoing about who used it first, thanks Si modo for admitting the street form was used by tea-partiers first, but I haven't used it directed at anyone since the beginning of this thread when I used it to laugh at ignorant righties who didn't know it had an alternate meaning when they applied it to themselves. 

However YOU are the one that constantly mentions it as you try to assign an obsession to others when it clearly lies with YOU.  

Face it, I and others countered your spin and you can't deal with it. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> All drsmith has proven is his obsession with the T-word and his complete inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> He's ALWAYS been that way.
> 
> It's nothing but, "but you said this, then I said that. Then you ran away, but I didn't run away. And, and, and, and, and, and, and.
> 
> It's about time the lil' asshat grew up.
> 
> But then, he's nothing but a paid propoigandist anyway so, taking him seriously on any issue is just plain laughable.
Click to expand...


Aww more baseless attacks from my stalker. LOL The thing is that when I quote what you actually said and then compare it to your new line of spin and they don't match up then I can understand why you wouldn't like that. LOL 

If you don't like your dishonesty being exposed as you contradict yourself within a single thread then don't be dishonest to begin with. LOL 

If one of us were paid propagandaist i would suspect you who has to bring up his fictitious life story to some how give credence to his posts because they have no validity. LOL


----------



## boedicca

drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Yeah, uh huh!

Lmao!


----------



## Wicked Jester

boedicca said:


> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Has he called you a stalker yet?

Anybody who has pawned him gets called a stalker at some point in time.

Oh well, that's children these days. And paid propogandists.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?
> 
> Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!
> 
> But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww it's my stalker from the msnbc message boards?? Long time no see, but look at how he chimes in to attack and then runs away like he did after he vandalized that girls car because she had a code pink sticker on it. LOL Such a brave phoney soldier that he has to run away from a little girl after he vandalizes her car. The funny thing I that I remember you bragging shortly after this that your father taught you to respect other people's property. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, uh huh!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You're such a fucking dolt!
Click to expand...


Is anything i said untrue?? Are you denying that you vandalized that girl's car AFTER she went inside because she had a code pink sticker on it?? You did ONLY chime in to this thread to attack me which makes you a stalker since you have a habit of doing that. You claimed to have been a soldier but on the old msnbc boards I pointed out inconsistencies in your story even as you tried to call others phoney soldiers. You did brag about respecting other people's property after vandalizing a girl's car. So what is untrue?? 

Oh and if you have anything valid to add to the thread go right ahead but don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting for you to add anything of substance because you and I both know that you have NOTHING. Which makes you fit right in with the rest of the righties in thsi thread. GJ. LOL


----------



## boedicca

Wicked Jester said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Has he called you a stalker yet?
> 
> Anybody who has pawned him gets called a stalker at some point in time.
> 
> Oh well, that's children these days. And paid progandists.
Click to expand...



He's been sitting on this thread like a mad wet hen - it's impossible to avoid him.


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww it's my stalker from the msnbc message boards?? Long time no see, but look at how he chimes in to attack and then runs away like he did after he vandalized that girls car because she had a code pink sticker on it. LOL Such a brave phoney soldier that he has to run away from a little girl after he vandalizes her car. The funny thing I that I remember you bragging shortly after this that your father taught you to respect other people's property. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uh huh!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You're such a fucking dolt!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anything i said untrue?? Are you denying that you vandalized that girl's car AFTER she went inside because she had a code pink sticker on it?? You did ONLY chime in to this thread to attack me which makes you a stalker since you have a habit of doing that. You claimed to have been a soldier but on the old msnbc boards I pointed out inconsistencies in your story even as you tried to call others phoney soldiers. You did brag about respecting other people's property after vandalizing a girl's car. So what is untrue??
> 
> Oh and if you have anything valid to add to the thread go right ahead but don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting for you to add anything of substance because you and I both know that you have NOTHING. Which makes you fit right in with the rest of the righties in thsi thread. GJ. LOL
Click to expand...

Vandalized what car, lil' man? ...Oh you mean putting a lil' magnetic sticker over her code pink sticker?.....Damn right!...no damage done. All the lil' code pinker has to do is take it right off. No vadalizm whatsoever. But hey, i'll gladly show you what real vandalizm is if you'd like to meet face to face!

Oh, and you desperately TRIED to attack my service, and miserably failed. Kinda funny when that vet who actually knew me, and served with me showed up to tell ya' to SHUT THE FUCK UP!.....And like the lil' coward we know you to be, you tucked tail and ran!...Funny stuff indeed!

Damn man, you actually left the army because you heard somebody call somebody else a ******.......What a fuckin' pussy!

Now, carry on!

LMAO!


----------



## Wicked Jester

boedicca said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Has he called you a stalker yet?
> 
> Anybody who has pawned him gets called a stalker at some point in time.
> 
> Oh well, that's children these days. And paid progandists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's been sitting on this thread like a mad wet hen - it's impossible to avoid him.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just noticed that he DID call you a stalker over on another thread.

I can only imagine what he's like when his mommy tells him to get the fuck off her computer and takes his lil' cookie away!

He sure is an entertaining lil' pussy though!


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If I made that claim, I would. As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY??
> 
> read em and weep LIAR.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.*
> 
> The only epic fail was on the part of you righties trying to make something out of nothing and failing at even presenting a decent defense of said BS propaganda based position.
> In the end and over the last few pages all you have done was attack the messenger which shows that you know that you have lost.
> 
> Attack some more if you want to, but attacking me won't cahnge the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So based on your own words, you claimed I parroted it and then FAILED to prove YOUR claim.
> 
> Now you have claimed that you never said it and yet here is the proof that you DID which proves you a LIAR.
> 
> Keep on lying, I can see why you avoid debates, with your failing record I would probably run away from them too. LOL
Click to expand...


And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.

You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.

Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uh huh!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You're such a fucking dolt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anything i said untrue?? Are you denying that you vandalized that girl's car AFTER she went inside because she had a code pink sticker on it?? You did ONLY chime in to this thread to attack me which makes you a stalker since you have a habit of doing that. You claimed to have been a soldier but on the old msnbc boards I pointed out inconsistencies in your story even as you tried to call others phoney soldiers. You did brag about respecting other people's property after vandalizing a girl's car. So what is untrue??
> 
> Oh and if you have anything valid to add to the thread go right ahead but don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting for you to add anything of substance because you and I both know that you have NOTHING. Which makes you fit right in with the rest of the righties in thsi thread. GJ. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vandalized what car, lil' man? ...Oh you mean putting a lil' magnetic sticker over her code pink sticker?.....Damn right!...no damage done. All the lil' code pinker has to do is take it right off. No vadalizm whatsoever. But hey, i'll gladly show you what real vandalizm is if you'd like to meet face to face!
> 
> Oh, and you desperately TRIED to attack my service, and miserably failed. Kinda funny when that vet who actually knew me, and served with me showed up to tell ya' to SHUT THE FUCK UP!.....And like the lil' coward we know you to be, you tucked tail and ran!...Funny stuff indeed!
> 
> Damn man, you actually left the army because you heard somebody call somebody else a ******.......What a fuckin' pussy!
> 
> Now, carry on!
> 
> LMAO!
Click to expand...


Main Entry: van·dal·ism
Pronunciation: \&#712;van-d&#601;-&#716;li-z&#601;m\
Function: noun
Date: 1798

: willful or malicious destruction or *defacement *of public or private property - pwned again, TJ.

TwistedJoker is a loon, and a lying one at that.  You are twisted as namvet or gautama.


----------



## California Girl

SpidermanTuba said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the teabaggers are so concerned about political correctness when its THEM who is offended.
> 
> 
> Fuck you teabaggers! For the past 20 years you've made it a practice to offend others as much as possible and then act like you have no idea why anyone would be offended. Now its your turn you filthy TEABAGGERS!
Click to expand...


20 years? Hmmmm. That's interesting because the left keep insisting that the TEA Parties are a backlash organization against Obama because he's black Was Obama around 20 years ago? 

My problem with many on the left.... They are incapable of rational, critical, reasoned thought. Basically, they dumb and Spiderman Tuba is an absolutely perfect example of their lack of intellect.


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and so you are still not "here" LOL
> 
> So can you prove your claim that I parroted the timeline argument in question or NOT??
> ....
> Than is you, RUNNING AWAY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?
> 
> Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!
> 
> But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!
Click to expand...


A bit of an aside, it annoys me that the progressive movement has been highjacked by socialists.

Anyway, if the current progressives have smith as one of their paid propagandists, one doesn't need much of a brain to counter them.  Just patience.  So, if ever anyone feels the need to pay a propagandist to post on a message board (LMFAO that anyone WOULD actually pay for message board propaganda) to counter these idiots, the pool of capable candidates should be large.  

TFF!

But, smith is a perfect 'ambassador' for the progressives.  

Get this, my first encounter with this moron here, he tried to claim that I do not provide supporting information when I make a claim.  I asked him to support that allegation, and the fool found a post of mine where I told someone to look up the meaning of a word in a dictionary.  Yup. That's proof that I do not properly reference.  I kid you not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And most of the conloons are 'perfect ambassadors' for their side.  An eleventh-grader would have little problem confusing and confounding that crow.  

I had a relative who propagandized online for money in the 2008 election for both sides.  Paid her well, I gather.  She said she had no trouble in terms of conflict of interest, because she felt both parties were not for the common man and woman.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!

It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!

Mark my words!


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.



If the shoe fits. LOL 

chefjester has been stalking me for a while and the fact that he chimes into a thread and only attacks me while offering nothing to the thread supports my calling him a stalker because that is what he is.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> Has he called you a stalker yet?
> 
> Anybody who has pawned him gets called a stalker at some point in time.
> 
> Oh well, that's children these days. And paid progandists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's been sitting on this thread like a mad wet hen - it's impossible to avoid him.
Click to expand...


I stay with a thread and do not give up especially when dishonest hacks keep posting pretending that they are right even when they know they are WRONG. LOL 

Doesn't change the fact that some of you righties feel the need to follow me into other threads and attack me now does it??


----------



## Wicked Jester

Wicked Jester said:


> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!


Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!

Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!

Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!

*RLTW!*


----------



## L.K.Eder

Wicked Jester said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
Click to expand...


how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?


----------



## HUGGY

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has he called you a stalker yet?
> 
> Anybody who has pawned him gets called a stalker at some point in time.
> 
> Oh well, that's children these days. And paid progandists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's been sitting on this thread like a mad wet hen - it's impossible to avoid him.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stay with a thread and do not give up especially when dishonest hacks keep posting pretending that they are right even when they know they are WRONG. LOL
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that some of you righties feel the need to follow me into other threads and attack me now does it??
Click to expand...


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, uh huh!
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> You're such a fucking dolt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anything i said untrue?? Are you denying that you vandalized that girl's car AFTER she went inside because she had a code pink sticker on it?? You did ONLY chime in to this thread to attack me which makes you a stalker since you have a habit of doing that. You claimed to have been a soldier but on the old msnbc boards I pointed out inconsistencies in your story even as you tried to call others phoney soldiers. You did brag about respecting other people's property after vandalizing a girl's car. So what is untrue??
> 
> Oh and if you have anything valid to add to the thread go right ahead but don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting for you to add anything of substance because you and I both know that you have NOTHING. Which makes you fit right in with the rest of the righties in thsi thread. GJ. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vandalized what car, lil' man? ...Oh you mean putting a lil' magnetic sticker over her code pink sticker?.....Damn right!...no damage done. All the lil' code pinker has to do is take it right off. No vadalizm whatsoever. But hey, i'll gladly show you what real vandalizm is if you'd like to meet face to face!
> 
> Oh, and you desperately TRIED to attack my service, and miserably failed. Kinda funny when that vet who actually knew me, and served with me showed up to tell ya' to SHUT THE FUCK UP!.....And like the lil' coward we know you to be, you tucked tail and ran!...Funny stuff indeed!
> 
> Damn man, you actually left the army because you heard somebody call somebody else a ******.......What a fuckin' pussy!
> 
> Now, carry on!
> 
> LMAO!
Click to expand...


NICE spin but that is not what you said on the msnbc boards. Now you cliam it was magnetic, how typical that your story would change AGAIN. LOL either way it doesn't chnage the fact that you have no respoect for other people's property and ran away from a young woman after you vandalized her car over a sticker.

I "attacked your 'alleged' service" because you were attacking others for their service and then your story didn't add up. First you changed the age at which you claimed to have re-enlisted AFTER I pointed out that you were too old even with time in service and then AFTER I pointed out that you had to have an age waiver you claimed to have had one after you attacked me and claimed that you didn't need one. YOU shot down your own spin and then changed your story after I pointed out the flaws in your story. LOL 

And as explained to you on this board (and the msnbc boards) when we both first came here, the "******" reference NEVER happened. 
What actually happened was concerned with my time in basic and cost us honor platoon, and the party that came with it, when one of my fellow soldiers threatened with a note to "stick his size 10 and 1/2 size boot" up another soldier's "black ass." The LOSER who left that note would not admit it and the whole platoon was punished for almost 12 hours straight and then it started over the next morning after breakfast until he finally admitted it. I "left the army" FOUR YEARS later when my time was up and ETSed from korea which had NOTHING to do with this incident. So it's kind of odd that you would try to bring that up AGAIN after I have explained it to you NUMEROUS times. LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

L.K.Eder said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
Click to expand...

None of the above!

It's a vibe. People who have fear emit a certain vibe that permeates from within. Those who obviously have a severe case of an insecurity/inferiority complex tend to emit said vibe 10 fold. Much like those in combat that sense that impending doom of the bullet entering the brain!....They know it's coming, they just don't know from where or when said bullet will pierce the skull and send brain matter spewing in 11 different directions!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I made that claim, I would. As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY??
> 
> read em and weep LIAR.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  Others did last week and you parroted them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So based on your own words, you claimed I parroted it and then FAILED to prove YOUR claim.
> 
> Now you have claimed that you never said it and yet here is the proof that you DID which proves you a LIAR.
> 
> Keep on lying, I can see why you avoid debates, with your failing record I would probably run away from them too. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
Click to expand...


No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL 

Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY??
> 
> read em and weep LIAR.
> 
> 
> 
> So based on your own words, you claimed I parroted it and then FAILED to prove YOUR claim.
> 
> Now you have claimed that you never said it and yet here is the proof that you DID which proves you a LIAR.
> 
> Keep on lying, I can see why you avoid debates, with your failing record I would probably run away from them too. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
Click to expand...

Oh and here we go with the "but you said this, then I said that, but I ran away, but I didn't run away, you ran away, and and and and, well, then, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHH!"

Jesus fucking christ!.....Grow the fuck up, already!

Seriously man, you've got some debating skills. Get over your inferiority/insecurity complex and stop acting like a spurned lil' child. You'll get a lot farther that way. Both up here and in life in general.


----------



## drsmith1072

California Girl said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> 
> [/INDENT]Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the teabaggers are so concerned about political correctness when its THEM who is offended.
> 
> 
> Fuck you teabaggers! For the past 20 years you've made it a practice to offend others as much as possible and then act like you have no idea why anyone would be offended. Now its your turn you filthy TEABAGGERS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 20 years? Hmmmm. That's interesting because the left keep insisting that the TEA Parties are a backlash organization against Obama because he's black Was Obama around 20 years ago?
> 
> My problem with many on the left.... They are incapable of rational, critical, reasoned thought. Basically, they dumb and Spiderman Tuba is an absolutely perfect example of their lack of intellect.
Click to expand...



Actually the REAL tea party has been around for quite some time however the NEW versions of the tea party that have been propped up and supported by right wing hacks and foxnews are "a backlash organization against Obama because he's black" at least on a small scale then there are the majority of them who are just ill-informed morons who take what they are spoonfed and pretend that they have a real argument. 

So you must be a glenn beck supporter because you have the tendency to take some comment made somewhere by some one and try to apply it to a group as a whole or someone who never actually expressed that belief.

I saw beck do that on his show, he took a promise made by obama and then posted a comment made by a "left wing blogger" and then beck tried to claim that obama lied because of something that "left wing blogger" said that was contrary to obama's promise.

typical dishonesty from the right. Nothing new and it's always expected.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> I bet you really, REALLY hope I would 'run away' and/or 'avoid' you.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize si, that Drsmith is a paid progressive propogandist don't you?
> 
> Notice how he NEVER holds Obama accountable for his abject ineptness, or continual abject failings.. He's a paid lackey, nothing more!
> 
> But hey, you're making him look like the idiot i've known him to be for quite some time. So, as you were. Carry on!....I'm highly entertained!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit of an aside, it annoys me that the progressive movement has been highjacked by socialists.
> 
> Anyway, if the current progressives have smith as one of their paid propagandists, one doesn't need much of a brain to counter them.  Just patience.  So, if ever anyone feels the need to pay a propagandist to post on a message board (LMFAO that anyone WOULD actually pay for message board propaganda) to counter these idiots, the pool of capable candidates should be large.
> 
> TFF!
> 
> But, smith is a perfect 'ambassador' for the progressives.
> 
> Get this, my first encounter with this moron here, *he tried to claim that I do not provide supporting information when I make a claim.*  I asked him to support that allegation, and the fool found a post of mine where I told someone to look up the meaning of a word in a dictionary.  Yup. That's proof that I do not properly reference.  I kid you not.
Click to expand...


and you don't. the one attempt made by you to provide proof in thsi thread was a link to a clip from rachel maddow that proved you WRONG. LOL The rest of what you have posted has been nothing but unsubstantiated spin and personal attacks. 

Furthermore, how do you justify defining me as a progressive?? What traits do i have that make me fit that mold?? Is it my support of gun rights?? Or how about my support of the death penalty?? Or is it my belief that one should have the right to do as they wish as long as they don't violate another's right to do the same??  Or is it becuase I merely disagree with you and your dishonest spin and baseless personal attacks?

Please expalin how *I* am a progressive??


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving that you ARE a stalker. the FACT that you took the time to remember my usual schedule at my part time job since the last time i explained it to you shows that you are a stalker and it has nothing to do with your "ranger instincts" LOL 

Furthermore, why bring up your alleged service?? it doesn't nothing to justify yourarguments and only shows how desperate you are to try and give credence to your spin but that is all it shows. 

Thanks for the laugh LOL


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> Please expalin how *I* am a progressive??




Here you go:

With each and every post you make, you reveal yourself to be Progressively and Progressively Moronic.


----------



## drsmith1072

L.K.Eder said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
Click to expand...


I explained my usual schedule to him in the past and the stalker remembered it. Creepy isn't it??

The thing is that I am curently going to school and working two part time jobs, one of which gives me a decent amount of computer time in between work the other does not. So during my one part time job which usually lasts from about 1-6pm I post to kill time. I told chef jester this in the past and now he tries to use it to somehow support his claims that he was a ranger with "ranger instincts" because he remembered my schedule. LOL


----------



## boedicca

What's creepy is your obsession with Sweaty Male Balls.

Just sayin'.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the above!
> 
> It's a vibe. People who have fear emit a certain vibe that permeates from within. Those who obviously have a severe case of an insecurity/inferiority complex tend to emit said vibe 10 fold. Much like those in combat that sense that impending doom of the bullet entering the brain!....They know it's coming, they just don't know from where or when said bullet will pierce the skull and send brain matter spewing in 11 different directions!
Click to expand...


LOL WOW you truly are delusional. Yeah sure <sarcasm> the above is how you do it, or is because I told you my schedule in the past and have logged onto this board and posted at about this same time everyday for the last few months. LOL 

Oh well thanks for the laughs as you desperately try to support your alleged service with more BS spin. LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that you ARE a stalker. the FACT that you took the time to remember my usual schedule at my part time job since the last time i explained it to you shows that you are a stalker and it has nothing to do with your "ranger instincts" LOL
> 
> Furthermore, why bring up your alleged service?? it doesn't nothing to justify yourarguments and only shows how desperate you are to try and give credence to your spin but that is all it shows.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh LOL
Click to expand...

Why would I take the time to "remember" your schedule?

You're a fucking dufus. I could give less than a damn about your schedule. You could croak tomorrow and I wouldn't give a shit. So why would I waste time on an ignorant morons schedule?

Man, you sure do think your fuckin' special. Fact is, there's nothing special about a douche bag. Other than it stinks like vinegar and you probably got your ass beat with the hose as a child!

Get over yourself, you ain't shit!...But you are fun to laugh at!


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh and here we go with the "but you said this, then I said that, but I ran away, but I didn't run away, you ran away, and and and and, well, then, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHH!"
> 
> Jesus fucking christ!.....Grow the fuck up, already!
> 
> Seriously man, you've got some debating skills. Get over your inferiority/insecurity complex and stop acting like a spurned lil' child. You'll get a lot farther that way. Both up here and in life in general.
Click to expand...


Hey it's not my problem he doesn't like the statements that he made in the past and then claimed that he didn't make them. I merely pointed out his dishonesty and inconsistencies if he didn't want that to happen then he shouldn't have been inconsistent or dishonest.

However, thanks for the ad hominem and thanks for showing that you have no debating skills and can only stalk and attack the messenger.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please expalin how *I* am a progressive??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> With each and every post you make, you reveal yourself to be Progressively and Progressively Moronic.
Click to expand...


nice editting of my post to suit your needs as you ignore things you don't wish to comment on but do you have ANY specifics or are lame and baseless vague generalities and personal attacks all that you have to offer??


----------



## JakeStarkey

drsmith1072 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained my usual schedule to him in the past and the stalker remembered it. Creepy isn't it??
> 
> The thing is that I am curently going to school and working two part time jobs, one of which gives me a decent amount of computer time in between work the other does not. So during my one part time job which usually lasts from about 1-6pm I post to kill time. I told chef jester this in the past and now he tries to use it to somehow support his claims that he was a ranger with "ranger instincts" because he remembered my schedule. LOL
Click to expand...


Speaking of Rangers, we had a company commander with former Ranger training and experience.  So there we are out on the tundra of the great Alaska interior in the late spring.  Anyone who has been out there knows just how spongy and terrible ground maneuver are at that time of the year.

So the Captain, who is first name is Rodney, proceeds to read the map wrong.  He went 180 degrees the wrong way (despite his 1SGs quiet advice), and turned a 15 klick into a 30 klich march over twelve hours.  They were late getting into position, then we overran them.  The Captain earned the sobriquet "Rodney Ranger Wrongway" for the remainder of his tour and a terrible rating from the Battalion commander.

The moral of the story is this: not all Rangers ranger well.  I suspect TwistedJoker has earned laurels in wrongway posting.


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> What's creepy is your obsession with Sweaty Male Balls.
> 
> Just sayin'.



YOU are the one that can't stop using references to the "t-word" so once again it is YOU who has the obsession. LOL  

How many times have I used the "t-word" in this thread and directed it at someone??

I admit I used it a few times directed at someone in the beginning of this thread when the debate was ongoing about who used it first, thanks Si modo for admitting the street form was used by tea-partiers first, but I haven't used it directed at anyone since the beginning of this thread when I used it to laugh at ignorant righties who didn't know it had an alternate meaning when they applied it to themselves. 

However YOU are the one that constantly mentions it as you try to assign an obsession to others when it clearly lies with YOU. 

Face it, I and others countered your spin and you can't deal with it. LOL


----------



## L.K.Eder

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained my usual schedule to him in the past and the stalker remembered it. Creepy isn't it??
> 
> The thing is that I am curently going to school and working two part time jobs, one of which gives me a decent amount of computer time in between work the other does not. So during my one part time job which usually lasts from about 1-6pm I post to kill time. I told chef jester this in the past and now he tries to use it to somehow support his claims that he was a ranger with "ranger instincts" because he remembered my schedule. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of Rangers, we had a company commander with former Ranger training and experience.  So there we are out on the tundra of the great Alaska interior in the late spring.  Anyone who has been out there knows just how spongy and terrible ground maneuver are at that time of the year.
> 
> So the Captain, who is first name is Rodney, proceeds to read the map wrong.  He went 180 degrees the wrong way (despite his 1SGs quiet advice), and turned a 15 klick into a 30 klich march over twelve hours.  They were late getting into position, then we overran them.  The Captain earned the sobriquet "Rodney Ranger Wrongway" for the remainder of his tour and a terrible rating from the Battalion commander.
> 
> The moral of the story is this: not all Rangers ranger well.  I suspect TwistedJoker has earned laurels in wrongway posting.
Click to expand...


or he is one of the lucky guys who survived a headshot.


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and here we go with the "but you said this, then I said that, but I ran away, but I didn't run away, you ran away, and and and and, well, then, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHH!"
> 
> Jesus fucking christ!.....Grow the fuck up, already!
> 
> Seriously man, you've got some debating skills. Get over your inferiority/insecurity complex and stop acting like a spurned lil' child. You'll get a lot farther that way. Both up here and in life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey it's not my problem he doesn't like the statements that he made in the past and then claimed that he didn't make them. I merely pointed out his dishoensty and inconsistencies if he didn't want that to happen then he shouldn't have been inconsistent or dishonest.
> 
> However, thanks for the ad hominem and thanks for showing that you have no debating skills and can only stalk and attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

No. I learned long ago that debating you is a lesson in futility. It's a waste of fucking time. You don't debate. That's the point!.....And when you're obvioulsy wrong, you don't have the spine to admit. You just go into your lil' "my mommy took my cookie away mode". And then your stalking from thread to thread begins.

Like I said, grow the fuck up, and you might get some good debate. Otherwise, i'm just going to continue to laugh at your childish ass!

Look at your rep power. Over 1600 posts and you can't manage more than 4. It clearly shows that even those on your side know you're a fucking childish idiot!


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn i'm good!....30 minutes and the rat arrives!
> 
> Almost 3 years removed and those Ranger instincts are as strong as ever!
> 
> Feels good that age hasn't diminished my capacity to know exactly what's going around me!
> 
> *RLTW!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that you ARE a stalker. the FACT that you took the time to remember my usual schedule at my part time job since the last time i explained it to you shows that you are a stalker and it has nothing to do with your "ranger instincts" LOL
> 
> Furthermore, why bring up your alleged service?? it doesn't nothing to justify yourarguments and only shows how desperate you are to try and give credence to your spin but that is all it shows.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I take the time to "remember" your schedule?
> 
> You're a fucking dufus. I could give less than a damn about your schedule. You could croak tomorrow and I wouldn't give a shit. So why would I waste time on an ignorant morons schedule?
> 
> Man, you sure do think your fuckin' special. Fact is, there's nothing special about a douche bag. Other than it stinks like vinegar and you probably got your ass beat with the hose as a child!
> 
> Get over yourself, you ain't shit!...But you are fun to laugh at!
Click to expand...


I don't know why you would take the time to remember my schedule but isn't that a question that you should ask yourself in your session with your shrink?? 

Thanks for stalking and lying about me again. LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

JakeStarkey said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> how come that you know his schedule and moves so well? cameras? telescopes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained my usual schedule to him in the past and the stalker remembered it. Creepy isn't it??
> 
> The thing is that I am curently going to school and working two part time jobs, one of which gives me a decent amount of computer time in between work the other does not. So during my one part time job which usually lasts from about 1-6pm I post to kill time. I told chef jester this in the past and now he tries to use it to somehow support his claims that he was a ranger with "ranger instincts" because he remembered my schedule. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of Rangers, we had a company commander with former Ranger training and experience.  So there we are out on the tundra of the great Alaska interior in the late spring.  Anyone who has been out there knows just how spongy and terrible ground maneuver are at that time of the year.
> 
> So the Captain, who is first name is Rodney, proceeds to read the map wrong.  He went 180 degrees the wrong way (despite his 1SGs quiet advice), and turned a 15 klick into a 30 klich march over twelve hours.  They were late getting into position, then we overran them.  The Captain earned the sobriquet "Rodney Ranger Wrongway" for the remainder of his tour and a terrible rating from the Battalion commander.
> 
> The moral of the story is this: not all Rangers ranger well.  I suspect TwistedJoker has earned laurels in wrongway posting.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, that's officers for ya'!

Where was that at?...Wainwright, Greeley?....I did 18 months at Wainwright......Good times indeed!


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and here we go with the "but you said this, then I said that, but I ran away, but I didn't run away, you ran away, and and and and, well, then, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHH!"
> 
> Jesus fucking christ!.....Grow the fuck up, already!
> 
> Seriously man, you've got some debating skills. Get over your inferiority/insecurity complex and stop acting like a spurned lil' child. You'll get a lot farther that way. Both up here and in life in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey it's not my problem he doesn't like the statements that he made in the past and then claimed that he didn't make them. I merely pointed out his dishoensty and inconsistencies if he didn't want that to happen then he shouldn't have been inconsistent or dishonest.
> 
> However, thanks for the ad hominem and thanks for showing that you have no debating skills and can only stalk and attack the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I learned long ago that debating you is a lesson in futility. It's a waste of fucking time. You don't debate. That's the point!.....And when you're obvioulsy wrong, you don't have the spine to admit. You just go into your lil' "my mommy took my cookie away mode". And then your stalking from thread to thread begins.
> 
> Like I said, grow the fuck up, and you might get some good debate. Otherwise, i'm just going to continue to laugh at your childish ass!
> 
> Look at your rep power. Over 1600 posts and you can't manage more than 4. It clearly shows that even those on your side know you're a fucking childish idiot!
Click to expand...


I debate and you lose, which is why you can only attack me, like you did with your thread you started on the msnbc board where you attacked obama and blamed him for the DOW dropping 5,000 points in his first 90 days and then I proved you wrong and your thread ended up being posters chiming in to make fun of you after the DOW went up every week after you posted your partisan attack on obama and tried to blame him for the drop that occured on W's watch. LOL 

As far as being obviously wrong this thread was based on nothing but rightwing propaganda that has been countered by me and others and since then righties like you have trolled in to attack posters and ignore teh FACT that the spin presented by the OP was based on LIES. So the only posters who are "obviously wrong" are you and your fellow trolls who continue attacking despite being shown to be WRONG. LOL 

As for rep power it is a conservative leaning board so it's obvious that it favors the conservatives as far as rep goes and besides that what the hell does rep power have to do with anything?? Do you actually care what other people on this board think about you so much that you wish to be propped up by your rep score?? Are you really that shallow??


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey it's not my problem he doesn't like the statements that he made in the past and then claimed that he didn't make them. I merely pointed out his dishoensty and inconsistencies if he didn't want that to happen then he shouldn't have been inconsistent or dishonest.
> 
> However, thanks for the ad hominem and thanks for showing that you have no debating skills and can only stalk and attack the messenger.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I learned long ago that debating you is a lesson in futility. It's a waste of fucking time. You don't debate. That's the point!.....And when you're obvioulsy wrong, you don't have the spine to admit. You just go into your lil' "my mommy took my cookie away mode". And then your stalking from thread to thread begins.
> 
> Like I said, grow the fuck up, and you might get some good debate. Otherwise, i'm just going to continue to laugh at your childish ass!
> 
> Look at your rep power. Over 1600 posts and you can't manage more than 4. It clearly shows that even those on your side know you're a fucking childish idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I debate and you lose, like you did with your thread you started on the msnbc board where you attacked obama and blamed him for the DOW dropping 5,000 points in his first 90 days and then I proved you wrong and your thread ended up being posters chiming in to make fun of you after the DOW went up every week after you posted your partisan attack on obama and tried to blame him for the drop that occured on W's watch. LOL
> 
> As far as being obviously wrong this thread was based on nothing but rightwing propaganda that has been countered by me and others and since then righties like you have trolled in to attack posters and ignore teh FACT that the spin presented by the OP was based on LIES. So the only posters who are "obviously wrong" are you and your fellow trolls who continue attacking despite being shown to be WRONG. LOL
> 
> As for rep power it is a conservative leaning board and what the hell does rep power have to do with anything?? Do you actually care what other people on this board think about you so much that you wish to be propped up by your rep score?? Are you really that shallow??
Click to expand...

Quit being dishonest ya' fucking hack!

You know that thread was in response to Obama's ridiculous statement about the fact that he didn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market because as he said, "it just goes up and down"....One of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a sitting president, particularly when the economy is in fucking shambles.

What was the title of that thread, dipshit?......Oh yeah, "since obama says he doesn't keep an eye onthe market, we'll do it for him"

That was a great thread. Went on for almost a year. And those who didn't really understand how the market works, learned a hell of a lot from those of us who do.

Stop you're fucking dishonesty, moron!


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I learned long ago that debating you is a lesson in futility. It's a waste of fucking time. You don't debate. That's the point!.....And when you're obvioulsy wrong, you don't have the spine to admit. You just go into your lil' "my mommy took my cookie away mode". And then your stalking from thread to thread begins.
> 
> Like I said, grow the fuck up, and you might get some good debate. Otherwise, i'm just going to continue to laugh at your childish ass!
> 
> Look at your rep power. Over 1600 posts and you can't manage more than 4. It clearly shows that even those on your side know you're a fucking childish idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I debate and you lose, like you did with your thread you started on the msnbc board where you attacked obama and blamed him for the DOW dropping 5,000 points in his first 90 days and then I proved you wrong and your thread ended up being posters chiming in to make fun of you after the DOW went up every week after you posted your partisan attack on obama and tried to blame him for the drop that occured on W's watch. LOL
> 
> As far as being obviously wrong this thread was based on nothing but rightwing propaganda that has been countered by me and others and since then righties like you have trolled in to attack posters and ignore teh FACT that the spin presented by the OP was based on LIES. So the only posters who are "obviously wrong" are you and your fellow trolls who continue attacking despite being shown to be WRONG. LOL
> 
> As for rep power it is a conservative leaning board and what the hell does rep power have to do with anything?? Do you actually care what other people on this board think about you so much that you wish to be propped up by your rep score?? Are you really that shallow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit being dishonest ya' fucking hack!
> 
> You know that thread was in response to Obama's ridiculous statement about the fact that he didn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market because as he said, "it just goes up and down"....One of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a sitting president, particularly when the economy is in fucking shambles.
> 
> What was the title of that thread, dipshit?......Oh yeah, "since obama says he doesn't keep an eye onthe market, we'll do it for him"
> 
> That was a great thread. Went on for almost a year. And those who didn't really understand how the market works, learned a hell of a lot from those of us who do.
> 
> Stop you're fucking dishonesty, moron!
Click to expand...


Who is being dishonest?? Not me. However, you are. The fact is that you attacked obama over the slide in the DOW that began on W's watch and you did in fact claim that it dropped 5,000 in obama's first 90 days. The fact is that the DOW went UP every week after you started that thread and people chimed in to ask where you were since you pretty much abandoned your own thread based on how the DOW went UP and you looked like a fool.

Oh and you missed part of my post, why no response to the last two paragraghs?? How typical. You make claims and then when they are countered you avoid responding.


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I debate and you lose, like you did with your thread you started on the msnbc board where you attacked obama and blamed him for the DOW dropping 5,000 points in his first 90 days and then I proved you wrong and your thread ended up being posters chiming in to make fun of you after the DOW went up every week after you posted your partisan attack on obama and tried to blame him for the drop that occured on W's watch. LOL
> 
> As far as being obviously wrong this thread was based on nothing but rightwing propaganda that has been countered by me and others and since then righties like you have trolled in to attack posters and ignore teh FACT that the spin presented by the OP was based on LIES. So the only posters who are "obviously wrong" are you and your fellow trolls who continue attacking despite being shown to be WRONG. LOL
> 
> As for rep power it is a conservative leaning board and what the hell does rep power have to do with anything?? Do you actually care what other people on this board think about you so much that you wish to be propped up by your rep score?? Are you really that shallow??
> 
> 
> 
> Quit being dishonest ya' fucking hack!
> 
> You know that thread was in response to Obama's ridiculous statement about the fact that he didn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market because as he said, "it just goes up and down"....One of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a sitting president, particularly when the economy is in fucking shambles.
> 
> What was the title of that thread, dipshit?......Oh yeah, "since obama says he doesn't keep an eye onthe market, we'll do it for him"
> 
> That was a great thread. Went on for almost a year. And those who didn't really understand how the market works, learned a hell of a lot from those of us who do.
> 
> Stop you're fucking dishonesty, moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dishonest?? Not me. However, you are. The fact is that you attacked obama over the slide in the DOW that began on W's watch and you did in fact claim that it dropped 5,000 in obama's first 90 days. The fact is that the DOW went UP every week after you started that thread and people chimed in to ask where you were since you pretty much abandoned your own thread based on how the DOW went UP and you looked like a fool.
> 
> Oh and you missed part of my post, why no response to the last two paragraghs?? How typical. You make claims and then when they are countered you avoid responding.
Click to expand...

The last part of your post is ridiculous. There's just as many of your fellow loony lib's up here, as there are conservatives.

I never attacked Obama for the slide. I attacked him for once again putting his ignorant foot in his god damn mouth, as we have ALL seen he does on a regular basis. Just as he did today with Calderon.

Imagine that. The economy is in crisis, and that inept fucking lil' moron has the audacity to claim he doesn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market. WHAT A LEADER!..... He's a fucking idiot, nothing more!

Oh well, I wasn't ignorant enough to vote for that asshat!...It was quite clear that he was a moron while on the campaign trail.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please expalin how *I* am a progressive??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> With each and every post you make, you reveal yourself to be Progressively and Progressively Moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice editting of my post to suit your needs as you ignore things you don't wish to comment on but do you have ANY specifics or are lame and baseless vague generalities and personal attacks all that you have to offer??
Click to expand...



Nothing more needs to be said other than to make the observation that when one observes a Moron digging himself into a rhetorical hole, it's best just to stand back and watch him sink further into it.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit being dishonest ya' fucking hack!
> 
> You know that thread was in response to Obama's ridiculous statement about the fact that he didn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market because as he said, "it just goes up and down"....One of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a sitting president, particularly when the economy is in fucking shambles.
> 
> What was the title of that thread, dipshit?......Oh yeah, "since obama says he doesn't keep an eye onthe market, we'll do it for him"
> 
> That was a great thread. Went on for almost a year. And those who didn't really understand how the market works, learned a hell of a lot from those of us who do.
> 
> Stop you're fucking dishonesty, moron!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is being dishonest?? Not me. However, you are. The fact is that you attacked obama over the slide in the DOW that began on W's watch and you did in fact claim that it dropped 5,000 in obama's first 90 days. The fact is that the DOW went UP every week after you started that thread and people chimed in to ask where you were since you pretty much abandoned your own thread based on how the DOW went UP and you looked like a fool.
> 
> Oh and you missed part of my post, why no response to the last two paragraghs?? How typical. You make claims and then when they are countered you avoid responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last part of your post is ridiculous. There's just as many of your fellow loony lib's up here, as there are conservatives.
Click to expand...


Nice spin but then again i am not here to please others and the fact that you feel the need to focus on something so unimportant to try and prop yourself up says more about you than it does about me



Wicked Jester said:


> I never attacked Obama for the slide. I attacked him for once again putting his ignorant foot in his god damn mouth, as we have ALL seen he does on a regular basis. Just as he did today with Calderon.



BS. You were the one chiming in to agree with that hack stoneron when he claimed that the DOW dropped 5,000 points in obama's first 90 days until I proved that claim WRONG. Then you tried to defend this statement by claiming that the drop was actually due to the market's response to obama winning the election despite the FACT that the drop began months earlier on W's watch. Then you continued to attack him based on the DOW claiming "it went up but it's still not were it was at it's high under W" (paraphrased but you get the point) even though it went up for several weeks straight until you finally abandoned your own thread. you spinning to change what you actually said is hilarious



Wicked Jester said:


> Imagine that. The economy is in crisis, and that inept fucking lil' moron has the audacity to claim he doesn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market. WHAT A LEADER!..... He's a fucking idiot, nothing more!



and then you start the same BS argument by misquoting obama. Here is the actual quote that YOU are misrepresenting



> I don't pay attention to the stock market. *What I&#8217;m looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing*. And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you&#8217;re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong.



You had it WRONG back then and you still have it WRONG. So got anymore dishonest spin to offer??



Wicked Jester said:


> Oh well, I wasn't ignorant enough to vote for that asshat!...It was quite clear that he was a moron while on the campaign trail.




Nope you were ignorant enough to vote for someone else even worse. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> Uh oh, I smell an insecure lil' rat. It won't be long now!
> 
> It's 11:16 PST....The rat is about to arrive!
> 
> Mark my words!





drsmith1072 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith calling anyone a stalker drips with unintentional irony.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits. LOL
> 
> chefjester has been stalking me for a while and the fact that he chimes into a thread and only attacks me while offering nothing to the thread supports my calling him a stalker because that is what he is.
Click to expand...


Damn!  Wicked, you are truly clairvoyant!


----------



## drsmith1072

boedicca said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> With each and every post you make, you reveal yourself to be Progressively and Progressively Moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice editting of my post to suit your needs as you ignore things you don't wish to comment on but do you have ANY specifics or are lame and baseless vague generalities and personal attacks all that you have to offer??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing more needs to be said other than to make the observation that when one observes a Moron digging himself into a rhetorical hole, it's best just to stand back and watch him sink further into it.
Click to expand...


So you have no justification. How typical that you like so many other rightwing hacks have nothing real to offer to substantiate your claims. LOL

Thanks for the spin and thanks for trolling.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY??
> 
> read em and weep LIAR.
> 
> 
> 
> So based on your own words, you claimed I parroted it and then FAILED to prove YOUR claim.
> 
> Now you have claimed that you never said it and yet here is the proof that you DID which proves you a LIAR.
> 
> Keep on lying, I can see why you avoid debates, with your failing record I would probably run away from them too. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
Click to expand...


Why didn't you tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know I like it when you do that.

C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.

But, I like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.

I win!  I win!

That makes me the owner of you, now.





(Tag, you're it.............)


----------



## Wicked Jester

si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> and i was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-a idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me i'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no you were not correct and you haven't proven that i parroted the argument in question despite your claim that i did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then i show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you lied, again. Lol
> 
> face it you have been owned by me and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why didn't you tell me i'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know i like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, i like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (tag, you're it.............)
Click to expand...

lmao!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was correct.  You didn't prove a thing.  Well, except that you are a moron.  You parroted others' points made days before you entered the thread.  Then, when trolling murf, you seemed to think you came up with some epiphany that proved something of no consequence at all except in your odd mind.
> 
> You did, however, demonstrate that you are an class-A idiot.
> 
> Now, tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you.  I like it when you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know I like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, I like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Tag, you're it.............)
Click to expand...


the difference is that I actually supported my claims with your own words. 
Where as you merely make the claims and believe that merely because you believe it and repeat it that it becomes true.

BTW I am still waiting on you to prove your claim that i parroted the argument in question.

Oh and your attacks don't change the FACT that you LIED and I PROVED that you did with your own words. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you were not correct and you haven't proven that i parroted the argument in question despite your claim that i did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then i show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you lied, again. Lol
> 
> face it you have been owned by me and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why didn't you tell me i'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know i like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, i like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (tag, you're it.............)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lmao!
Click to expand...


For sale:  Certified pre-owned drsmith.  Cheap.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you were NOT correct and you haven't proven that I parroted the argument in question despite your claim that I did. However, it is funny that you stated you never made the claim and then I show that you did and then you try to ignore the fact that you LIED, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Face it you have been owned by ME and the best you can do is try to attack me personally as you pretend that it never happened. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know I like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, I like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Tag, you're it.............)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the difference is that I actually supported my claims with your own words.
> Where as you merely make the claims and believe that merely because you believe it and repeat it that it becomes true.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to prove your claim that i parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Oh and your attacks don't change the FACT that you LIED and I PROVED that you did with your own words. LOL
Click to expand...


You did?  Where?

I bet you want me to run away, huh?  You KNOW you want it.  You just know.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> why didn't you tell me i'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know i like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, i like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (tag, you're it.............)
> 
> 
> 
> lmao!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For sale:  Certified pre-owned drsmith.  Cheap.
Click to expand...

Fuckin' classic si!



I think i'm gonna put that in my sig line!....with full credit given to you!


----------



## Si modo

Hey, Wicked.  Does this guy get paid on time or a per post basis?  I hope it's per post.  He'll never stop and we'll suck money from those paying him.  Win-win.  We get to keep laughing and they lose money.


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> lmao!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For sale:  Certified pre-owned drsmith.  Cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuckin' classic si!
> 
> 
> 
> I think i'm gonna put that in my sig line!....with full credit given to you!
Click to expand...

Glad you liked it!  This is a regular laugh riot.  Hard to still type, here.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you tell me I'm running away and/or avoiding you?  You know I like it when you do that.
> 
> C'mon. Don't hold out on us, now.
> 
> But, I like this new strategy of yours.  I'm gonna try it.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> That makes me the owner of you, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Tag, you're it.............)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the difference is that I actually supported my claims with your own words.
> Where as you merely make the claims and believe that merely because you believe it and repeat it that it becomes true.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to prove your claim that i parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Oh and your attacks don't change the FACT that you LIED and I PROVED that you did with your own words. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did?  Where?
> 
> I bet you want me to run away, huh?  You KNOW you want it.  You just know.
Click to expand...


Here it is AGAIN. go back and read it again for the first time. LOL 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-52.html#post2319718

You lied when you made a claim that you couldn't substantiate, the proof is there and your avoidance won't make it go away.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> Hey, Wicked.  Does this guy get paid on time or a per post basis?  I hope it's per post.  He'll never stop and we'll suck money from those paying him.  Win-win.  We get to keep laughing and they lose money.


I don't know!......But it's quite obvious he can't afford a home computer. After all, he only posts for about two hours a day on company time.

I guess that's why it's taking him over two years to complete a basic 6 month 
"x-ray" tech course in fucking "vocational school"......Pay as ya' go?

Bwahahahhahhaahhahaahhahhahahaahhahahahaaaaaa!


----------



## drsmith1072

Oh well it looks as if all they can do is attack me personally but then their dishonesty and lack of integrity has been exposed throughout this thread so their current obsession with attacking the messenger is really no surprise.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the difference is that I actually supported my claims with your own words.
> Where as you merely make the claims and believe that merely because you believe it and repeat it that it becomes true.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you to prove your claim that i parroted the argument in question.
> 
> Oh and your attacks don't change the FACT that you LIED and I PROVED that you did with your own words. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did?  Where?
> 
> I bet you want me to run away, huh?  You KNOW you want it.  You just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is AGAIN. go back and read it again for the first time. LOL
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-52.html#post2319718
> 
> You lied when you made a claim that you couldn't substantiate, the proof is there and your avoidance won't make it go away.
Click to expand...


Your link shows that I win.  I owned you.  It also shows others winning.  Others own you, too.

You want me to run away, NOW?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Oh well it looks as if all they can do is attack me personally but then their dishonesty and lack of integrity has been exposed throughout this thread so their current obsession with attacking the messenger is really no surprise.


I'd offer you tissue, but that would only help with your sniveling.  For your butthurt, I recommend a trip to the CVS for Preparation-H.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Wicked.  Does this guy get paid on time or a per post basis?  I hope it's per post.  He'll never stop and we'll suck money from those paying him.  Win-win.  We get to keep laughing and they lose money.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know!......But it's quite obvious he can't afford a home computer. After all, he only posts for about two hours a day on company time.
> 
> I guess that's why it's taking him over two years to complete a basic 6 month
> "x-ray" tech course in fucking "vocational school"......Pay as ya' go?
> 
> Bwahahahhahhaahhahaahhahhahahaahhahahahaaaaaa!
Click to expand...


I have a home computer it's just that i have better things to do when i am at home. I feel sorry for you that you don't. LOL 

The other thing i feel sorry for you over is that you have to stoop to claiming that I am a paid poster because you have no real argument to offer and can only troll. 

furthermore, it is not an x-ray tech course at a vocational school and you know that but this wouldn't be the first time that you LIED about that. Oh well, what else can you expect from a poser who has to lie about being a ranger and a successful restaurateur to prop up his ridiculous arguments. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did?  Where?
> 
> I bet you want me to run away, huh?  You KNOW you want it.  You just know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is AGAIN. go back and read it again for the first time. LOL
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-52.html#post2319718
> 
> You lied when you made a claim that you couldn't substantiate, the proof is there and your avoidance won't make it go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link shows that I win.  I owned you.  It also shows others winning.  Others own you, too.
> 
> You want me to run away, NOW?
Click to expand...


My link shows that YOU LIED. LOL You made the claim that I parroted that argument and then you claimed that you never made that claim. The link shows that you made that claim and still haven't proven it which means that you LIED. 

Spinning won't change the facts.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is AGAIN. go back and read it again for the first time. LOL
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-52.html#post2319718
> 
> You lied when you made a claim that you couldn't substantiate, the proof is there and your avoidance won't make it go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link shows that I win.  I owned you.  It also shows others winning.  Others own you, too.
> 
> You want me to run away, NOW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link shows that YOU LIED. LOL You made the claim that I parroted that argument and then you claimed that you never made that claim. The link shows that you made that claim and still haven't proven it which means that you LIED.
> 
> Spinning won't change the facts.
Click to expand...


What lie?  Where?

I just see your coming into a thread and parroting the points others made.  Then bringing up something of no consequence.

I win!  I win!


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Wicked.  Does this guy get paid on time or a per post basis?  I hope it's per post.  He'll never stop and we'll suck money from those paying him.  Win-win.  We get to keep laughing and they lose money.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know!......But it's quite obvious he can't afford a home computer. After all, he only posts for about two hours a day on company time.
> 
> I guess that's why it's taking him over two years to complete a basic 6 month
> "x-ray" tech course in fucking "vocational school"......Pay as ya' go?
> 
> Bwahahahhahhaahhahaahhahhahahaahhahahahaaaaaa!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a home computer it's just that i have better things to do when i am at home. I feel sorry for you that you don't. LOL
> 
> The other thing i feel sorry for you over is that you have to stoop to claiming that I am a paid poster because you have no real argument to offer and can only troll.
> 
> furthermore, it is not an x-ray tech course at a vocational school and you know that but this wouldn't be the first time that you LIED about that. Oh well, what else can you expect from a poser who has to lie about being a ranger and a successful restaurateur to prop up his ridiculous arguments. LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, we know buddy!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well it looks as if all they can do is attack me personally but then their dishonesty and lack of integrity has been exposed throughout this thread so their current obsession with attacking the messenger is really no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd offer you tissue, but that would only help with your sniveling.  For your butthurt, I recommend a trip to the CVS for Preparation-H.
Click to expand...


Aww more attacks thanks for proving my point and showing that you have NOTHING else to offer. 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you admit that you were WRONG earlier in this thread based on the fact that your own video clip of maddow showed you to be WRONG?? Based on that FACT it is YOU who is in need of preparation-H. LOL The funniest thing of all is that despite that FACT you keep coming back for more. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know!......But it's quite obvious he can't afford a home computer. After all, he only posts for about two hours a day on company time.
> 
> I guess that's why it's taking him over two years to complete a basic 6 month
> "x-ray" tech course in fucking "vocational school"......Pay as ya' go?
> 
> Bwahahahhahhaahhahaahhahhahahaahhahahahaaaaaa!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a home computer it's just that i have better things to do when i am at home. I feel sorry for you that you don't. LOL
> 
> The other thing i feel sorry for you over is that you have to stoop to claiming that I am a paid poster because you have no real argument to offer and can only troll.
> 
> furthermore, it is not an x-ray tech course at a vocational school and you know that but this wouldn't be the first time that you LIED about that. Oh well, what else can you expect from a poser who has to lie about being a ranger and a successful restaurateur to prop up his ridiculous arguments. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we know buddy!
Click to expand...


Thanks for admitting that you are a phony soldier and businessman and only use that fictitious life to support your ridiculous arguments. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well it looks as if all they can do is attack me personally but then their dishonesty and lack of integrity has been exposed throughout this thread so their current obsession with attacking the messenger is really no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd offer you tissue, but that would only help with your sniveling.  For your butthurt, I recommend a trip to the CVS for Preparation-H.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww more attacks thanks for proviong my point and showing that you have NOTHING else to offer.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you admit that you were WRONG earlier in this thread based on the fact that your own video clip of maddow showed you to be WRONG?? Based on that FACT it is YOU who is in need of preparation-H. LOL The funniest thing of all is that despite that FACT you keep coming back for more. LOL
Click to expand...

Awww.  Playing the victim card, still?

And, I'm glad to see you admit to parroting.  Finally.

Now, tell me to run away.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a home computer it's just that i have better things to do when i am at home. I feel sorry for you that you don't. LOL
> 
> The other thing i feel sorry for you over is that you have to stoop to claiming that I am a paid poster because you have no real argument to offer and can only troll.
> 
> furthermore, it is not an x-ray tech course at a vocational school and you know that but this wouldn't be the first time that you LIED about that. Oh well, what else can you expect from a poser who has to lie about being a ranger and a successful restaurateur to prop up his ridiculous arguments. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we know buddy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are a phony soldier and businessman and only use that fictitious life to support your ridiculous arguments. LOL
Click to expand...


Cool. Now we can laugh at your playing the victim card about 'personal attacks'.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUIr33JpvWM]YouTube - animal house,flounder,oh boy this is great[/ame]


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we know buddy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are a phony soldier and businessman and only use that fictitious life to support your ridiculous arguments. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Now we can laugh at your playing the victim card about 'personal attacks'.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUIr33JpvWM]YouTube - animal house,flounder,oh boy this is great[/ame]
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew that hypocrite card would be played.

Hopefully he keeps his stupid ass out of Vegas. They'll eat 'em alive!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link shows that I win.  I owned you.  It also shows others winning.  Others own you, too.
> 
> You want me to run away, NOW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My link shows that YOU LIED. LOL You made the claim that I parroted that argument and then you claimed that you never made that claim. The link shows that you made that claim and still haven't proven it which means that you LIED.
> 
> Spinning won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lie?  Where?
> 
> I just see your coming into a thread and parroting the points others made.  Then bringing up something of no consequence.
> 
> I win!  I win!
Click to expand...


My statement



drsmith1072 said:


> HAHA and yet I was the one who proved the argument of this thread was wrong based on the timeline with info from the article the OP was allegedly based on, which caused the argument to be changed. LOL So much for epic fail.



your first unsubstanted claim that i parroted said argument



Si modo said:


> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  *Others did last week and you parroted them*.



and then your LIE where you claim you never made the above claim to avoid providing proof of it.



Si modo said:


> *If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.



Your dishonesty has been shown and linked to each posrt where you LIED. Spin all you want loser it won't change the FACTS.

That is how you substantiate an argument. It's too bad for you that you never learned HOW to do that.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My link shows that YOU LIED. LOL You made the claim that I parroted that argument and then you claimed that you never made that claim. The link shows that you made that claim and still haven't proven it which means that you LIED.
> 
> Spinning won't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lie?  Where?
> 
> I just see your coming into a thread and parroting the points others made.  Then bringing up something of no consequence.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My statement
> 
> 
> 
> your first unsubstanted claim that i parroted said argument
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I hate to burst your delusional little bubble, you didn't prove a thing.  *Others did last week and you parroted them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then your LIE where you claim you never made the above claim to avoid providing proof of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty has been shown and linked to each posrt where you LIED. Spin all you want loser it won't change the FACTS.
> 
> That is how you substantiate an argument. It's too bad for you that you never learned HOW to do that.
Click to expand...


What lie?  You see a lie there?  Where?

I win!

Or, am I personally attacking poor little smith?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd offer you tissue, but that would only help with your sniveling.  For your butthurt, I recommend a trip to the CVS for Preparation-H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww more attacks thanks for proviong my point and showing that you have NOTHING else to offer.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you admit that you were WRONG earlier in this thread based on the fact that your own video clip of maddow showed you to be WRONG?? Based on that FACT it is YOU who is in need of preparation-H. LOL The funniest thing of all is that despite that FACT you keep coming back for more. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww.  Playing the victim card, still?
> 
> And, I'm glad to see you admit to parroting.  Finally.
> 
> Now, tell me to run away.
Click to expand...


So pointing out YOUR shortcomings on this board is playing the victim card?? LOL 

Furthermore, how does pointing out how YOU admitted that YOU were WRONG earlier in this thread have anything to do with me?? LOL 

WOW when you get desperate you really spin out of control. Thanks for that laughs. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww more attacks thanks for proviong my point and showing that you have NOTHING else to offer.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you admit that you were WRONG earlier in this thread based on the fact that your own video clip of maddow showed you to be WRONG?? Based on that FACT it is YOU who is in need of preparation-H. LOL The funniest thing of all is that despite that FACT you keep coming back for more. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Playing the victim card, still?
> 
> And, I'm glad to see you admit to parroting.  Finally.
> 
> Now, tell me to run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So pointing out YOUR shortcomings on this board is playing the victim card?? LOL
> 
> Furthermore, how does pointing out how YOU admitted that YOU were WRONG earlier in this thread have anything to do with me?? LOL
> 
> WOW when you get desperate you really spin out of control. Thanks for that laughs. LOL
Click to expand...


You're welcome.  But really, the pleasure is all mine.

Can I whine about personal attacks now?

I mean, it's fun playing by your rules.

I win!  I win!  I owned you!

Waaaaaaaa, you personally attacked me.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lie?  Where?
> 
> I just see your coming into a thread and parroting the points others made.  Then bringing up something of no consequence.
> 
> I win!  I win!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My statement
> 
> 
> 
> your first unsubstanted claim that i parroted said argument
> 
> 
> 
> and then your LIE where you claim you never made the above claim to avoid providing proof of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I made that claim, I would.  As I didn't*, I'll just continue to toy with your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty has been shown and linked to each posrt where you LIED. Spin all you want loser it won't change the FACTS.
> 
> That is how you substantiate an argument. It's too bad for you that you never learned HOW to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lie?  You see a lie there?  Where?
> 
> I win!
> 
> Or, am I personally attacking poor little smith?
Click to expand...


I highlighted your lie and even pointed them out to you so if by "winning" you mean making a complete and utter fool out of yourself then that would be the only way that you are winning anything. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Playing the victim card, still?
> 
> And, I'm glad to see you admit to parroting.  Finally.
> 
> Now, tell me to run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So pointing out YOUR shortcomings on this board is playing the victim card?? LOL
> 
> Furthermore, how does pointing out how YOU admitted that YOU were WRONG earlier in this thread have anything to do with me?? LOL
> 
> WOW when you get desperate you really spin out of control. Thanks for that laughs. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  But really, the pleasure is all mine.
> 
> Can I whine about personal attacks now?
> 
> I mean, it's fun playing by your rules.
> 
> I win!  I win!  I owned you!
> 
> Waaaaaaaa, you personally attacked me.
Click to expand...


I asked you questions about your posts and the fact that you can't answer those simple questions shows that my comments about you are based on FACT.

furthermore I pointed to the substance of the thread where as all you can do is attack me personally.

I wonder, are they waiting on me to leave?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My statement
> 
> 
> 
> your first unsubstanted claim that i parroted said argument
> 
> 
> 
> and then your LIE where you claim you never made the above claim to avoid providing proof of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty has been shown and linked to each posrt where you LIED. Spin all you want loser it won't change the FACTS.
> 
> That is how you substantiate an argument. It's too bad for you that you never learned HOW to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lie?  You see a lie there?  Where?
> 
> I win!
> 
> Or, am I personally attacking poor little smith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highlighted your lie and even pointed them out to you so if by "winning" you mean making a complete and utter fool out of yourself then that would be the only way that you are winning anything. LOL
Click to expand...

 I see no lie.  You seem to think you do.

Perhaps if someone else sees a lie, you can parrot them and think you have a point.

I mean, I'm trying to think like a nutbar so that the lines of communication are clear.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So pointing out YOUR shortcomings on this board is playing the victim card?? LOL
> 
> Furthermore, how does pointing out how YOU admitted that YOU were WRONG earlier in this thread have anything to do with me?? LOL
> 
> WOW when you get desperate you really spin out of control. Thanks for that laughs. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  But really, the pleasure is all mine.
> 
> Can I whine about personal attacks now?
> 
> I mean, it's fun playing by your rules.
> 
> I win!  I win!  I owned you!
> 
> Waaaaaaaa, you personally attacked me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you questions about your posts and the fact that you can't answer those simple questions shows that my comments about you are based on FACT.
Click to expand...


What questions?  Where?

Liar.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lie?  You see a lie there?  Where?
> 
> I win!
> 
> Or, am I personally attacking poor little smith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highlighted your lie and even pointed them out to you so if by "winning" you mean making a complete and utter fool out of yourself then that would be the only way that you are winning anything. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no lie.  You seem to think you do.
> 
> Perhaps if someone else sees a lie, you can parrot them and think you have a point.
> 
> I mean, I'm trying to think like a nutbar so that the lines of communication are clear.
Click to expand...


Read the thread. LOL 

You made a claim, which you failed to substantiate, and then tried to say that you never made that claim. The fact that you repeated a claim that you failed to prove is one LIE and the fact that you said you never made that claim, when the proof is right there that you did make that claim, is another LIE. 

You lied to avoid proving a claim that you know you can't prove. The FACTS and your own words show that to be the case.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  But really, the pleasure is all mine.
> 
> Can I whine about personal attacks now?
> 
> I mean, it's fun playing by your rules.
> 
> I win!  I win!  I owned you!
> 
> Waaaaaaaa, you personally attacked me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you questions about your posts and the fact that you can't answer those simple questions shows that my comments about you are based on FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions?  Where?
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


Read the post. This symbol "?" at the end of a sentence is meant to show you that the sentence is a question.

See how nice I am to take the time to try and educate you? 

BTW that is a question. Just thought I would help you out on that one but no more gimmies. Let's see if you can figure out what a question is on your own from now on.


----------



## drsmith1072

hey chefjester, why no comment on this post, #826?? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-56.html#post2323349

was it too much truth for you to handle??


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> hey chefjester, why no comment on this post, #826??
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-56.html#post2323349
> 
> was it too much truth for you to handle??


Yeah, thanks for proving me right again!

"I don't pay attention to the stock market"

Well, maybe the stupid lil' motherfucker should. Seeing as though it's one of the driving forces of our economy.

Wonder if he's even noticed it's tanking again as we speak. Wonder if he realizes that the european market forces, and the decline of the euro stands a good chance of tearing our economy completely down the fucking toilet!...Even worse than he's driven it into the fucking toilet. Lord knows he's thrown the futures of at least the next two generations of our children down the fucking toilet. The debt they are now saddled with, thanks to his ignorant ass, is fucking criminal. And losers like you just blindly follow along!

What a fucking idiot!


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey chefjester, why no comment on this post, #826??
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...-then-calls-us-teabaggers-56.html#post2323349
> 
> was it too much truth for you to handle??
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, thanks for proving me right again!
> 
> "I don't pay attention to the stock market"
> 
> Well, maybe the stupid lil' motherfucker should. Seeing as though it's one of the driving forces of our economy.
> 
> Wonder if he's even noticed it's tanking again as we speak. Wonder if he realizes that the european market forces, and the decline of the euro stands a good chance of tearing our economy completely down the fucking toilet!...Even worse than he's driven it into the fucking toilet. Lord knows he's thrown the futures of at least the next two generations of our children down the fucking toilet. The debt they are now saddled with, thanks to his ignorant ass, is fucking criminal. And losers like you just blindly follow along!
> 
> What a fucking idiot!
Click to expand...


Actually the "i don't pay attention to the stock market" was added by the right wing blog I pulled the quote from in a rush last night. however, upon further research it seems that the blog put that in quotes so i assumed obama actually said it but it appears that the blogger used that as the title of his article and presented it as something it was not. Also, I could not find that exact quote anywhere. Can you? Here is the source I pulled it from in haste and that was my mistake for including the title of the blog in the quote.

More on Obama: &#8220;I don&#8217;t pay attention to the stock market&#8221;  Seeing Red AZ

Furthermore, how nice of you to take one sentence out of the context of the whole becuase you think you can spin that ONE out of context sentence to support your spin. However, if you could force yourself to be hoenst for at least one post could you please fopcus on the ENTIRE quote instead of dishonestly cherry picking what you think you can spin. 

Here is the most common version I have found which is without the blog title, so how about you se if you can address the WHOLE quote and be honest for a change?? 

"What Im looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing. And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then youre probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong"

 and yet here is YOUR claim



Wicked Jester said:


> Imagine that. The economy is in crisis, and that inept fucking lil' moron has the audacity to *claim he doesn't bother to keep an eye on the stock market.* WHAT A LEADER!..... He's a fucking idiot, nothing more!



So based on the quote as a whole and even if you include the title I pasted from the blog your claim that obama said he doesn't bother to keep an eye in the stock market was proven WRONG by my post. 

My guess is that you knew that and that is the reason why you left out the parts of the quote that showed you to be WRONG. AGAIN. 

However thanks for the spin.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you questions about your posts and the fact that you can't answer those simple questions shows that my comments about you are based on FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What questions?  Where?
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the post. This symbol "?" at the end of a sentence is meant to show you that the sentence is a question.
> 
> See how nice I am to take the time to try and educate you?
> 
> BTW that is a question. Just thought I would help you out on that one but no more gimmies. Let's see if you can figure out what a question is on your own from now on.
Click to expand...


Liar.  There were no questions in the post.

You want me to answer a question, you better ask one.

Moron.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What questions?  Where?
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the post. This symbol "?" at the end of a sentence is meant to show you that the sentence is a question.
> 
> See how nice I am to take the time to try and educate you?
> 
> BTW that is a question. Just thought I would help you out on that one but no more gimmies. Let's see if you can figure out what a question is on your own from now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  There were no questions in the post.
> 
> You want me to answer a question, you better ask one.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different. 

Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working. 

YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the post. This symbol "?" at the end of a sentence is meant to show you that the sentence is a question.
> 
> See how nice I am to take the time to try and educate you?
> 
> BTW that is a question. Just thought I would help you out on that one but no more gimmies. Let's see if you can figure out what a question is on your own from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  There were no questions in the post.
> 
> You want me to answer a question, you better ask one.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different.
> 
> Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working.
> 
> YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.
Click to expand...


Oh.  So you have no question to ask.

Thought so.

Just more lying from you.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  There were no questions in the post.
> 
> You want me to answer a question, you better ask one.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different.
> 
> Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working.
> 
> YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
Click to expand...


I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.

READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
 GJ.


----------



## Wicked Jester

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different.
> 
> Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working.
> 
> YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
Click to expand...

Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.

So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!

Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?

They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!

Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different.
> 
> Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working.
> 
> YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
Click to expand...


Well, if you have no questions to ask, why are you bitching that I didn't answer them?


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.
> 
> So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!
> 
> Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?
> 
> They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!
Click to expand...


Any questions he asked were asked and answered weeks ago.  But, let's see if he can make this thread break 1000 by bitching about it, or parroting.  He has yet to add anything original and/or of any consequence except for entertainment.

Now, what was the topic again? LMAO!


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.
> 
> So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!
> 
> Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?
> 
> They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any questions he asked were asked and answered weeks ago.  But, let's see if he can make this thread break 1000 by bitching about it, or parroting.  He has yet to add anything original and/or of any consequence except for entertainment.
> 
> Now, what was the topic again? LMAO!
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I popped on here last night after the Laker game. I read through the thread, and what you just stated is absolutely correct.

That boy has issues.........Being an Obamabot sheeple is the least of his problems.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. *Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much??* LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you have no questions to ask, why are you bitching that I didn't answer them?
Click to expand...


I put a question in bold type not that you know what one is but it's right there in my post. 

Thanks for again showing that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
 GJ.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.
> 
> So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!
> 
> Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?
> 
> They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!
Click to expand...


How typical. I prove you WRONG and you fail to respond with anything other than more of your baseless personal attacks. LOL.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.
> 
> So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!
> 
> Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?
> 
> They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any questions he asked were asked and answered weeks ago.  But, let's see if he can make this thread break 1000 by bitching about it, or parroting.  He has yet to add anything original and/or of any consequence except for entertainment.
> 
> Now, what was the topic again? LMAO!
Click to expand...


and yet that is NOT the case and I have shown questions that you have failed to answer or flat out avoided answering out of sheer dishonesty to the point that you even pretend that no questions were asked. 

The FACTS are there and I have shown several quotes and links to the questions as wekllas your false assertions and you lack the integrity to admit it. How typical. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. *Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much??* LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you have no questions to ask, why are you bitching that I didn't answer them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put a question in bold type noth that you know what one is but it's right there in my post.
> 
> Thanks for again showing that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility.
> GJ.
Click to expand...


That's a question?

Nah.

Now THIS is a question:

*Why do you hate America?*




Gotta love playing the implicit assumptions game.


----------



## drsmith1072

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up, ya' insecure lil' moron.
> 
> So what if you ask questions, dipshit?......Doesn't matter what the answer would be, you're just going to keep on with your ridiculous propoganda. You're not fooling anybody, buddy!
> 
> Seriously, who the fuck raised your comical ass?
> 
> They should be slapped upside the head for raising such a whiney lil' fuck!
> 
> Grow the fuck up, and get some help for your abject insecurity/inferiority complex!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any questions he asked were asked and answered weeks ago.  But, let's see if he can make this thread break 1000 by bitching about it, or parroting.  He has yet to add anything original and/or of any consequence except for entertainment.
> 
> Now, what was the topic again? LMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah I know. I popped on here last night after the Laker game. I read through the thread, and what you just stated is absolutely correct.
> 
> That boy has issues.........Being an Obamabot sheeple is the least of his problems.
Click to expand...


Aww look how my stalker chimes in to agree with Si as he attacks me personally to avoid the fact that I have shown poor chefjester's spin to be nothing but LIES. 
He claims to have read the thread and yet I doubt he could even tell anyone what it's about and how Si admitted that he was WRONG only to flip flop back later and contradict himself. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any questions he asked were asked and answered weeks ago.  But, let's see if he can make this thread break 1000 by bitching about it, or parroting.  He has yet to add anything original and/or of any consequence except for entertainment.
> 
> Now, what was the topic again? LMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I know. I popped on here last night after the Laker game. I read through the thread, and what you just stated is absolutely correct.
> 
> That boy has issues.........Being an Obamabot sheeple is the least of his problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww look how my stalker chimes in to agree with Si as he attacks me personally to avoid the fact that I have shown poor chefjester's spin to be nothing but LIES.
> He claims to have read the thread and yet I doubt he could even tell anyone what it's about and how Si admitted that he was WRONG only to flip flop back later and contradict himself. LOL
Click to expand...


Still have nothing?

I hope they are still paying you.  I love their wasting their (whoever IS paying you) money.  It warms my heart.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I know. I popped on here last night after the Laker game. I read through the thread, and what you just stated is absolutely correct.
> 
> That boy has issues.........Being an Obamabot sheeple is the least of his problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww look how my stalker chimes in to agree with Si as he attacks me personally to avoid the fact that I have shown poor chefjester's spin to be nothing but LIES.
> He claims to have read the thread and yet I doubt he could even tell anyone what it's about and how Si admitted that he was WRONG only to flip flop back later and contradict himself. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still have nothing?
> 
> I hope they are still paying you.  I love their wasting their (whoever IS paying you) money.  It warms my heart.
Click to expand...



I have plenty it's you who had and still has nothing but personal attacks and avoidance. 

I am getting paid by my job but right now it's alittle slow and I have completed my responsibilities for the day so I post to kill time until something comes up. The fact that you go to this lame accusation that I am a paid poster shows that you still have NOTHING to offer. 

GJ


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww look how my stalker chimes in to agree with Si as he attacks me personally to avoid the fact that I have shown poor chefjester's spin to be nothing but LIES.
> He claims to have read the thread and yet I doubt he could even tell anyone what it's about and how Si admitted that he was WRONG only to flip flop back later and contradict himself. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still have nothing?
> 
> I hope they are still paying you.  I love their wasting their (whoever IS paying you) money.  It warms my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have plenty it's you who had and still has nothing but personal attacks and avoidance.
> 
> I am getting paid by my job but right now it's alittle slow and I have completed my responsibilities for the day so I post to kill time until something comes up. The fact that you go to this lame accusation that I am a paid poster shows that you still have NOTHING to offer.
> 
> GJ
Click to expand...

  You said I'm avoiding you!

Thanks!




So, you say you have plenty.  Let's hear it.  Now, now...don't just parrot and do  try to say something of consequence.  For you, that means something of significance and pertaining to the topic.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still have nothing?
> 
> I hope they are still paying you.  I love their wasting their (whoever IS paying you) money.  It warms my heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have plenty it's you who had and still has nothing but personal attacks and avoidance.
> 
> I am getting paid by my job but right now it's alittle slow and I have completed my responsibilities for the day so I post to kill time until something comes up. The fact that you go to this lame accusation that I am a paid poster shows that you still have NOTHING to offer.
> 
> GJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said I'm avoiding you!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you say you have plenty.  Let's hear it.  Now, now...don't just parrot and do  try to say something of consequence.  For you, that means something of significance and pertaining to the topic.
Click to expand...


As I have already said I ahve already provided it but you avoided it so there really is no point in wasting my time posting it again so you can avoid it again.

Now let me guess what your response will be. 

First you will claim that because I refuse to play your game and repost my previous arguments and questions over and over again that it means that I have nothing. 

Am I right? Or will you just post  to avoid saying anything else stupid and/or contradictory?? LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have plenty it's you who had and still has nothing but personal attacks and avoidance.
> 
> I am getting paid by my job but right now it's alittle slow and I have completed my responsibilities for the day so I post to kill time until something comes up. The fact that you go to this lame accusation that I am a paid poster shows that you still have NOTHING to offer.
> 
> GJ
> 
> 
> 
> You said I'm avoiding you!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you say you have plenty.  Let's hear it.  Now, now...don't just parrot and do  try to say something of consequence.  For you, that means something of significance and pertaining to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have already said I ahve already provided it but you avoided it so there really is no point in wasting my time posting it again so you can avoid it again.
> 
> Now let me guess what your response will be.
> 
> First you will claim that because I refuse to play your game and repost my previous arguments and questions over and over again that it means that I have nothing.
> 
> Am I right? Or will you just post  to avoid saying anything else stupid and/or contradictory?? LOL
Click to expand...

Sooooo, you DON'T have plenty to say? There was your opportunity.

Tell me I'm running away again.  You know you want to.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I'm avoiding you!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you say you have plenty.  Let's hear it.  Now, now...don't just parrot and do  try to say something of consequence.  For you, that means something of significance and pertaining to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already said I ahve already provided it but you avoided it so there really is no point in wasting my time posting it again so you can avoid it again.
> 
> Now let me guess what your response will be.
> 
> First *you will claim that because I refuse to play your game and repost my previous arguments and questions over and over again that it means that I have nothing*.
> 
> Am I right? Or will you just post  to avoid saying anything else stupid and/or contradictory?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sooooo, you DON'T have plenty to say? There was your opportunity.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away again.  You know you want to.
Click to expand...


Oh, I have plenty to say but it's already been SAID and you avoided it. Please learn how tense works so you can keep up in the FUTURE.
 So there really is NO reason to repeat it since you will just avoid it AGAIN like you did the last few times I resposted it for your benefit. LOL 

and then once again you can't keep up with the fact that just because you continue to post nonresponsive personal attacks it doesn't show that you aren't *running away from the argument*. 

However, thanks for the laughs and for doing exactly what I predicted you would do. Although your predictability kind of takes the fun out of proving you wrong when you go out of your way to make yourself look so damn ignorant but it's still something the laugh at. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already said I ahve already provided it but you avoided it so there really is no point in wasting my time posting it again so you can avoid it again.
> 
> Now let me guess what your response will be.
> 
> First *you will claim that because I refuse to play your game and repost my previous arguments and questions over and over again that it means that I have nothing*.
> 
> Am I right? Or will you just post  to avoid saying anything else stupid and/or contradictory?? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, you DON'T have plenty to say? There was your opportunity.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away again.  You know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I have plenty to say but it's already been SAID and you avoided it. Please learn how tense works so you can keep up in the FUTURE.
> So there really is NO reason to repeat it since you will just avoid it AGAIN like you did the last few times I resposted it for your benefit. LOL
> 
> and then once again you can't keep up with the fact that just because you continue to post nonresponsive personal attacks it doesn't show that you aren't *running away from the argument*.
> 
> However, thanks for the laughs and for doing exactly what I predicted you would do. Although you kind of take the fun out of proving you wrong when you go out of your way to make yourself look so damn ignorant but it's still something the laugh at. LOL
Click to expand...


Sooooo, I participated in a debate with thinking posters weeks ago, you parroted points made weeks ago, and I avoided debating you in a debate that already happened weeks ago.  And, now you're upset about it and say I'm running away from something in which I participated weeks ago.

Got it.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, you DON'T have plenty to say? There was your opportunity.
> 
> Tell me I'm running away again.  You know you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have plenty to say but it's already been SAID and you avoided it. Please learn how tense works so you can keep up in the FUTURE.
> So there really is NO reason to repeat it since you will just avoid it AGAIN like you did the last few times I resposted it for your benefit. LOL
> 
> and then once again you can't keep up with the fact that just because you continue to post nonresponsive personal attacks it doesn't show that you aren't *running away from the argument*.
> 
> However, thanks for the laughs and for doing exactly what I predicted you would do. Although you kind of take the fun out of proving you wrong when you go out of your way to make yourself look so damn ignorant but it's still something the laugh at. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooooo, I participated in a debate with thinking posters weeks ago, you parroted points made weeks ago, and I avoided debating you in a debate that already happened weeks ago.  And, now you're upset about it and say I'm running away from something in which I participated weeks ago.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


NOPE but nice rehash of your spin and avoidance tactics. I was there when that debate occured. The debate began on the 5th (I was here in this thread before that, during it and after that) and carried over into the 6th and I posted on the 6th as I read the thread. In response you chose to attack me and have been doing so since claiming that everything I have said in this thread was "parroted" which is a LIE and has been proven to be a lie several times over. 

How is my response one day later into a debate equal to me "parroting points made weeks ago" or weeks after a debate? Your avoidance of that debate and other points that you would rather not deal with as well as your baseless personal attacks began "weeks ago" and have continued but that's about all that you have offered since being proven WRONG by your own link and video clip. LOL

Furthermore I have made MANY points other than the ONE debate that you seem obsessed with as you try to claim that I parroted that and therefore must have parroted everything else I have said. Fact is that you have used that one debate that you lost, after you provided the evidence that countered your own spin, to hide behind as you applied your unsubstantied claim that i parroted all of my arguments.

Face it once again you have been shown to be dishonest and therefore you LOSE again.


----------



## boedicca

It's time to pass the hat around USMB so that drsmith can get the permanent LOSER tatoo on his forehead.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have plenty to say but it's already been SAID and you avoided it. Please learn how tense works so you can keep up in the FUTURE.
> So there really is NO reason to repeat it since you will just avoid it AGAIN like you did the last few times I resposted it for your benefit. LOL
> 
> and then once again you can't keep up with the fact that just because you continue to post nonresponsive personal attacks it doesn't show that you aren't *running away from the argument*.
> 
> However, thanks for the laughs and for doing exactly what I predicted you would do. Although you kind of take the fun out of proving you wrong when you go out of your way to make yourself look so damn ignorant but it's still something the laugh at. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, I participated in a debate with thinking posters weeks ago, you parroted points made weeks ago, and I avoided debating you in a debate that already happened weeks ago.  And, now you're upset about it and say I'm running away from something in which I participated weeks ago.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOPE but nice rehash of your spin and avoidance tactics. I was there when that debate occured. The debate began on the 5th (I was here in this thread before that, during it and after that) and carried over into the 6th and I posted on the 6th as I read the thread. In response you chose to attack me and have been doing so since claiming that everything I have said in this thread was "parroted" which is a LIE and has been proven to be a lie several times over.
> 
> How is my response one day later into a debate equal to me "parroting points made weeks ago" or weeks after a debate? Your avoidance of that debate and other points that you would rather not deal with as well as your baseless personal attacks began "weeks ago" and have continued but that's about all that you have offered since being proven WRONG by your own link and video clip. LOL
> 
> Furthermore I have made MANY points other than the ONE debate that you seem obsessed with as you try to claim that I parroted that and therefore must have parroted everything else I have said. Fact is that you have used that one debate that you lost, after you provided the evidence that countered your own spin, to hide behind as you applied your unsubstantied claim that i parroted all of my arguments.
> 
> Face it once again you have been shown to be dishonest and therefore you LOSE again.
Click to expand...


Sooooo, still nothing original and/or of any consequence, eh?

I'm not running away yet.


----------



## Rinata

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD. I have already shown you to be dishonest and you have been proven wrong in this thread several times over and the proof has been provided several times. Furthermore, you have been asked several questions and you ran away from answering them. This time is no different.
> 
> Your game is to merely post because apparently you believe that the act of posting is proof that you are not running away from proving your own baseless arguments and accusations. I really hate to inform you of this <that was sarcasm> but it isn't working.
> 
> YOU LOSE AGAIN just like you lost earlier in this thread when you were forced to admit that you were WRONG. Lying through your teeth now in a lame attempt to cover up your previous lies does nothing but prove how dishonest you are and how little credibility that you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility. GJ.
Click to expand...


 You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.

Good call on your part!!


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  So you have no question to ask.
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Just more lying from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility. GJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
Click to expand...

Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.

Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility. GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
Click to expand...


so much logic, and honesty. and science. lol


----------



## Madeline

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasn&#8217;t aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I can&#8217;t recall a single instance of him saying &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesn&#8217;t know the term&#8217;s impolitic, how come he hasn&#8217;t innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alter&#8217;s &#8220;The Promise: President Obama, Year One,&#8221; President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills &#8220;set the tenor for the whole year &#8230; That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.&#8221;
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term &#8220;tea baggers,&#8221; which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


teapartysamurai, I don't mean to be dense as a door, but why exactly do Tea Baggers find the name "Tea Baggers" offensive? _ They_ chose it...where's the insult?

I may be going way out on a limb here, but I bet Obama knows plently of insulting nouns and adjectives he can fling around when he is deliberately trying to offend someone.  Why tag the man for addressing folks as they have asked to be addressed?  

That kinda sorta seems _respectful_ to me.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Madeline said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns. ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> 
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong. The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party. But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY. Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.​
> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."​
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal. But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.​
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.​
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM. It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.​
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and soooooooooooooooooooo above you. It's "uncivil" to criticize them. ​
> YOU, however, are the plebes. You are the proletariat. YOU are the peasants. You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU. ​
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book. Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!! ​
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai, I don't mean to be dense as a door, but why exactly do Tea Baggers find the name "Tea Baggers" offensive? _They_ chose it...where's the insult?
> 
> I may be going way out on a limb here, but I bet Obama knows plently of insulting nouns and adjectives he can fling around when he is deliberately trying to offend someone. Why tag the man for addressing folks as they have asked to be addressed?
> 
> That kinda sorta seems _respectful_ to me.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah nice try at liberal spin but when conservatives say tea party, they think of the Boston Tea Party and of the Founding Fathers.

When liberals think of it, the closest they could come to patriotism is thinking about a perverse disgusting homosexual sex act that no one had ever heard of (except disgusting liberals, of course).

It speaks volumes about the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

Conservatives think of prayer, the Founding Fathers, and the Boston Tea Party.

Liberals think about disgusting homosexual sex acts.

Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.


----------



## L.K.Eder

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong. The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party. But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY. Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.​
> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."​
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal. But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.​
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.​
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM. It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.​
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and soooooooooooooooooooo above you. It's "uncivil" to criticize them. ​
> YOU, however, are the plebes. You are the proletariat. YOU are the peasants. You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU. ​
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book. Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!! ​
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai, I don't mean to be dense as a door, but why exactly do Tea Baggers find the name "Tea Baggers" offensive? _They_ chose it...where's the insult?
> 
> I may be going way out on a limb here, but I bet Obama knows plently of insulting nouns and adjectives he can fling around when he is deliberately trying to offend someone. Why tag the man for addressing folks as they have asked to be addressed?
> 
> That kinda sorta seems _respectful_ to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah nice try at liberal spin but when conservatives say tea party, they think of the Boston Tea Party and of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> When liberals think of it, the closest they could come to patriotism is thinking about a perverse disgusting homosexual sex act that no one had ever heard of (except disgusting liberals, of course).
> 
> It speaks volumes about the difference between liberalism and conservatism.
> 
> Conservatives think of prayer, the Founding Fathers, and the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> Liberals think about disgusting homosexual sex acts.
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
Click to expand...


hey, look. it's teabagsamurai! back with idiocy and lies!


----------



## Si modo

teapartysamurai said:


> ....
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.


Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.
Click to expand...


here is your chance to display some honesty. tell teabagsamurai what you learned days ago.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here is your chance to display some honesty. tell teabagsamurai what you learned days ago.
Click to expand...

Oh, we're playing the implicit assumptions game again.

Cool.

When will you stop being an emotional basketcase and actually think for a change?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is your chance to display some honesty. tell teabagsamurai what you learned days ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, we're playing the implicit assumptions game again.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> When will you stop being an emotional basketcase and actually think for a change?
Click to expand...


maybe tomorrow, or yesterday. i have trouble with time lines, too.


----------



## Madeline

How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me, who are  fiscally conservative but who have ZERO tolerance for hate speech, when your appointed leader runs his mouth claiming that Muslims worship a "Monkey God"?

You want folks like me or you don't.  You're all about the money or you're a bunch of racist hoodlums.

Make up your minds, and if you are NOT racists, then kick this Mark Williams  a radio talk show host and the chairman of the Tea Party Express -- to the freaking curb.  Because as they say, folks:

"Lips that touch (this sort of fucking hate speech) wine will never touch mine."

Which is it?  Hate or money?  Pick one and be done with it; I'm sick and tired of all the blithering back and forth from you folks.

Tea Party Leader Says Muslims Worship 'Monkey-God' - DiversityInc.com


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62 





> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.



SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)

I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks 

Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks
> 
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
Click to expand...


The King James Bible has offensive passages as well.  Shall I commence to trashing anyone who follows it?

Nice that you are at least honest: Tea Baggers are really about the Hate.  

Why did you bother to waste my time claiming you were all about fiscal conservation?  That was twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back, pondering the true nature of the Tea Bagger message.

This is _my_ vision of our country:






If that skins your nose, get bent.  Don't bother asking people like me to tolerate or support you again.  I am stick-a-fork-in-me-done here.  Take your hate speech, your ridiculous political name and the wing nuts you call leaders and get offa my mental windshield.  

Buh-bye!


----------



## rikules

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks
> 
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
Click to expand...



One could just as easily cite passages in the bible that would show the christian god to be just as guilty of questionable behavior.

and evangelical christians to be just as radical in the nature of theirr beliefs...


"Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech"

unless he or she is a democrat, liberal or muslim


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Quantum Windbag

As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and 
Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.


----------



## rikules

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks
> 
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
Click to expand...


"Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech"


but you can judge a whole movement if NOBODY in that movement disagreed with the so-called "misquote"


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.



In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.

I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

NO THANKS.


----------



## Immanuel

Quantum Windbag said:


> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.



Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.

I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.  

I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.

Immie


----------



## Gremlin-USA

I can see you do not know that many Real People in the Tea Party, while you have to admit there are always a few Loose Cannons in any Group, I would not condemn the whole group because of a few.

I care deeply for my Children and 4 Grandchildren, everyone I have talked to at the TP Rallies feels the same way, they all want a Balanced Budget and Lower Taxes, they also want the Current Administration ( yes current, like Reid, Pelosi, etc) (it is not about Race, if was BO would never have been elected in the 1st place) and all the life long Cronies Out, Congressional Politicians should not make a Lifelong Career out of their Duty to the American People.

If you honestly think all the Spending BO is doing will help our Grandchildren, I really pity you, I say that out of love not hate 

Go meet a few Real People in the TP, they will not bite, you might learn something, you should know as well as I that the TV News does not tell the whole story, none of them!


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> I can see you do not know that many Real People in the Tea Party, while you have to admit there are always a few Loose Cannons in any Group, I would condemn the whole group because of a few.
> 
> I care deeply for my Children and 4 Grandchildren, everyone I have talked to at the TP Rallies feels the same way, they all want a Balanced Budget and Lower Taxes, they also want the Current Administration ( yeas current, like Reid, Pelosi, etc) (it is not about Race, if was Bo would never have been elected in the 1st place) and all the life long Cronies Out, Congressional Politicians should not make a Lifelong Career out of their Duty to the American People.
> 
> If you honestly think all the Spending BO is doing will help our Grandchildren, I really pity you, I say that out of love not hate
> 
> Go meet a few Real People in the TP, they will not bite, you might learn something, you should know as well as I that the TV News does not tell the whole story, none of them!



I don't have a political party all my own.  But I strongly support some groups such as GLBT people.  Yet when one of these folks speaks with hate, I smack them down.  Hard.

Where's YOUR condemnation of this Mark Williams?  If you kicked him out of the Tea Bags Movement for what he said, I'd be willing to listen.  

But instead you EXCUSE it.  That's ALL I need to know.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

rikules said:


> but you can judge a whole movement if NOBODY in that movement disagreed with the so-called "misquote"



If someone in the TP has not yet denounced his poor choice of words, they should!!!


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> I don't have a political party all my own.  But I strongly support some groups such as GLBT people.  Yet when one of these folks speaks with hate, I smack them down.  Hard.
> 
> Where's YOUR condemnation of this Mark Williams?  If you kicked him out of the Tea Bags Movement for what he said, I'd be willing to listen.
> 
> But instead you EXCUSE it.  That's ALL I need to know.



I do not condone Mark, actually I was unaware he was the Leader, we sure do not need leaders like that.

IMO, it is not about the movement, it is about doing what is right to take back America for the People. 

It seems it is currently "The People for Government" and not "The Government for the People", it should be " The Government for the People"!


----------



## Immanuel

Gremlin-USA said:


> I can see you do not know that many Real People in the Tea Party, while you have to admit there are always a few Loose Cannons in any Group, I would condemn the whole group because of a few.
> 
> I care deeply for my Children and 4 Grandchildren, everyone I have talked to at the TP Rallies feels the same way, they all want a Balanced Budget and Lower Taxes, they also want the Current Administration ( yeas current, like Reid, Pelosi, etc) (it is not about Race, if was Bo would never have been elected in the 1st place) and all the life long Cronies Out, Congressional Politicians should not make a Lifelong Career out of their Duty to the American People.
> 
> If you honestly think all the Spending BO is doing will help our Grandchildren, I really pity you, I say that out of love not hate
> 
> Go meet a few Real People in the TP, they will not bite, you might learn something, you should know as well as I that the TV News does not tell the whole story, none of them!



I agree with the middle two paragraphs.

Where I have my issues is that those "real people in the TP" should be vocally shouting down the "few loose cannons", but it does not seem to be the case.  At the very least they should be stating that violence and/or racism is unwelcome in their midst.  

I will refer you to the issues of the spitting on the congressman and the accusation of the N-word having been shouted out at the Congressional members after the passage of the Health Care Reform bill.  Note: I realize you were not here at the time, but I suspect you know what incidents I am talking about.  I don't believe the person deliberately spit on the congressman and I don't know for sure that the N-Word was used or who said it or why, but at the very least, those "real people" in the TP, should have been extremely vocal (much like Madeline is here) that if it persists they are not going to participate... period.

Another problem I have is the appearance that the TP is really just an arm of the Republican Party.  I've yet to see the TP put a Republican (all of whom are just as guilty as the Democrats in regards to spending) in his/her place.  

Immie


----------



## Coyote

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, *but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks *
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
Click to expand...


Yet you don't think there is something perverse about the beliefs of a religion who worship the rape and impregnation by a diety of a 12 yr old girl (who was married to an old man)?


----------



## Coyote

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.



FYI: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about her age, other sources give her age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.  In addition, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until some 300 plus years after Muhammad's death.


----------



## Ragnar

Madeline said:


> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me, who are  fiscally conservative but who have ZERO tolerance for hate speech, when your appointed leader runs his mouth claiming that Muslims worship a "Monkey God"?
> 
> You want folks like me or you don't.  You're all about the money or you're a bunch of racist hoodlums.
> 
> Make up your minds, and if you are NOT racists, then kick this Mark Williams  a radio talk show host and the chairman of the Tea Party Express -- to the freaking curb.  Because as they say, folks:
> 
> "Lips that touch (this sort of fucking hate speech) wine will never touch mine."
> 
> Which is it?  Hate or money?  Pick one and be done with it; I'm sick and tired of all the blithering back and forth from you folks.
> 
> Tea Party Leader Says Muslims Worship 'Monkey-God' - DiversityInc.com



"Tea bagger" is hate speech. As hateful as "Monkey God" anywho. 

But as an athiest, Objectivist, free speaking American and sometime libertarian I just say "Meh". Muslims, Tea Party folks... fuck 'em all if they can't take a joke.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Immanuel said:


> I agree with the middle two paragraphs.
> 
> Where I have my issues is that those "real people in the TP" should be vocally shouting down the "few loose cannons", but it does not seem to be the case.  At the very least they should be stating that violence and/or racism is unwelcome in their midst.
> 
> I will refer you to the issues of the spitting on the congressman and the accusation of the N-word having been shouted out at the Congressional members after the passage of the Health Care Reform bill.  Note: I realize you were not here at the time, but I suspect you know what incidents I am talking about.  I don't believe the person deliberately spit on the congressman and I don't know for sure that the N-Word was used or who said it or why, but at the very least, those "real people" in the TP, should have been extremely vocal (much like Madeline is here) that if it persists they are not going to participate... period.
> 
> Another problem I have is the appearance that the TP is really just an arm of the Republican Party.  I've yet to see the TP put a Republican (all of whom are just as guilty as the Democrats in regards to spending) in his/her place.
> 
> Immie



I agree there should be more policing of the radicals.

As far as the Spitting and use on the N word, I do believe there is Currently a 100,000.00 reward out for anyone who can *prove* that the use of the N word actually took place, the spitting issue I do believe has already been proven wrong.

I have one friend who is a staunch Democrat at he loves the TP, because much of the ideologies are For America, not just the Republicans.

Again, if anyone has not really been to a meeting and gotten to know more of the facts than the media will tell you, you should try it.

Several Black Colleagues are supporters, it really is not about Racism.


----------



## Madeline

> Ragnar wrote:
> 
> "Tea bagger" is hate speech.



On what Planet?  You guys picked the name.  It was all rah-rah-rah Boston Tea Party until you found out that "tea bagging" is a gay sexual technique.

Not my fault nobody among you thought to google.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Coyote said:


> FYI: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about her age, other sources give her age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.  In addition, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until some 300 plus years after Muhammad's death.



You are probably correct many things do get lost in translations over long periods of time, this came up as a debate with a pretty devote Muslim once, after days and dozens of Scriptures from him, I thought he pretty much was very knowledgeable ?





Coyote said:


> Yet you don't think there is something perverse about the beliefs of a religion who worship the rape and impregnation by a diety of a 12 yr old girl (who was married to an old man)?



Never heard that one about the age, but if you want to think of the Creator of the Heavens and Earth and then compare Him to a man, I really have no time for that.

But to negate your spin, the OP mentioned Muslims not Christians


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the middle two paragraphs.
> 
> Where I have my issues is that those "real people in the TP" should be vocally shouting down the "few loose cannons", but it does not seem to be the case.  At the very least they should be stating that violence and/or racism is unwelcome in their midst.
> 
> I will refer you to the issues of the spitting on the congressman and the accusation of the N-word having been shouted out at the Congressional members after the passage of the Health Care Reform bill.  Note: I realize you were not here at the time, but I suspect you know what incidents I am talking about.  I don't believe the person deliberately spit on the congressman and I don't know for sure that the N-Word was used or who said it or why, but at the very least, those "real people" in the TP, should have been extremely vocal (much like Madeline is here) that if it persists they are not going to participate... period.
> 
> Another problem I have is the appearance that the TP is really just an arm of the Republican Party.  I've yet to see the TP put a Republican (all of whom are just as guilty as the Democrats in regards to spending) in his/her place.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be more policing of the radicals.
> 
> As far as the Spitting and use on the N word, I do believe there is Currently a 100,000.00 reward out for anyone who can *prove* that the use of the N word actually took place, the spitting issue I do believe has already been proven wrong.
> 
> I have one friend who is a staunch Democrat at he loves the TP, because much of the ideologies are For America, not just the Republicans.
> 
> Again, if anyone has not really been to a meeting and gotten to know more of the facts than the media will tell you, you should try it.
> 
> Several Black Colleagues are supporters, it really is not about Racism.
Click to expand...


Gremlin-USA, if the Tea Baggers are not about racism then you guys need to throw racists OUT.  You cannot hang with haters and claim that hate is not a value or goal of the group at large.  Might not be one of yours, or of your friends, but it is staining the entire movement.

Embrace the hate or reject it.  That's not a fence-sitting, navel-pondering sort of thing IMO.  And if you decide "there's room enough for haters" under the Tea Bag umbrella, just know...that means there is NO room for folks like me.

What use is a nation that is fiscally sound but tolerates hatred?  Isn't that precisely the hierarchy of values that facism was about?


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> Gremlin-USA, if the Tea Baggers are not about racism then you guys need to throw racists OUT.  You cannot hang with haters and claim that hate is not a value or goal of the group at large.  Might not be one of yours, or of your friends, but it is staining the entire movement.
> 
> Embrace the hate or reject it.  That's not a fence-sitting, navel-pondering sort of thing IMO.  And if you decide "there's room enough for haters" under the Tea Bag umbrella, just know...that means there is NO room for folks like me.
> 
> What use is a nation that is fiscally sound but tolerates hatred?  Isn't that precisely the hierarchy of values that facism was about?



Madeline, you mentioned you are not with any Party. No offense, but I can see why. 

Think about it, there are Racists and Bigots in Every Party, shoot, there are probably some at the grocery store you shop at, your work, are you going to be a hermit because there are still stupid people in this world?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
Click to expand...


First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.
> 
> I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.
> 
> I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.


----------



## rikules

Gremlin-USA said:


> I can see you do not know that many Real People in the Tea Party, while you have to admit there are always a few Loose Cannons in any Group, I would not condemn the whole group because of a few.
> 
> I care deeply for my Children and 4 Grandchildren, everyone I have talked to at the TP Rallies feels the same way, they all want a Balanced Budget and Lower Taxes, they also want the Current Administration ( yes current, like Reid, Pelosi, etc) (it is not about Race, if was BO would never have been elected in the 1st place) and all the life long Cronies Out, Congressional Politicians should not make a Lifelong Career out of their Duty to the American People.
> 
> If you honestly think all the Spending BO is doing will help our Grandchildren, I really pity you, I say that out of love not hate
> 
> Go meet a few Real People in the TP, they will not bite, you might learn something, you should know as well as I that the TV News does not tell the whole story, none of them!




I see....


so conservative tea baggers....
are really just very nice people....
who LOVE their kids...
and just want a balanced budget....

and who carry racist signs
denigrating, mocking and ridiculing obama specifically and liberals in general
and don't mind reminding us that "they have guns!" and they are "NOT afraid to use them on their ENEMIES!"


ya know...
liberals are really just decent people to...

when tea baggers stop demonizing obama and liberals I might be more sympathetic


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you do not know that many Real People in the Tea Party, while you have to admit there are always a few Loose Cannons in any Group, I would condemn the whole group because of a few.
> 
> I care deeply for my Children and 4 Grandchildren, everyone I have talked to at the TP Rallies feels the same way, they all want a Balanced Budget and Lower Taxes, they also want the Current Administration ( yeas current, like Reid, Pelosi, etc) (it is not about Race, if was Bo would never have been elected in the 1st place) and all the life long Cronies Out, Congressional Politicians should not make a Lifelong Career out of their Duty to the American People.
> 
> If you honestly think all the Spending BO is doing will help our Grandchildren, I really pity you, I say that out of love not hate
> 
> Go meet a few Real People in the TP, they will not bite, you might learn something, you should know as well as I that the TV News does not tell the whole story, none of them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a political party all my own.  But I strongly support some groups such as GLBT people.  Yet when one of these folks speaks with hate, I smack them down.  Hard.
> 
> Where's YOUR condemnation of this Mark Williams?  If you kicked him out of the Tea Bags Movement for what he said, I'd be willing to listen.
> 
> But instead you EXCUSE it.  That's ALL I need to know.
Click to expand...


The problem is that when the Tea Party kicks them out the media hires them to report about the Tea Party.

Right Now - From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gremlin-USA, if the Tea Baggers are not about racism then you guys need to throw racists OUT.  You cannot hang with haters and claim that hate is not a value or goal of the group at large.  Might not be one of yours, or of your friends, but it is staining the entire movement.
> 
> Embrace the hate or reject it.  That's not a fence-sitting, navel-pondering sort of thing IMO.  And if you decide "there's room enough for haters" under the Tea Bag umbrella, just know...that means there is NO room for folks like me.
> 
> What use is a nation that is fiscally sound but tolerates hatred?  Isn't that precisely the hierarchy of values that facism was about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, you mentioned you are not with any Party. No offense, but I can see why.
> 
> Think about it, there are Racists and Bigots in Every Party, shoot, there are probably some at the grocery store you shop at, your work, are you going to be a hermit because there are still stupid people in this world?
Click to expand...


No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.

T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?

If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.
> 
> I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.
> 
> I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
Click to expand...


TWENTY TWO percent of all humans on Planet Earth are Muslim.  When exactly did you poll all of them as to their alleged tolerance for murder, Quantum Windbag?

Can't you see this for what it is?

"All Jews......"

"All Catholics........"

"All Blacks......".

"All women......"

It's HATE.  Naked, unadulterated HATE.  Sleep with it under your pillow and your grandchildren will wake up in Hell on Earth.  How the hell many times must we learn this?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.
> 
> I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.
> 
> I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TWENTY TWO percent of all humans on Planet Earth are Muslim.  When exactly did you poll all of them as to their alleged tolerance for murder, Quantum Windbag?
> 
> Can't you see this for what it is?
> 
> "All Jews......"
> 
> "All Catholics........"
> 
> "All Blacks......".
> 
> "All women......"
> 
> It's HATE.  Naked, unadulterated HATE.  Sleep with it under your pillow and your grandchildren will wake up in Hell on Earth.  How the hell many times must we learn this?
Click to expand...


First, I did not say all, I said most.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYEV0Xo45jA]YouTube - ? Crash Politics ? MSA Member publicly calls for another Holocaust promotes Hitler Youth Week[/ame]

If you are right and I am wrong it should be pretty easy to prove it. All you have to do is post something where Muslims speak up condemning this attitude, without getting killed.


----------



## Immanuel

Gremlin-USA said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the middle two paragraphs.
> 
> Where I have my issues is that those "real people in the TP" should be vocally shouting down the "few loose cannons", but it does not seem to be the case.  At the very least they should be stating that violence and/or racism is unwelcome in their midst.
> 
> I will refer you to the issues of the spitting on the congressman and the accusation of the N-word having been shouted out at the Congressional members after the passage of the Health Care Reform bill.  Note: I realize you were not here at the time, but I suspect you know what incidents I am talking about.  I don't believe the person deliberately spit on the congressman and I don't know for sure that the N-Word was used or who said it or why, but at the very least, those "real people" in the TP, should have been extremely vocal (much like Madeline is here) that if it persists they are not going to participate... period.
> 
> Another problem I have is the appearance that the TP is really just an arm of the Republican Party.  I've yet to see the TP put a Republican (all of whom are just as guilty as the Democrats in regards to spending) in his/her place.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be more policing of the radicals.
> 
> As far as the Spitting and use on the N word, I do believe there is Currently a 100,000.00 reward out for anyone who can *prove* that the use of the N word actually took place, the spitting issue I do believe has already been proven wrong.
> 
> I have one friend who is a staunch Democrat at he loves the TP, because much of the ideologies are For America, not just the Republicans.
> 
> Again, if anyone has not really been to a meeting and gotten to know more of the facts than the media will tell you, you should try it.
> 
> Several Black Colleagues are supporters, it really is not about Racism.
Click to expand...


As for the spitting incident, I believe it happened.  I believe it was an accidental occurrence.  I've seen the video and I believe the man that was shouting accidentally spit in the Congressman's face.  If I were him, I would have immediately apologized.

The N-word?  I saw a video and believe I heard the word shouted out, but who shouted it and to whom they were shouting it is in question.  

That has not been my problem.  My problem was the instant denial that it happened in the first place and the excuses that were made.  From the get go, in regards to the N-word, I said we don't know who said it.  It could have been a greeting from one black man to another that was picked up or it could have been what many said it was a racial slur used against the Congressman.

My problem is that those in the TP, simply shrugged it off.  At the very least I felt they should have been denouncing it rather than claiming it didn't happen.  They could not have seen everything or heard everything.  To simply say it didn't happen cost them credibility in my book.  If they had said, "I didn't hear that word spoken while I was there, but if it was, it had no place in our group", I would have understood.  

I have not been to a Tea Party event.  I don't even know when or if there has been one in the Tampa Bay Area.  I'm certain there must have been, but I don't know when.  I have grown very anti-political party over the last few years.  If it speaks of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party I want nothing at all to do with it.  As I said earlier, what I have seen says that it is an arm of the Republican Party, thus, I'm simply... well, very skeptical to say the least.

Immie


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?



I am not a member of the Tea Party Express, actually I am not a member of any of the 4 or 5 TP groups out here, while some of the Core beliefs as I have mentioned, I do believe in.

I do not find any reference to Mark saying he Hates all Muslims, but like any sane person, one should despise the extremist and radicals in the Muslim world.

If I was a part of a Radical Sect, I could see you point, cannot you see mine?


----------



## Immanuel

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.
> 
> I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.
> 
> I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
Click to expand...


Good point about Christians.

As for the point about Muslims, I hate to generalize, although I am guilty myself at times, and don't know enough Muslims to state unequivocally that "most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam".  It might be easy to point at the Middle East and all the problems that exist there and say that it is proof of what you say, but there are I believe over a billion Muslims in this world, to state that most of them believe that is a very broad brush, IMHO.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Immanuel said:


> As for the spitting incident, I believe it happened.  I believe it was an accidental occurrence.  I've seen the video and I believe the man that was shouting accidentally spit in the Congressman's face.  If I were him, I would have immediately apologized.
> 
> The N-word?  I saw a video and believe I heard the word shouted out, but who shouted it and to whom they were shouting it is in question.
> 
> That has not been my problem.  My problem was the instant denial that it happened in the first place and the excuses that were made.  From the get go, in regards to the N-word, I said we don't know who said it.  It could have been a greeting from one black man to another that was picked up or it could have been what many said it was a racial slur used against the Congressman.
> 
> My problem is that those in the TP, simply shrugged it off.  At the very least I felt they should have been denouncing it rather than claiming it didn't happen.  They could not have seen everything or heard everything.  To simply say it didn't happen cost them credibility in my book.  If they had said, "I didn't hear that word spoken while I was there, but if it was, it had no place in our group", I would have understood.
> 
> I have not been to a Tea Party event.  I don't even know when or if there has been one in the Tampa Bay Area.  I'm certain there must have been, but I don't know when.  I have grown very anti-political party over the last few years.  If it speaks of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party I want nothing at all to do with it.  As I said earlier, what I have seen says that it is an arm of the Republican Party, thus, I'm simply... well, very skeptical to say the least.
> 
> Immie



Instant denial? What world do you live in?

The event was not described as one person maybe saying the word, it was described as occurring at least 15 times, and was reported as conclusive fact by every news agency within minutes. Quite a few of them now admit that no evidence exists which corroborates that version of the story, and regret that they did not do even a cursory fact check before reporting the story. More than one have assigned reporters to look more closely at the incident, and so far no one has produced any real evidence. This despite the offer of a $100,000 reward for proof. If you say the tape you surely saw Jesse Jackson Jr' walking through that crowd with 2 cell phones to record what happened. 

All the Tea Party has said is that they were there, and they did not here the slurs, and challenged anyone to produce proof. As this was an obvious attempt to discredit the Tea Party by provoking a racial incident I think that the fact that no one has produced any video is pretty telling. Yet you want to believe that the Tea Party is racist on the basis of an incident that is based on the word of provocateurs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder... I would not be so sure of that.
> 
> I'm a Christian myself, but these men claim to have killed for God.  Some even said it was a necessity and used that as their defense.  True, these were abortion doctor murders, but it would not be impossible to perceive of the same happening to someone that was seen as attacking Christians.
> 
> I truly hope that never happens, but I don't think it is an impossibility either.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point about Christians.
> 
> As for the point about Muslims, I hate to generalize, although I am guilty myself at times, and don't know enough Muslims to state unequivocally that "most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam".  It might be easy to point at the Middle East and all the problems that exist there and say that it is proof of what you say, but there are I believe over a billion Muslims in this world, to state that most of them believe that is a very broad brush, IMHO.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Quite true. I could be completely off base, but I do know that those who speak up are a very small minority. That needs to change, and until it does I will continue to be comfortable with that broad brush.


----------



## Immanuel

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the spitting incident, I believe it happened.  I believe it was an accidental occurrence.  I've seen the video and I believe the man that was shouting accidentally spit in the Congressman's face.  If I were him, I would have immediately apologized.
> 
> The N-word?  I saw a video and believe I heard the word shouted out, but who shouted it and to whom they were shouting it is in question.
> 
> That has not been my problem.  My problem was the instant denial that it happened in the first place and the excuses that were made.  From the get go, in regards to the N-word, I said we don't know who said it.  It could have been a greeting from one black man to another that was picked up or it could have been what many said it was a racial slur used against the Congressman.
> 
> My problem is that those in the TP, simply shrugged it off.  At the very least I felt they should have been denouncing it rather than claiming it didn't happen.  They could not have seen everything or heard everything.  To simply say it didn't happen cost them credibility in my book.  If they had said, "I didn't hear that word spoken while I was there, but if it was, it had no place in our group", I would have understood.
> 
> I have not been to a Tea Party event.  I don't even know when or if there has been one in the Tampa Bay Area.  I'm certain there must have been, but I don't know when.  I have grown very anti-political party over the last few years.  If it speaks of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party I want nothing at all to do with it.  As I said earlier, what I have seen says that it is an arm of the Republican Party, thus, I'm simply... well, very skeptical to say the least.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instant denial? What world do you live in?
> 
> The event was not described as one person maybe saying the word, it was described as occurring at least 15 times, and was reported as conclusive fact by every news agency within minutes. Quite a few of them now admit that no evidence exists which corroborates that version of the story, and regret that they did not do even a cursory fact check before reporting the story. More than one have assigned reporters to look more closely at the incident, and so far no one has produced any real evidence. This despite the offer of a $100,000 reward for proof. If you say the tape you surely saw Jesse Jackson Jr' walking through that crowd with 2 cell phones to record what happened.
> 
> All the Tea Party has said is that they were there, and they did not here the slurs, and challenged anyone to produce proof. As this was an obvious attempt to discredit the Tea Party by provoking a racial incident I think that the fact that no one has produced any video is pretty telling. Yet you want to believe that the Tea Party is racist on the basis of an incident that is based on the word of provocateurs.
Click to expand...


You are right, the first reports, I saw here on this site claimed that it was chanted.  Then the reports came out that it was shouted one time less than 24 hours later, if I am not mistaken.  Then the denials started.  I believe it was our very own TruthMatters that started at least five threads about the chanting incident.  

I'm only giving you my perception of the movement.  What I have heard from the movement is basically denials that it happened at all.  I can understand the denial of the chanting.  The videos I have seen show no such evidence.  But there is one video presented by TM that I believe the word can be heard shouted one time.  

My contention is merely that as an outsider, I see the near silence on the issue (and I will expand this a little bit if you don't mind to include the racial signs that they have been accused of carrying) as being an acceptance of those signs and the slurs.  In regards to the signs, I will say that I don't know that any of the signs I have seen pictures of here on this site actually came from TP events although the indication is that they did... that point is skeptical, to say the least.

But, let me see if I can simplify what I am trying to say here.  The allegations in the media are that there are racial undertones in the movement.  Can you deny that "fact"?  If there are those allegations out there, then I as an outsider want to know before I become involved in such a movement, that the movement itself denounces any form or racism in its midst.  The silence bugs me.  

If those "real people" as Gremlin called them accept the racial undertones that have infiltrated their movement, then I don't want to be a part of the group.  I may agree in principle with many of the things they state as being their desires, but I don't feel comfortable around people that spread hatred.

Immie


----------



## JenyEliza

Madeline said:


> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me, who are  fiscally conservative but who have ZERO tolerance for hate speech, when your appointed leader runs his mouth claiming that Muslims worship a "Monkey God"?
> 
> You want folks like me or you don't.  You're all about the money or you're a bunch of racist hoodlums.
> 
> Make up your minds, and if you are NOT racists, then kick this Mark Williams &#8212; a radio talk show host and the chairman of the Tea Party Express -- to the freaking curb.  Because as they say, folks:
> 
> "Lips that touch (this sort of fucking hate speech) wine will never touch mine."
> 
> Which is it?  Hate or money?  Pick one and be done with it; I'm sick and tired of all the blithering back and forth from you folks.




Hon, you keep referring to the good people associated with the Tea Party as "Tea Baggers" and I suspect a warm welcome would NEVER be extended to you by anyone in the Tea Party in the first place.

Anyone using that outrageous and foul term is NOT the kind of person they want involved in the movement.

Watch the foul slang.  It's not becoming on you!


----------



## Immanuel

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point about Christians.
> 
> As for the point about Muslims, I hate to generalize, although I am guilty myself at times, and don't know enough Muslims to state unequivocally that "most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam".  It might be easy to point at the Middle East and all the problems that exist there and say that it is proof of what you say, but there are I believe over a billion Muslims in this world, to state that most of them believe that is a very broad brush, IMHO.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true. I could be completely off base, *but I do know that those who speak up are a very small minority. That needs to change*, and until it does I will continue to be comfortable with that broad brush.
Click to expand...


Hahaha,

My feelings exactly about the TP movement!  

So, you understand me after all!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the spitting incident, I believe it happened.  I believe it was an accidental occurrence.  I've seen the video and I believe the man that was shouting accidentally spit in the Congressman's face.  If I were him, I would have immediately apologized.
> 
> The N-word?  I saw a video and believe I heard the word shouted out, but who shouted it and to whom they were shouting it is in question.
> 
> That has not been my problem.  My problem was the instant denial that it happened in the first place and the excuses that were made.  From the get go, in regards to the N-word, I said we don't know who said it.  It could have been a greeting from one black man to another that was picked up or it could have been what many said it was a racial slur used against the Congressman.
> 
> My problem is that those in the TP, simply shrugged it off.  At the very least I felt they should have been denouncing it rather than claiming it didn't happen.  They could not have seen everything or heard everything.  To simply say it didn't happen cost them credibility in my book.  If they had said, "I didn't hear that word spoken while I was there, but if it was, it had no place in our group", I would have understood.
> 
> I have not been to a Tea Party event.  I don't even know when or if there has been one in the Tampa Bay Area.  I'm certain there must have been, but I don't know when.  I have grown very anti-political party over the last few years.  If it speaks of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party I want nothing at all to do with it.  As I said earlier, what I have seen says that it is an arm of the Republican Party, thus, I'm simply... well, very skeptical to say the least.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instant denial? What world do you live in?
> 
> The event was not described as one person maybe saying the word, it was described as occurring at least 15 times, and was reported as conclusive fact by every news agency within minutes. Quite a few of them now admit that no evidence exists which corroborates that version of the story, and regret that they did not do even a cursory fact check before reporting the story. More than one have assigned reporters to look more closely at the incident, and so far no one has produced any real evidence. This despite the offer of a $100,000 reward for proof. If you say the tape you surely saw Jesse Jackson Jr' walking through that crowd with 2 cell phones to record what happened.
> 
> All the Tea Party has said is that they were there, and they did not here the slurs, and challenged anyone to produce proof. As this was an obvious attempt to discredit the Tea Party by provoking a racial incident I think that the fact that no one has produced any video is pretty telling. Yet you want to believe that the Tea Party is racist on the basis of an incident that is based on the word of provocateurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, the first reports, I saw here on this site claimed that it was chanted.  Then the reports came out that it was shouted one time less than 24 hours later, if I am not mistaken.  Then the denials started.  I believe it was our very own TruthMatters that started at least five threads about the chanting incident.
> 
> I'm only giving you my perception of the movement.  What I have heard from the movement is basically denials that it happened at all.  I can understand the denial of the chanting.  The videos I have seen show no such evidence.  But there is one video presented by TM that I believe the word can be heard shouted one time.
> 
> My contention is merely that as an outsider, I see the near silence on the issue (and I will expand this a little bit if you don't mind to include the racial signs that they have been accused of carrying) as being an acceptance of those signs and the slurs.  In regards to the signs, I will say that I don't know that any of the signs I have seen pictures of here on this site actually came from TP events although the indication is that they did... that point is skeptical, to say the least.
> 
> But, let me see if I can simplify what I am trying to say here.  The allegations in the media are that there are racial undertones in the movement.  Can you deny that "fact"?  If there are those allegations out there, then I as an outsider want to know before I become involved in such a movement, that the movement itself denounces any form or racism in its midst.  The silence bugs me.
> 
> If those "real people" as Gremlin called them accept the racial undertones that have infiltrated their movement, then I don't want to be a part of the group.  I may agree in principle with many of the things they state as being their desires, but I don't feel comfortable around people that spread hatred.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I linked this earlier.



> Dale Robertson, a self-described tea party activist who was basically drummed out of the movement over holding a quasi=racist sign, has signed up  with the Washington Times as a contributor to its tea party blog.



Right Now - From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times

When they do get rid of them the media puts them back in.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point about Christians.
> 
> As for the point about Muslims, I hate to generalize, although I am guilty myself at times, and don't know enough Muslims to state unequivocally that "most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam".  It might be easy to point at the Middle East and all the problems that exist there and say that it is proof of what you say, but there are I believe over a billion Muslims in this world, to state that most of them believe that is a very broad brush, IMHO.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true. I could be completely off base, *but I do know that those who speak up are a very small minority. That needs to change*, and until it does I will continue to be comfortable with that broad brush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha,
> 
> My feelings exactly about the TP movement!
> 
> So, you understand me after all!
Click to expand...


I do at that.


----------



## Ragnar

Madeline said:


> Ragnar wrote:
> 
> "Tea bagger" is hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what Planet?  You guys picked the name.  It was all rah-rah-rah Boston Tea Party until you found out that "tea bagging" is a gay sexual technique.
> 
> Not my fault nobody among you thought to google.
Click to expand...


Not my people. Again, fuck em if they can't take a joke.


----------



## strollingbones

Gremlin-USA said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can judge a whole movement if NOBODY in that movement disagreed with the so-called "misquote"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone in the TP has not yet denounced his poor choice of words, they should!!!
Click to expand...


is that all it is to  you?  a poor choice of words?  it truly reflects how the man feels.  he would have voted against the civil rights act.  

and then defending bp..at a time when the southern gulf coast is going under due to bp...who defends the people losing their jobs and livelyhoods...no one it does seem

seems this grass roots teaparty has proved everyone's worst fears....

bigots....defending big business...remind me again...how this is a change from the other two parties?


----------



## Gremlin-USA

strollingbones said:


> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can judge a whole movement if NOBODY in that movement disagreed with the so-called "misquote"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone in the TP has not yet denounced his poor choice of words, they should!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that all it is to  you?  a poor choice of words?  it truly reflects how the man feels.  he would have voted against the civil rights act.
> 
> and then defending bp..at a time when the southern gulf coast is going under due to bp...who defends the people losing their jobs and livelyhoods...no one it does seem
> 
> seems this grass roots teaparty has proved everyone's worst fears....
> 
> bigots....defending big business...remind me again...how this is a change from the other two parties?
Click to expand...


Yes, poor Choice of words, not a whole lot worse than Bo, Biden, Rev. Wright and a whole host of other Obama Cronies have done.

Defending BP, have not heard that, but for all the high and mighty, what the heck has Obama done but run his mouth, has he actually done anything to help the BP situation? Talking points and future committees will not do shit for what is happening now! Just like Obama did what for Nashville?

I can agree on one point you make, most Politicians are scum and only out for themselves, but I must add we just seem to have a larger conglomerate of scum for the last 3 years and in the last 15 months it has quadrupled again


----------



## mudwhistle

The whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.


I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.

He's not a leader in the Tea-party movement. 

The reason I can say so is there really is no real leader.

It's a gathering of concerned individuals. 

I'm not gonna stand by and allow some Liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.


----------



## William Joyce

Madeline said:


> You want folks like me or you don't.



Let me think for a minute...

DON'T


----------



## William Joyce

Madeline said:


> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gremlin-USA, if the Tea Baggers are not about racism then you guys need to throw racists OUT.  You cannot hang with haters and claim that hate is not a value or goal of the group at large.  Might not be one of yours, or of your friends, but it is staining the entire movement.
> 
> Embrace the hate or reject it.  That's not a fence-sitting, navel-pondering sort of thing IMO.  And if you decide "there's room enough for haters" under the Tea Bag umbrella, just know...that means there is NO room for folks like me.
> 
> What use is a nation that is fiscally sound but tolerates hatred?  Isn't that precisely the hierarchy of values that facism was about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, you mentioned you are not with any Party. No offense, but I can see why.
> 
> Think about it, there are Racists and Bigots in Every Party, shoot, there are probably some at the grocery store you shop at, your work, are you going to be a hermit because there are still stupid people in this world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?
Click to expand...


Given that Muslims HATE US, are we obligated to love them?

Typical left-wing, anti-white delusions.


----------



## Stephanie

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
Click to expand...


LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
good grief..


----------



## rikules

Stephanie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
Click to expand...




I know you are intellectually deficient....

hence your conservative leanings....

but TRY to understand this.....

if a guy gives a speech to tea baggers
and in that speech there is OBVIOUS lies and hate
and the audience of tea baggers
hearing the lies and the hate
all CHEER and CLAP and say..."YES!  WE AGREE!"
then
my ignorant little moron
it is quite easy to ASSUME that they are all likeminded


----------



## Stephanie

rikules said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are intellectually deficient....
> 
> hence your conservative leanings....
> 
> but TRY to understand this.....
> 
> if a guy gives a speech to tea baggers
> and in that speech there is OBVIOUS lies and hate
> and the audience of tea baggers
> hearing the lies and the hate
> all CHEER and CLAP and say..."YES!  WE AGREE!"
> then
> my ignorant little moron
> it is quite easy to ASSUME that they are all likeminded
Click to expand...


hahahahahahahaha
SNORT


----------



## Stephanie

Remember how the left came to the rescue of the Obama about him sitting in that hating Jeremiah Wrights church for 20 YEARS.

oh because he sat through the hate sermons, that doesn't mean he agrees with them or even HEARD them.
And we weren't suppose to "judge" the Obama by the people he knew.


lefties-liberals are nothing but
friggen two faced hypocrites.


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
> Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
> Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.

If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.

Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.

Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.

I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.


----------



## mudwhistle

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
> Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
> Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.
> 
> If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.
> 
> Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.
> 
> Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.
> 
> I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.
Click to expand...


OBL and his followers were just one group that has been attacking us since 79'.

Mark Williams is not officially a leader of the Tea-party. Saying he is...is an outright lie.


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valid point. I will point out that most Christians consider those people nuts, while most Muslims think it is perfectly fine to kill anyone who defames Islam. That makes the point a lot less compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TWENTY TWO percent of all humans on Planet Earth are Muslim.  When exactly did you poll all of them as to their alleged tolerance for murder, Quantum Windbag?
> 
> Can't you see this for what it is?
> 
> "All Jews......"
> 
> "All Catholics........"
> 
> "All Blacks......".
> 
> "All women......"
> 
> It's HATE.  Naked, unadulterated HATE.  Sleep with it under your pillow and your grandchildren will wake up in Hell on Earth.  How the hell many times must we learn this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I did not say all, I said most.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYEV0Xo45jA]YouTube - ? Crash Politics ? MSA Member publicly calls for another Holocaust promotes Hitler Youth Week[/ame]
> 
> If you are right and I am wrong it should be pretty easy to prove it. All you have to do is post something where Muslims speak up condemning this attitude, without getting killed.
Click to expand...


FUCK YOU.  You KNOW god-damned good and well that speech like this is EVIL.  Spreading hate towards a minority is vile and un-American.  I worked along side a Muslim lady in September of 2001.  She had converted and it just had never come up in the workplace as to why.  That sort of thing is rather personal.

By October she was afraid to come to work.  Do you think that is right?  Do you think we are a nation built on the values that lead people to leave anonymous notes on the desks of their coworkers to such a degree that security has to escort that person into and out of a building where they work?

It is YOU who does not belong.  You who are un-American, a traitor and a coward.  You who have betrayed us all.  You who undermines the very thing that makes this nation great.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself, how many Muslim American parents have read your words on USMB and then gone into their kid's room at night just for a moment's peace that they are safe?  By what right do you attempt to afflict anyone else with your perversity and crippling, ignorant HATE?

FUCK OFF.  You are trying to "get back" the Third Reich, not the USA, you fucking TRAITOR.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.





Harry Reid is Nancy Pelosi's twin


----------



## boedicca

mudwhistle said:


> The whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.
> 
> He's not a leader in the Tea-party movement.
> 
> The reason I can say so is there really is no real leader.
> 
> It's a gathering of concerned individuals.
> 
> I'm not gonna stand by and allow some Liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.





This is the correct motorcycle.


----------



## boedicca

Stephanie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
Click to expand...



Madeline makes TM sound classy, hard as that is to believe.


----------



## boedicca

Madeline said:


> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.




This 'splains so much.  Madeline is obviously an escaped inmate from an asylum.

How on earth ANY sentient adult in the U.S. could not know who Harry Reid is after the Congressional Shenanigans of the past year is inconceivable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rikules said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are intellectually deficient....
> 
> hence your conservative leanings....
> 
> but TRY to understand this.....
> 
> if a guy gives a speech to tea baggers
> and in that speech there is OBVIOUS lies and hate
> and the audience of tea baggers
> hearing the lies and the hate
> all CHEER and CLAP and say..."YES!  WE AGREE!"
> then
> my ignorant little moron
> it is quite easy to ASSUME that they are all likeminded
Click to expand...


I must have missed the part where he gave a speech full of racist remarks to a Tea Party meeting. When and where was that?


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party Express, actually I am not a member of any of the 4 or 5 TP groups out here, while some of the Core beliefs as I have mentioned, I do believe in.
> 
> I do not find any reference to Mark saying he Hates all Muslims, but like any sane person, one should despise the extremist and radicals in the Muslim world.
> 
> If I was a part of a Radical Sect, I could see you point, cannot you see mine?
Click to expand...


No, I am afraid I am unable to do so, Gremlin-USA.  If that remark had been made in my home, in my workplace, in my community....if it had been made in my physical presence, I'd have confronted Mark Williams and most likely kicked his ass, or tried to.  He most certainly would have known he was in a fight.  Some things are worth standing up for, _every_ time and in _every_ place.  If you don't have it in you to reject Hate Speech and Hate Speakers, then despite your good manners, in my mind you are no better than Mark Williams is.

In fact in some ways, you are worse than Mark Williams is.  I have heard "nice" Southern whites try excuse the vile acts of the KKK in exactly the tone you are taking.  I don't want the rough edges of racists smoothed down.  Might take me a nano-second longer to recognize Hate when I am confronted by it.

I write to you as I would if I were Muslim.  You have injured me as much as if I worshipped as they do.  Get it now?

*"The time is always right to do the right thing".  Spoken by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. *

*This* is that time, Gremlin-USA.  What's it gonna be?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
> Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
> Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.
> 
> If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.
> 
> Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.
> 
> Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.
> 
> I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.
Click to expand...


Harry Reid is the Democratic Senator from Nevada, and the President pro Tempore of the Senate of the United States of America. That makes him pretty high up in a political party that is actually organized, instead of just a self proclaimed chairman of a group that claims to be affiliated with the Tea Party, which doesn't really exist. Yet you want to tar and feather everyone who supports the goals of Taxed Enough Already simply because the media, which hires people who have been kicked out of their local Tea Party for being racist, had not reported that he has been denounced by every single Tea Party member.

What exactly is bullshit about my excuse again?


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party Express, actually I am not a member of any of the 4 or 5 TP groups out here, while some of the Core beliefs as I have mentioned, I do believe in.
> 
> I do not find any reference to Mark saying he Hates all Muslims, but like any sane person, one should despise the extremist and radicals in the Muslim world.
> 
> If I was a part of a Radical Sect, I could see you point, cannot you see mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am afraid I am unable to do so, Gremlin-USA.  If that remark had been made in my home, in my workplace, in my community....if it had been made in my physical presence, I'd have confronted Mark Williams and most likely kicked his ass, or tried to.  He most certainly would have known he was in a fight.  Some things are worth standing up for, _every_ time and in _every_ place.  If you don't have it in you to reject Hate Speech and Hate Speakers, then despite your good manners, in my mind you are no better than Mark Williams is.
> 
> In fact in some ways, you are worse than Mark Williams is.  I have heard "nice" Southern whites try excuse the vile acts of the KKK in exactly the tone you are taking.  I don't want the rough edges of racists smoothed down.  Might take me a nano-second longer to recognize Hate when I am confronted by it.
> 
> *I write to you as I would if I were Muslim.  You have injured me as much as if I worshipped as they do.  Get it now?*
> 
> _"The time is always right to do the right thing".  Spoken by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. _
> 
> *This* is that time, Gremlin-USA.  What's it gonna be?
Click to expand...


I am sorry you feel that way, 98% of Muslims are good people, it is the Radical Extremist that are a Cancer to all the other Muslims and to all of the World. If it is wrong to despise the Evil in any Society, than I am Guilty. I despise White Anglo Saxon Radical Extremists, so I guess they hate me too


----------



## Madeline

JenyEliza said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me, who are  fiscally conservative but who have ZERO tolerance for hate speech, when your appointed leader runs his mouth claiming that Muslims worship a "Monkey God"?
> 
> You want folks like me or you don't.  You're all about the money or you're a bunch of racist hoodlums.
> 
> Make up your minds, and if you are NOT racists, then kick this Mark Williams &#8212; a radio talk show host and the chairman of the Tea Party Express -- to the freaking curb.  Because as they say, folks:
> 
> "Lips that touch (this sort of fucking hate speech) wine will never touch mine."
> 
> Which is it?  Hate or money?  Pick one and be done with it; I'm sick and tired of all the blithering back and forth from you folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hon, you keep referring to the good people associated with the Tea Party as "Tea Baggers" and I suspect a warm welcome would NEVER be extended to you by anyone in the Tea Party in the first place.
> 
> Anyone using that outrageous and foul term is NOT the kind of person they want involved in the movement.
> 
> Watch the foul slang.  It's not becoming on you!
Click to expand...


JenyEliza, I did not name this group.  Someone else did.  It matters not to me if they choose "Whig" as their name but they chose "Tea Baggers", so that is what I have called them.

I get that now they are ashamed because the name has a sexual meaning as well, but again, I DID NOT CHOOSE IT.  I once bought $20 Million in services from a company that had named itself in such a way that the acronym for it was "PMS".  Whoopsie, but there ya go.  It was not without its giggles, but they chose not to alter it.  I'd suggest Tea Baggers get over this bullshit too.  I don't suspect that every Tea Bagger is gay, and the word now has TWO meanings to me.

I'm not going to apologize for calling a group by the title they claimed for themselves and now regret.  Not.  And when I use the very name they chose to reference them, I am not doing so to show any disrespect.  I believe I have amply demonstrated that when I _choose _to insult someone I am much more direct.  I don't think any of my insults are vague or confusing.  If I want to insult Tea Baggers, I'll call them fuckwhits or whatnot....not "Tea Baggers".  Besides in my mind, accusing someone of having an active, fun sex life is not an insult.  

People whose sensibilities are as delicate as you fear probably should be off the 'net getting treated for the vapors, JenyEliza.


----------



## geauxtohell

Madeline said:


> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me........



Well, many of us have been making this point for a long time. 

Now, expect the "teabagger shuffle" to commence.  It goes like this:

1.)  They will go into a snit because you used the term "teabagger".
2.)  You will be accused of not being a moderate, but a liberal plant.
3.)  (aka "The World Famous Teabag Three Card Monty) You will be informed that "there is no leader of the tea party movement" and they will claim this guy doesn't represent the tea party or it's goals (which remain a mystery).


----------



## boedicca

Madeline is very dishonest.

The Tea Party Movement calls itself the Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots, or Tea Partiers.  A couple of naive people who used the phrase (that she and her similarly obsessed comrades repeat ad nauseam) are neither the leaders nor representative of the rest of the Tea Party.


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone in the TP has not yet denounced his poor choice of words, they should!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that all it is to  you?  a poor choice of words?  it truly reflects how the man feels.  he would have voted against the civil rights act.
> 
> and then defending bp..at a time when the southern gulf coast is going under due to bp...who defends the people losing their jobs and livelyhoods...no one it does seem
> 
> seems this grass roots teaparty has proved everyone's worst fears....
> 
> bigots....defending big business...remind me again...how this is a change from the other two parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, poor Choice of words, not a whole lot worse than Bo, Biden, Rev. Wright and a whole host of other Obama Cronies have done.
> 
> Defending BP, have not heard that, but for all the high and mighty, what the heck has Obama done but run his mouth, has he actually done anything to help the BP situation? Talking points and future committees will not do shit for what is happening now! Just like Obama did what for Nashville?
> 
> I can agree on one point you make, most Politicians are scum and only out for themselves, but I must add we just seem to have a larger conglomerate of scum for the last 3 years and in the last 15 months it has quadrupled again
Click to expand...


When EXACTLY did Biden use Hate Speech?  If you are right and it was as extreme as this Mark Williams is, then Biden should resign...but I rather think such a controversy would have hit the news.  Who the fuck are Bo and Rev. Wright?  Isn't the President's DOG named Bo?  Are you accusing his DOG of pandering to and formenting Hate?

And last but not least, how the fuck does someone _else'_s  evil excuse evil acts committed by YOU?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Madeline said:


> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks
> 
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The King James Bible has offensive passages as well.  Shall I commence to trashing anyone who follows it?
> 
> Nice that you are at least honest: Tea Baggers are really about the Hate.
> 
> Why did you bother to waste my time claiming you were all about fiscal conservation?  That was twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back, pondering the true nature of the Tea Bagger message.
> 
> This is _my_ vision of our country:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that skins your nose, get bent.  Don't bother asking people like me to tolerate or support you again.  I am stick-a-fork-in-me-done here.  Take your hate speech, your ridiculous political name and the wing nuts you call leaders and get offa my mental windshield.
> 
> Buh-bye!
Click to expand...






What teabaggers are really about is hating and then being like "what, me hate? You're pullin a race card!"


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Madeline is very dishonest.
> 
> The Tea Party Movement calls itself the Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots, or Tea Partiers.  A couple of naive people who used the phrase (that she and her similarly obsessed comrades repeat ad nauseam) are neither the leaders nor representative of the rest of the Tea Party.



Damn, I am good.


----------



## Madeline

mudwhistle said:


> The whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.
> 
> He's not a leader in the Tea-party movement.
> 
> The reason I can say so is there really is no real leader.
> 
> It's a gathering of concerned individuals.
> 
> I'm not gonna stand by and allow some Liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.



Fine by me, expect for the part where you label me a "Liberal".  My political views cannot be pidgeon-holed and as it happens, I've been a card-carrying Republican all my adult life.  I happen to fully_ endorse _ fiscal conservatism in government, though my views are somewhat more nuanced than that slogan suggests.

I don't WANT anyone to "stand idly by".  I want to see some outrage and condemnation of Mark Williams who at least credibly claims to be the Chief Tea Bagger In Charge.

Got any, mudwhistle?


----------



## Madeline

William Joyce said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want folks like me or you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me think for a minute...
> 
> DON'T
Click to expand...


Backatcha, William Joyce.  Your honesty is refreshing.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Madeline said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.
> 
> He's not a leader in the Tea-party movement.
> 
> The reason I can say so is there really is no real leader.
> 
> It's a gathering of concerned individuals.
> 
> I'm not gonna stand by and allow some Liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine by me, expect for the part where you label me a "Liberal".  My political views cannot be pidgeon-holed and as it happens, I've been a card-carrying Republican all my adult life.  I happen to fully_ endorse _ fiscal conservatism in government, though my views are somewhat more nuanced than that slogan suggests.
> 
> I don't WANT anyone to "stand idly by".  I want to see some outrage and condemnation of Mark Williams who at least credibly claims to be the Chief Tea Bagger In Charge.
> 
> Got any, mudwhistle?
Click to expand...




Nuance? No nuances allowed! You are either for big government or small government, choose your size, that is all!


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> When EXACTLY did Biden use hate Speech?  Who the fuck are Bo and Rev. Wright?  Isn't the President's DOG named Bo?  Are you accusing his DOG of pandering to and formenting Hate?
> 
> How the fuck does someone else's evil excuse evil acts committed by YOU?



BO is Barak Obama 

Rev. Wright - BO's Pastor for 20 years

Someone else already told you who Harry Reid is

Tell me the Evil I committed

This is better than Saturday Night Live, if you dealt with a 20million Dollar Services, then I doubt you are stupid, but why are you acting Ignorant, or have you been hiding from Political Events for the last few years


----------



## geauxtohell

Madeline said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.
> 
> He's not a leader in the Tea-party movement.
> 
> The reason I can say so is there really is no real leader.
> 
> It's a gathering of concerned individuals.
> 
> I'm not gonna stand by and allow some Liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine by me, expect for the part where you label me a "Liberal".  My political views cannot be pidgeon-holed and as it happens, I've been a card-carrying Republican all my adult life.  I happen to fully_ endorse _ fiscal conservatism in government, though my views are somewhat more nuanced than that slogan suggests.
> 
> I don't WANT anyone to "stand idly by".  I want to see some outrage and condemnation of Mark Williams who at least credibly claims to be the Chief Tea Bagger In Charge.
> 
> Got any, mudwhistle?
Click to expand...


I'll say it again:

"Damn, I am good."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2334069-post62.html

The teabaggers are so decentralized that they can simply disavow anyone or position which makes them look bad.

It's a lame extension of the "No True Scotsman" argument.


----------



## geauxtohell

spidermantuba said:


> madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> the whole purpose of this thread is based on a fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna defend this guy nor defend his beliefs.
> 
> He's not a leader in the tea-party movement.
> 
> The reason i can say so is there really is no real leader.
> 
> It's a gathering of concerned individuals.
> 
> I'm not gonna stand by and allow some liberal to designate some nut-case as a leader just because they're an easy target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fine by me, expect for the part where you label me a "liberal".  My political views cannot be pidgeon-holed and as it happens, i've been a card-carrying republican all my adult life.  I happen to fully_ endorse _ fiscal conservatism in government, though my views are somewhat more nuanced than that slogan suggests.
> 
> I don't want anyone to "stand idly by".  I want to see some outrage and condemnation of mark williams who at least credibly claims to be the chief tea bagger in charge.
> 
> Got any, mudwhistle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuance? No nuances allowed! You are either for big government or small government, choose your size, that is all!
Click to expand...


lol.


----------



## Zona

Gremlin-USA said:


> Maybe he has read from the Quran and read the passages where Muhammad is a Pedophile. marrying a 6 Year old girl and consummation the marriage of her at age 9, Muhammad said it was OK, because she did not resist. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 62: Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
> 
> I admit  using monkey god was crude, but when you learn about some of the perverseness and radical nature of their beliefs, sometimes people go to far in using perceived racist remarks
> 
> Besides, you cannot judge a whole movement by one person mis-speech
Click to expand...


 "Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16

"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

bible god-Zechariah 14:1

5. "Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..."

bible god-Malachi 2:3

"...they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? Therefore I will give their wives to others..."

bible god-Jeremiah 8:9

 "When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity."

bible god-Deuteronomy 25:11

 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses-Numbers 31:17

I am sorry, what were you saying?


----------



## Madeline

William Joyce said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gremlin-USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, you mentioned you are not with any Party. No offense, but I can see why.
> 
> Think about it, there are Racists and Bigots in Every Party, shoot, there are probably some at the grocery store you shop at, your work, are you going to be a hermit because there are still stupid people in this world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that Muslims HATE US, are we obligated to love them?
> 
> Typical left-wing, anti-white delusions.
Click to expand...


Fuckwhittery?  Already?  

Okay, last reply before I Ignore you.  Muslims do not have one heart and brain.  They do not emote simultaneously.  My Muslim coworker is the only such person I have met, and she certainly did not hate me or any other American.  She was actually one of the gentlest people I've ever known.

_She'd_  have been too gentle to say what I am about to:

You jack booted thugs have been waiting for this since 9/11.  The election of a black man as president has led you to believe that  America has_ finally_  ripened into such a place as so that the race war you have wet dreamed all your life about will finally occur.  

You're a frustrated Nazi, and to be hated by YOU is my pleasure, priviledge and honor.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> TWENTY TWO percent of all humans on Planet Earth are Muslim.  When exactly did you poll all of them as to their alleged tolerance for murder, Quantum Windbag?
> 
> Can't you see this for what it is?
> 
> "All Jews......"
> 
> "All Catholics........"
> 
> "All Blacks......".
> 
> "All women......"
> 
> It's HATE.  Naked, unadulterated HATE.  Sleep with it under your pillow and your grandchildren will wake up in Hell on Earth.  How the hell many times must we learn this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I did not say all, I said most.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYEV0Xo45jA"]YouTube - ? Crash Politics ? MSA Member publicly calls for another Holocaust promotes Hitler Youth Week[/ame]
> 
> If you are right and I am wrong it should be pretty easy to prove it. All you have to do is post something where Muslims speak up condemning this attitude, without getting killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU.  You KNOW god-damned good and well that speech like this is EVIL.  Spreading hate towards a minority is vile and un-American.  I worked along side a Muslim lady in September of 2001.  She had converted and it just had never come up in the workplace as to why.  That sort of thing is rather personal.
> 
> By October she was afraid to come to work.  Do you think that is right?  Do you think we are a nation built on the values that lead people to leave anonymous notes on the desks of their coworkers to such a degree that security has to escort that person into and out of a building where they work?
> 
> It is YOU who does not belong.  You who are un-American, a traitor and a coward.  You who have betrayed us all.  You who undermines the very thing that makes this nation great.
> 
> Look in the mirror and ask yourself, how many Muslim American parents have read your words on USMB and gone into their kids room at night just for a moment's peace that they are safe?  By what right do you attempt to afflict anyone else with your perversity and crippling, ignorant HATE?
> 
> FUCK OFF.  You are trying to "get back" the Third Reich, not the USA, you fucking TRAITOR.
Click to expand...


Saying that most of the slave owners in the US were white is not hate speech, it is truth. Saying that the Church used the Inquisition to gain political power and eliminate their enemies is not hate speech, it is truth. Saying that the Khmer Rouge instituted ethnic cleansing is not hate speech, it is truth.

Speaking the truth about a group of people is not hate speech. Stating that Muslims need to step up and eliminate those who preach hate in their religion is truth.

Condemning Hezbollah for calling for the extermination of Israel is not hate speech.

You really need to calm down and remember that people have a right to whatever opinion they want to have, as long as they do not act on them. I might abhor hate speech, but I will not condemn it, I condemn actions.


----------



## boedicca

Then how do you classify Rev. Wright's speech?


----------



## Madeline

I must say, this thread is much fun for me. I feel as I would had I decided to host a pig roast, and pigs kept showing up volunteering to be the roastee.

Anyone else want to prod me to insult them because they have a bad character and hate minorities, or enjoy the company of those that do?

I'd insult boedicca, but she's fallen below my Ignore Line.  So I'll be around if there are any more volunteers.


----------



## Madeline

Stephanie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned he is free to have insulting opinions about Jesus and
> Moses, and he can express them publicly if he wants. The major difference is that if he limits his opinions to attacks on Christians and Jews no one will kill him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, if all your friends are assholes, you are shit.  I'm judging you by the hatred you tolerate and I find you Tea Baggers reprehensible un-American bullshit artists and I am done contemplating EVER joining you.
> 
> I'd ruther we _bankrupt _ourselves than become a nation of haters.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
> 
> NO THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
Click to expand...


Read my Op again, Stephanie. I hadn't heard of Mark Williams before either.  I did not SAY everyone who claims to be a Tea Bagger is a racist or racist-friendly person -- I ASKED.  If you consider yourself a Tea Bagger and his speech offended you as much as it did me, then SAY SO.

Don't be trying to annoy _me_ for condemning Hate Speech and asking if the Tea Bagger Movement as a whole rejects haters.  _I _get to ask...if you have an answer, let's hear it.


----------



## Madeline

Stephanie said:


> Remember how the left came to the rescue of the Obama about him sitting in that hating Jeremiah Wrights church for 20 YEARS.
> 
> oh because he sat through the hate sermons, that doesn't mean he agrees with them or even HEARD them.
> And we weren't suppose to "judge" the Obama by the people he knew.
> 
> lefties-liberals are nothing but
> friggen two faced hypocrites.



Stephanie, be upfront with your hate.  Don't pussyfoot around, I can't stand that.  You hate minorities?  People whose political beliefs are different than yours?  Adherents of faiths other than yours?  Urp it up, fuckwhitted bitch.  Don't try and hide behind a book on table manners.

Hate is UGLY and no amount of  doilies will ever pretty it up.  As they say, using nice manners whilst hating is like lipstick on a pig.


----------



## GHook93

Hey dumbass, this is one man's perspective that happens to be part of a movement. Its no different then Overbite preaching his hate message daily as the sole representation of liberalism.

Bottom line is the tea party is about ending over taxation, reign in spending and making America a more competitive place to do business in the global market!


----------



## Madeline

mudwhistle said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
> Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
> Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.
> 
> If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.
> 
> Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.
> 
> Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.
> 
> I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OBL and his followers were just one group that has been attacking us since 79'.
> 
> Mark Williams is not officially a leader of the Tea-party. Saying he is...is an outright lie.
Click to expand...


Not "officially" the Leader of the Tea Bagger Movement?  WTF does THAT mean?  I am a tremendous supporter of Dennis Kucinich, a US Congressman from my area.    Just exactly how fucking long do you think it'd take me to decide to condemn HIM, if_ he_  had said "Muslims worship a Monkey God"?

What Mark Williams SAID was Hate Speech.  What you have DONE in consequence is excuse it.  So if I judge you by your actions, I find you to be a FUCKING RACIST TRAITOR.

I do believe I have now clarified my POV.  Let's see if you can clarify yours, shall we?


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid is Nancy Pelosi's twin
Click to expand...


Nancy Pelosi is a traitor.  And a fuckwhit. 

I call 'em as I see 'em.  No one gets a free pass on the need to protect Arizonians etc. from me.  No one.

That is how adults are supposed to act. If a level of patriotism is a prerequisite of yours for all your elected officials, then treason should outrage you _even _ when it comes from someone whose politics sometimes line up with yours.

Are ya feeling me yet, Gremlin-USA?


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, and I suppose you would consider this post a love letter to all those "HATERS" who don't even know who this person is, but yet that makes us alllllllllllll, like him.
> good grief..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are intellectually deficient....
> 
> hence your conservative leanings....
> 
> but TRY to understand this.....
> 
> if a guy gives a speech to tea baggers
> and in that speech there is OBVIOUS lies and hate
> and the audience of tea baggers
> hearing the lies and the hate
> all CHEER and CLAP and say..."YES!  WE AGREE!"
> then
> my ignorant little moron
> it is quite easy to ASSUME that they are all likeminded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed the part where he gave a speech full of racist remarks to a Tea Party meeting. When and where was that?
Click to expand...


Mark Williams is a radio show commentator.  Presumably, he has listeners.


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Madeline said:


> Are ya feeling me yet, Gremlin-USA?



 Madeline, you are kind of like Sweet Tea without the Sugar, it takes some getting used too


----------



## geauxtohell

Madeline said:


>



No booze?  

What kind of pig roast is that?

Count me out!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are intellectually deficient....
> 
> hence your conservative leanings....
> 
> but TRY to understand this.....
> 
> if a guy gives a speech to tea baggers
> and in that speech there is OBVIOUS lies and hate
> and the audience of tea baggers
> hearing the lies and the hate
> all CHEER and CLAP and say..."YES!  WE AGREE!"
> then
> my ignorant little moron
> it is quite easy to ASSUME that they are all likeminded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed the part where he gave a speech full of racist remarks to a Tea Party meeting. When and where was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Williams is a radio show commentator.  Presumably, he has listeners.
Click to expand...


So, presumably, does Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. Hell, they supposedly have viewers. Do you condemn their hate speech?

Williams apologized to the Hindu's he offended who do worship a monkey god, so he is not as hateful as you are trying to say.


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am not a member of the Tea Party.
> Second, that was just as hateful and judgmental as what he said.
> Third, Harry Reid is a bona fide racist, and you have no problem with him. Does that make you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.
> 
> If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.
> 
> Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.
> 
> Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.
> 
> I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harry Reid is the Democratic Senator from Nevada, and the President pro Tempore of the Senate of the United States of America. That makes him pretty high up in a political party that is actually organized, instead of just a self proclaimed chairman of a group that claims to be affiliated with the Tea Party, which doesn't really exist. Yet you want to tar and feather everyone who supports the goals of Taxed Enough Already simply because the media, which hires people who have been kicked out of their local Tea Party for being racist, had not reported that he has been denounced by every single Tea Party member.
> 
> What exactly is bullshit about my excuse again?
Click to expand...


From what I gather, Mark Williams made his Hateful Remarks during a radio broadcast yesterday.  Why wasn't it YOU who alerted us to the offensive speech?  Why isn't it YOU out here condemning racial and religious intolerance?

He's not even my guy.  It was _not_  my day to watch him.  And yet I did, I told you about it and as a result, the only person I see you condemning on this thread is ME.

Are folks like me supposed to look the other way when Leaders of the Tea Baggers Movement use hate speech?  If so, tough shit, I ain't doing it.

Grow a pair and condemn MARK WILLIAMS, if you do.


----------



## Madeline

geauxtohell said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, many of us have been making this point for a long time.
> 
> Now, expect the "teabagger shuffle" to commence.  It goes like this:
> 
> 1.)  They will go into a snit because you used the term "teabagger".
> 2.)  You will be accused of not being a moderate, but a liberal plant.
> 3.)  (aka "The World Famous Teabag Three Card Monty) You will be informed that "there is no leader of the tea party movement" and they will claim this guy doesn't represent the tea party or it's goals (which remain a mystery).
Click to expand...


I could have just read this post and almost no others, because that is EXACTLY what has been happening.


----------



## Madeline

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline is very dishonest.
> 
> The Tea Party Movement calls itself the Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots, or Tea Partiers.  A couple of naive people who used the phrase (that she and her similarly obsessed comrades repeat ad nauseam) are neither the leaders nor representative of the rest of the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I am good.
Click to expand...


"Tea Partier" has four syllables and sounds stupid.  "Tea Bagger" has three and sounds great.

Get. Over. It.

I don't see a bunch of gay men on USMB decrying their unfortunate association with Tea Baggers.  Everyone grow the fuck up.  This is an argument in search of an actual debate.  Takes more to do the old smoke screen on me that THAT.


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> When EXACTLY did Biden use hate Speech?  Who the fuck are Bo and Rev. Wright?  Isn't the President's DOG named Bo?  Are you accusing his DOG of pandering to and formenting Hate?
> 
> How the fuck does someone else's evil excuse evil acts committed by YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BO is Barak Obama
> 
> Rev. Wright - BO's Pastor for 20 years
> 
> Someone else already told you who Harry Reid is
> 
> Tell me the Evil I committed
> 
> This is better than Saturday Night Live, if you dealt with a 20million Dollar Services, then I doubt you are stupid, but why are you acting Ignorant, or have you been hiding from Political Events for the last few years
Click to expand...


You remained silent when your vocal condemnation was most needed.  And thusly, you have endorsed Hate Speech.

It is not too late.  Start a new thread condemning Hate Speech by Tea Bagger Movement Leaders.  Tell the Universe you despise people who agitate for religious and racial intolerance.  Boycott Mark Williams' show.  Write a letter to his station manager, condemning him.

Fucking do SOMETHING.

If you find Hate amusing, I truly pity you, as you lack the rudiments of any humanity.


----------



## geauxtohell

Madeline said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth do you Tea Baggers expect to ever attract moderates or people like me........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, many of us have been making this point for a long time.
> 
> Now, expect the "teabagger shuffle" to commence.  It goes like this:
> 
> 1.)  They will go into a snit because you used the term "teabagger".
> 2.)  You will be accused of not being a moderate, but a liberal plant.
> 3.)  (aka "The World Famous Teabag Three Card Monty) You will be informed that "there is no leader of the tea party movement" and they will claim this guy doesn't represent the tea party or it's goals (which remain a mystery).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could have just read this post and almost no others, because that is EXACTLY what has been happening.
Click to expand...


What can I say?  I've got the teabagger psyche pegged.


----------



## geauxtohell

Madeline said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline is very dishonest.
> 
> The Tea Party Movement calls itself the Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots, or Tea Partiers.  A couple of naive people who used the phrase (that she and her similarly obsessed comrades repeat ad nauseam) are neither the leaders nor representative of the rest of the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I am good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Tea Partier" has four syllables and sounds stupid.  "Tea Bagger" has three and sounds great.
> 
> Get. Over. It.
> 
> I don't see a bunch of gay men on USMB decrying their unfortunate association with Tea Baggers.  Everyone grow the fuck up.  This is an argument in search of an actual debate.  Takes more to do the old smoke screen on me that THAT.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't be so much fun if the teabaggers didn't get so pissy about it. 

Although, to correct a popular misconception, there is nothing overtly homosexual about the sexual act of "tea bagging".


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I did not say all, I said most.
> 
> YouTube - ? Crash Politics ? MSA Member publicly calls for another Holocaust promotes Hitler Youth Week
> 
> If you are right and I am wrong it should be pretty easy to prove it. All you have to do is post something where Muslims speak up condemning this attitude, without getting killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU.  You KNOW god-damned good and well that speech like this is EVIL.  Spreading hate towards a minority is vile and un-American.  I worked along side a Muslim lady in September of 2001.  She had converted and it just had never come up in the workplace as to why.  That sort of thing is rather personal.
> 
> By October she was afraid to come to work.  Do you think that is right?  Do you think we are a nation built on the values that lead people to leave anonymous notes on the desks of their coworkers to such a degree that security has to escort that person into and out of a building where they work?
> 
> It is YOU who does not belong.  You who are un-American, a traitor and a coward.  You who have betrayed us all.  You who undermines the very thing that makes this nation great.
> 
> Look in the mirror and ask yourself, how many Muslim American parents have read your words on USMB and gone into their kids room at night just for a moment's peace that they are safe?  By what right do you attempt to afflict anyone else with your perversity and crippling, ignorant HATE?
> 
> FUCK OFF.  You are trying to "get back" the Third Reich, not the USA, you fucking TRAITOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying that most of the slave owners in the US were white is not hate speech, it is truth. Saying that the Church used the Inquisition to gain political power and eliminate their enemies is not hate speech, it is truth. Saying that the Khmer Rouge instituted ethnic cleansing is not hate speech, it is truth.
> 
> Speaking the truth about a group of people is not hate speech. Stating that Muslims need to step up and eliminate those who preach hate in their religion is truth.
> 
> Condemning Hezbollah for calling for the extermination of Israel is not hate speech.
> 
> You really need to calm down and remember that people have a right to whatever opinion they want to have, as long as they do not act on them. I might abhor hate speech, but I will not condemn it, I condemn actions.
Click to expand...


I was raised Catholic and some of my family still believe.  By your logic, they need to rent billboards to condemn pedophilia by Catholic clergy before they themselves would be immune from your Hatred Of All Catholics.

This is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  You hate Muslims.  Why try and pretty that up?

You don't condemn hate speech?  Fine by me...but "racist-friendly people" are called RACISTS. Letting Mark Williams carry your water does not repeat NOT immunize YOU from the evil he does on your behalf UNLESS you disclaim it.


----------



## Madeline

Gremlin-USA said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are ya feeling me yet, Gremlin-USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, you are kind of like Sweet Tea without the Sugar, it takes some getting used too
Click to expand...


I'd love to have a dialogue without the stridency Gremlin-USA, but some folks need to be hit over the head with a concept.

And SOME folks deserve to have their hair set on fire.


----------



## Madeline

Quantum Windbag said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed the part where he gave a speech full of racist remarks to a Tea Party meeting. When and where was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Williams is a radio show commentator.  Presumably, he has listeners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, presumably, does Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. Hell, they supposedly have viewers. Do you condemn their hate speech?
> 
> Williams apologized to the Hindu's he offended who do worship a monkey god, so he is not as hateful as you are trying to say.
Click to expand...


You are a moron, a bigot and a FUCKWHIT.  I am unwilling to read anything else you write, so off to the Iggy Bin you go.

Before I flush the handle, may I say, I do appreciate that you have illustrated exactly how deeply Hate is woven into the values of the Tea Bagger Movement, and how sneaky and dishonest its members are when called on that fact.

But your utility to me at an end.

Buh-Bye.


----------



## Immanuel

Madeline said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline is very dishonest.
> 
> The Tea Party Movement calls itself the Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots, or Tea Partiers.  A couple of naive people who used the phrase (that she and her similarly obsessed comrades repeat ad nauseam) are neither the leaders nor representative of the rest of the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I am good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Tea Partier" has four syllables and sounds stupid.  "Tea Bagger" has three and sounds great.
> 
> Get. Over. It.
> 
> I don't see a bunch of gay men on USMB decrying their unfortunate association with Tea Baggers.  Everyone grow the fuck up.  This is an argument in search of an actual debate.  Takes more to do the old smoke screen on me that THAT.
Click to expand...


But "Tea Baggers" is not the name they call themselves.  It has been used in a derogatory manner because of a completely different connotation.  To continue to use it after being told that is not their name, as you have been doing here, is to be doing so in a hateful manner, IMHO.  I mistakenly used the term one time a month or so ago and someone told me what it actually means.  I quit using it.

You started this thread saying that you are opposed to the hate speech that comes out of the Tea Party movement.  I agree with you and feel the same way you do, but I would ask you to examine your methods here and think about whether or not you are doing the same thing and justifying it as well.

Immie


----------



## boedicca

Again, Madeline makes TM look rational.


----------



## Madeline

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I am good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Tea Partier" has four syllables and sounds stupid.  "Tea Bagger" has three and sounds great.
> 
> Get. Over. It.
> 
> I don't see a bunch of gay men on USMB decrying their unfortunate association with Tea Baggers.  Everyone grow the fuck up.  This is an argument in search of an actual debate.  Takes more to do the old smoke screen on me that THAT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But "Tea Baggers" is not the name they call themselves.  It has been used in a derogatory manner because of a completely different connotation.  To continue to use it after being told that is not their name, as you have been doing here, is to be doing so in a hateful manner, IMHO.  I mistakenly used the term one time a month or so ago and someone told me what it actually means.  I quit using it.
> 
> You started this thread saying that you are opposed to the hate speech that comes out of the Tea Party movement.  I agree with you and feel the same way you do, but I would ask you to examine your methods here and think about whether or not you are doing the same thing and justifying it as well.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, I like you but occassionally we disagree.  This is just onna those times.  I'm not gonna tip toe around a phoney sensitivity someone claims they have about their membership in a group that did not even exist two years ago.

I have a friend who has a little-known ethnicity.  She told me that Gypsies find that noun derogatory and prefer to be called the Romany People, so that's what I call her now.

I'm teachable, but not especially bullshitable.


----------



## Immanuel

boedicca said:


> Again, Madeline makes TM look rational.



Thou stretches the truth longer than an anteater's tongue.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tea Partier" has four syllables and sounds stupid.  "Tea Bagger" has three and sounds great.
> 
> Get. Over. It.
> 
> I don't see a bunch of gay men on USMB decrying their unfortunate association with Tea Baggers.  Everyone grow the fuck up.  This is an argument in search of an actual debate.  Takes more to do the old smoke screen on me that THAT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "Tea Baggers" is not the name they call themselves.  It has been used in a derogatory manner because of a completely different connotation.  To continue to use it after being told that is not their name, as you have been doing here, is to be doing so in a hateful manner, IMHO.  I mistakenly used the term one time a month or so ago and someone told me what it actually means.  I quit using it.
> 
> You started this thread saying that you are opposed to the hate speech that comes out of the Tea Party movement.  I agree with you and feel the same way you do, but I would ask you to examine your methods here and think about whether or not you are doing the same thing and justifying it as well.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, I like you but occassionally we disagree.  This is just onna those times.  I'm not gonna tip toe around a phoney sensitivity someone claims they have about their membership in a group that did not even exist two years ago.
> 
> I have a friend who has a little-known ethnicity.  She told me that Gypsies find that noun derogatory and prefer to be called the Romany People, so that's what I call her now.
> 
> I'm teachable, but not especially bullshitable.
Click to expand...


So, hate speech is acceptable in some circumstances?

Immie


----------



## mudwhistle

*Hey assholes!!!

This thread is based on a lie.

This guy...whomever he is, doesn't have anything to do with the Tea-Party movement. 


Quit spreading lies about Tea-Party members.*


----------



## Madeline

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But "Tea Baggers" is not the name they call themselves.  It has been used in a derogatory manner because of a completely different connotation.  To continue to use it after being told that is not their name, as you have been doing here, is to be doing so in a hateful manner, IMHO.  I mistakenly used the term one time a month or so ago and someone told me what it actually means.  I quit using it.
> 
> You started this thread saying that you are opposed to the hate speech that comes out of the Tea Party movement.  I agree with you and feel the same way you do, but I would ask you to examine your methods here and think about whether or not you are doing the same thing and justifying it as well.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I like you but occassionally we disagree.  This is just onna those times.  I'm not gonna tip toe around a phoney sensitivity someone claims they have about their membership in a group that did not even exist two years ago.
> 
> I have a friend who has a little-known ethnicity.  She told me that Gypsies find that noun derogatory and prefer to be called the Romany People, so that's what I call her now.
> 
> I'm teachable, but not especially bullshitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, hate speech is acceptable in some circumstances?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


What religious or racial minority have I insulted Immie?  Where's the "hate speech" you think I am guilty of?  Someone asked me to "mind my manners" and I declined to do so.  I frequently respond in that manner and just as frequently receive such requests..

What's the problem here exactly?  No, I will not pander to some supercilious bullshit.  Did you really think I would?


----------



## Madeline

mudwhistle said:


> *Hey assholes!!!
> 
> This thread is based on a lie.
> 
> This guy...whomever he is, doesn't have anything to do with the Tea-Party movement.
> 
> Quit spreading lies about Tea-Party members.*



Close but no cigar.

This is what you need to do to distance yourself from Mark Williams in my opinion:

Start a new thread, and condemn his Hate Speech together with all other Hate Speech directed at Muslims.  

Take your concerns to your Tea Bagger Movement meetings and ask that as a group, you un-invite Mark Williams to the party.

Apologize to Muslim Americans harmed by Williams' Hate Speech and reach out to them in an effort to better understand their POV.

Do all that, and I will see you in a new light mudwhistle.


----------



## geauxtohell

mudwhistle said:


> *Hey assholes!!!
> 
> This thread is based on a lie.
> 
> This guy...whomever he is, doesn't have anything to do with the Tea-Party movement.
> 
> 
> Quit spreading lies about Tea-Party members.*



Didn't take Kreskin to see this post coming.............


----------



## Madeline

Nice is overrated.  Nice in response to Evil is capitulation.


----------



## mudwhistle

Madeline said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey assholes!!!
> 
> This thread is based on a lie.
> 
> This guy...whomever he is, doesn't have anything to do with the Tea-Party movement.
> 
> Quit spreading lies about Tea-Party members.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close but no cigar.
> 
> This is what you need to do to distance yourself from Mark Williams in my opinion:
> 
> Start a new thread, and condemn his Hate Speech together with all other Hate Speech directed at Muslims.
> 
> Take your concerns to your Tea Bagger Movement meetings and ask that as a group, you un-invite Mark Williams to the party.
> 
> Apologize to Muslim Americans harmed by Williams' Hate Speech and reach out to them in an effort to better understand their POV.
> 
> Do all that, and I will see you in a new light mudwhistle.
Click to expand...


First of all this is a free country. 

If you want to around spewing garbage there is nothing we can do to stop you.

As far as Mr. Williams is concerned nothing he says will cause damage to a single Muslim.

I'm more worried about the damage that Obama has caused by spewing his lies about Arizona. The effects are extremely dangerous and getting worse by the day.

It is not my business nor the Tea-party's business to go around correcting every single hate-monger out there.

I really could care less how you see me....I am what I am.

You don't pay my bills so what does your opinion of me matter.


----------



## Madeline

Fine, remain passive.  That's an endorsement of Williams' Hate Speech and you damn well know it, mudwhistle.  Me, if I were in a conspiracy to rob Fort Knox and my safe cracker said what Williams' said, I'd boot his ass out.  No matter the goal, advancement through Hate is evil and I will never do it.

I think we can agree, at this point, neither of us gives a flying fuck what the other's opinion of his or her character may be.  

We're all done sorting now?  

Toodle-loo.


----------



## Immanuel

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, I like you but occassionally we disagree.  This is just onna those times.  I'm not gonna tip toe around a phoney sensitivity someone claims they have about their membership in a group that did not even exist two years ago.
> 
> I have a friend who has a little-known ethnicity.  She told me that Gypsies find that noun derogatory and prefer to be called the Romany People, so that's what I call her now.
> 
> I'm teachable, but not especially bullshitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, hate speech is acceptable in some circumstances?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religious or racial minority have I insulted Immie?  Where's the "hate speech" you think I am guilty of?  Someone asked me to "mind my manners" and I declined to do so.  I frequently respond in that manner and just as frequently receive such requests..
> 
> What's the problem here exactly?  No, I will not pander to some supercilious bullshit.  Did you really think I would?
Click to expand...


Are you saying hate speech is limited along racial or religious lines?  

When you use terms like tea baggers knowing that it is considered insulting, isn't that hateful?

Are you not intending to be insulting?  If you intend to be insulting then that is hate speech in my books.  

Note:  I'm not saying I never do it.  I've been guilty myself... recently even.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who the fuck Harry Reid IS.  Yet you assume I have evaluated his hate speech and I'm all good with it?  Fuck you.  I've been as clear as a bell.  ZERO hate speech or I am not your fan, and certainly not your brother in arms against governmental waste.
> 
> If you think I am a Liberal who is drinking anyone's kool aid, wise up.  Most people reach an opinion on an issue after some examination of the facts and debate...not because their Fearless Leader instructs them on what to think.   I happen to agree government spending threatens our future and I was quasi-sympathetic to the Tea Baggers' Movement UNTIL now.
> 
> Because if respect for all the various subcultures and religions to be found in the US is not your core value, we DEFINATELY have nothing in common.  Mutual respect and tolerance of those in the minority who are different is ESSENTIAL to the sort of nation I hope my grandchildren will enjoy.  And if I had to choose, I'd encumber them with heavy taxes before I encumbered them with Hate.
> 
> Does it EVER cross anyone's mind that Muslim Americans might some of them be afraid when your leaders hate on them this way?  Or that some Muslim Americans might also identify with the Tea Bagger's Movement a la fiscal conservation but be afraid to approach you in groups because they are not certain how they will be received? We were not attacked by Americans -- not Muslim Americans and not by the Entire Muslim Faithful.  We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his followers, period.  Hating on 22% of the humans on Planet Earth for the actions of a single conspiracy is ridiculous, dishonest and childish.
> 
> I will NEVER be a party to this -- and I think your silence towards Mark Williams marks YOU as a supporter of his Hate Speech.  Either throw him out of the Tea Baggers Movement or get out yourself, if Hate Speech repels you.  Anything less, and I don't want to hear your bullshit excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid is the Democratic Senator from Nevada, and the President pro Tempore of the Senate of the United States of America. That makes him pretty high up in a political party that is actually organized, instead of just a self proclaimed chairman of a group that claims to be affiliated with the Tea Party, which doesn't really exist. Yet you want to tar and feather everyone who supports the goals of Taxed Enough Already simply because the media, which hires people who have been kicked out of their local Tea Party for being racist, had not reported that he has been denounced by every single Tea Party member.
> 
> What exactly is bullshit about my excuse again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I gather, Mark Williams made his Hateful Remarks during a radio broadcast yesterday.  Why wasn't it YOU who alerted us to the offensive speech?  Why isn't it YOU out here condemning racial and religious intolerance?
> 
> He's not even my guy.  It was _not_  my day to watch him.  And yet I did, I told you about it and as a result, the only person I see you condemning on this thread is ME.
> 
> Are folks like me supposed to look the other way when Leaders of the Tea Baggers Movement use hate speech?  If so, tough shit, I ain't doing it.
> 
> Grow a pair and condemn MARK WILLIAMS, if you do.
Click to expand...


I have not condemned you anywhere, you have as much right to be wrong as Williams does.

Perhaps the reason I didn't point out what he says is that I tend to ignore idiots who spout stupid words. If you find his speech so objectionable why are you contributing to his miniscule ratings, and thus how much money he earns?


----------



## Madeline

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, hate speech is acceptable in some circumstances?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religious or racial minority have I insulted Immie?  Where's the "hate speech" you think I am guilty of?  Someone asked me to "mind my manners" and I declined to do so.  I frequently respond in that manner and just as frequently receive such requests..
> 
> What's the problem here exactly?  No, I will not pander to some supercilious bullshit.  Did you really think I would?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying hate speech is limited along racial or religious lines?
> 
> When you use terms like tea baggers knowing that it is considered insulting, isn't that hateful?
> 
> Are you not intending to be insulting?  If you intend to be insulting then that is hate speech in my books.
> 
> Note:  I'm not saying I never do it.  I've been guilty myself... recently even.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, if I sue my employer because the restroom I am assigned to is known as "the women's room" and not "the ladies room", do I have a case?  Or am I just being a super-sensitive, controlling asshole?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Madeline said:


> I was raised Catholic and some of my family still believe.  By your logic, they need to rent billboards to condemn pedophilia by Catholic clergy before they themselves would be immune from your Hatred Of All Catholics.
> 
> This is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  You hate Muslims.  Why try and pretty that up?
> 
> You don't condemn hate speech?  Fine by me...but "racist-friendly people" are called RACISTS. Letting Mark Williams carry your water does not repeat NOT immunize YOU from the evil he does on your behalf UNLESS you disclaim it.



That is actually your logic, not mine. You are the one demanding that people going around condemning what someone is saying. I, on the other hand, am asking them to condemn murder and terrorism. My belief is that most Catholics condemn the actions of those priests, if I am wrong I would be happy to add them to my "hate speech" list.


----------



## William Joyce

Madeline said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I get into my fair share of confrontations though.  I cannot abide this kind of evil.  Not at all.  And I have NEVER supported a candidate that committed this unpardonable sin.
> 
> T'aint like there's various ways to "hear" what this man said.  He hates Muslims.  That's enough for me to want to kick his ass...why aren't YOU angry?
> 
> If he had been hating on a group YOU identify with might that have tripped your switch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Muslims HATE US, are we obligated to love them?
> 
> Typical left-wing, anti-white delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuckwhittery?  Already?
> 
> Okay, last reply before I Ignore you.  Muslims do not have one heart and brain.  They do not emote simultaneously.  My Muslim coworker is the only such person I have met, and she certainly did not hate me or any other American.  She was actually one of the gentlest people I've ever known.
> 
> _She'd_  have been too gentle to say what I am about to:
> 
> You jack booted thugs have been waiting for this since 9/11.  The election of a black man as president has led you to believe that  America has_ finally_  ripened into such a place as so that the race war you have wet dreamed all your life about will finally occur.
> 
> You're a frustrated Nazi, and to be hated by YOU is my pleasure, priviledge and honor.
Click to expand...


You write everything in giant blue font, but I'm the one who's frustrated?


I prefer arguing with JILLIAN.  

I can't believe I said that.


----------



## mudwhistle

Madeline said:


> Fine, remain passive. * That's an endorsement of Williams' Hate Speech and you damn well know it, mudwhistle. * Me, if I were in a conspiracy to rob Fort Knox and my safe cracker said what Williams' said, I'd boot his ass out.  No matter the goal, advancement through Hate is evil and I will never do it.
> 
> I think we can agree, at this point, neither of us gives a flying fuck what the other's opinion of his or her character may be.
> 
> We're all done sorting now?
> 
> Toodle-loo.



So if I don't start raising hell about some shit-head I'm endorsing him?

Sorry....it doesn't work that way.

What he says may be wrong but he still has the right to say what he wants. 

You however have no right to claim that he represents the Tea-party nor do you have the right to blame his stupid program on them ether.

Just because he has *Tea-party* in the name he uses it doesn't mean anything.

He's an asshole. And because you can't tell the difference so are you. You're simply making shit up as you go. You are also a fucken liar.

So sorry if it hurts your feelings but you need to get a clue.....and get a life.


----------



## Immanuel

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religious or racial minority have I insulted Immie?  Where's the "hate speech" you think I am guilty of?  Someone asked me to "mind my manners" and I declined to do so.  I frequently respond in that manner and just as frequently receive such requests..
> 
> What's the problem here exactly?  No, I will not pander to some supercilious bullshit.  Did you really think I would?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying hate speech is limited along racial or religious lines?
> 
> When you use terms like tea baggers knowing that it is considered insulting, isn't that hateful?
> 
> Are you not intending to be insulting?  If you intend to be insulting then that is hate speech in my books.
> 
> Note:  I'm not saying I never do it.  I've been guilty myself... recently even.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, if I sue my employer because the restroom I am assigned to is known as "the women's room" and not "the ladies room", do I have a case?  Or am I just being a super-sensitive, controlling asshole?
Click to expand...


Is this one of those, "I'm damned no matter how I answer that question", type of questions?

I have a feeling that I will be in trouble no matter how I answer that so here's my answer:

&)* w%$ h$(jy w e*_$%-e$je(^(g$ f)j^%)pp(jy e#$$^u$w%^.

Now, by the time you have deciphered that, I will be well out of range and safe... I hope!

Immie


----------



## Stainmaster

Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?

Has the Tea Party become a political party?  Is Rand Paul the Tea Party candidate for President in 2012?

Rand Paul and the Tea Party






*Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?*​


----------



## Madeline

mudwhistle said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, remain passive. * That's an endorsement of Williams' Hate Speech and you damn well know it, mudwhistle. * Me, if I were in a conspiracy to rob Fort Knox and my safe cracker said what Williams' said, I'd boot his ass out.  No matter the goal, advancement through Hate is evil and I will never do it.
> 
> I think we can agree, at this point, neither of us gives a flying fuck what the other's opinion of his or her character may be.
> 
> We're all done sorting now?
> 
> Toodle-loo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't start raising hell about some shit-head I'm endorsing him?
> 
> Sorry....it doesn't work that way.
> 
> What he says may be wrong but he still has the right to say what he wants.
> 
> You however have no right to claim that he represents the Tea-party nor do you have the right to blame his stupid program on them ether.
> 
> Just because he has *Tea-party* in the name he uses it doesn't mean anything.
> 
> He's an asshole. And because you can't tell the difference so are you. You're simply making shit up as you go. You are also a fucken liar.
> 
> So sorry if it hurts your feelings but you need to get a clue.....and get a life.
Click to expand...


Yes, because Mark Wiliams is a media huckster who claims to lead this Tea Bagger Movement you are involved in, mudwhistle, you cannot allow him to speak for you and then disclaim his speech unless you act to condemn it.

BTW, what statement of fact have I made that was untrue?


----------



## Madeline

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying hate speech is limited along racial or religious lines?
> 
> When you use terms like tea baggers knowing that it is considered insulting, isn't that hateful?
> 
> Are you not intending to be insulting?  If you intend to be insulting then that is hate speech in my books.
> 
> Note:  I'm not saying I never do it.  I've been guilty myself... recently even.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, if I sue my employer because the restroom I am assigned to is known as "the women's room" and not "the ladies room", do I have a case?  Or am I just being a super-sensitive, controlling asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this one of those, "I'm damned no matter how I answer that question", type of questions?
> 
> I have a feeling that I will be in trouble no matter how I answer that so here's my answer:
> 
> &)* w%$ h$(jy w e*_$%-e$je(^(g$ f)j^%)pp(jy e#$$^u$w%^.
> 
> Now, by the time you have deciphered that, I will be well out of range and safe... I hope!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Immie, you (usually) do not have to agree with me to be safe with me.  I (usually) allow for the possibility that someone just as terrific as me but in possession of different facts or life experience may have a different POV from mine.

Occassionally, I am just another intolerant asshole.  

If I get that way I expect my friends to jerk my collar.

Ain't that what friends are for?


----------



## mudwhistle

Madeline said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, remain passive. * That's an endorsement of Williams' Hate Speech and you damn well know it, mudwhistle. * Me, if I were in a conspiracy to rob Fort Knox and my safe cracker said what Williams' said, I'd boot his ass out.  No matter the goal, advancement through Hate is evil and I will never do it.
> 
> I think we can agree, at this point, neither of us gives a flying fuck what the other's opinion of his or her character may be.
> 
> We're all done sorting now?
> 
> Toodle-loo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't start raising hell about some shit-head I'm endorsing him?
> 
> Sorry....it doesn't work that way.
> 
> What he says may be wrong but he still has the right to say what he wants.
> 
> You however have no right to claim that he represents the Tea-party nor do you have the right to blame his stupid program on them ether.
> 
> Just because he has *Tea-party* in the name he uses it doesn't mean anything.
> 
> He's an asshole. And because you can't tell the difference so are you. You're simply making shit up as you go. You are also a fucken liar.
> 
> So sorry if it hurts your feelings but you need to get a clue.....and get a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because Mark Wiliams is a media huckster who claims to lead this Tea Bagger Movement you are involved in, mudwhistle, you cannot allow him to speak for you and then disclaim his speech unless you act to condemn it.
> 
> BTW, what statement of fact have I made that was untrue?
Click to expand...

Lumping this guy in with the Tea-party is untrue. Claiming he is one of their leaders in untrue. Claiming that I am responsible for what he says is untrue. 

Look....I didn't know who this trouser-snake was before you mentioned him. 

Guys like him tend to burn out so I figure he's gonna hang himself eventually. Air-America was nothing but Liberal hate-speech and it went under. To me he's inconsequential because he doesn't have much of a voice nor much of a following. He does give the rest of us a bad name and give folks like you a forum to bitch about the movement....unfairly I might add. This is the face of the Tea-party folks like you want to paint...but it's no more true then claiming that all Muslims are on a violent Jihad.

Like I mentioned before...the troublemaker I have to worry about the most is that skinny prick in the White House.


----------



## Stephanie

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how the left came to the rescue of the Obama about him sitting in that hating Jeremiah Wrights church for 20 YEARS.
> 
> oh because he sat through the hate sermons, that doesn't mean he agrees with them or even HEARD them.
> And we weren't suppose to "judge" the Obama by the people he knew.
> 
> lefties-liberals are nothing but
> friggen two faced hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie, be upfront with your hate.  Don't pussyfoot around, I can't stand that.  You hate minorities?  People whose political beliefs are different than yours?  Adherents of faiths other than yours?  Urp it up, fuckwhitted bitch.  Don't try and hide behind a book on table manners.[/IMG]
Click to expand...



you should know all about hate, that is all you've spewed in this entire thread.
and don't pretend you know me, because you don't. and I'm glad of that.


----------



## Madeline

mudwhistle said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't start raising hell about some shit-head I'm endorsing him?
> 
> Sorry....it doesn't work that way.
> 
> What he says may be wrong but he still has the right to say what he wants.
> 
> You however have no right to claim that he represents the Tea-party nor do you have the right to blame his stupid program on them ether.
> 
> Just because he has *Tea-party* in the name he uses it doesn't mean anything.
> 
> He's an asshole. And because you can't tell the difference so are you. You're simply making shit up as you go. You are also a fucken liar.
> 
> So sorry if it hurts your feelings but you need to get a clue.....and get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Mark Wiliams is a media huckster who claims to lead this Tea Bagger Movement you are involved in, mudwhistle, you cannot allow him to speak for you and then disclaim his speech unless you act to condemn it.
> 
> BTW, what statement of fact have I made that was untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lumping this guy in with the Tea-party is untrue. Claiming he is one of their leaders in untrue. Claiming that I am responsible for what he says is untrue.
> 
> Look....I didn't know who this trouser-snake was before you mentioned him.
> 
> Guys like him tend to burn out so I figure he's gonna hang himself eventually. Air-America was nothing but Liberal hate-speech and it went under. To me he's inconsequential because he doesn't have much of a voice nor much of a following. He does give the rest of us a bad name and give folks like you a forum to bitch about the movement....unfairly I might add. This is the face of the Tea-party folks like you want to paint...but it's no more true then claiming that all Muslims are on a violent Jihad.
> 
> Like I mentioned before...the troublemaker I have to worry about the most is that skinny prick in the White House.
Click to expand...


You misjudge me, mudwhistle.  I never HOPED that the Tea Bagger Movement would prove to be infected with Hate.  I HOPED that it would be all about the money; that it would ripen into the political party that shoved the GOP into its grave.  I hoped that I'd be able to work with like-minded people towards goals such as reducing the government to a manageable size.

More workers in America work for government than work for private industry.  Government pays better.  The benefits packages are richer.  But no nation on Earth can divert more than half of its labor force into jobs that produce NOTHING and yet remain economically viable.  And that is only ONE of several alarming factoids about the existing burden government creates for us.  The future burdens are terrifying enough to make me pee myself.

I would be a great ally. I will clean up after banquets and all that other busywork that is usually so hard to get done because it isn't glamorous.  I have experience in getting folks elected, as well as in getting them recalled from elected office.  I have talents and energies to offer.

But I ain't sharing a banquet hall with Hate, Hate Speech or Haters.  NEVER.  I feel bad I'm not gonna get to go.  It's lonely out here for us disenfranchised folks, but I dun need new friends badly enough to make them with people who are comfy with what Mark Williams said.  

I ain't never been THAT lonely in my entire life, and I never will be.  HATE IS WRONG.


----------



## Stainmaster

From the thread "Tea Party Sweeps Election."



Founder said:


> *Tea Party Sweeps the Elections.
> 
> To all the backbiting naysayer Liberals and Democrats, the Tea Party and their putative leader Sarah Palin have given the back of their hand across the chops.
> 
> Tea Party backed Rand Paul has now been declared the winner of the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky by a 2 to 1 majority defeating the establishment in both parties. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who ran for President, ran with the full endorsement of the Tea Party, plus the early and repeated endorsement of Sarah Palin. Rand Paul has said repeatedly that the Tea Party will help him beat the Democrat in November and he is right.
> 
> The Tea Party, after knocking off left leaning establishment-MSM Senator Bennett in Utah, has spun across the length and breadth of the nation and impacted the outcome in hundreds of races even at this early date in the off year elections.
> 
> Specter, another long time target of the Tea Party, is fighting for his life and is projected to lose his nomination battle in Pennsylvania where Obama has poured in his political capital. But should Specter survive to face the Republican in November, the Tea Party will redouble their efforts to defeat him there with good prospects of doing so.
> 
> Then there is the horrible Liberal anti-military Democrat Congressman Murtha, the guy that God took out recently. It looks like his old "safe" seat will go to another Conservative Republican supported by the Tea Party, and so it goes  everywhere.
> 
> Does the Tea Party have legs? Yes. Does it have staying power for the long haul? Yes! It it going to be a king and Queen maker in November, and  in 2012? Yes. Has it got its finger in Obama's eye? Yes!
> 
> We have now entered a new era in American political life, and Sarah Palin is at the center of it that is setting the pace that others in both parties are having to struggle to match.
> 
> Everyone wants to know, on every subject, what does Sarah have to say, and she always has something to say. This is real power, and the Republican nomination is therefore hers to lose.
> 
> In short, Obama is being crushed by this Tea Party-Sarah Palin avalanche. He is now caving in on another Tea Party demand that he send the army to the Arizona border, which will give Arizona, Sarah and TP a validation of their strategy.*


----------



## Tom Clancy

I think Stainmaster wishes he was a Teabagger..

It would explain his obsession with the Word Teabagger and the Tea Party.


----------



## boedicca

Not only that, he also obviously wants an audience for his performances with sweaty male balls.

There are websites that will help him with that, but USMB is not one of them.


----------



## mudwhistle

Madeline said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Mark Wiliams is a media huckster who claims to lead this Tea Bagger Movement you are involved in, mudwhistle, you cannot allow him to speak for you and then disclaim his speech unless you act to condemn it.
> 
> BTW, what statement of fact have I made that was untrue?
> 
> 
> 
> Lumping this guy in with the Tea-party is untrue. Claiming he is one of their leaders in untrue. Claiming that I am responsible for what he says is untrue.
> 
> Look....I didn't know who this trouser-snake was before you mentioned him.
> 
> Guys like him tend to burn out so I figure he's gonna hang himself eventually. Air-America was nothing but Liberal hate-speech and it went under. To me he's inconsequential because he doesn't have much of a voice nor much of a following. He does give the rest of us a bad name and give folks like you a forum to bitch about the movement....unfairly I might add. This is the face of the Tea-party folks like you want to paint...but it's no more true then claiming that all Muslims are on a violent Jihad.
> 
> Like I mentioned before...the troublemaker I have to worry about the most is that skinny prick in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misjudge me, mudwhistle.  I never HOPED that the Tea Bagger Movement would prove to be infected with Hate.  I HOPED that it would be all about the money; that it would ripen into the political party that shoved the GOP into its grave.  I hoped that I'd be able to work with like-minded people towards goals such as reducing the government to a manageable size.
> 
> More workers in America work for government than work for private industry.  Government pays better.  The benefits packages are richer.  But no nation on Earth can divert more than half of its labor force into jobs that produce NOTHING and yet remain economically viable.  And that is only ONE of several alarming factoids about the existing burden government creates for us.  The future burdens are terrifying enough to make me pee myself.
> 
> I would be a great ally. I will clean up after banquets and all that other busywork that is usually so hard to get done because it isn't glamorous.  I have experience in getting folks elected, as well as in getting them recalled from elected office.  I have talents and energies to offer.
> 
> But I ain't sharing a banquet hall with Hate, Hate Speech or Haters.  NEVER.  I feel bad I'm not gonna get to go.  It's lonely out here for us disenfranchised folks, but I dun need new friends badly enough to make them with people who are comfy with what Mark Williams said.
> 
> I ain't never been THAT lonely in my entire life, and I never will be.  HATE IS WRONG.
Click to expand...


You're starting to make some sense now.

Hate is wrong. But there's always gonna be hate on this Earth.

The hard part is trying to get along with those who hate you.

It can sometimes be a rewarding experience.


----------



## Stainmaster

Rand Paul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born January 7, 1963 (1963-01-07) (age 47)
Lake Jackson, Texas 
Nationality American 
Occupation Ophthalmologist 
Known for Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky 
Religion Presbyterian[1] 
Website
Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate
Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is an American ophthalmologist and politician who describes himself as a "constitutional conservative".[2] He is the third child of Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Paul is the chairman and founder of Kentucky Taxpayers United.

Paul is currently the Republican party candidate for one of Kentucky's United States Senate seats. 

Early life and education
Randal Howard Paul was born in Lake Jackson, Texas, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul, a US Air Force flight surgeon, in 1963. In 1976, Rand Paul's father was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Paul's parents married in 1957, and Paul was born six years later and baptized Episcopalian.[3] He has four siblings: Ronnie, Lori, Robert, and Joy.[3][4] As a child, his family moved from Pittsburgh to San Antonio in 1965, eventually settling in Surfside Beach, Texas in 1968. He attended Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and obtained an M.D. at his father's alma mater, Duke University School of Medicine.[5]

Medical career
Paul currently owns a private ophthalmology practice in Bowling Green, Kentucky. He first worked at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic in Kentucky, but eventually established his own clinic in December 2007.[6][7] Paul specializes in corneal transplants, glaucoma surgery, and LASIK,[7] and began offering sutureless DSEK corneal transplantation in 2007.[8]

As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club,[9] Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those with no health insurance coverage, or who are living on a minimum wage.[9][10] He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.[11]

Activism
As founder and chairman of the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) since 1994, Paul regularly presents "taxpayers' friend" awards to state legislators. KTU, which regards itself as nonpartisan, but ideological and conservative,[12][13] examines legislator records on taxation and spending to inform voters where their own lawmakers stand on the issues.[14] Paul's editorial commentary on behalf of KTU has been published and recognized in the Kentucky Post.[15]

KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, encouraging politicians to pledge publicly to vote uniformly against tax raises.[15] Nine of fifteen Northern Kentucky legislators signed the pledge,[16] such as Senator Dick Roeding[15] and Representative Royce Adams in 1996.[17] In 2000, these legislators considered a hotel room tax hike (favored by Governor Paul Patton for helping expand the Dr. Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in nearby Cincinnati), even though the increase might "incur the wrath of Paul's group," as two newspapers put it.[16][18]

Paul stated that Patton's argument for "revenue recovery" was merely a euphemism for taxes[19] and said that KTU would fight reelection of any pledge-breakers; Adams requested in writing that Paul's group release him from his pledge, stating that it only applied to his first term.[17] By the close of session in April, the tax increase had failed, although Patton had achieved most of his intended budget; Paul stated legislators were pressured to finalize the budget by deadline rather than to "face accusations of shutting down government".[20]

Paul often speaks on his father's behalf,[5][21] and he and his son William attended the third Republican presidential debate of 2007 in New Hampshire, as well as campaigned door-to-door in the state for his father.[22] At a New Hampshire rally with 250 in attendance (plus 30 members of his own family), Paul repeated a campaign meme by pretending to take a call from Rudy Giuliani during his remarks, and joking that Giuliani needed campaigners and wanted to borrow the Paul family.[23]

On December 16, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the *Boston Tea Party*, Paul spoke at Faneuil Hall in favor of small government principles,[24] calling for what CNN termed a "modern day revolution".[25] He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008,[6] traveling as far as Montana.[10]

2010 senatorial campaign
See also: United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010

Rand Paul campaigning in Kentucky.In the beginning of 2009, Paul was the focus of an online grassroots movement to draft him in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of his potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the L.A. Times,[citation needed] on Fox News,[citation needed] and locally in the Kentucky press.[26] Commenting on Paul's possible candidacy, Congressman Ron Paul noted that "Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator."[27]

Campaign
On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Senator Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 has matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,[28] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly stand in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,[29] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning had ultimately decided to run for re-election. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, though the news was first broken by a local Kentucky news site.[30] In celebration of the announcement, a group of Paul's supporters launched a spontaneous grassroots mini-moneybomb for the date of June 1, 2009, specifically citing it as the anniversary of Kentucky's admission to the Union.[31] Over $25,000 was raised in the one-day event.[32]

On July 28, 2009, Senator Bunning announced that he would not run for re-election, after facing insufficient fundraising.[33] This announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the seat in the Republican primary,[34] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as through newspapers in Kentucky.[35][36][37]


Rand Paul campaigning in Frankfort.On August 20, 2009, Paul's grassroots planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign for United States Senate. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours.[38] According to Paul,[39] this set a new record in Kentucky's political fundraising history in a 24 hour period.

A second moneybomb was held on September 23, 2009, to counter a D.C. fundraiser being held for primary opponent Trey Grayson, by 23 Republican United States Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bailout.[40] The theme was a UFC "fight" between Paul and "We the People" vs. Trey Grayson and the "D.C. Insiders."[41] The money bomb ended up raising $186,276 for Paul in 24 hours on September 23;[42] bringing Paul's Senate campaign's total raised since its start to over one million. On December 16, 2009, Paul's grassroots held their third major money bomb for Paul, with the theme reflecting the 236th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.[43] The money bomb raised more than $240,000 for Paul in 24 hours.[44] According to Paul, at that time, this was the second biggest fundraising day for a Kentucky primary candidate in a 24 hour period; with the first being the over $433,000 Paul raised on August 20.[45] This has since been surpassed by another money bomb for Paul on March 23.

On March 23, 2010, Paul's grassroots held a first fiscal quarter money bomb and their fourth major one for Paul to date. *The theme was the anniversary of the "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775*.[46] The money bomb ended up raising over $261,000 for Paul's campaign in 24 hours on March 23,[47] making it the second largest online fundraising day in Kentucky political history for a candidate in a primary. On April 19, 2010, a final primary money bomb was held, that raised over $100,000 in 24 hours bringing the four primary money bomb totals to just over 1,000,000 dollars 1/3 of Paul's total fund raising contributions.

*Endorsements
Paul has secured endorsements from several public figures and political organizations. They include the Downsize DC Foundation,[48] Concerned Women for America,[49] Gun Owners of America,[50] Steve Forbes,[51] FreedomWorks,[52] Sarah Palin,[53] Jim DeMint,[54] and Jim Bunning.[55]*

Primary election results

The counties carried by Paul are in yellow; counties carried by Grayson are in green.On May 18, 2010, Paul won the Republican Senatorial primary by a 23.4% margin.[56] He will face the Democratic nominee, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, in the November 2010 general election.[57]

Political views
Abortion and bioethics
*Paul believes life begins at conception and the government should play a role in protecting all human beings*. He is opposed to abortion without exception and supports a constitutional amendment to completely ban abortion.[58][59] He also opposes federal funding for abortion.[58] In the case of abortion, Rand takes a states rights position. He would overturn Roe vs Wade and allow states to make abortions illegal or legal without federal interference.[60] According to a survey offered by the organization Kentucky Right to Life, Rand is opposed to cloning and supports legislation banning human cloning and the use of embryos for research. He opposes the legalization of euthanasia and would reject an overturning of Kentucky law that prohibits euthanasia. In the case of Terry Schaivo, Rand believes she had the right to receive nutrition and hydration.[61]

Campaign finance reform
Paul opposes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act) and considers it a "dangerous piece of legislation".[62] Rand believes that lobbyists and corporations are drawn to Washington because it has so much money and power and provide benefits to their businesses. He opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates, and instead regulate the contracts given out by Congress like placing limits on corporations receiving government contracts. Additionally, Rand has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract"[62][63]

Civil liberties
Paul criticized the Bowling Green Daily News on May 30, 2002 for supporting the Fair Housing Act. He explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."[64] On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles (parts) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but opposed Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms.[65] These comments stirred controversy,[66][67][68] and brought renewed concern amongst Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election.[67][68] *The following day, Paul stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[69] Paul has also criticized the Americans with Disabilities Act, characterizing it as an overreach of the federal government.[70]  (Note; the Americans with Disabilities Act was an accomplishment of President George Herber Walker Bush).*

Economics and tax cuts
Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank and auto bailouts. Paul believes failed businesses should be allowed to fail instead of propped up by the federal government.

Paul opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the nations money supply and interest rates. He wants to allow the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports congresses constitutional role of controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill introduced by Congressman Ron Paul mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".[71]

Paul supports tax cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.[72]

Education
Paul supports eliminating the federal Department of Education and returning control of education to local communities and parents. He is a opposed to the government regulating homeschooling and believes in restoring parental rights to education.[73]

Energy
Paul supports allowing the free market to compete and choose the best forms of energy to use. He opposes subsidizing energy companies, but would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. He believes that subsidizing the energy industry will only add incentive for companies to lobby the federal government.[74]

Healthcare
*Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care*. He would repeal the HMO Act of 1973 that "drives a wedge between the patient and [one's] doctor".[75] He believes that government has driven up the cost of healthcare and causes the quality and coverage to decrease. Paul would support a free market approach to health care including tax deductions for for medical expenses. He opposes federal regulations discouraging businesses from providing coverage. He supports Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and its availability to all Americans.[75]

Illegal immigration
Paul does not support amnesty. Paul believes the United States subsidizes illegal immigration through taxpayer funded welfare and medical care. He has proposed securing the border by an underground electric fence and helicopter stations.[76]

Medical marijuana
Paul supports the legalization of medical marijuana.[77][78]

National defense
Paul believes national defense is the most important role of government. Paul supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from terrorist or rogue nations. He would not vote to close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and does not support trying terrorists in military tribunals. Paul believes in a responsible and constitutional foreign policy and would close unnecessary military bases.[79]

Same-sex marriage
Paul opposes same-sex marriage.[80]

Second Amendment
*Paul supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and would oppose all gun control legislation*.[81]


----------



## Stainmaster

boedicca said:


> Not only that, he also obviously wants an audience for his performances with sweaty male balls.
> 
> There are websites that will help him with that, but USMB is not one of them.



You must really be desperate to knock me down.  I don't get it.  A third party movement is developing to make the savior of the Tea Party/Bagger movement President of the United States, and you are tearing me down.  I am trying to be even-handed here.  It is exciting.  How long has it been since America had a third party movement that could put a leader like Rand Paul in the White House?


----------



## Defiant1

Stainmaster said:


> From the thread "Tea Party Sweeps Election."
> 
> 
> 
> Founder said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tea Party Sweeps the Elections.
> 
> To all the backbiting naysayer Liberals and Democrats, the Tea Party and their putative leader Sarah Palin have given the back of their hand across the chops.
> 
> Tea Party backed Rand Paul has now been declared the winner of the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky by a 2 to 1 majority defeating the establishment in both parties. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who ran for President, ran with the full endorsement of the Tea Party, plus the early and repeated endorsement of Sarah Palin. Rand Paul has said repeatedly that the Tea Party will help him beat the Democrat in November and he is right.
> 
> The Tea Party, after knocking off left leaning establishment-MSM Senator Bennett in Utah, has spun across the length and breadth of the nation and impacted the outcome in hundreds of races even at this early date in the off year elections.
> 
> Specter, another long time target of the Tea Party, is fighting for his life and is projected to lose his nomination battle in Pennsylvania where Obama has poured in his political capital. But should Specter survive to face the Republican in November, the Tea Party will redouble their efforts to defeat him there with good prospects of doing so.
> 
> Then there is the horrible Liberal anti-military Democrat Congressman Murtha, the guy that God took out recently. It looks like his old "safe" seat will go to another Conservative Republican supported by the Tea Party, and so it goes  everywhere.
> 
> Does the Tea Party have legs? Yes. Does it have staying power for the long haul? Yes! It it going to be a king and Queen maker in November, and  in 2012? Yes. Has it got its finger in Obama's eye? Yes!
> 
> We have now entered a new era in American political life, and Sarah Palin is at the center of it that is setting the pace that others in both parties are having to struggle to match.
> 
> Everyone wants to know, on every subject, what does Sarah have to say, and she always has something to say. This is real power, and the Republican nomination is therefore hers to lose.
> 
> In short, Obama is being crushed by this Tea Party-Sarah Palin avalanche. He is now caving in on another Tea Party demand that he send the army to the Arizona border, which will give Arizona, Sarah and TP a validation of their strategy.*
Click to expand...


If Obama is the new standard Rand Paul is over qualified.


----------



## Immanuel

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, if I sue my employer because the restroom I am assigned to is known as "the women's room" and not "the ladies room", do I have a case?  Or am I just being a super-sensitive, controlling asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this one of those, "I'm damned no matter how I answer that question", type of questions?
> 
> I have a feeling that I will be in trouble no matter how I answer that so here's my answer:
> 
> &)* w%$ h$(jy w e*_$%-e$je(^(g$ f)j^%)pp(jy e#$$^u$w%^.
> 
> Now, by the time you have deciphered that, I will be well out of range and safe... I hope!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie, you (usually) do not have to agree with me to be safe with me.  I (usually) allow for the possibility that someone just as terrific as me but in possession of different facts or life experience may have a different POV from mine.
> 
> Occassionally, I am just another intolerant asshole.
> 
> If I get that way I expect my friends to jerk my collar.
> 
> Ain't that what friends are for?
Click to expand...


That is okay, I was just yanking your chain anyway. 

Did you break the code?

Immie


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he also obviously wants an audience for his performances with sweaty male balls.
> 
> There are websites that will help him with that, but USMB is not one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must really be desperate to knock me down.  I don't get it.  A third party movement is developing to make the savior of the Tea Party/Bagger movement President of the United States, and you are tearing me down.  I am trying to be even-handed here.  It is exciting.  How long has it been since America had a third party movement that could put a leader like Rand Paul in the White House?
Click to expand...


Actually no, there is no movement to make Rand Paul the next President of the U.S.  There is a movement to make him the next Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but the only people seriously talking about him running for President are people opposed to him.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he also obviously wants an audience for his performances with sweaty male balls.
> 
> There are websites that will help him with that, but USMB is not one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must really be desperate to knock me down.  I don't get it.  A third party movement is developing to make the savior of the Tea Party/Bagger movement President of the United States, and you are tearing me down.  I am trying to be even-handed here.  It is exciting.  How long has it been since America had a third party movement that could put a leader like Rand Paul in the White House?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, there is no movement to make Rand Paul the next President of the U.S.  There is a movement to make him the next Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but the only people seriously talking about him running for President are people opposed to him.
Click to expand...


Look, I am no big fan of the Tea Party/Bagger movement, but articles like this one are showing up in the national media.  Rand Paul, (endorsed for the U. S. Senate by Sarah Palin), Tea Baggers, and a 2012 Presidential run are being discussed.  Check out Google, and think again about what the reality of a Rand Paul *OR* Paul/Palin ticket could mean to the Tea Bagger political party!  After all, why should the new generation of American politics be dragged down with the bagage of the failed Republican Party?  The Tea Bagger Party!!!  It simply boggles the mind!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must really be desperate to knock me down.  I don't get it.  A third party movement is developing to make the savior of the Tea Party/Bagger movement President of the United States, and you are tearing me down.  I am trying to be even-handed here.  It is exciting.  How long has it been since America had a third party movement that could put a leader like Rand Paul in the White House?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, there is no movement to make Rand Paul the next President of the U.S.  There is a movement to make him the next Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but the only people seriously talking about him running for President are people opposed to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I am no big fan of the Tea Party/Bagger movement, but articles like this one are showing up in the national media.  Rand Paul, (endorsed for the U. S. Senate by Sarah Palin), Tea Baggers, and a 2012 Presidential run are being discussed.  Check out Google, and think again about what the reality of a Ron Paul OR Palin/Paul ticket could mean to the Tea Bagger political party!  It simply boggles the mind!
Click to expand...


Are you confusing Ron Paul for Rand Paul?  Because yes, many of us would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but no Rand Paul supporters are seriously putting him up to run for President.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, there is no movement to make Rand Paul the next President of the U.S.  There is a movement to make him the next Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but the only people seriously talking about him running for President are people opposed to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am no big fan of the Tea Party/Bagger movement, but articles like this one are showing up in the national media.  Rand Paul, (endorsed for the U. S. Senate by Sarah Palin), Tea Baggers, and a 2012 Presidential run are being discussed.  Check out Google, and think again about what the reality of a Ron Paul OR Palin/Paul ticket could mean to the Tea Bagger political party!  It simply boggles the mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you confusing Ron Paul for Rand Paul?  Because yes, many of us would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but no Rand Paul supporters are seriously putting him up to run for President.
Click to expand...


The father, Ron Paul, is not the one making news headlines with huge bags of Tea Bagger cash flowing to propel him into the United States Senate.  It is the son, RAND PAUL.  Check out Rand Paul's Wiki bio is in post #5 of this thread.  Doesn't this sound like the ideal leader/presidential candidate for the Tea Bagger Party revolution?  What an exciting moment, an American third party candidate with 18% of the vote more than two years before the election!  The possibilities are overwhelming!

Rand Paul and the limits of the 'tea party' revolution - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I am no big fan of the Tea Party/Bagger movement, but articles like this one are showing up in the national media.  Rand Paul, (endorsed for the U. S. Senate by Sarah Palin), Tea Baggers, and a 2012 Presidential run are being discussed.  Check out Google, and think again about what the reality of a Ron Paul OR Palin/Paul ticket could mean to the Tea Bagger political party!  It simply boggles the mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing Ron Paul for Rand Paul?  Because yes, many of us would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but no Rand Paul supporters are seriously putting him up to run for President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The father, Ron Paul, is not the one making news headlines with huge bags of Tea Bagger cash flowing to propel him into the United States Senate.  It is the son, RAND PAUL.  Check out Rand Paul's Wiki bio in post #
Click to expand...


I'm aware of the differences between Ron and Rand Paul, but it's you creating the specter of a Rand Paul Presidential run just so that you can try to knock it down.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing Ron Paul for Rand Paul?  Because yes, many of us would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but no Rand Paul supporters are seriously putting him up to run for President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The father, Ron Paul, is not the one making news headlines with huge bags of Tea Bagger cash flowing to propel him into the United States Senate.  It is the son, RAND PAUL.  Check out Rand Paul's Wiki bio in post #
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm aware of the differences between Ron and Rand Paul, but it's you creating the specter of a Rand Paul Presidential run just so that you can try to knock it down.
Click to expand...


You know Kevin, I am an independent voter.  This is the second time IN THIS THREAD that I have told you I am not a big fan of the Tea Bagger revolution.  I have provided links to positive articles about Rand Paul as the leader for an effective third party movement.  

Recalling my history lessons, the last time this happened was in the 1850s when the Republican Party was born as the Whig party declined.  To have a move like that again reshuffles the political deck for America.  Can't I simply share and enjoy the excitement of the moment as history is being made without the usual put downs from the political right?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The father, Ron Paul, is not the one making news headlines with huge bags of Tea Bagger cash flowing to propel him into the United States Senate.  It is the son, RAND PAUL.  Check out Rand Paul's Wiki bio in post #
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of the differences between Ron and Rand Paul, but it's you creating the specter of a Rand Paul Presidential run just so that you can try to knock it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Kevin, I am an independent voter.  This is the second time IN THIS THREAD that I have told you I am not a big fan of the Tea Bagger revolution.  I have provided links to positive articles about Rand Paul as the leader for an effective third party movement.
> 
> Recalling my history lessons, the last time this happened was in the 1850s when the Republican Party was born as the Whig party declined.  To have a move like that again reshuffles the political deck for America.  Can't I simply share and enjoy the excitement of the moment as history is being made without the usual put downs from the political right?
Click to expand...


Nobody's putting you down.  I'm merely pointing out that there is no serious movement to have Rand run for President.


----------



## Madeline

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this one of those, "I'm damned no matter how I answer that question", type of questions?
> 
> I have a feeling that I will be in trouble no matter how I answer that so here's my answer:
> 
> &)* w%$ h$(jy w e*_$%-e$je(^(g$ f)j^%)pp(jy e#$$^u$w%^.
> 
> Now, by the time you have deciphered that, I will be well out of range and safe... I hope!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immie, you (usually) do not have to agree with me to be safe with me.  I (usually) allow for the possibility that someone just as terrific as me but in possession of different facts or life experience may have a different POV from mine.
> 
> Occassionally, I am just another intolerant asshole.
> 
> If I get that way I expect my friends to jerk my collar.
> 
> Ain't that what friends are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is okay, I was just yanking your chain anyway.
> 
> Did you break the code?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Sure did Immie.  It's a date.  You bring the monkey, I'll bring the spray cheese.

_*Winks*_


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility. GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
Click to expand...


I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.


----------



## Madeline

60 motherfucking pages of whining and whinging because the Tea Baggers don't like their party's name.  Meanwhile, very little on the bombing of a Florida Mosque, and almost nothing on the anti-American remarks Obama made just last week.

Talk about self-involved and self-important.  And all because Tea Baggers resent the dual definition of the name of their group; they don't want to share that noun with a term for a gay sex practice.

This certainly shouts "I'm a patriot and care about my nation's future" to me.

Assholes.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, I participated in a debate with thinking posters weeks ago, you parroted points made weeks ago, and I avoided debating you in a debate that already happened weeks ago.  And, now you're upset about it and say I'm running away from something in which I participated weeks ago.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE but nice rehash of your spin and avoidance tactics. I was there when that debate occured.* The debate began on the 5th (I was here in this thread before that, during it and after that) and carried over into the 6th and I posted on the 6th as I read the thread. In response you chose to attack me and have been doing so since claiming that everything I have said in this thread was "parroted" which is a LIE and has been proven to be a lie several times over. *
> How is my response one day later into a debate equal to me "parroting points made weeks ago" or weeks after a debate? Your avoidance of that debate and other points that you would rather not deal with as well as your baseless personal attacks began "weeks ago" and have continued but that's about all that you have offered since being proven WRONG by your own link and video clip. LOL
> 
> *Furthermore I have made MANY points other than the ONE debate that you seem obsessed with as you try to claim that I parroted that and therefore must have parroted everything else I have said. Fact is that you have used that one debate that you lost, after you provided the evidence that countered your own spin, to hide behind as you applied your unsubstantied claim that i parroted all of my arguments.*
> Face it once again you have been shown to be dishonest and therefore you LOSE again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooooo, still nothing original and/or of any consequence, eh?
> 
> I'm not running away yet.
Click to expand...


WOW so that's the best that you could come up with as a response after being shown to be a dishonest trolling hack? LOL read the bold type as it shines a light onto your dishonest tactics. LOL

Fact is that I read the thread from front to back like any normal person would do and responded to the posts in this thread as I came to them. I then did my own research and came up with my own responses and because you couldn't deal with the fact that you were shown to be wrong and then admitted that you were WRONG you started attacking me while lying about when I posted my responses. I didn't post them "weeks later" and that FACT proves you WRONG, AGAIN. 

Then even when I presented other arguments that had nothing to do with your false maddow claims, you LIED once again and tried to claim that I parroted everything I said and then failed to substantiate your claims when asked to do so. 

The sad thing is that you have even been so desperate that you have attacked me for quoting you and proving you wrong and dishonest. 

You were WRONG and attacking me as you run away from the content of my post because it exposes your dishonesty will not change that fact.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you MANY questions on MANY different occasions throughout this thread and you have ran away from all of them.
> 
> READ THE THREAD. Or does the fact that you have been owned by ME, someone you pretend to be superior to, with no real justification, really embarrass you that much?? LOL You went out of your way to attack ME so much in this thread with your lame attempts to tear ME down and all you have accomplished is to do that very thing to yourself. LOL You have shown that you are NOTHING but a dishonest troll who has NOTHING valid to offer and zero credibility. GJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are *vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well*.
Click to expand...


LOL Have you ever bothered to read your posts on this board?? You describe yourself pretty well or did you happen to miss that??


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air Good news: Obama using the word &#8220;teabaggers&#8221; now
> 
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong. The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party. But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY. Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.​
> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."​
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal. But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.​
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.​
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM. It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.​
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and soooooooooooooooooooo above you. It's "uncivil" to criticize them. ​
> YOU, however, are the plebes. You are the proletariat. YOU are the peasants. You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU. ​
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book. Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!! ​
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai, I don't mean to be dense as a door, but why exactly do Tea Baggers find the name "Tea Baggers" offensive? _They_ chose it...where's the insult?
> 
> I may be going way out on a limb here, but I bet Obama knows plently of insulting nouns and adjectives he can fling around when he is deliberately trying to offend someone. Why tag the man for addressing folks as they have asked to be addressed?
> 
> That kinda sorta seems _respectful_ to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah nice try at liberal spin but when conservatives say tea party, they think of the Boston Tea Party and of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> When liberals think of it, the closest they could come to patriotism is thinking about a perverse disgusting homosexual sex act that no one had ever heard of (except disgusting liberals, of course).
> 
> It speaks volumes about the difference between liberalism and conservatism.
> 
> Conservatives think of prayer, the Founding Fathers, and the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> Liberals think about disgusting homosexual sex acts.
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
Click to expand...


Uh in case you missed it, proof has already been shown that tea partiers knew the alternate meaning and used it in reference to their own movement even before it was aired on rachel maddow's program in April, thanks again for the link Si modo. LOL

Furthermore, when I think of things I don't use such a narrow and limited scope as you try to spin. I think of all possible meanings don't you do the same?? 

This debate over the term "tea bagger" and it's use by both groups has NOTHING to do with patriotism and the only thing that your spin speaks volumes about is your own desperate need to try and frame others as being unpatriotic merely because they disagree with you.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
Click to expand...


Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.

Damn, you are dense.

Stop PMing me, moron.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE but nice rehash of your spin and avoidance tactics. I was there when that debate occured.* The debate began on the 5th (I was here in this thread before that, during it and after that) and carried over into the 6th and I posted on the 6th as I read the thread. In response you chose to attack me and have been doing so since claiming that everything I have said in this thread was "parroted" which is a LIE and has been proven to be a lie several times over. *
> How is my response one day later into a debate equal to me "parroting points made weeks ago" or weeks after a debate? Your avoidance of that debate and other points that you would rather not deal with as well as your baseless personal attacks began "weeks ago" and have continued but that's about all that you have offered since being proven WRONG by your own link and video clip. LOL
> 
> *Furthermore I have made MANY points other than the ONE debate that you seem obsessed with as you try to claim that I parroted that and therefore must have parroted everything else I have said. Fact is that you have used that one debate that you lost, after you provided the evidence that countered your own spin, to hide behind as you applied your unsubstantied claim that i parroted all of my arguments.*
> Face it once again you have been shown to be dishonest and therefore you LOSE again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, still nothing original and/or of any consequence, eh?
> 
> I'm not running away yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW so that's the best that you could come up with as a response after being shown to be a dishonest trolling hack? LOL read the bold type as it shines a light onto your dishonest tactics. LOL
> 
> Fact is that I read the thread from front to back like any normal person would do and responded to the posts in this thread as I came to them. I then did my own research and came up with my own responses and because you couldn't deal with the fact that you were shown to be wrong and then admitted that you were WRONG you started attacking me while lying about when I posted my responses. I didn't post them "weeks later" and that FACT proves you WRONG, AGAIN.
> 
> Then even when I presented other arguments that had nothing to do with your false maddow claims, you LIED once again and tried to claim that I parroted everything I said and then failed to substantiate your claims when asked to do so.
> 
> The sad thing is that you have even been so desperate that you have attacked me for quoting you and proving you wrong and dishonest.
> 
> You were WRONG and attacking me as you run away from the content of my post because it exposes your dishonesty will not change that fact.
Click to expand...


STILL nothing to add?  LMAO!

Thanks for saying I run away.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, still nothing original and/or of any consequence, eh?
> 
> I'm not running away yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW so that's the best that you could come up with as a response after being shown to be a dishonest trolling hack? LOL read the bold type as it shines a light onto your dishonest tactics. LOL
> 
> Fact is that I read the thread from front to back like any normal person would do and responded to the posts in this thread as I came to them. I then did my own research and came up with my own responses and because you couldn't deal with the fact that you were shown to be wrong and then admitted that you were WRONG you started attacking me while lying about when I posted my responses. I didn't post them "weeks later" and that FACT proves you WRONG, AGAIN.
> 
> Then even when I presented other arguments that had nothing to do with your false maddow claims, you LIED once again and tried to claim that I parroted everything I said and then failed to substantiate your claims when asked to do so.
> 
> The sad thing is that you have even been so desperate that you have attacked me for quoting you and proving you wrong and dishonest.
> 
> You were WRONG and attacking me as you run away from the content of my post because it exposes your dishonesty will not change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STILL nothing to add?  LMAO!
> 
> Thanks for saying I run away.
Click to expand...


Why are you asking me when you have shown that you have nothing to add?? 

BTW thanks for running away. LOL If you weren't such a cowardly dishonest trolling hack I wouldn't have to call you out for it. 

*Now how about you actually respond to the content of my post instead of avoiding it?? Or is that too much to ask for from you?? *

You said I responded weeks later when i responded during the debate. You LIED and have nothing valid to offer so you post in the hopes that attacking will replace a valid argument because you have nothing but you know it doesn't. LOL 

BTW I think it's hilarious that I called you out for having nothing to add and proved that you have nothing so you started parroting me and claiming that I have nothing, which shows once and for all that you have NOTHING to add. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW so that's the best that you could come up with as a response after being shown to be a dishonest trolling hack? LOL read the bold type as it shines a light onto your dishonest tactics. LOL
> 
> Fact is that I read the thread from front to back like any normal person would do and responded to the posts in this thread as I came to them. I then did my own research and came up with my own responses and because you couldn't deal with the fact that you were shown to be wrong and then admitted that you were WRONG you started attacking me while lying about when I posted my responses. I didn't post them "weeks later" and that FACT proves you WRONG, AGAIN.
> 
> Then even when I presented other arguments that had nothing to do with your false maddow claims, you LIED once again and tried to claim that I parroted everything I said and then failed to substantiate your claims when asked to do so.
> 
> The sad thing is that you have even been so desperate that you have attacked me for quoting you and proving you wrong and dishonest.
> 
> You were WRONG and attacking me as you run away from the content of my post because it exposes your dishonesty will not change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STILL nothing to add?  LMAO!
> 
> Thanks for saying I run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me when you have shown that you have nothing to add??
> 
> BTW thanks for running away. LOL If you weren't such a cowardly dishonest trolling hack I wouldn't have to call you out for it.
> 
> *Now how about you actually respond to the content of my post instead of avoiding it?? Or is that too much to ask for from you?? *
> 
> You said I responded weeks later when i responded during the debate. You LIED and have nothing valid to offer so you post in the hopes that attacking will replace a valid argument because you have nothing but you know it doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that I called you out for having nothing to add and proved that you have nothing so you started parroting me and claiming that I have nothing, which shows once and for all that you have NOTHING to add. LOL
Click to expand...


Can you get to your point, please?

*filing nails and yawning*


----------



## Wicked Jester

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
Click to expand...

Christ, now that moron is stalking you in PM's?

What a fuckin' loser!


----------



## Si modo

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ, now that moron is stalking you in PM's?
> 
> What a fuckin' loser!
Click to expand...


Nah, not stalking.  That requires more than one brain cell.   

She just keeps on PMing me when she gets a rep from me. Of course, her PMs are filled with her trademark vile and hateful rhetoric that she uses in PMs.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Si modo said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Gallup shows them as mainstream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those signs reflect 'mainstream' America, we lost our way - or they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If whatever signs to which you are referring reflected the Tea Party, you would have a point.  We could play the game of protest-sign war again, though.  That's always fun, in a pointless sense.
Click to expand...


Shut up and go suck on a nut sack teabagger!


----------



## Wicked Jester

SpidermanTuba said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those signs reflect 'mainstream' America, we lost our way - or they did.
> 
> 
> 
> If whatever signs to which you are referring reflected the Tea Party, you would have a point.  We could play the game of protest-sign war again, though.  That's always fun, in a pointless sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up and go suck on a nut sack teabagger!
Click to expand...

Uh, excuse me but, you would need to get your mouth from around said nutsack before that would be possible!

Christ, liberal faggots are fuckin' idiots!


----------



## Si modo

SpidermanTuba said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those signs reflect 'mainstream' America, we lost our way - or they did.
> 
> 
> 
> If whatever signs to which you are referring reflected the Tea Party, you would have a point.  We could play the game of protest-sign war again, though.  That's always fun, in a pointless sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up and go suck on a nut sack teabagger!
Click to expand...

Democrats love to hate on free speech.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If whatever signs to which you are referring reflected the Tea Party, you would have a point.  We could play the game of protest-sign war again, though.  That's always fun, in a pointless sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up and go suck on a nut sack teabagger!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats love to hate on free speech.
Click to expand...


you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?

that kind of hate on free speech?


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up and go suck on a nut sack teabagger!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats love to hate on free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?
> 
> that kind of hate on free speech?
Click to expand...

Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.

When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.  

Unintended irony.


----------



## Rinata

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have her  number!!! I've told her the same thing many times, but she doesn't believe it. She really thinks she's super intelligent and she's as dumb as a bag of rocks. Now watch her call me names and cuss me out. That's another thing. She's so predictable and boring.
> 
> Good call on your part!!
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
Click to expand...


There you go again with another pm. I explained above that if you want to stop getting them, then you have to stop sending them, you big cry baby. Guess you like hearing from me.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again with another pm. I explained above that if you want to stop getting them, then you have to stop sending them, you big cry baby. Guess you like hearing from me.
Click to expand...

Nope.  No  PM.  It was a rep.

Moron.

Enjoy another rep, too, FYI.

Stop PMing me.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.
Click to expand...


How would you know??? You can't do it. You're not that smart.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Give liberals a little rope and they will tell you EXACTLY who and WHAT they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  And while giving them the rope, it's a great time to mind fuck with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know??? You can't do it. You're not that smart.
Click to expand...

  Did you enjoy your other rep?

I tell you, this thread is a blast.

*waiting for another PM from rinata*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats love to hate on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?
> 
> that kind of hate on free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is on you, si modo.  Free speech works two ways, and if you can't or won't speak clearly or fairly, then others _will _clear it up for you.

The height of irony.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?
> 
> that kind of hate on free speech?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is on you, si modo.  Free speech works two ways, and if you can speak clearly, then others _will _speak for you.
Click to expand...

If I can speak clearly, others will speak for me.  Ummmm, okie doke, Jake.


This thread rocks, I tell ya.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
Click to expand...


You are such a lying bitch. And don't lie about what happened months ago. It's the same thing that's happening now. 

I have 2 pm's from you that I got several minutes ago that are just sitting in my in box. I'm going to delete them because they will bore me, as usual. I cannot figure out what game you're playing. But guess what?? I doubt that anyone cares.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> STILL nothing to add?  LMAO!
> 
> Thanks for saying I run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me when you have shown that you have nothing to add??
> 
> BTW thanks for running away. LOL If you weren't such a cowardly dishonest trolling hack I wouldn't have to call you out for it.
> 
> *Now how about you actually respond to the content of my post instead of avoiding it?? Or is that too much to ask for from you?? *
> 
> You said I responded weeks later when i responded during the debate. You LIED and have nothing valid to offer so you post in the hopes that attacking will replace a valid argument because you have nothing but you know it doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that I called you out for having nothing to add and proved that you have nothing so you started parroting me and claiming that I have nothing, which shows once and for all that you have NOTHING to add. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get to your point, please?
> 
> *filing nails and yawning*
Click to expand...


The doctor is making a total fool out of you. Why don't you give it up?? You are really embarrassing yourself in front of everybody.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a lying bitch. And don't lie about what happened months ago. It's the same thing that's happening now.
> 
> I have 2 pm's from you that I got several minutes ago that are just sitting in my in box. I'm going to delete them because they will bore me, as usual. I cannot figure out what game you're playing. But guess what?? I doubt that anyone cares.
Click to expand...


No, you have two reps from me.  You PMed me in return.  

Feel free to post them.

Stop PMing me.

Moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is on you, si modo.  Free speech works two ways, and if you can speak clearly, then others _will _speak for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I can speak clearly, others will speak for me.  Ummmm, okie doke, Jake.
> 
> 
> This thread rocks, I tell ya.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving that you are reading carefully. It was a test to see if you understand what you read.  Now let's see if you can write clearly, because other folks will continue to make you foolish if you don't catch up.

No need to thank for me for the help.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is on you, si modo.  Free speech works two ways, and if you can speak clearly, then others _will _speak for you.
> 
> 
> 
> If I can speak clearly, others will speak for me.  Ummmm, okie doke, Jake.
> 
> 
> This thread rocks, I tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving that you are reading carefully. It was a test to see if you understand what you read.  Now let's see if you can write clearly, because other folks will continue to make you foolish if you don't catch up.
> 
> No need to thank for me for the help.
Click to expand...

No, I thank you very much for that.  And, for this, now.  I don't know where any of us would be without your pop quizzes, Jake.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww.  Rinata is pissed off at Si modo because she was ridiculed for her absolute idiocy.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.  Your PMs are vile and hateful.  Plus, they are seriously moronic on their face.  They reflect you well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
Click to expand...


Do you actually think that I am the only one that knows you are lying like a rug??? You send the same pm's to other people that you send to me. Did you not even think of that when you started your hate campaign?? You know, there is something wrong with you.


----------



## Rinata

Wicked Jester said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You are *not* responding to a PM I sent you.  LMAO!  I sent you ONE PM months ago to tell you to stop PMing me.  I even posted that PM.  YOU keep sending ME PMs when you get a rep from me.  I only rep you.  I don't PM you.
> 
> Damn, you are dense.
> 
> Stop PMing me, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ, now that moron is stalking you in PM's?
> 
> What a fuckin' loser!
Click to expand...


You don't know what you're talkng about. And you wouldn't recognize a loser if they kicked you in the ass. Anybody that takes this nut's side is just as crazy as she is.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never pm you unless I am responding to a pm that you sent to me. So quit whining and grow up. If you can't take it, then don't send me your nasty pm's. Is that too difficult for you to understand??? And remember that the tone of the response you get is going to match the tone of what you say. Do you think you're going to call people vicious names and they are going to respond with, "How you doing"?? Damn, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with another pm. I explained above that if you want to stop getting them, then you have to stop sending them, you big cry baby. Guess you like hearing from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  No  PM.  It was a rep.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Enjoy another rep, too, FYI.
> 
> Stop PMing me.
Click to expand...


Let me explain this to you again. In the right hand corner at the top of the screen, there is an indicator that says how many private messages have been received. Private messages. Get it??? PM's, you dumb cow. When I open them, there are your stupid messages calling me names and telling me the points that I am losing from your stupid neg rep. NOW do you get it??


----------



## L.K.Eder

si modo wins, again. what, i will never know. but it sure has nothing to do with science, class, honesty, logic or social grace.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of the differences between Ron and Rand Paul, but it's you creating the specter of a Rand Paul Presidential run just so that you can try to knock it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Kevin, I am an independent voter.  This is the second time IN THIS THREAD that I have told you I am not a big fan of the Tea Bagger revolution.  I have provided links to positive articles about Rand Paul as the leader for an effective third party movement.
> 
> Recalling my history lessons, the last time this happened was in the 1850s when the Republican Party was born as the Whig party declined.  To have a move like that again reshuffles the political deck for America.  Can't I simply share and enjoy the excitement of the moment as history is being made without the usual put downs from the political right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody's putting you down.  I'm merely pointing out that there is no serious movement to have Rand run for President.
Click to expand...


And, I am supplying links to indicate there is talk of Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate.
Why so sensitive, I should think you would support a Rand Paul Presidential candidacy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HIiUQd2gA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HIiUQd2gA[/ame]
In this clip, Rand Paul is baiting President Barack Obama to come to Kentucky.  Sounds like a Presidential candidate to me!


----------



## JakeStarkey

L.K.Eder said:


> si modo wins, again. what, i will never know. but it sure has nothing to do with science, class, honesty, logic or social grace.



maybe a kewpie doll with little Rushbo cupid lips.  that'd turn si on.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with another pm. I explained above that if you want to stop getting them, then you have to stop sending them, you big cry baby. Guess you like hearing from me.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  No  PM.  It was a rep.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Enjoy another rep, too, FYI.
> 
> Stop PMing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this to you again. In the right hand corner at the top of the screen, there is an indicator that says how many private messages have been received. Private messages. Get it??? PM's, you dumb cow. When I open them, there are your stupid messages calling me names and telling me the points that I am losing from your stupid neg rep. NOW do you get it??
Click to expand...


Liar.  I haven't PMed you except once and that was months ago to tell YOU to stop PMing me, and I posted that.  I have repped you.

You can't do a thing about getting reps.  You CAN turn off your automated PM notification of reps.  YOU choose to receive them.

Moron.

Stop PMing me.  

Note: This is an automated message.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  No  PM.  It was a rep.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Enjoy another rep, too, FYI.
> 
> Stop PMing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain this to you again. In the right hand corner at the top of the screen, there is an indicator that says how many private messages have been received. Private messages. Get it??? PM's, you dumb cow. When I open them, there are your stupid messages calling me names and telling me the points that I am losing from your stupid neg rep. NOW do you get it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  I haven't PMed you except once and that was months ago to tell YOU to stop PMing me, and I posted that.  I have repped you.
> 
> You can't do a thing about getting reps.  You CAN turn off your automated PM notification of reps.  YOU choose to receive them.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Stop PMing me.
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
Click to expand...


Quit playing games, take your meds, and go back to your padded room.


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain this to you again. In the right hand corner at the top of the screen, there is an indicator that says how many private messages have been received. Private messages. Get it??? PM's, you dumb cow. When I open them, there are your stupid messages calling me names and telling me the points that I am losing from your stupid neg rep. NOW do you get it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  I haven't PMed you except once and that was months ago to tell YOU to stop PMing me, and I posted that.  I have repped you.
> 
> You can't do a thing about getting reps.  You CAN turn off your automated PM notification of reps.  YOU choose to receive them.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Stop PMing me.
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit playing games, take your meds, and go back to your padded room.
Click to expand...


Stop PMing me.

Note:  This is an automated message.  





I kid you not.  The idiot sent me yet another PM.

Moron.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Kevin, I am an independent voter.  This is the second time IN THIS THREAD that I have told you I am not a big fan of the Tea Bagger revolution.  I have provided links to positive articles about Rand Paul as the leader for an effective third party movement.
> 
> Recalling my history lessons, the last time this happened was in the 1850s when the Republican Party was born as the Whig party declined.  To have a move like that again reshuffles the political deck for America.  Can't I simply share and enjoy the excitement of the moment as history is being made without the usual put downs from the political right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's putting you down.  I'm merely pointing out that there is no serious movement to have Rand run for President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, I am supplying links to indicate there is talk of Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate.
> Why so sensitive, I should think you would support a Rand Paul Presidential candidacy.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HIiUQd2gA]YouTube - Rand Paul To Democrats: "Please, Please Bring President Obama To Kentucky"[/ame]
> In this clip, Rand Paul is baiting President Barack Obama to come to Kentucky.  Sounds like a Presidential candidate to me!
Click to expand...


He's baiting Obama to come and campaign on behalf of his Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, not to come campaign against Rand for President.  Yes, I would support Rand for President, but I think there's better candidates.  His father for starters, and Gary Johnson.  Both have the political experience, whereas Rand has never held elected office.  I also think they're both better on the issues, in general, than Rand.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's putting you down.  I'm merely pointing out that there is no serious movement to have Rand run for President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, I am supplying links to indicate there is talk of Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate.
> Why so sensitive, I should think you would support a Rand Paul Presidential candidacy.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5HIiUQd2gA]YouTube - Rand Paul To Democrats: "Please, Please Bring President Obama To Kentucky"[/ame]
> In this clip, Rand Paul is baiting President Barack Obama to come to Kentucky.  Sounds like a Presidential candidate to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's baiting Obama to come and campaign on behalf of his Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, not to come campaign against Rand for President.  Yes, I would support Rand for President, but I think there's better candidates.  His father for starters, and Gary Johnson.  Both have the political experience, whereas Rand has never held elected office.  I also think they're both better on the issues, in general, than Rand.
Click to expand...


Momentum is building in the Tea Bagger revolution.  It is probably premature, but it would not surprise me to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin as the 2012 candidates of both the Repulbican and Tea Bagger Partys.  It makes sense in terms of attracting voters, and after John McCain the Republicans need "hot" candidates like Paul and Palin.  

I think the Republican Party through it's eight years of arogance coupled with bland politics needs someone to draw attention from the colorful Obama/Biden package.  As an Indy, I would love strong choices in 2012.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I am supplying links to indicate there is talk of Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate.
> Why so sensitive, I should think you would support a Rand Paul Presidential candidacy.
> 
> YouTube - Rand Paul To Democrats: "Please, Please Bring President Obama To Kentucky"
> In this clip, Rand Paul is baiting President Barack Obama to come to Kentucky.  Sounds like a Presidential candidate to me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's baiting Obama to come and campaign on behalf of his Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, not to come campaign against Rand for President.  Yes, I would support Rand for President, but I think there's better candidates.  His father for starters, and Gary Johnson.  Both have the political experience, whereas Rand has never held elected office.  I also think they're both better on the issues, in general, than Rand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Momentum is building in the Tea Bagger revolution.  It is probably premature, but it would not surprise me to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin as the 2012 candidates of both the Repulbican and Tea Bagger Partys.  It makes sense in terms of attracting voters, and after John McCain the Republicans need "hot" candidates like Paul and Palin.
> 
> I think the Republican Party through it's eight years of arogance coupled with bland politics needs someone to draw attention from the colorful Obama/Biden package.  As an Indy, I would love strong choices in 2012.
Click to expand...


Rand Paul will not a be a Presidential candidate in 2012.


----------



## Stainmaster

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's baiting Obama to come and campaign on behalf of his Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, not to come campaign against Rand for President.  Yes, I would support Rand for President, but I think there's better candidates.  His father for starters, and Gary Johnson.  Both have the political experience, whereas Rand has never held elected office.  I also think they're both better on the issues, in general, than Rand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Momentum is building in the Tea Bagger revolution.  It is probably premature, but it would not surprise me to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin as the 2012 candidates of both the Repulbican and Tea Bagger Partys.  It makes sense in terms of attracting voters, and after John McCain the Republicans need "hot" candidates like Paul and Palin.
> 
> I think the Republican Party through it's eight years of arogance coupled with bland politics needs someone to draw attention from the colorful Obama/Biden package.  As an Indy, I would love strong choices in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul will not a be a Presidential candidate in 2012.
Click to expand...


Are you speaking as an officer in the RNC, or a Tea Bagger?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Stainmaster said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Momentum is building in the Tea Bagger revolution.  It is probably premature, but it would not surprise me to see Rand Paul and Sarah Palin as the 2012 candidates of both the Repulbican and Tea Bagger Partys.  It makes sense in terms of attracting voters, and after John McCain the Republicans need "hot" candidates like Paul and Palin.
> 
> I think the Republican Party through it's eight years of arogance coupled with bland politics needs someone to draw attention from the colorful Obama/Biden package.  As an Indy, I would love strong choices in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul will not a be a Presidential candidate in 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you speaking as an officer in the RNC, or a Tea Bagger?
Click to expand...


I am speaking as someone with common sense.  Call it a bold prediction, if you'd like.


----------



## Phreethought

I really liked how he said it was "unamerican" to hold BRITISH PETROLEUM responsible for their major fuck up.

I also liked how he wants a constitutional declaration of war against Afghanistan. Too bad we are not at war with Afghanistan.

It should be unsettling that Rand Paul does not understand the concept of negligence with regard to BP and does not understand the U.S. Constitution with regard to Afghanistan.  And yet it's not unsettling for lots of people.  That is even more unsettling.

What is going on with Kentucky's educational system that the state's residents could vote in droves for this hack?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> I really liked how he said it was "unamerican" to hold BRITISH PETROLEUM responsible for their major fuck up.
> 
> I also liked how he wants a constitutional declaration of war against Afghanistan. Too bad we are not at war with Afghanistan.
> 
> It should be unsettling that Rand Paul does not understand the concept of negligence with regard to BP and does not understand the U.S. Constitution with regard to Afghanistan.  And yet it's not unsettling for lots of people.  That is even more unsettling.
> 
> What is going on with Kentucky's educational system that the state's residents could vote in droves for this hack?



Which isn't what he said regarding BP.

If we're not at war with Afghanistan our troops should probably be getting out of there.


----------



## Stainmaster

Phreethought said:


> I really liked how he said it was "unamerican" to hold BRITISH PETROLEUM responsible for their major fuck up.
> 
> I also liked how he wants a constitutional declaration of war against Afghanistan. Too bad we are not at war with Afghanistan.
> 
> It should be unsettling that Rand Paul does not understand the concept of negligence with regard to BP and does not understand the U.S. Constitution with regard to Afghanistan.  And yet it's not unsettling for lots of people.  That is even more unsettling.
> 
> What is going on with Kentucky's educational system that the state's residents could vote in droves for this hack?



Well, Phreethought, consider if the Tea Baggers and/or conservatives left the Republican Party.  It would be very difficult to win an election for either a Tea Bagger or a Republican.  Do you think maybe the moderate Republicans might take their party back?  And, politically what would happen to the blue Dems and their wishy-washy politics?  When you think about it, who would have the most to gain if the Tea Baggers split off into a third party, the Democrats or the Independents?


----------



## Queen

Phreethought said:


> What is going on with Kentucky's educational system that the state's residents could vote in droves for this hack?



They didn't.

The guy who lost the Democratic primary got more votes than Rand Paul.


----------



## Queen

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Which isn't what he said regarding BP.



Yes it is. 



> "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America.""I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Queen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which isn't what he said regarding BP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America.""I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Holding BP responsible is not the same as saying you're going to keep your boot on their throat, so no Rand didn't say what Phreethought said he said.


----------



## Stainmaster

> Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?
> 
> Has the Tea Party become a political party?  Is Rand Paul the Tea Party candidate for President in 2012?
> 
> Rand Paul and the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?*​



A Rand Paul, Sarah Palin ticket in 2012 could be the answer for Republicans and Tea Baggers alike.


----------



## Phreethought

Kevin, he said it was "unamerican" for Obama to criticize BP.  It's been rather widely reported.

Do you agree with him?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> Kevin, he said it was "unamerican" for Obama to criticize BP.  It's been rather widely reported.
> 
> Do you agree with him?



No, he said it was unamerican to say that we're going to keep our boots on BP's throat, and no I don't think it's the government's place to say such nonsense.


----------



## Samson

Stainmaster said:


> Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?



Who is _*NOT*_ "White House Material?"


----------



## Phreethought

Nonsense?  Do you believe BP was not negligent?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> Nonsense?  Do you believe BP was not negligent?



Well we don't know what happened yet, so I'm willing to hold off on my criticism until the facts are known.  It's not the job of the President or the administration to talk about keeping their boots on anybody's throat, especially before we have any of the facts.


----------



## Samson

Phreethought said:


> Nonsense?  Do you believe BP was not negligent?




I believe BP was not negligent.

Can you tell me what DOI, OSHA, EPA, or any other precautions they ignored?


----------



## rdean

Stainmaster said:


> Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?
> 
> Has the Tea Party become a political party?  Is Rand Paul the Tea Party candidate for President in 2012?
> 
> Rand Paul and the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?*​



How many blacks do you think would vote for him now?


----------



## Phreethought

Here are just a few questions for you guys:

Where was BP's containment barge and response crew? 

Why was the containment boom laid so damn late, too late and too little?

Why is it that the US Navy is hauling in 12 miles of rubber boom and fielding seven skimmers, instead of BP?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> Here are just a few questions for you guys:
> 
> Where was BP's containment barge and response crew?
> 
> Why was the containment boom laid so damn late, too late and too little?
> 
> Why is it that the US Navy is hauling in 12 miles of rubber boom and fielding seven skimmers, instead of BP?



Because BP obviously thought it'd be in their best interest to pour hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean everyday.


----------



## Phreethought

The oil company told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight privately that the well failed a key pressure test just hours before it exploded on April 20.  The test indicated pressure was building up in the well, which could indicate oil or gas was seeping in and could lead to an explosion, said Waxman.  "Yet it appears the companies did not suspend operations, and now 11 workers are dead and the Gulf faces an environmental catastrophe," he said, asking why work wasn't stopped on the well.

But how dare our government take a strong anti-business position such as demanding accountability!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> The oil company told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight privately that the well failed a key pressure test just hours before it exploded on April 20.  The test indicated pressure was building up in the well, which could indicate oil or gas was seeping in and could lead to an explosion, said Waxman.  "Yet it appears the companies did not suspend operations, and now 11 workers are dead and the Gulf faces an environmental catastrophe," he said, asking why work wasn't stopped on the well.
> 
> But how dare our government take a strong anti-business position such as demanding accountability!



They weren't demanding accountability, they said they're going to "keep their boots on BP's throat."  That's something the mob would say, which I guess fits the government.


----------



## rdean

Samson said:


> Phreethought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense?  Do you believe BP was not negligent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe BP was not negligent.
> 
> Can you tell me what DOI, OSHA, EPA, or any other precautions they ignored?
Click to expand...


Mine Tragedy Raises Questions About Bush Administrations Lack of Safety Enforcement
January 05, 2006

Jan. 5The Sago coal mine in Upshur County, W.Va., where 12 miners were killed after a Jan. 3 explosion more than two miles from the mine mouth has a history of serious safety violations. Yet, according to government records, the mines owners have escaped significant fines. 

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration has cut funding and staff at the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the federal agency in charge of enforcing the nations mine safety laws. The Bush administration has eliminated 170 jobs at MSHA and proposed to cut the MSHA budget in fiscal year 2006 by some $4.9 million in real dollar terms

AFL-CIO News: Mine Tragedy Raises Questions About Bush Administration&rsquo;s Lack of Safety Enforcement

A little more than a year after taking office, the Obama administration and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis have taken significant steps to repair the damage to workplace safety and health left behind after eight years of the Bush administration.

For eight years under the Bush Administration, corporate officials and management representatives headed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Bushs first MSHA head, David Lauriski, was chief safety officer at Emery Minings Wilberg, Utah, mine in 1984 when an explosion killed 27 coal miners. The blast,  says Kaplan, was later attributed to numerous violations at the mine.

Todays Workplace  After 8 Years of Bush Neglect, Job Safety Gets New Boost from Obama, Solis

April 18, 2002
New Workplace Safety Policy Urges Voluntary Compliance
By Katrina C. Arabe
The Bush administration has created a stir with its new workplace safety policy. Whether you cheer or jeer depends upon which side of the workplace coin you're on.

The Bush administration recently announced its new workplace safety policy, which is creating controversy by emphasizing the voluntary effort of employers to curb work-related injuries. Business advocates and Republicans believe the policy is a fair one since it will not put undue financial strain on business owners.

Near the end of its term, the Clinton administration had put forth an ergonomic safety policy that was later repealed by Congress under the early Bush administration.

New Workplace Safety Policy Urges Voluntary Compliance : IMT Industry Market Trends

EPA's Voluntary Compliance is a Government Shell Game

The level of pollution clouding the EPA's focus was made abundantly clear by Congressional testimony submitted November 8th, 2007, by Stephen L. Johnson, the Bush-appointed director of the Agency. In his testimony, Johnson argued that the EPA should not have to regulate CO2 emissions as pollutants, even though a recent court decision classified CO2 emissions from automobiles as a regulated pollutant under existing law.

EPA's Voluntary Compliance is a Government Shell Game - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

-------Hey, don't look at me.  These aren't my words.  I didn't say a thing.


----------



## Phreethought

Oh call the waaahmulance.  Obama used some unsavory words.  Sweet platform, Rand!  Get America back on track by coming out against metaphors.  I mean, it's clear Obama was really sending a signal to his henchmen to off some BP execes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> Oh call the waaahmulance.  Obama used some unsavory words.  Sweet platform, Rand!  Get America back on track by coming out against metaphors.  I mean, it's clear Obama was really sending a signal to his henchmen to off some BP execes.



The point being that it's not his job in the first place.


----------



## Phreethought

C'mon, Kevin.  You really think our President should stay mum about a preventable disaster that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?

Maybe you shouldn't post while drunk.

Perhaps in the morning when you sober up you can answer my substantive questions about BP's misfeasance.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phreethought said:


> C'mon, Kevin.  You really think our President should stay mum about a preventable disaster that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't post while drunk.
> 
> Perhaps in the morning when you sober up you can answer my substantive questions about BP's misfeasance.



I see nothing in the Constitution that says it's the President's job to wag his finger when a business has an accident, and it's not BP's fault it's costing taxpayers money.  It's the government's fault for getting involved.

I don't drink.


----------



## Phreethought

You sure you want to commit to the principle that a president can only do what is affirmatively authorized in the Constitution?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> STILL nothing to add?  LMAO!
> 
> Thanks for saying I run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me when you have shown that you have nothing to add??
> 
> BTW thanks for running away. LOL If you weren't such a cowardly dishonest trolling hack I wouldn't have to call you out for it.
> 
> *Now how about you actually respond to the content of my post instead of avoiding it?? Or is that too much to ask for from you?? *
> 
> You said I responded weeks later when i responded during the debate. You LIED and have nothing valid to offer so you post in the hopes that attacking will replace a valid argument because you have nothing but you know it doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that I called you out for having nothing to add and proved that you have nothing so you started parroting me and claiming that I have nothing, which shows once and for all that you have NOTHING to add. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get to your point, please?
> 
> *filing nails and yawning*
Click to expand...


My point was made, you are and were wrong and even admitted to that FACT. That is all that needs to be said. LOL


----------



## Samson

rdean said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?
> 
> Has the Tea Party become a political party?  Is Rand Paul the Tea Party candidate for President in 2012?
> 
> Rand Paul and the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many blacks do you think would vote for him now?
Click to expand...


Correct: He shouldn't be honest in his reply, rather he should pander to each demographic until he's in office, _then_ claim to have "mis-spoken" and apologize for his transgression.


----------



## Samson

Phreethought said:


> C'mon, Kevin.  You really think our President should stay mum about a preventable disaster that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't post while drunk.
> 
> Perhaps in the morning when you sober up you can answer my substantive questions about BP's misfeasance.



You do realize you're derailing the thread?

Since you're a noob, I'm advising that you could begin a BP thread (among the many that already exist). Otherwise, post something about your opinion regarding the OP.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me when you have shown that you have nothing to add??
> 
> BTW thanks for running away. LOL If you weren't such a cowardly dishonest trolling hack I wouldn't have to call you out for it.
> 
> *Now how about you actually respond to the content of my post instead of avoiding it?? Or is that too much to ask for from you?? *
> 
> You said I responded weeks later when i responded during the debate. You LIED and have nothing valid to offer so you post in the hopes that attacking will replace a valid argument because you have nothing but you know it doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I think it's hilarious that I called you out for having nothing to add and proved that you have nothing so you started parroting me and claiming that I have nothing, which shows once and for all that you have NOTHING to add. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you get to your point, please?
> 
> *filing nails and yawning*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was made, you are and were wrong and even admitted to that FACT. That is all that needs to be said. LOL
Click to expand...


Nah, you made no point.  You parroted the points of others.

Do you have any point to make?  (Note that verb tense.)  Or, you just have to get your fix of bandwidth again?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats love to hate on free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?
> 
> that kind of hate on free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
Click to expand...


Again, Do you read your own posts?? They are full of hate and personal attacks for those who disagree with you and your warped biased and hypocritical OPINIONS while you fail to substantiate your claims. 

The other poster who you try to call out for hate was merely returning what you were trying to dish out. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen and don't come whining and crying about "hate" coming back at you after that is all you seem to be capable of presenting.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like excluding people with anti-iraq war t-shirts from bush's speech?
> 
> that kind of hate on free speech?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Do you read your own posts?? They are full of hate and personal attacks for those who disagree with you and your warped biased and hypocritical OPINIONS while you fail to substantiate your claims.
> 
> The other poster who you try to call out for hate was merely returning what you were trying to dish out. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen and don't come whining and crying about "hate" coming back at you after that is all you seem to be capable of presenting.
Click to expand...

Oh, I guess I can't take the heat because I keep running away.


----------



## Stephanie

Lefty liberal Democrats are the perfect goosestepping Progressives tools.

I guess they got tired of going after Rush, Beck, Palin, Fox news..

they now have a NEW TARGET their masters told them to go after..


----------



## Samson

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's putting you down.  I'm merely pointing out that there is no serious movement to have Rand run for President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, I am supplying links to indicate there is talk of Rand Paul as a Presidential candidate.
> Why so sensitive, I should think you would support a Rand Paul Presidential candidacy.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's baiting Obama to come and campaign on behalf of his Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, not to come campaign against Rand for President.  Yes, I would support Rand for President, but I think there's better candidates.  His father for starters, and Gary Johnson.  Both have the political experience, whereas Rand has never held elected office.  I also think they're both better on the issues, in general, than Rand.
Click to expand...


You're giving Rand alot of credit for crafting a political fish trap for Obama.

Frankly, I doubt his intent was t do anymore than speak for a constituancy that is chaffing under government regulations who have evolved well beyond their original intent. The spirit of federal statues designed to protect minorities has been bastardised, e.g., NATIONAL BORDERS cannot be protected if we identify illegal migrants as a minority.

Sadly, Rand seems to have inherited his father's curse for being able to insert his foot into his mouth, and then pushing it in up past the knee. Given this, his chances for running for office needing a wide constituancy are slim.

What interests me is the growing concern (Anxiouty?) that some in the media have about the effect of the Tea Party's influance on an election still more than 2 years away. They clearly see Obama as standing on VERY thin ice.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you get to your point, please?
> 
> *filing nails and yawning*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was made, you are and were wrong and even admitted to that FACT. That is all that needs to be said. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you made no point. * You parroted the points of others.*
> 
> Do you have any point to make?  (Note that verb tense.)  Or, you just have to get your fix of bandwidth again?
Click to expand...


Repeating that false claim over and over again does not make it true anymore that it did the last few times that you repeated that LIE. 

Points have been made you just can't handle the truth and can only attack in lieu of presenting a real argument. 

at this point in time, my point is that you are and were wrong and even admitted to that fact. 
You claimed I responded "weeks after" the original debate when that is a LIE.
You claimed I parroted ALL of my arguments and that is a LIE.
You claimed I didn't ask questions in response to a thread that had several questions within it and that is a LIE. 

and those are just a few of the lies that you have told in thsi thread. FACT is that you are big on making claims but when push comes to shove you present NOTHING of substance to support your claims and can only attack because you have NOTHING valid to offer.


----------



## Samson

Stephanie said:


> Lefty liberal Democrats are the perfect goosestepping Progressives tools.
> 
> I guess they got tired of going after Rush, Beck, Palin, Fox news..
> 
> they now have a NEW TARGET their masters told them to go after..



By this-time-next-year they'll be afraid to fall asleep because Feddy Krugar may decide to run for president on a Tea Party Ticket.


----------



## Truthmatters

He is a "target" because his ideas made him a target.

He has crack pot views that the American voter will never vote for.

Those views should hit the light of day.

There is not one fucking thing wrong with learnign about what a candidate believes.

You people are soo devoted to failed ideas you turn your morals into pretzels.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was made, you are and were wrong and even admitted to that FACT. That is all that needs to be said. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you made no point. * You parroted the points of others.*
> 
> Do you have any point to make?  (Note that verb tense.)  Or, you just have to get your fix of bandwidth again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that false claim over and over again does not make it true anymore that it did the last few times that you repeated that LIE.
> 
> Points have been made you just can't handle the truth and can only attack in lieu of presenting a real argument.
> 
> at this point in time, my point is that you are and were wrong and even admitted to that fact.
> You claimed I responded "weeks after" the original debate when that is a LIE.
> You claimed I parroted ALL of my arguments and that is a LIE.
> You claimed I didn't ask questions in response to a thread that had several questions within it and that is a LIE.
> 
> and those are just a few of the lies that you have told in thsi thread. FACT is that you are big on making claims but when push comes to shove you present NOTHING of substance to support your claims and can only attack because you have NOTHING valid to offer.
Click to expand...


Sooooo, you still have no point.


----------



## Stephanie

Truthmatters said:


> He is a "target" because his ideas made him a target.
> 
> He has crack pot views that the American voter will never vote for.
> 
> Those views should hit the light of day.
> 
> There is not one fucking thing wrong with learnign about what a candidate believes.
> 
> *You people are soo devoted to failed ideas you turn your morals into pretzels*.


----------



## Samson

Truthmatters said:


> He is a "target" because his ideas made him a target.



I wasn't aware he was a "target," but it is telling that in America you can become a "target" because of your "ideas."

Perhaps he should be sent to a "Re-education Camp?"


----------



## bodecea

Stainmaster said:


> Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?
> 
> Has the Tea Party become a political party?  Is Rand Paul the Tea Party candidate for President in 2012?
> 
> Rand Paul and the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rand Paul, the Tea Party/Bagger new star, is he White House material?*​



Is that a halo?


----------



## rham

Maher is pothead that caters, not to an elite of intelligence as he would like to believe, but to a cheering bunch of imbecils, who never traveled outside the USA, so they know very little.  He hates Texas and calls Texans stupid.  Why then Texas thrives and California is bankrupt?  Where do the idiots live?

He could be funny if he was not so obviously vicious.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Stainmuster, why are you so afraid of Rand Paul?


----------



## jillian

Lonestar_logic said:


> Stainmuster, why are you so afraid of Rand Paul?



i doubt that anyone is 'afraid' of him. i'm fairly sure that most of us think he's naive and assume he'll continue to make himself look out of touch with reality.


----------



## Samson

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmuster, why are you so afraid of Rand Paul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt that anyone is 'afraid' of him. i'm fairly sure that most of us think he's naive and assume he'll continue to make himself look out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...



Oh, how lovely are those innocents in the early spring, when flowers bloom, and the breeze is so fair.......

Stainmaster is in Lurve.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmuster, why are you so afraid of Rand Paul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt that anyone is 'afraid' of him. i'm fairly sure that most of us think he's naive and assume he'll continue to make himself look out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...


I don't.


----------



## Stainmaster

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmuster, why are you so afraid of Rand Paul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt that anyone is 'afraid' of him. i'm fairly sure that most of us think he's naive and assume he'll continue to make himself look out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...


As an open-minded independent, I am not afraid of Rand Paul.  I think it is exciting that the Republican Party, (what is left of it), would split.  I welcome the idea of Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Baggers getting together to offer "a new approach," to American Government.  It would be so much easier to get all those 'like thinking' Tea Baggers in one place, and hold them responsible like other American political parties.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

And you said that with a straight face. But I'm not buying your bullshit, I think you're an idiot liberal.


----------



## Stainmaster

Lonestar_logic said:


> And you said that with a straight face. But I'm not buying your bullshit, I think you're an idiot liberal.



You bet I can say that with a straight face.  You act as if I care what you think about me.

"Idiot Liberal," you say???????  What exactly would that be?  Please express yourself freely, as an Indy I am always hanging on the words of some USMB member to help me understand myself better.  After all, Lonestar_Logic, where else is there to turn for advice besides you?


----------



## JimH52

So who began wearing sidearms to political rallies first?  The BAGGERS are desperate!


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the kind of hate from Democrats that I just quoted.
> 
> When I want you to speak for me, I'll let you know.
> 
> Unintended irony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Do you read your own posts?? They are full of hate and personal attacks for those who disagree with you and your warped biased and hypocritical OPINIONS while you fail to substantiate your claims.
> 
> The other poster who you try to call out for hate was merely returning what you were trying to dish out. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen and don't come whining and crying about "hate" coming back at you after that is all you seem to be capable of presenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I guess I can't take the heat because I keep running away.
Click to expand...


Nope you "can't take the heat" because posting nonresponsive personal attacks as you avoid proving your own claims IS running away from the debate. 
If you can't prove your own claims then why make them??


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you made no point. * You parroted the points of others.*
> 
> Do you have any point to make?  (Note that verb tense.)  Or, you just have to get your fix of bandwidth again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that false claim over and over again does not make it true anymore that it did the last few times that you repeated that LIE.
> 
> Points have been made you just can't handle the truth and can only attack in lieu of presenting a real argument.
> 
> at this point in time, my point is that you are and were wrong and even admitted to that fact.
> You claimed I responded "weeks after" the original debate when that is a LIE.
> You claimed I parroted ALL of my arguments and that is a LIE.
> You claimed I didn't ask questions in response to a thread that had several questions within it and that is a LIE.
> 
> and those are just a few of the lies that you have told in thsi thread. FACT is that you are big on making claims but when push comes to shove you present NOTHING of substance to support your claims and can only attack because you have NOTHING valid to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooooo, you still have no point.
Click to expand...


Aw, more of your limited wit as you prove my point by ignoring facts that you don't like. How typical.


----------



## Madeline

Nothing works in the Tea Baggers' favor more than an artificial, homophobic, self-induced, 1000% bullshit, super-sensitivity over the name _they_  freaking picked for their own group.  I am just DYING to meet people who foam at the mouth over dipshit like this.

Yes, I have always wanted to begin collecting prissy hand-wringers as political allies.  No doubt we have so MUCH in common.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqOZ-i3ISX4]YouTube - Bill Maher on the Tea Baggers Pining for the 1950s[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeN0JRFGPD0]YouTube - Befuddled Teabaggers at Cleveland Tea Party[/ame]

You Tea Baggers have somewhat bigger problems, if you EVER want to mature into a viable political party.

Get. Over. It. You're. Not. 12. Year. Olds.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that false claim over and over again does not make it true anymore that it did the last few times that you repeated that LIE.
> 
> Points have been made you just can't handle the truth and can only attack in lieu of presenting a real argument.
> 
> at this point in time, my point is that you are and were wrong and even admitted to that fact.
> You claimed I responded "weeks after" the original debate when that is a LIE.
> You claimed I parroted ALL of my arguments and that is a LIE.
> You claimed I didn't ask questions in response to a thread that had several questions within it and that is a LIE.
> 
> and those are just a few of the lies that you have told in thsi thread. FACT is that you are big on making claims but when push comes to shove you present NOTHING of substance to support your claims and can only attack because you have NOTHING valid to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, you still have no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, more of your limited wit as you prove my point by ignoring facts that you don't like. How typical.
Click to expand...




drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Do you read your own posts?? They are full of hate and personal attacks for those who disagree with you and your warped biased and hypocritical OPINIONS while you fail to substantiate your claims.
> 
> The other poster who you try to call out for hate was merely returning what you were trying to dish out. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen and don't come whining and crying about "hate" coming back at you after that is all you seem to be capable of presenting.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess I can't take the heat because I keep running away.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you "can't take the heat" because posting nonresponsive personal attacks as you avoid proving your own claims IS running away from the debate.
> If you can't prove your own claims then why make them??
Click to expand...


Yet, you keep demonstrating that you have no point.  That's not heat, that's just funny.


----------



## Bfgrn

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke


May 13

Late Friday afternoon, as Maine's Republican State Convention fanned out from the Portland Expo to county caucuses at nearby King Middle School, GOP loyalists from Knox County found themselves directed to Classroom 110  the domain of eighth-grade social studies teacher Paul Clifford.

Now this, in case you haven't heard by now, was no ordinary county delegation.

The insurgent Knox County conservatives, heavily steeped in the Tea Party Movement, would manage by the time the convention was over to replace a run-of-the-mill party platform with a new set of planks imported from, well, another political planet.

It's a place where all of the borders are sealed, global warming is a myth (and a potentially illegal one at that), health care is by no means a right, Austrian economics rule and you will never, ever witness the creation of "a one world government."

It's also a place where, according to Section V, item k, "It is immoral to steal property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits."
*Portland Press Herald*

The Republican State Convention was held at the Portland Exposition Building, which is on Park Avenue, near the middle school. Party members from Knox County caucused in a classroom used by eighth-grade social studies teacher Paul Clifford.

When Clifford returned to school on Monday, he found that a favorite poster about the U.S. labor movement had been taken and replaced with a bumper sticker that read, "Working People Vote Republican."

Later, Clifford learned that his classroom had been searched. Republicans who had attended the convention called Principal Mike McCarthy to complain about "anti-American" things they saw there, including a closed box containing copies of the U.S. Constitution that were published by the American Civil Liberties Union.
*The Kennebec Journal, Augusta, ME*


----------



## Dante

copies of the U.S. Constitution anti-American? 



Bfgrn said:


> Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> May 13
> 
> Late Friday afternoon, as Maine's Republican State Convention fanned out from the Portland Expo to county caucuses at nearby King Middle School, GOP loyalists from Knox County found themselves directed to Classroom 110  the domain of eighth-grade social studies teacher Paul Clifford.
> 
> Now this, in case you haven't heard by now, was no ordinary county delegation.
> 
> The insurgent Knox County conservatives, heavily steeped in the Tea Party Movement, would manage by the time the convention was over to replace a run-of-the-mill party platform with a new set of planks imported from, well, another political planet.
> 
> It's a place where all of the borders are sealed, global warming is a myth (and a potentially illegal one at that), health care is by no means a right, Austrian economics rule and you will never, ever witness the creation of "a one world government."
> 
> It's also a place where, according to Section V, item k, "It is immoral to steal property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits."
> *Portland Press Herald*
> 
> The Republican State Convention was held at the Portland Exposition Building, which is on Park Avenue, near the middle school. Party members from Knox County caucused in a classroom used by eighth-grade social studies teacher Paul Clifford.
> 
> When Clifford returned to school on Monday, he found that a favorite poster about the U.S. labor movement had been taken and replaced with a bumper sticker that read, "Working People Vote Republican."
> 
> Later, Clifford learned that his classroom had been searched. Republicans who had attended the convention called Principal Mike McCarthy to complain about "anti-American" things they saw there, including a closed box containing copies of the U.S. Constitution that were published by the American Civil Liberties Union.
> *The Kennebec Journal, Augusta, ME*



Republicans who had attended the convention"...complained about"anti-American" things " "copies of the U.S. Constitution that were published by the American Civil Liberties Union."
*The Kennebec Journal, Augusta, ME*


----------



## chanel

I'm sure the person  will be caught and prosecuted. Next.


----------



## strollingbones

i wonder if i go break into a bank and steal money ...will the headline read....bank robbed


or pagan/witch robs bank...come on people....nutters are just that...nutters....some latch on to causes ...is that the causes fault...or just a plain nutter fact?


----------



## strollingbones

one can say that the causes are seducing or making the impluses uncontrolable.....let me remind y ou that is what peddies say....they were seduced by a 3 yr old blah blah blah


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, you still have no point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, more of your limited wit as you prove my point by ignoring facts that you don't like. How typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess I can't take the heat because I keep running away.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you "can't take the heat" because posting nonresponsive personal attacks as you avoid proving your own claims IS running away from the debate.
> If you can't prove your own claims then why make them??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, you keep demonstrating that you have no point.  That's not heat, that's just funny.
Click to expand...


READ THE THREAD! 
I have proven my points and restated them several times for your benefit and you keep avoiding them which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack.  It's ok keep running away from the facts, you only serve to prove me right, AGAIN. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, more of your limited wit as you prove my point by ignoring facts that you don't like. How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope you "can't take the heat" because posting nonresponsive personal attacks as you avoid proving your own claims IS running away from the debate.
> If you can't prove your own claims then why make them??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, you keep demonstrating that you have no point.  That's not heat, that's just funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD!
> I have proven my points and restated them several times for your benefit and you keep avoiding them which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack.  It's ok keep running away from the facts, you only serve to prove me right, AGAIN. LOL
Click to expand...


Read and _note_ the verb tense; you have no point.  And you continue to demonstrate that you have no point.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you keep demonstrating that you have no point.  That's not heat, that's just funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD!
> I have proven my points and restated them several times for your benefit and you keep avoiding them which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack.  It's ok keep running away from the facts, you only serve to prove me right, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and _note_ the verb tense; you have no point.  And you continue to demonstrate that you have no point.
Click to expand...


Take your own advice and just READ THE THREAD. LOL 
Your baseless claims, once again, show that you are a troll.

Oh and posting for the sake of posting in a moronic attempt to claim that you are not running away, when you have ignored and avoided and claimed that I have asked no questions or made no points or have no point when I do, just further shows how lame and dishonest you truly are. LOL 

You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point).


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> READ THE THREAD!
> I have proven my points and restated them several times for your benefit and you keep avoiding them which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack.  It's ok keep running away from the facts, you only serve to prove me right, AGAIN. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read and _note_ the verb tense; you have no point.  And you continue to demonstrate that you have no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your own advice and just READ THE THREAD. LOL
> Your baseless claims, once again, show that you are a troll.
> 
> Oh and posting for the sake of posting in a moronic attempt to claim that you are not running away, when you have ignored and avoided and claimed that I have asked no questions or made no points or have no point when I do, just further shows how lame and dishonest you truly are. LOL
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point).
Click to expand...


OK.  Your point is that you have no point.  Got it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si Modo _is _indeed a troll, don't doubt it.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read and _note_ the verb tense; you have no point.  And you continue to demonstrate that you have no point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advice and just READ THE THREAD. LOL
> Your baseless claims, once again, show that you are a troll.
> 
> Oh and posting for the sake of posting in a moronic attempt to claim that you are not running away, when you have ignored and avoided and claimed that I have asked no questions or made no points or have no point when I do, just further shows how lame and dishonest you truly are. LOL
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  Your point is that you have no point.  Got it.
Click to expand...



You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point). LOL 

Thanks for proving my current point AGAIN.


----------



## drsmith1072

JakeStarkey said:


> Si Modo _is _indeed a troll, don't doubt it.



Oh don't worry, I don't doubt it at all. LOL


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advice and just READ THE THREAD. LOL
> Your baseless claims, once again, show that you are a troll.
> 
> Oh and posting for the sake of posting in a moronic attempt to claim that you are not running away, when you have ignored and avoided and claimed that I have asked no questions or made no points or have no point when I do, just further shows how lame and dishonest you truly are. LOL
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  Your point is that you have no point.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point). LOL
> 
> Thanks for proving my current point AGAIN.
Click to expand...

Liar.  I've avoiding nothing.  When you have an original point and one that I have yet to address, you let us know.

Until then, I mock you.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  Your point is that you have no point.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point). LOL
> 
> Thanks for proving my current point AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


I kow you are and have proven you to be a liar througout this thread.




> I've avoiding nothing.



except for everything as you desperately try to attack me personally and avoid what I actually said.



> When you have an original point and one that I have yet to address, you let us know.



and yet i havehad several original points including the one concerning when obama actually called for civility in reference to his use of the term "tea-bagger" and you avoided that point claiming that i parroted it and yet when asked you failed to prove that i parroted it. You merely repeated that false claim over and over again to avoid a debate that you realized that you could never win. 



> Until then, I mock you.



and yet I am laughing at you. your ignorance and cowardice are quite entertaining.


----------



## boedicca

drsmith's lack of self-awareness is So Amusing.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding my points which further proves ONE of my points and that is that you are nothing but a dishonest trolling hack (current point). LOL
> 
> Thanks for proving my current point AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kow you are and have proven you to be a liar througout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except for everything as you desperately try to attack me personally and avoid what I actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have an original point and one that I have yet to address, you let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet i havehad several original points including the one concerning when obama actually called for civility in reference to his use of the term "tea-bagger" and you avoided that point claiming that i parroted it and yet when asked you failed to prove that i parroted it. You merely repeated that false claim over and over again to avoid a debate that you realized that you could never win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, I mock you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet I am laughing at you. your ignorance and cowardice are quite entertaining.
Click to expand...

As I said, you have no point.  Until you bring up an original point that I have yet to address, I mock you.

I've asked you for pages on end to make your point.  You have yet to do so.

And, I mock your idiocy because of that.


----------



## HUGGY

Does anybody involved in this verbal clusterfuck even know how many posts one might have to go back to discovery WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT????????


----------



## JakeStarkey

HUGGY said:


> Does anybody involved in this verbal clusterfuck even know how many posts one might have to go back to discovery WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT????????



Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.


----------



## Si modo

JakeStarkey said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody involved in this verbal clusterfuck even know how many posts one might have to go back to discovery WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.
Click to expand...

Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.

He has yet to make an original point of significance.

And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.


----------



## Madeline

956 posts about some perceived slight from Obama.  Never mind the REAL injuries he is dealing out, eh?  This is what is called "pissing into the wind".

Meanwhile, which one of you even bothered to reach out and touch your Congressmen to call  a halt to passage of HR 4213, so as to head off a 400% increase in the Federal Gas Tax?

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.  Some of you just enjoy any reason to batter one another and could give a flip about this country.  If all you can do is come here to whine about whatever Glenn Beck has wound you up to say that day, what interest do you expect to arouse in moderates or undecideds? 

If you aren't posting hoping to persuade readers, you're just doing it to decorate your pc with pixels.  That, my friends, is called making white noise on the 'net.


----------



## HUGGY

*Obama Liberal Hypocrite watch. Calls for "Civility" but then calls us "teabaggers." 
*

Isn't that more civil than calling you what you really are?..*Cocksuckers*?


----------



## Madeline

HUGGY said:


> *Obama Liberal Hypocrite watch. Calls for "Civility" but then calls us "teabaggers."
> *
> 
> Isn't that more civil than calling you what you really are?..*Cocksuckers*?



Okay, now _that_ was funny.  Way too harsh, but definately worth a giggle.  

Thankies, Huggy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody involved in this verbal clusterfuck even know how many posts one might have to go back to discovery WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
Click to expand...


You are indeed a patient troll.


----------



## Madeline

JakeStarkey said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are indeed a patient troll.
Click to expand...


You have No idea, JakeStakey.  Si modo runs after me all over USMB crying like a little girl, or so I thought before I sent him/her/it/them to the Iggy Bin.  From what I can tell, he/she/it/they still do.

Evidentially Si modo's "devotion" is the USMB equivalent of stepping in dog shit.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kow you are and have proven you to be a liar througout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except for everything as you desperately try to attack me personally and avoid what I actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> and yet i havehad several original points including the one concerning when obama actually called for civility in reference to his use of the term "tea-bagger" and you avoided that point claiming that i parroted it and yet when asked you failed to prove that i parroted it. You merely repeated that false claim over and over again to avoid a debate that you realized that you could never win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, I mock you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet I am laughing at you. your ignorance and cowardice are quite entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, you have no point.  Until you bring up an original point that I have yet to address, I mock you.
> 
> I've asked you for pages on end to make your point.  You have yet to do so.
> 
> And, I mock your idiocy because of that.
Click to expand...


and once again you ignore the content of my post as you pretend that i have made no point so you can troll and in your own words "mock" me. However all you succeed in doing is make yourself look foolish and expose yourself as nothing but a dishonest trolling hack. 

and yet i have had several original points including the one concerning when obama actually called for civility in reference to his use of the term "tea-bagger" and you avoided that point claiming that i parroted it and yet when asked you failed to prove that i parroted it. You merely repeated that false claim over and over again to avoid a debate that you realized that you could never win.

My point about the timeline above PROVES the OP was lying about the timeline when it made this claim 



> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."



and you dishonestly claimed that I parrioted that argument while providing ZERO proof that I did when all it would take is you posting a link to a single post that came before mine where that argument was made and you ran away from proving your claim and continue to do so. 
My guess is that you would rather be dishonest than admit that you were and are WRONG. LOL

Please respond to the content IF you can. 

P.S. Just so you know, claiming that I parroted that argument when I did NOT and when you ahve failed to prove that I have is not addressing the argument. However, thanks for more of your usual dishoenst spin.


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody involved in this verbal clusterfuck even know how many posts one might have to go back to discovery WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
Click to expand...



Aww more of your baseless personal attacks. can you stop running away and actually address the content of my posts instead making the false blanket claim that I parroted every argument that I have made?? 

Or is asking you to be honest for a change too much to ask of you?? 

The sad thing is now he spins that I have made original points but in his opinions even though he has failed to address them they not of significance. LOL 

So for some reason he believes that despite the fact that the point he calls insignificant proved to OP was being dishonest when he claimed 



> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and *two days later *calls us "tea baggers."



 and yet according to the OP's own source obama made the comment about "tea-baggers" back in 09 and the call for civility in question was made at the beginning of may. 

The timeline shows that the OP was WRONG and *now* Simodo is claiming that point is not significant so he can try to justify avoiding it again since he can't prove that I parroted it because I didn't. LOL 

As far as parroting goes he can't even prove that I parroted anything but that doesn't stop him from making that claim so he can attack me personally.

Now watch how he avoids the content and attacks me personally AGAIN. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are indeed a patient troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have No idea, JakeStakey.  Si modo runs after me all over USMB crying like a little girl, or so I thought before I sent him/her/it/them to the Iggy Bin.  From what I can tell, he/she/it/they still do.
> 
> Evidentially Si modo's "devotion" is the USMB equivalent of stepping in dog shit.
Click to expand...

If only you really would ignore me.

Please, don't just lie about it, do it.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. has made some points, si modo and boedicca are acting like reactionary fools, and all is normal on the eastern front.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aww more of your baseless personal attacks. can you stop running away and actually address the content of my posts instead making the false blanket claim that I parroted every argument that I have made??
> 
> Or is asking you to be honest for a change too much to ask of you??
> 
> The sad thing is now he spins that I have made original points but in his opinions even though he has failed to address them they not of significance. LOL
> 
> So for some reason he believes that despite the fact that the point he calls insignificant proved to OP was being dishonest when he claimed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and *two days later *calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet according to the OP's own source obama made the comment about "tea-baggers" back in 09 and the call for civility in question was made at the beginning of may.
> 
> The timeline shows that the OP was WRONG and *now* Simodo is claiming that point is not significant so he can try to justify avoiding it again since he can't prove that I parroted it because I didn't. LOL
> 
> As far as parroting goes he can't even prove that I parroted anything but that doesn't stop him from making that claim so he can attack me personally.
> 
> Now watch how he avoids the content and attacks me personally AGAIN. LOL
Click to expand...

Bo-ring.  Make a point, will you?


----------



## drsmith1072

Si modo said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction.  Smith has parroted and thinks he has added something original and of consequence to the thread.
> 
> He has yet to make an original point of significance.
> 
> And, I mock him and will continue to mock him for that.  I am a patient person that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww more of your baseless personal attacks. can you stop running away and actually address the content of my posts instead making the false blanket claim that I parroted every argument that I have made??
> 
> Or is asking you to be honest for a change too much to ask of you??
> 
> The sad thing is now he spins that I have made original points but in his opinions even though he has failed to address them they not of significance. LOL
> 
> So for some reason he believes that despite the fact that the point he calls insignificant proved to OP was being dishonest when he claimed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is so typically liberals. Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and *two days later *calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet according to the OP's own source obama made the comment about "tea-baggers" back in 09 and the call for civility in question was made at the beginning of may.
> 
> The timeline shows that the OP was WRONG and *now* Simodo is claiming that point is not significant so he can try to justify avoiding it again since he can't prove that I parroted it because I didn't. LOL
> 
> As far as parroting goes he can't even prove that I parroted anything but that doesn't stop him from making that claim so he can attack me personally.
> 
> *Now watch how he avoids the content and attacks me personally AGAIN*. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bo-ring.  Make a point, will you?
Click to expand...


I did make a point and you did just as I predicted you would do and you avoided the content AGAIN. 

How typical of you.

Thanks for being your usual cowardly and dishonest self. LOL 

Now how about you respond to the content TROLL?


----------



## Si modo

drsmith1072 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww more of your baseless personal attacks. can you stop running away and actually address the content of my posts instead making the false blanket claim that I parroted every argument that I have made??
> 
> Or is asking you to be honest for a change too much to ask of you??
> 
> The sad thing is now he spins that I have made original points but in his opinions even though he has failed to address them they not of significance. LOL
> 
> So for some reason he believes that despite the fact that the point he calls insignificant proved to OP was being dishonest when he claimed
> 
> 
> 
> and yet according to the OP's own source obama made the comment about "tea-baggers" back in 09 and the call for civility in question was made at the beginning of may.
> 
> The timeline shows that the OP was WRONG and *now* Simodo is claiming that point is not significant so he can try to justify avoiding it again since he can't prove that I parroted it because I didn't. LOL
> 
> As far as parroting goes he can't even prove that I parroted anything but that doesn't stop him from making that claim so he can attack me personally.
> 
> *Now watch how he avoids the content and attacks me personally AGAIN*. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Bo-ring.  Make a point, will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did make a point and you did just as I predicted you would do and you avoided the content AGAIN.
> 
> How typical of you.
> 
> Thanks for being your usual cowardly and dishonest self. LOL
> 
> Now how about you respond to the content TROLL?
Click to expand...


No.  

I'll type slowly.

Do

you

have

something

original and/or of consequence

to 

add

that hasn't already been addressed?


I keep asking for something, and you keep whining.

You have no point and you keep demonstrating that you have no point.  I mock you.


----------



## Madeline

> Si modo wrote:
> 
> I mock you.



Uh, not so much Si modo.  You seem to be the asshole here, though I wll admit it looks as if drsmith is arguing with a lunatic, and most sane folks avoid that.


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> Si modo wrote:
> 
> I mock you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, not so much Si modo.  You seem to be the asshole here, though I wll admit it looks as if drsmith is arguing with a lunatic, and most sane folks avoid that.
Click to expand...

How's that ignoring working for ya?

LMAO!


----------



## Bfgrn

strollingbones said:


> i wonder if i go break into a bank and steal money ...will the headline read....bank robbed
> 
> 
> or pagan/witch robs bank...come on people....nutters are just that...nutters....some latch on to causes ...is that the causes fault...or just a plain nutter fact?



Really bones??? These 'bank robbers' are writing party platforms and selecting candidates to run in public elections. It is CLEAR these people believe in one freedom...freedom to conform to THEIR far right beliefs of have your property vandalized, destroyed or stolen.

The headline SHOULD read: "Nazis take over Maine GOP"


----------



## Madeline

Better than your bullshit, sneaky neg repping.




> Hi, you have received -125 reputation points from Si modo.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Moron.
> 
> Regards,
> Si modo



Though being negged by you is a priviledge and an honor, I admit.


----------



## Nosmo King

teapartysamurai said:


> Doubtless the defense here will be that The One wasnt aware of the sexual connotation and therefore had no idea that the term offends tea partiers. Funny thing, though: Offhand, I cant recall a single instance of him saying teabaggers publicly. Not in speeches, not in interviews, not at town halls, not even at that fundraiser a few weeks ago when he goofed on protesters by saying they should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, i.e. for running up gigantic deficits. If he doesnt know the terms impolitic, how come he hasnt innocently used it on camera yet?
> He knows. They all know.
> In Jonathan Alters The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills set the tenor for the whole year  That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.
> 
> Tea Party activists loath the term tea baggers, which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hot Air  Good news: Obama using the word teabaggers now
> ​Now As USUAL, Obama is right and wrong.  The stimulus is part of what created the Tea Party.  But it wasn't the Republicans being against it, it was the fact it was voted into law DESPITE people like me and you calling our Congressman and Senators and telling them NOT to vote for it, and they voted for it ANYWAY.  Jerks!
> 
> Typical that Obama has it backwards.
> 
> But this is so typically liberals.  Out of one side of his mouth he calls for "civility" and two days later calls us "tea baggers."
> 
> This reminds me of the liberal op who once demanded of me "in the interests of civility" not to use the word liberal.  But not five minutes later, he called conservatives, KKKonservatives.
> 
> When I pointed out this hypocrisy, he was furious.
> 
> "Civility" to a liberal means YOU can't say anything critical about THEM.  It doesn't mean they can't say anything they want about YOU.
> 
> After all, THEY, the all high liberal, are the elite and  soooooooooooooooooooo above you.  It's "uncivil" to criticize them.
> 
> YOU, however, are the plebes.  You are the proletariat.  YOU are the peasants.  You can't expect the same civility demanded of YOU towards liberals to be directed back at you YOU.
> 
> YOU are a peasant and it's for your own "good" they call you every name in the book.  Maybe you will finally see your eeeeeeeeevil ways and become liberal!!!!!!
> 
> The arrogance and pompous hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Dear hyper-populist idots,

If the President had called you "Children of God" you would still be pissed off.  Being pissed off is your raisson d'etre.  If you call the President "The One", or "the Messiah" or attempt, in very silly ways, to de-legitimize him or his administration then demand civility, one is forced to assess the real definition of hypocrisy.

Carry on,

Nosmo King

a voice of reason in an unreasonable world


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> Better than your bullshit, sneaky neg repping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -125 reputation points from Si modo.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Moron.
> 
> Regards,
> Si modo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though being negged by you is a priviledge and an honor, I admit.
Click to expand...

What's better?  My post?  The ones you're ignoring?  LMAO!

Nothing sneaky about my rep, moron.  See, morons proclaim they ignore and never do.  Now, if I were to be sneaky about a rep, I would proclaim I was ignoring your posts, then rep one of them.  

My rep was spot on.  Moron.

And, FYI.  When you want to whine about a rep, whiner, there is a forum for it.  Thanks.


----------



## Madeline

N





> osmo King wrote:
> 
> Dear hyper-populist idots,
> 
> If the President had called you "Children of God" you would still be pissed off. Being pissed off is your raisson d'etre. If you call the President "The One", or "the Messiah" or attempt, in very silly ways, to de-legitimize him or his administration then demand civility, one is forced to assess the real definition of hypocrisy.
> 
> Carry on,
> 
> Nosmo King
> 
> a voice of reason in an unreasonable world
> __________________
> If you ever catch on fire, try to avoid seeing yourself in the mirror, because I bet that's what REALLY throws you into a panic.~ Jack Handy
> 
> 'Tis better to have loved and lost that to have loved and caught something.~ Too Much Coffee Guy



I do so enjoy being taken to the woodshed for my manners by folks who feel free to call me every name in the book because I do not worship Walmart.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/116779-photo-this-single-photo-encapsultes-all-conservative-values.html

Once again, hear me folks:  I would LOVE to see the GOP cede its position to the Tea Baggers Movement, but to become a legitimate player in national politics you must eject the wingnuts, clean up YOUR act and stop carrying on like your hair's aflame over dipshit that does not matter.


----------



## Nosmo King

Madeline~

Wal*Mart?  Walk me through it, darling.  I responded to a crazy tea bagger and now you're bringing Wal*Mart.


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Madeline~
> 
> Wal*Mart?  Walk me through it, darling.  I responded to a crazy tea bagger and now you're bringing Wal*Mart.


I'm curious as well.  I do enjoy watching the outfield, but this is far beyond coming from there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better than your bullshit, sneaky neg repping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -125 reputation points from Si modo.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Moron.
> 
> Regards,
> Si modo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though being negged by you is a priviledge and an honor, I admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's better?  My post?  The ones you're ignoring?  LMAO!
> 
> Nothing sneaky about my rep, moron.  See, morons proclaim they ignore and never do.  Now, if I were to be sneaky about a rep, I would proclaim I was ignoring your posts, then rep one of them.
> 
> My rep was spot on.  Moron.
> 
> And, FYI.  When you want to whine about a rep, whiner, there is a forum for it.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


Si Modo, shut up and quit whining.


----------



## boedicca

Madeline said:


> Si modo wrote:
> 
> I mock you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, not so much Si modo.  You seem to be the asshole here, though I wll admit it looks as if drsmith is arguing with a lunatic, and most sane folks avoid that.
Click to expand...



Nothing says LOSER like posting in Book Antiqua Size 4 Blue Font.


----------



## Madeline

Christ onna cracker.  Some of you people are absolutely TERRIBLE at crafting insults.

I'm gonna start a thread attempting to teach The Art Of Snot-Flinging.


----------



## boedicca

You are sorely mistaken if you think many people here care to emulate your tackiness and incredibly bad taste.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Si modo

Too funny.  That tacky Madeline whines about the lack of substance in a Flame Zone thread, yet dodges a legitimate question to her by Nosmo, then says she is going to do exactly what it is to which she objects in this thread.

What a maroon, and an incredibly tacky one.  

Maybe she'll start another thread about her vibrator. Bleeeeech.


----------



## boedicca

Indeed.   And not at all amusing.  If a poster is going to be a flaming moron, he or she should at least provide a bit of comedy relief (in a readable font).


----------



## Madeline

Here's the link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/118813-snot-flinging-101-or-five-easy-lessons-on-how-to-craft-an-effective-insult.html

I cannot emphasize this enough:  the purpose of an insult written on a message board is to distress the target whilst amusing other readers.  1,001 neg reps calling me a "moron" just does not cut it.

boedicca, clean up your act and buy a thesaurus.






You DO know what that is, right?


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> ....
> boedicca, clean up your act and buy a thesaurus.
> 
> 
> [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]


How's that ignoring Boedicca working out for ya, too?

C'mon, proclaim again who you are ignoring.  It's about the only funny thing about your posts.


----------



## Stainmaster

There are no Tea Partiers/Baggers, it is all a GOP fund raising effort?

Tempest in the Tea Party | Mother Jones


----------



## Dante

It's complicated because many of the Baggers are so angry they can't see straight. Many believe they are a third party.


----------



## rdean

Stainmaster said:


> There are no Tea Partiers/Baggers, it is all a GOP fund raising effort?
> 
> Tempest in the Tea Party | Mother Jones



Oh they exist all right and they will become the Republican "Base".  Their platform will replace the GOP Platform.

http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

And they are as "nutty" as a "fruitcake".


----------



## Yukon.

My son there are indeed people crazier than conservatives. I know it's hard to believe but it is true. They have all become "Tea Baggers" aka Tea Party and they have one thing in common - they are all wacko.


----------



## Stainmaster

rdean said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no Tea Partiers/Baggers, it is all a GOP fund raising effort?
> 
> Tempest in the Tea Party | Mother Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they exist all right and they will become the Republican "Base".  Their platform will replace the GOP Platform.
> 
> http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf
> 
> And they are as "nutty" as a "fruitcake".
Click to expand...


Interesting, and I think they are really desperate judging from their attitude in these threads.


----------



## Dante

Yukon. said:


> My son there are indeed people crazier than conservatives. I know it's hard to believe but it is true. They have all become "Tea Baggers" aka Tea Party and they have one thing in common - they are all wacko.






true dat.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

If you look at actual tea party people, they are more pissed at the republicans than they are at the democrats. 

And the ones in the Republican party are causing huge ripples for the party elites.   They are willing to take a loss on party lable to get better representation.   As happened in NY23, where the official candidate was reduced to a minuscule portion of the vote.      As happened with the Florida Senate race, where the official candidate was forced out.


And even what happened in HI with the congressional race there.   The national party wanted to push something the people hated, and they split the vote.


The Republcan leadership is in fear of this group, that it will repeat what happened in 1992 with  Ross Perot.   This year should be a republican cakewalk, but the tea party people are going off the reservation and  worse, withholding contributions.


----------



## standunited

So not true. You been listening to MSNBC? haha. Republican = Democrat! Tea time!


----------



## California Girl

I see the OP is so stupid that he can't even frame a question as a question. Does he know the difference? 

The California public school system sucks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

California Girl said:


> I see the OP is so stupid that he can't even frame a question as a question. Does he know the difference?
> 
> The California public school system sucks.



He's even an embarrassment to stupid people who refuse to accept him as one of their own


----------



## California Girl

CrusaderFrank said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the OP is so stupid that he can't even frame a question as a question. Does he know the difference?
> 
> The California public school system sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's even an embarrassment to stupid people who refuse to accept him as one of their own
Click to expand...


My fellow Californian are, generally, kind of moronic but ShitStain takes stupid to a level all his own.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

California Girl said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the OP is so stupid that he can't even frame a question as a question. Does he know the difference?
> 
> The California public school system sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's even an embarrassment to stupid people who refuse to accept him as one of their own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fellow Californian are, generally, kind of moronic but ShitStain takes stupid to a level all his own.
Click to expand...


He's got that Rdean One note samba stupidity beat going


----------



## Stainmaster

Dante said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son there are indeed people crazier than conservatives. I know it's hard to believe but it is true. They have all become "Tea Baggers" aka Tea Party and they have one thing in common - they are all wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true dat.
Click to expand...


Word does get around.


----------



## Stephanie

Good gawd, I didn't know that old lefty rag, *MOTHER JONES* was still around.

and from what we see, they are still dishing out the same ole crapola.


----------



## Stainmaster

California Girl said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the OP is so stupid that he can't even frame a question as a question. Does he know the difference?
> 
> The California public school system sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's even an embarrassment to stupid people who refuse to accept him as one of their own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fellow Californian are, generally, kind of moronic but ShitStain takes stupid to a level all his own.
Click to expand...


This is one of five posts in a row where the topic relates to me, not the thread!  If you don't like the thread, don't post here.  It is a lot like a television set, if you don't like the program, change channels or turn it off. 

Everyone knows who these Tea Bagger racist sore losers are. 





Please note my new signature as a continued reminder that the middle-of-the-road American today is not conservative or even Republican.  Indenpendents were a big part of the Obama/Biden success, we don't want anyone to forget that fact.


----------



## Avatar4321

I am always amazed how wanting fiscal discipline concerning our taxes and budget is racist to you people. Why is it so wacko to want government to get the heck out of our lives and not spend our money when we don't have it?

No one seems to be able to answer that question. It's just "you're stupid" or "you're racist". Am I the only one who outgrew that garbage in Kindergarten?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The real deal about Tea Baggers is that their whole movement is based on the paranoid, delusional thoughts of those whites who feel that having a black president is a threat to the white power structure that has ruled America and excluded people's of color, thus no matter what Obama does he's going to be scrutinized very sharply for everything[mainly to see if he's going to pay back whites for oppression against blacks], eventhough 90% of what he's facing he inherited from 8 years of Republican mismanagement under Bush. The only Republicans that Tea Baggers go after are those who somewhat moderate and or show a willingness to work with Obama on some issues because in the eyes of these stupid Tea Baggers this is a white man's country and always should be one so anyone that seemingly works against that is a race traitor, anti-American and so forth.


This is the basis on what the Tea Bagger movement is based on, the majority may not be overtly racist and the retards the disparaging signs and racist chants but at the core beneath the surface they too want to uphold white control of the power structure and just because a few shameless house ******* dance and sing at Tea Bagger rallies like Negroes from a minstrel show doesn't mean the movement is racist because if they had a choice between a black ultra-conservative, docile house ****** and a white Republican you can bet the white one is who they're feel more comfortable with even if the black ultra-conservative ****** is ideologically closer and more in line with their [the white Tea Baggers] beliefs and why? A ****** is still a ****** no matter what, just ask Michael Steele, he'll admit it in private and in so many words he has said it publicly those cautiously.


----------



## Flaylo

The Tea Bastards are racist pricks hiding behind politics to spread hate, your number one fan and cheerleader CG thinks differently, lets see if you're really unbiased Charlie.


----------



## Stephanie

LOL, this thread is a joke and so is the OP.

I guess some people really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over it will some how make it true.

yawn yawn yawn.


----------



## Flaylo

Stephanie said:


> LOL, this thread is a joke and so is the OP.
> 
> I guess some people really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over it will some how make it true.
> 
> yawn yawn yawn.




Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Flaylo said:


> The Tea Bastards are racist pricks hiding behind politics to spread hate, your number one fan and cheerleader CG thinks differently, lets see if you're really unbiased Charlie.



No need to question am I biased or not because I am not biased and I agree with what you say because its basically the same thing that I'm saying, not because we're both black. There are people in this forum and in America who will flat out deny the truth and think relaity is based solely upon their perception, but we're both military men who's very service to our country is based on integrity and honesty, the Tea Baggers movement is based on neither, thats why they focus and draw their support from angry whites, mostly males, not the average American.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Flaylo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this thread is a joke and so is the OP.
> 
> I guess some people really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over it will some how make it true.
> 
> yawn yawn yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.
Click to expand...


They sure don't make Drill Sergeants like they used to. Such an embarrassment.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Tech_Esq said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this thread is a joke and so is the OP.
> 
> I guess some people really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over it will some how make it true.
> 
> yawn yawn yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sure don't make Drill Sergeants like they used to. Such an embarrassment.
Click to expand...


What a way to personally attack someone's military service, if you don't like the man's views just say so, don't attack anyone's military service especially those who are still serving.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They sure don't make Drill Sergeants like they used to. Such an embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a way to personally attack someone's military service, if you don't like the man's views just say so, don't attack anyone's military service especially those who are still serving.
Click to expand...


I've earned my right to say anything I damned well please in that regard. Have you? 

If he puts out a Drill Sergeant badge as his Avatar, his statements reflect upon that Badge. And, I didn't say anything really about his service. Just that his comments do not reflect favorably upon the insignia he put out there as his avatar.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This is how I picture the Bass


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Tech_Esq said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sure don't make Drill Sergeants like they used to. Such an embarrassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a way to personally attack someone's military service, if you don't like the man's views just say so, don't attack anyone's military service especially those who are still serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've earned my right to say anything I damned well please in that regard. Have you?
> 
> If he puts out a Drill Sergeant badge as his Avatar, his statements reflect upon that Badge. And, I didn't say anything really about his service. Just that his comments do not reflect favorably upon the insignia he put out there as his avatar.
Click to expand...


And who are you to say that? Have your opinion but bashing someone's military service is a personal attack, I'm pretty sure there are some members of the armed forces who have similar feelings about Tea Baggers.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a way to personally attack someone's military service, if you don't like the man's views just say so, don't attack anyone's military service especially those who are still serving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've earned my right to say anything I damned well please in that regard. Have you?
> 
> If he puts out a Drill Sergeant badge as his Avatar, his statements reflect upon that Badge. And, I didn't say anything really about his service. Just that his comments do not reflect favorably upon the insignia he put out there as his avatar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who are you to say that? Have your opinion but bashing someone's military service is a personal attack, I'm pretty sure there are some members of the armed forces who have similar feelings about Tea Baggers.
Click to expand...


You and your tea baggers, how about you open your mouth real wide so I dip my balls in your mouth. You want to talk about tea bagging so much you must want it. 

Remember if you aren't a tea bagger, you must be a tea bagee


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Tech_Esq said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've earned my right to say anything I damned well please in that regard. Have you?
> 
> If he puts out a Drill Sergeant badge as his Avatar, his statements reflect upon that Badge. And, I didn't say anything really about his service. Just that his comments do not reflect favorably upon the insignia he put out there as his avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to say that? Have your opinion but bashing someone's military service is a personal attack, I'm pretty sure there are some members of the armed forces who have similar feelings about Tea Baggers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your tea baggers, how about you open your mouth real wide so I dip my balls in your mouth. You want to talk about tea bagging so much you must want it.
> 
> Remember if you aren't a tea bagger, you must be a tea bagee
Click to expand...


Keep your faggoty comments and insults to yourself sodomite, what nexts, you Tea Baggers want to anally rape those who disagree with you all?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to say that? Have your opinion but bashing someone's military service is a personal attack, I'm pretty sure there are some members of the armed forces who have similar feelings about Tea Baggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and your tea baggers, how about you open your mouth real wide so I dip my balls in your mouth. You want to talk about tea bagging so much you must want it.
> 
> Remember if you aren't a tea bagger, you must be a tea bagee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep your faggoty comments and insults to yourself sodomite, what nexts, you Tea Baggers want to anally rape those who disagree with you all?
Click to expand...


You're the one who brought up tea bagging faggot. What do you think that means. You know damn good and well what it means. You want balls in your mouth.

And, now you want me to fuck your ass. Well, I'm not doing it! You have to find someone else to fuck your ass. I'm only sticking my balls in your mouth to prove a point.    Not for your sexual gratification.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Tech_Esq said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your tea baggers, how about you open your mouth real wide so I dip my balls in your mouth. You want to talk about tea bagging so much you must want it.
> 
> Remember if you aren't a tea bagger, you must be a tea bagee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your faggoty comments and insults to yourself sodomite, what nexts, you Tea Baggers want to anally rape those who disagree with you all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who brought up tea bagging faggot. What do you think that means. You know damn good and well what it means. You want balls in your mouth.
> 
> And, now you want me to fuck your ass. Well, I'm not doing it! You have to find someone else to fuck your ass. I'm only sticking my balls in your mouth to prove a point.    Not for your sexual gratification.
Click to expand...


You want to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and you're calling me a faggot? What the hell are you then?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your faggoty comments and insults to yourself sodomite, what nexts, you Tea Baggers want to anally rape those who disagree with you all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who brought up tea bagging faggot. What do you think that means. You know damn good and well what it means. You want balls in your mouth.
> 
> And, now you want me to fuck your ass. Well, I'm not doing it! You have to find someone else to fuck your ass. I'm only sticking my balls in your mouth to prove a point.    Not for your sexual gratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and you're calling me a faggot? What the hell are you then?
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right. I'll find a fag to do that for me. Good thinking Bass. Maybe he'll even rape your ass for you like you like too. Just ask him real pretty like only you know how to do.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Tech_Esq said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who brought up tea bagging faggot. What do you think that means. You know damn good and well what it means. You want balls in your mouth.
> 
> And, now you want me to fuck your ass. Well, I'm not doing it! You have to find someone else to fuck your ass. I'm only sticking my balls in your mouth to prove a point.    Not for your sexual gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and you're calling me a faggot? What the hell are you then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right. I'll find a fag to do that for me. Good thinking Bass. Maybe he'll even rape your ass for you like you like too. Just ask him real pretty like only you know how to do.
Click to expand...


Your faggoty jackass has been put on ignore, wanting to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and then having thoughts of explicit anal rape, you could be the next Jeffrey Dahmer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and you're calling me a faggot? What the hell are you then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right. I'll find a fag to do that for me. Good thinking Bass. Maybe he'll even rape your ass for you like you like too. Just ask him real pretty like only you know how to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your faggoty jackass has been put on ignore, wanting to stick your testicles in another man's mouth and then having thoughts of explicit anal rape, you could be the next Jeffrey Dahmer.
Click to expand...


That's funny coming from the Board's fake Negro who loves to use the term: Tea bagger


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bass v 2.0 said:


> The real deal about Tea Baggers is that their whole movement is based on the paranoid, delusional thoughts of those whites who feel that having a black president is a threat to the white power structure that has ruled America and excluded people's of color, thus no matter what Obama does he's going to be scrutinized very sharply for everything[mainly to see if he's going to pay back whites for oppression against blacks], eventhough 90% of what he's facing he inherited from 8 years of Republican mismanagement under Bush. The only Republicans that Tea Baggers go after are those who somewhat moderate and or show a willingness to work with Obama on some issues because in the eyes of these stupid Tea Baggers this is a white man's country and always should be one so anyone that seemingly works against that is a race traitor, anti-American and so forth.
> 
> 
> This is the basis on what the Tea Bagger movement is based on, the majority may not be overtly racist and the retards the disparaging signs and racist chants but at the core beneath the surface they too want to uphold white control of the power structure and just because a few shameless house ******* dance and sing at Tea Bagger rallies like Negroes from a minstrel show doesn't mean the movement is racist because if they had a choice between a black ultra-conservative, docile house ****** and a white Republican you can bet the white one is who they're feel more comfortable with even if the black ultra-conservative ****** is ideologically closer and more in line with their [the white Tea Baggers] beliefs and why? A ****** is still a ****** no matter what, just ask Michael Steele, he'll admit it in private and in so many words he has said it publicly those cautiously.



How many tea party events have you attended?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Flaylo said:


> The Tea Bastards are racist pricks hiding behind politics to spread hate, your number one fan and cheerleader CG thinks differently, lets see if you're really unbiased Charlie.



Do you have evidence to support your argument that the tea partiers are a bunch of racist? Do you have evidence that tea partiers are spreading hate?

I'll concede the fact that in every group you will find a few that are total idiots. But you're casting aspersions on a whole group of Americans. So either back up your argument or shut the fuck up.

I'm willing to bet you've never been to a tea party event either.


----------



## California Girl

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They sure don't make Drill Sergeants like they used to. Such an embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a way to personally attack someone's military service, if you don't like the man's views just say so, don't attack anyone's military service especially those who are still serving.
Click to expand...


Charlie, when someone attacks others by generalizing about them, by insisting that TEA "baggers" are racist, etc. then you lose the moral high ground to bitch at anyone who disses you.... Same goes for failgo. He spews shit at others - he can take it back. 

Oh and.....He can fuck off with the telling people to 'shut up'.... Just because the Military fight for our right to speak freely, doesn't give you the right to take it away.


----------



## California Girl

Flaylo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this thread is a joke and so is the OP.
> 
> I guess some people really do believe that if you repeat a lie over and over it will some how make it true.
> 
> yawn yawn yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shut up and quit pretending the obvious before your eyes isn't there. Some people like to feel like they're boss forever, The Tea Bastards aren't for the American people, not all of the American, just some chosen ones.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh fuck off telling people to shut up, you moronic gayboy.


----------



## Gunny

Bass v 2.0 said:


> The real deal about Tea Baggers is that their whole movement is based on the paranoid, delusional thoughts of those whites who feel that having a black president is a threat to the white power structure that has ruled America and excluded people's of color, thus no matter what Obama does he's going to be scrutinized very sharply for everything[mainly to see if he's going to pay back whites for oppression against blacks], eventhough 90% of what he's facing he inherited from 8 years of Republican mismanagement under Bush. The only Republicans that Tea Baggers go after are those who somewhat moderate and or show a willingness to work with Obama on some issues because in the eyes of these stupid Tea Baggers this is a white man's country and always should be one so anyone that seemingly works against that is a race traitor, anti-American and so forth.
> 
> 
> This is the basis on what the Tea Bagger movement is based on, the majority may not be overtly racist and the retards the disparaging signs and racist chants but at the core beneath the surface they too want to uphold white control of the power structure and just because a few shameless house ******* dance and sing at Tea Bagger rallies like Negroes from a minstrel show doesn't mean the movement is racist because if they had a choice between a black ultra-conservative, docile house ****** and a white Republican you can bet the white one is who they're feel more comfortable with even if the black ultra-conservative ****** is ideologically closer and more in line with their [the white Tea Baggers] beliefs and why? A ****** is still a ****** no matter what, just ask Michael Steele, he'll admit it in private and in so many words he has said it publicly those cautiously.



*yawn*


----------

