# Yeah...I'm another AOL refugee



## CueUp

* and I'm grateful to be here.  

I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*


----------



## editec

Oh great!

The *Independent Libertarians with conservative leanings* who came before you are growing listless and unresponsive from the abuse they're taking.

Three times since before the cock crowed they swore they never heard of Geoge W. Bush.

I think they're losing their religion.


----------



## Sarah G

Yeah, where'd those guys go anyway...  

Anyway, welcome.


----------



## Captain Ron

*That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger. *


----------



## Barb

Captain Ron said:


> *That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger. *



[SIZE="4"] The good old days? Doll, when were those? [/SIZE]


----------



## MaggieMae

Captain Ron said:


> *That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger. *



Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.

There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration, but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances, and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around. After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.

And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.


----------



## CueUp

> That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.





> Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.



Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue.  It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything.  Maybe I'll get lucky here.  



> There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration,




I'm curious...what things would those be?



> but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances,



I've got to take issue with you.  After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively.  The Obama administration has done no such thing.  It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.



> and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around.



By turning it toward socialism?  Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one.  The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature.  Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:

-There&#8217;s abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it).  Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement _"My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?_

-the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money


-The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation




> After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction.



No.  He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass:  on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on.  Obama was protected from accountability.  By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety.  Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate). 



> Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.



C'mon!  Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years.  And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either!  And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up.  Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats.  It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.



> And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.



Oh please.  Bush never caught a break.  From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President.  And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him.  Bush never had that.


----------



## Meister

CueUp said:


> That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue.  It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything.  Maybe I'll get lucky here.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...what things would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to take issue with you.  After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively.  The Obama administration has done no such thing.  It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> By turning it toward socialism?  Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one.  The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature.  Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:
> 
> -Theres abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it).  Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement _"My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?_
> 
> -the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money
> 
> 
> -The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass:  on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on.  Obama was protected from accountability.  By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety.  Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon!  Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years.  And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either!  And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up.  Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats.  It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Bush never caught a break.  From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President.  And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him.  Bush never had that.
Click to expand...


Looks like maggie had her ass handed to her


----------



## Captain Ron

MaggieMae said:


> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.
> 
> *Do I really need to explain socialism? Has BHO made any moves that didn't move toward socialism? I'm not in the swaying business. I pray every day that the US voter is smart enough to recognize a snake oil salesman.*
> 
> 
> There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration, but I suppose I take the more human position which is nobody's going to be perfect in that job even under the best of circumstances, and I am willing to give the man a chance to turn the country around. After all, that's why he was elected in the first place because of the loudly voiced public opinion that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.
> 
> *Every single thing BHO has done since taking office is a move toward socilaism. It would be easier for you to tell me what has he done that isn't a move toward more government control over business and the citizen.*
> 
> And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Click to expand...

 
*That's not quite accurate. Every liberal I know carped about and is still carping about the 2000 election. The average citizen may not have but this country, as demonstrated by the last election, isn't smart enough to figure out in the short term what socialism means.*


----------



## Agnapostate

Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.

Just to make things more entertaining.


----------



## editec

Agnapostate said:


> Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.
> 
> Just to make things more entertaining.


 
They won't get it, Agna.

Most of these so called Libertarians and conservatives honestly believe that Ayn Rand understood capitalism and socialism and human nature, too.

They're mistaken, but they're sincerely mistaken.


----------



## Agnapostate

Ayn Rand was nothing if not purely and dimly reactionary to her surroundings. If she'd been imprisoned in Siberia, she'd have wanted to swim in a volcano.


----------



## MaggieMae

CueUp said:


> That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not good enough. You need to explain why. I'm so bloody sick of seeing posts with blanket statements like Obama sucks, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is [fill in adjective], and expecting those kinds of lame comments to actually sway anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue.  It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything.  Maybe I'll get lucky here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...what things would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to take issue with you.  After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively.  Indeed he did. But he thereafter dropped the ball and chose to invade Iraq which may or may not have been a wise decision at the time because Bush redeployed troops from Afghanistan to Iraq AND used previously authorized war funding for Afghanistan for Iraq. Frankly, it was only then that I began scratching my head about the guy. The Obama administration has done no such thing.  It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst. You're presuming an awful lot. Since no one knows how and when the economy will turn around completely, Obama has at least attempted to stop the recession from getting worse and at the same time investing in the future of this country. Don't you think that education, energy alternatives and health care are top priorities for the U.S. to remain in the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By turning it toward socialism?  Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one.  The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature.  Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:
> 
> -Theres abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it).  Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement _"My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?_
> 
> -the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money
> Any "capping" of salaries will be *ONLY* on those entities that have accepted government (taxpayer) bailouts. Tear yourself away from the Faux negatives for a change and you might actually get to see the whole story on something.
> 
> -The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation
> We have *HAD* "redistribution of wealth" with the tax cuts. Wealth has been "redistributed" to the top 2%. The middle class has remained stagnant in wages and benefits while basic living costs like fuel, heating fuel, groceries and, of course health care have skyrocketed.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass:  on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on.  Obama was protected from accountability.  By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety.  Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).
> Each of those stories were campaign issues that may or may not have been valid and most were blown way out of proportion. The one about Bill Ayers is especially annoying to me because Obama and Ayers were most assuredly NOT "pals." Again, you obviously have tunnel vision based on your reading of right-wing news outlets ONLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add the fact that Obama walked into an economic crisis of enormous proportion, and I believe that the constant criticism of every single thing he does is unrealistic and really, really petty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon!  Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years.  And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either!  And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up.  Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats.  It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.
> Robust economy? Surely you jest. We as individuals only appeared to be "robust." In actuality, we were in debt up to our eyeballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Bush never caught a break.  From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President.  And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him.  Bush never had that.
> Undoubedly what you call "slobbering" was simple exuberance that SOMEBODY finally had a chance to get elected who was about to make some SERIOUS decisions on domestic priorities for a change.
Click to expand...


And the charges of "socialism" against Obama are unrelenting, but untrue. The decisions to "bail out" our financial institutions instead of nationalizing them should be the first clue that Obama has no intention of having a true Socialist state. The hope is that credit will ultimately be freed up so that the *private sector *will begin employing again. How is that "socialism"????? Our education system is in the pits, with kids barely able to spell as they graduate high school. It is costing more money to have people uninsured than to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford either health care OR the insurance. There are a hundred issues that while you deem "socialistic" are simply necessities based on the needs of the American people in the 21st Century and beyond.

Again, you need to explore other areas of intelligent debate on all of these subjects. I'm not suggesting you are completely wrong in your opinions, but neither am I. We have become too big with too many diversified interests to have a one-size-fits-all nation anymore.


----------



## MaggieMae

Meister said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Those are the very sorts of "arguments" I've been used to getting from liberals not just where it concerns George Bush, but where it concerns just about any issue.  It's rare that I've gotten anyone of that ilk to argue with me productively on much of anything.  Maybe I'll get lucky here.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...what things would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to take issue with you.  After 9/11, I thought Bush reacted quite well...speedily and decisively.  The Obama administration has done no such thing.  It has (while handling a situation that it knew was going to be there before the man took office), been ineffectual at best, and damned destructive of the economy and of our individual freedoms at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> By turning it toward socialism?  Yeah, I know...you're bloody sick and tired of hearing about Obama and socialism, but I think the argument is a fair one.  The policies he's been enacting, and the opinions he's been voicing are, indeed, socialistic in nature.  Since you're not used to people who don't like Obama giving you cogent reasons for the "socialist" argument, let me try lobbing just a couple of examples at you:
> 
> -Theres abuse of power between the Gov and Private industry already. Take the attempts in Congress right now to cap salaries in companies that get bailout money (even banks that never wanted or needed it).  Have you heard the latest...that Mr. Obama threatened the auto company execs with this statement _"My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"?_
> 
> -the fact that Geithner has already expressed a desire to wield the power to cap the salaries of *everyone* in a company receiving bailout money, and even to extend that power to companies which have NOT taken bailout money
> 
> 
> -The overt adherence to the notion of "redistribution of wealth" which he is about achieving through oppressive taxation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He was elected in the first place because the media failed to do its job and let him have a pass:  on his shady alliances with the likes of Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et. al., , on his less than clear birth record; on his Illinois voting record as pertains to infanticide and sex ed for kindergartners; on his many gaffes; on who he considered to be mentors; on how he got elected in Illinois by getting his competitors kicked off the ballot, on his outrageous statements regarding the redistribution of wealth, on the way he planned to gut the coal industry and his prediction that energy prices would rise "astronomically" as a result of his policies, and on and on and on.  Obama was protected from accountability.  By and large, all that was seen by the mainstream public was coverage of the most fawning ("tingle up my leg") variety.  Most people are too lazy and too complacent to bother to find out the truth for themselves, and so we got Obama (and McCain as our other useless candidate).
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon!  Poor old GWB never caught a break for eight long years.  And he didn't have the mainstream media on his side, either!  And leave us not forget that the economic crisis Obama "walked into" (all innocent and everything!), was created by his Democrat brethren with the inception of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) under Jimmy Carter, its strengthening under Bill Clinton and the fact that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd acted as apologists for it when Bush and other Republicans tried to clean it up.  Furthermore, this "crisis" was helped along considerably by the eight year long poor-mouthing of a pretty robust ecnonomy by the media and the Democrats.  It's almost as if they *wanted* an economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And please don't tell me the same thing happened to Bush, because it didn't. Bush actually did very little during his first 100 days (a milestone of sorts), he was not nearly as visible to the American people, and with the exception of the sore losers over Al Gore, most dems just shrugged. Bush's popularity didn't start waning until he redirected war efforts from Afghanistan to Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Bush never caught a break.  From the git-go he was referred to as the "unelected" President.  And, as I pointed out before, Obama still has the mainstream media slobbering in adoration over him.  Bush never had that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like maggie had her ass handed to her
Click to expand...


Ya think? Nothing CueUp said had any sway. When in doubt about any of my own opinions, I will fact-check first. Look, I understand the ideologies are polar opposite, but I stand firmly by my conviction that conservatives think in terms of "what if" instead of "what _IS_." It's really that simple. Would I _like_ to see a perfect world as envisioned by conservatives? OF COURSE!!! But that world isn't real.


----------



## xsited1

CueUp said:


> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*



Welcome!

Beware of self-loathing Libtards.


----------



## strollingbones

i really wished yall could break the large fonts and color habits..you dont need them on this forum


----------



## CueUp

Agnapostate said:


> Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.
> 
> Just to make things more entertaining.



 *Nobody is "necessarily" anything.  Are all Democrats "necessarily" in favor of big government and high taxes?  Are all Republicans "necessarily" opposed to choice when it comes to abortion? What you can say, at best, about any species of belief (short of religion) is that there are certain predominanting tenets.  The predominating tenet in Libertarianism is the cultivation of a healthy fear of government. *


----------



## CueUp

> There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration,(maggie may)
> 
> I'm curious...what things would those be? (Cue Up)



*You went to a great deal of trouble to double-talk your way through the whole rest of my post but quite deliberately left this little bit unattended to.  Perhaps you'd like to now.  I'm curious what things about the "incoming administration" have "disturbed" you. *


----------



## CueUp

xsited1 said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
Click to expand...


*Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *


----------



## CueUp

strollingbones said:


> i really wished yall could break the large fonts and color habits..you dont need them on this forum



*Oh...I'm all about anything that makes the post easier to see and read.  I kinda like the colors.*


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

Forgive me. But since I express myself graphically, I guess you have to put up with fourteen more of these...


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## xsited1

CueUp said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
Click to expand...


Most of us are born a leftie.  Then we grow up.


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## AnnECUCherry

InrXeyelArkvst said:


>




*Hey, InrX!  Glad to see you here!  *


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## KittenKoder

*I'm of the mind ...*

We can easily spot the AOL rejects ... er ... I mean "refugees" easily ... no?


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## KittenKoder

By the way ... unless I post facts I am usually joking ... 

*grins*


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst




----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

Here I is. Yet another OIF/WTCFW AOL MB refugee.


















​


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

AnnECUCherry said:


> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, InrX! Glad to see you here! *
Click to expand...

 
I hoped I'd find you here. 
​Unfortunately the _"15 post rule"_ caused me to already make a nuisance of myself. But you know that I can't simply type my mind.

​


----------



## aka520

*Your correct Xeye. You are making a nuisance of yourself. However, in your case I wish it were a one million post rule. I fear soon we are going to find ourselves deluged with a conglomeration of misspelled and made up words, all saying nothing.
gb*


----------



## Againsheila

CueUp said:


> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*



Welcome, from another aol refugee.


----------



## Agnapostate

CueUp said:


> *Nobody is "necessarily" anything.  Are all Democrats "necessarily" in favor of big government and high taxes?  Are all Republicans "necessarily" opposed to choice when it comes to abortion? What you can say, at best, about any species of belief (short of religion) is that there are certain predominanting tenets.  The predominating tenet in Libertarianism is the cultivation of a healthy fear of government. *



I'm not referring to members of the "Libertarian" Party, which is itself heavily anti-libertarian. I'm referring to the necessarily anti-capitalist elements of libertarian ideology, which was an anarcho-socialist ideology before its misappropriation by classical liberals.


----------



## DamnYankee

Barb said:


> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's OK Cueup, conservatives take abuse better than liberals. I'm still loyal to Bush and getting more loyal every day. Everytime BHO makes another socialist move my wish for the good old days of Bush grow stronger. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE="4"] The good old days? Doll, when were those? [/SIZE]
Click to expand...




*Hmmm.... How about when EMPLOYMENT was at it's historical PEAK? You know.... Around December 2006?*


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

aka520 said:


> *Your correct Xeye. You are making a nuisance of yourself. However, in your case I wish it were a one million post rule. I fear soon we are going to find ourselves deluged with a conglomeration of misspelled and made up words, all saying nothing.*
> *gb*


 
Behave.


----------



## Rightwngcrkpot

Welcome aboard there, Annerexic!  Good to see ya!


RWC


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

Rightwngcrkpot said:


> Welcome aboard there, Annerexic! Good to see ya!
> 
> 
> RWC


 
Dzi&#281;kuj&#281;. Dzie&#324; dobry once again. Jak si&#281; masz? 
​


----------



## Captain Ron

InrXeyelArkvst said:


> AnnECUCherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, InrX! Glad to see you here! *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hoped I'd find you here.
> ​Unfortunately the _"15 post rule"_ caused me to already make a nuisance of myself. But you know that I can't simply type my mind.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

*Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*


----------



## AnnECUCherry

Captain Ron said:


> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnnECUCherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, InrX! Glad to see you here! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hoped I'd find you here.
> ​Unfortunately the _"15 post rule"_ caused me to already make a nuisance of myself. But you know that I can't simply type my mind.
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*
Click to expand...


InrX didn't spam the AOL boards.

He's just getting the mandated 15-posts-before-including-a-URL in quickly.


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

Captain Ron said:


> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*


Nice meeting you, too.

​


----------



## MaggieMae

CueUp said:


> There are some things that have disturbed me about the incoming administration,(maggie may)
> 
> I'm curious...what things would those be? (Cue Up)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You went to a great deal of trouble to double-talk your way through the whole rest of my post but quite deliberately left this little bit unattended to.  Perhaps you'd like to now.  I'm curious what things about the "incoming administration" have "disturbed" you. *
Click to expand...


Sorry, it was unintentional. 

I have strongly felt that Obama went over the top by his announced policy at the start that he would employ no lobbyists. I knew that once he began trying to actually govern, he would _need_ the expertise of lobbyists (although I think it's noble that he still won't allow them to have as much insider influence, such as actually writing bills). I think he should now come right out and say that he was wrong--that lobbyists do in fact play a crucial role in some of the more complicated issues where politicians are clearly lacking.

I think that his "vetting" committee has done a shitty job. Just because the Democrats never employed IRS records to use against nominees didn't mean that the Republicans wouldn't, and SOMEONE should have KNOWN that. The people nominated who were were ultimately caught with their pants down on taxes owed should have stepped aside at the outset before embarrassing the president (and themselves). 

I don't think Obama should have turned over the stimulus bill for Nancy Pelosi to turn around and add everything she's been going after for decades, then not taken her on in some sort of forum to tamp her down. Again, politically that looked bad. Pelosi has her own agenda, she is unpopular except for extremist liberals. I hope she gets knocked out of that position in the next session. Harry Reid is a little more manageable.

That said, it's a delicate walk among the 2 legislative branches and the Executive Branch because of the Constitutional separation of powers. Obama needs to learn how to do that without ruffling feathers, which I had expected Rahm Emanuel would teach him, but apparently not.

The new budget proposals will be dissected in conference, and I'm hoping the carbon tax is eliminated. To me, it's one of those things that is so convoluted it's bound to be affected by political interests. Plus I don't see that it would work in real time anyway. An excellent article appeared in Newsweek a couple of weeks ago confirming my suspicions. It was called "You Can't Get There From Here." (I would post the link, but yesterday, for some reason I lost all my text when I navigated to another site, so if you're interested you can find it yourself, since I don't relish losing all I've already written above.)

Finally, it's clear that Obama has a lot to learn, but it's also clear that he is willing to change policy as events change because he's a quick study, so I shall continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for a half-way point on the domestic issues he is prioritizing, most of which have lingered on the back burner far too long. If he "puts fat in at the beginning" (an old term used in my business when we were attempting to "sell" something to the folks who would have to pay for it), then perhaps he'll be successful in getting about half of what he really wants.


----------



## MaggieMae

CueUp said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
Click to expand...


It's funny, but I used to be a Republican. Sometimes it takes only one major political gaffe that takes on a life of its own for a person to suddenly decide his/her party preference needs to be changed. Mine was when Ronald Reagan cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The story was ultimately proven to have been made up, but in the meantime the country was outraged. Reagan came out with that POS at a period in time when my brother was going through an extremely rough time and had to take advantage of the government umbrellas offered just to survive. Although it's a given that welfare fraud takes place, making a mockery of Americans genuinely in need was a monstrous thing for a President of the United States to do. I've voted Democrat ever since.


----------



## MaggieMae

CueUp said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> * and I'm grateful to be here.
> 
> I guess you could characterize me as an Independent Libertarian with conservative leanings.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
Click to expand...




xsited1 said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us are born a leftie.  Then we grow up.
Click to expand...


No, we are ALL born under the "veil of ignorance." Some are born into wealth, some are born with the genes necessary to succeed, some are born and unwanted and go through early life a ward of the state, some are born into a cycle of poverty, and some wish they had never been born. And therein lies the crux of class differentials and how our politics later in life reflect it.


----------



## MaggieMae

AnnECUCherry said:


> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, InrX!  Glad to see you here!  *
Click to expand...


I'm not. He's gone on ignore. When he's ready to play with adults, he can send up a flare.


----------



## MaggieMae

Rightwngcrkpot said:


> Welcome aboard there, Annerexic!  Good to see ya!
> 
> 
> RWC



I see a lot of people have recently been TOS'd from AOL. Did they finally wise up and shut down those boards entirely? I used to post there but got tired of the profanity and photoshopped garbage that went unmonitored. AOL of course differs from boards like this because AOL is an ISP and this is well...just a website... Bear in mind, tho, there ARE restrictions.


----------



## MaggieMae

AnnECUCherry said:


> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hoped I'd find you here.
> ​Unfortunately the _"15 post rule"_ caused me to already make a nuisance of myself. But you know that I can't simply type my mind.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> InrX didn't spam the AOL boards.
> 
> He's just getting the mandated 15-posts-before-including-a-URL in quickly.
Click to expand...


Cute. Most folks find something to actually *SAY* while still in training wheels.


----------



## tathagata

Tathagata here.  I don't say much.


----------



## AnnECUCherry

MaggieMae said:


> AnnECUCherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InrX didn't spam the AOL boards.
> 
> He's just getting the mandated 15-posts-before-including-a-URL in quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute. Most folks find something to actually *SAY* while still in training wheels.
Click to expand...


*The operative word in my comment was "quickly."

InrX has plenty to say that is well worth reading.

And this part of the board isn't for formal debate anyway, is it?*


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

MaggieMae said:


> I'm not. He's gone on ignore. When he's ready to play with adults, he can send up a flare.


Nice meeting you, too.

​


----------



## AnnECUCherry

MaggieMae said:


> Rightwngcrkpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome aboard there, Annerexic!  Good to see ya!
> 
> 
> RWC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of people have recently been TOS'd from AOL. Did they finally wise up and shut down those boards entirely? I used to post there but got tired of the profanity and photoshopped garbage that went unmonitored. AOL of course differs from boards like this because AOL is an ISP and this is well...just a website... Bear in mind, tho, there ARE restrictions.
Click to expand...


*We weren't TOS'd.  AOL shut down all boards dedicated to political discussion.  The only ones left are for sports fans, auto enthusiasts, people interested in talking about how to save money, etc.

Big difference between being individually kicked off for violating TOS and being evicted en masse because the landlord no longer wants you living there.*


----------



## AnnECUCherry

MaggieMae said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us are born a leftie.  Then we grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we are ALL born under the "veil of ignorance." Some are born into wealth, some are born with the genes necessary to succeed, some are born and unwanted and go through early life a ward of the state, some are born into a cycle of poverty, and some wish they had never been born. And therein lies the crux of class differentials and how our politics later in life reflect it.
Click to expand...


*Excellent response, Maggie.

A lot of people don't recognize just how much truth lies in the comment about some people being born on third base but thinkng they've hit a triple.*


----------



## MaggieMae

AnnECUCherry said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwngcrkpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome aboard there, Annerexic!  Good to see ya!
> 
> 
> RWC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of people have recently been TOS'd from AOL. Did they finally wise up and shut down those boards entirely? I used to post there but got tired of the profanity and photoshopped garbage that went unmonitored. AOL of course differs from boards like this because AOL is an ISP and this is well...just a website... Bear in mind, tho, there ARE restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We weren't TOS'd.  AOL shut down all boards dedicated to political discussion.  The only ones left are for sports fans, auto enthusiasts, people interested in talking about how to save money, etc.
> 
> Big difference between being individually kicked off for violating TOS and being evicted en masse because the landlord no longer wants you living there.*
Click to expand...


Thanks for the information. I'll have to get in touch with some of my old buddies on the AOL Political Conundrum Board and invite them here. That particular board restricted new users so it wound up to be only a few dozen people posting the same old, same old day in and day out. Yawn...

Glad to see the refugees, and I'll try not to be as judgmental to newbies in the future.


----------



## xsited1

MaggieMae said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us are born a leftie.  Then we grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, we are ALL born under the "veil of ignorance."* Some are born into wealth, some are born with the genes necessary to succeed, some are born and unwanted and go through early life a ward of the state, some are born into a cycle of poverty, and some wish they had never been born. And therein lies the crux of class differentials and how our politics later in life reflect it.
Click to expand...


Ignorance = Leftie.  We both agree.


----------



## aka520

InrXeyelArkvst said:


> aka520 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your correct Xeye. You are making a nuisance of yourself. However, in your case I wish it were a one million post rule. I fear soon we are going to find ourselves deluged with a conglomeration of misspelled and made up words, all saying nothing.*
> *gb*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behave.
Click to expand...


I will give you a chance Xeye and not automatically put you on iggy. Maybe you have matured somewhat, but I am not holding my breath.
gb


----------



## CueUp

MaggieMae said:


> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome!
> 
> Beware of self-loathing Libtards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny, but I used to be a Republican. Sometimes it takes only one major political gaffe that takes on a life of its own for a person to suddenly decide his/her party preference needs to be changed. Mine was when Ronald Reagan cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The story was ultimately proven to have been made up, but in the meantime the country was outraged. Reagan came out with that POS at a period in time when my brother was going through an extremely rough time and had to take advantage of the government umbrellas offered just to survive. Although it's a given that welfare fraud takes place, making a mockery of Americans genuinely in need was a monstrous thing for a President of the United States to do. I've voted Democrat ever since.
Click to expand...


*I differentiate rather strongly between "conservative" and "Repulican" and "Liberal" and "Democrat".  The fact that I am no longer a liberal in no way means I consider myself a Republican.  

That said, my change of philosophy occurred when, in my mid-to-late 30's, I began working as a volunteer in the school system where my daughter had begun attending.  This turned out to be a prolonged stint working in the public schools, both as a classroom volunteer, a teacher of a curriculum called "Great Books", and later on, as a member of several councils and committees pertaining to education.  Over the course of the years, I was appalled at what I discovered. The more I saw of how liberal policies in public education were such a dismal failure, the more I began to apply what I'd learned to other liberal enterprises.  It became clear to me that good intentions are not enough. *


----------



## CueUp

AnnECUCherry said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwngcrkpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome aboard there, Annerexic!  Good to see ya!
> 
> 
> RWC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of people have recently been TOS'd from AOL. Did they finally wise up and shut down those boards entirely? I used to post there but got tired of the profanity and photoshopped garbage that went unmonitored. AOL of course differs from boards like this because AOL is an ISP and this is well...just a website... Bear in mind, tho, there ARE restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We weren't TOS'd.  AOL shut down all boards dedicated to political discussion.  The only ones left are for sports fans, auto enthusiasts, people interested in talking about how to save money, etc.
> 
> Big difference between being individually kicked off for violating TOS and being evicted en masse because the landlord no longer wants you living there.*
Click to expand...


*Oh wait.  Do tell the whole story.  The vast majority of boards remaining functional on AOL (some 90 boards, I believe) are for blacks and issues pertaining to blacks.  If they suspect you are not black, you will be blocked from the board.  

This, to me, merely verifies what many of us already knew:  AOL is yet another liberally-dominated entity.*


----------



## edthecynic

aka520 said:


> I fear soon we are going to find ourselves deluged with a conglomeration of misspelled and made up words



It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word. 
Andrew Jackson


----------



## edthecynic

CueUp said:


> Oh wait.  Do tell the whole story.  The vast majority of boards remaining functional on AOL (some 90 boards, I believe) are for blacks and issues pertaining to blacks.  If they suspect you are not black, you will be blocked from the board.
> 
> This, to me, merely verifies what many of us already knew:  AOL is yet another liberally-dominated entity.



*And your post verifies CON$ervatism's racism. Only one of the AOL messageboards is dedicated to black issues and no one is restricted from it. See for yourself.*

Money & Finance Message Boards - AOL Message Boards
Travel Forums, Travel Community, Travel Message Boards and Travel Discussions on AOL Travel
Car Forums, Car Message Boards and Auto Discussions on AOL Autos
Forums - FanHouse.com
Community: African American Message Boards, Chats and Profiles - AOL Black Voices

BLACK VOICES TERMS AND GUIDELINES

Welcome to BlackVoices.com ("BlackVoices"). The AOL Network Registered User Agreement and the supplemental message board terms and conditions govern your use of the content, services, and applications on the BlackVoices message boards (collectively, the "Terms").

BY USING OR SUBMITTING POSTS, YOU ARE AGREEING ELECTRONICALLY TO ABIDE BY THESE TERMS AND CONSENT TO THE AOL NETWORK PRIVACY POLICY.

1. BlackVoices.com is intended for general audiences. You do not need to register to visit BlackVoices; however, you will need to register with us if you want to access and use our message boards. You must register in your own name and provide accurate information. You will need a User ID that we accept for use with BlackVoices, and you agree that you will abide by any separate terms that apply to your User ID. You agree to keep confidential the passwords associated with your membership account.

2. Certain features on BlackVoices are designated for adults only ("Adult Features") and you must be at least 18 years of age in order to access and use these features. You agree that we may ? but we do not have a specific obligation -- to take reasonable steps to regulate access to the Adult Features.

3. You are responsible for all activities under your User ID on BlackVoices. You agree to comply with all applicable laws, rules, guidelines and the Terms. We may take any action or use any technical remedy against you and your account, ranging from a warning to termination, if you or anyone using your account violates these Terms or applicable law. We are not required to provide notice prior to terminating your account. You are responsible for any materials you post or make available on or through BlackVoices, including message board posts, chat participation, and submitting personal profiles. Additionally, you alone are responsible for the consequences of any content you post or otherwise make available on or through BlackVoices. You agree to indemnify us and our parent and affiliates for any losses incurred by us or another party due to someone else using your User ID as a result of you sharing your User ID and password with other or your failure to use reasonable care to keep your account information confidential.

4. You agree and understand that any violation of these Terms while you are using a User ID issued by us or one our affiliates (e.g., AOL) will also constitute a violation of the respective terms and conditions that apply to your User ID and may subject you to further disciplinary action by those services.

5. You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to BlackVoices. However, if you elect to submit messages, photographs (including any photographs that contain your likeness), information and any other postings on BlackVoices (the "Content"), you give us, our parent and affiliates a perpetual, paid-up, irrevocable and worldwide right to use, promote, reproduce, edit, store, distribute, publicly display, and transmit the Content on BlackVoices and our affiliate services. We own all right, title, and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by us using or incorporating the Content. You represent and warrant (i) the Content you submit on BlackVoices does not infringe any copyright or any other third party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation, (ii) you have the right to grant any and all necessary rights related to the Content, which will not violate the rights of any person or entity, including any right to privacy or publicity. You agree to hold us and our parent and affiliates harmless from and against any third party claim arising from use or submission of Content. If, however, you use these tools to disclose information about yourself publicly (for example, in chat rooms or online message boards made available by AIM), other online users may obtain access to any information you provide. You waive any right to privacy.

6. Here are our guidelines on what you may or may not post on BlackVoices. You may not use BlackVoices to post, distribute, or otherwise make available any Content or materials -- including text, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information -- that: is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another's privacy, tortious, contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), uses vulgar language in the creation of a UserID or the Content submitted for a profile; violates these Terms; victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability; infringes on any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity, or other proprietary right of any party; constitutes unauthorized or unsolicited advertising, chain letters, any other form of unauthorized solicitation, or any form of lottery or gambling; contains software viruses or any other computer code, files, or programs that are designed or intended to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software, hardware, or telecommunications equipment or to damage or obtain unauthorized access to any data or other information of any third party; or impersonates any person or entity. Under no circumstances should you post or otherwise make available images of obscene or graphic sexually oriented content in your personal profiles or in any other public areas within BlackVoices if you do, have the right, but we do not assume the obligation, to delete your personal profile, edit your personal profile by removing such images or content, and/or terminate your access to BlackVoices. We may disclose any Content, electronic communication, evidence or potential evidence of any kind (i) to satisfy any law, regulation, or government request; (ii) to protect our rights or property, including our parent and affiliates, you or others; (iii) to prevent fraud; and (iv) and to enforce these Terms.

7. Any images uploaded to your personal profiles must be recent photographs of yourself. We reserve the right to take down any Content that we believe in our discretion may violate these Terms or the law. If you do not agree to these guidelines, than do not use BlackVoices.

8. You agree not to post or otherwise make available any contact information (related to you or any other person), such as, any person?s full name, email address, User IDs, instant messaging screen names, phone numbers or mailing address in any public areas (e.g., personal profiles, chat rooms, message boards, etc.) maintained on BlackVoices. We reserve the right, but we have no obligation, to remove any contact information they might find in such public areas. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT WE, OUR PARENT AND AFFILIATES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONTACT OR INTERACTION THAT OCCURS BETWEEN YOU AND ANY OTHER USER OF BLACKVOICES AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK FALLS ON YOU. You are solely responsible for any consequences arising from your sharing, making available or otherwise exchanging, through a public area on the web or via a private exchange, any form of "contact information" with any user of BlackVoices.

9. You may not use BlackVoices to harvest or collect information about our users, including UserID?s, and use that information for the purpose of sending unsolicited bulk communications, such as "spam" e-mails or unsolicited bulk instant messages. Likewise, you may not use BlackVoices to send unsolicited bulk communications. Any violation of these provisions may result in immediate termination of your account. You agree that we may take any legal and technical remedies to prevent unsolicited bulk communications from entering, utilizing or remaining within our computer networks.

10. We, our content providers and user who lawfully post Content own the property rights to that Content. This Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, international treaties, laws and other proprietary rights, and also may have security components that protect digital information to be used only as authorized by AOL or its Suppliers. You may use any Content available on BlackVoices only for personal, non-commercial purposes. You may not sell, sublicense, make derivate works or redistribute Content (except your own Content) that you obtain from BlackVoices.

11. We are not required to pre-screen Content on BlackVoices, although we reserve the right to do so in our sole discretion. We are not liable or take responsibility for Content that is provided by others. We may in our discretion remove Content that, in our sole judgment, does not comply with or meet our standards, but we are not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such material.

12. YOU USE BLACKVOICES AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE PROVIDE BLACKVOICES ?AS IS? AND WITH ALL FAULTS. WE PROVIDE BLACKVOICES WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. WE, OUR SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTERS DISCLAIM IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT BLACKVOICES IS MERCHANTABLE, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURATE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NEED, OR NON-INFRINGING OR THAT IT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY SPECIFIC RESULTS.

13. YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH YOUR USE OF BLACKVOICES IS TO DISCONTINUE YOUR USE OF BLACKVOICES. WE, OUR PARENT, AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGE ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF BLACKVOICES. THESE EXCLUSIONS FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, AOL'S AND ITS SUPPLIER'S LIABILITY IN SUCH STATE OR JURISDICTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

14. BlackVoices is part of the web sites and service on the AOL Network. The AOL Network Privacy Policy explains how AOL collects, uses, and discloses personal information in connection with your use of BlackVoices, as well as the choices we give you about such uses and disclosures. You can review the current version of this policy by clicking on the Privacy Policy link on BlackVoices web pages.

15. BlackVoices is one of the ?Services? defined in, and governed by, the AOL Network Registered User Agreement. You agree that the AOL Network Registered User Agreement is incorporated by reference into these Terms.

Procedure for Making Claim of Copyright Infringement

If you believe that your work has been copied and is accessible on this site in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, you may notify America Online. Click here for instructions.

-

Revised 09-10-08


----------



## MaggieMae

CueUp said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CueUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thanks for the heads up, but I've been arguing with Lefties for years. I know exactly what to expect.  Heck...I even used to be one. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, but I used to be a Republican. Sometimes it takes only one major political gaffe that takes on a life of its own for a person to suddenly decide his/her party preference needs to be changed. Mine was when Ronald Reagan cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The story was ultimately proven to have been made up, but in the meantime the country was outraged. Reagan came out with that POS at a period in time when my brother was going through an extremely rough time and had to take advantage of the government umbrellas offered just to survive. Although it's a given that welfare fraud takes place, making a mockery of Americans genuinely in need was a monstrous thing for a President of the United States to do. I've voted Democrat ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I differentiate rather strongly between "conservative" and "Repulican" and "Liberal" and "Democrat".  The fact that I am no longer a liberal in no way means I consider myself a Republican.
> 
> That said, my change of philosophy occurred when, in my mid-to-late 30's, I began working as a volunteer in the school system where my daughter had begun attending.  This turned out to be a prolonged stint working in the public schools, both as a classroom volunteer, a teacher of a curriculum called "Great Books", and later on, as a member of several councils and committees pertaining to education.  Over the course of the years, I was appalled at what I discovered. The more I saw of how liberal policies in public education were such a dismal failure, the more I began to apply what I'd learned to other liberal enterprises.  It became clear to me that good intentions are not enough. *
Click to expand...


Your history with the school system is interesting. Mine, however, was quite the opposite which may account at least in part why primary education has hit the skids, and that is the abject and wonton "class" distinctions offered by [at least my] school board. I was heavily involved in local politics at the time and attended school board meetings when possible, and especially during an election year when the school budget was up for approval. I found it totally unacceptable that the school board members (this was a so-called "gold town) fought the hardest for new cheerleading uniforms over new textbooks, for example. And they WON. 

So I suppose on a smaller scale, those fights won't change. It's a matter of priority depending upon one's status in the community, so when more Democrats got elected to the school board, more money got directed to things other than fluff. In the meantime, those kids had previously been denied many of the tools they really need to pass, but they got passed on anyway, resulting in lower overall test scores by the time they graduated.


----------



## code1211

editec said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians are necessarily anti-capitalists.
> 
> Just to make things more entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They won't get it, Agna.
> 
> Most of these so called Libertarians and conservatives honestly believe that Ayn Rand understood capitalism and socialism and human nature, too.
> 
> They're mistaken, but they're sincerely mistaken.
Click to expand...


.......

I'm not sure that Ayn Rand was a proponent of Capitalism.  It seems to me that she was a proponent of humanism and the value of the contibution of the individual.  She seemed also to abhore the profiteering of the hucksters who steal then promote.

Also she seemed to endorse the idea that the inspired and the creative should profit by virtue of their contribution to society and that society should be in some manner aware of of and indebted to those who are the inspired and the creative for the benefits they bestow.

Her world view that the the powered elite of this country hoodwinked the populace to be indebted to the elite.  "The Mob" is referred to often in "Atlas Shrugged" and in "The Fountainhead".  Her view of the power elite and the majority of society is not appreciative.  Those that decieve are despised in her writing and those that are easily decieved are also dispised.  

The creative and the inspired are her heroes and there are really pretty few of these people around.  

Did she endorse a political philosophy?


----------



## code1211

Agnapostate said:


> Ayn Rand was nothing if not purely and dimly reactionary to her surroundings. If she'd been imprisoned in Siberia, she'd have wanted to swim in a volcano.



..............

Is that a reason to write her off?  Should we do the same to Dickens and Whitman?  Sinclair Lewis?  John Mellancamp said that he had his whole life to write his first album and 3 months to write the second one.

I'm guessing that the first one was a reaction to his surroundings and the second was a reaction to a promise for money.  (His second album was never even released.)  

Some of the best literature in our libraries is a reaction to the surroundings of the author.


----------



## PinckleyToros7

InrXeyelArkvst said:


> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*
> 
> 
> 
> _Nice meeting you, too_.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


                                                         [COLOR=[RIGHT]Hee,Hee,Hee,You are way too much,Xeye![/RIGHT]"Red"][/COLOR]


----------



## Rightwngcrkpot

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...._there _you are, pinkytoast! Damn, girl.............i sent ya two e-mails telling you where we all went and you didn't even open them!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ah ah

.................aaaaaaaah but we missed ya and i'm glad you're here.

Rwc:


----------



## AnnECUCherry

Rightwngcrkpot said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...._there _you are, pinkytoast! Damn, girl.............i sent ya two e-mails telling you where we all went and you didn't even open them!!!
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ah ah
> 
> .................aaaaaaaah but we missed ya and i'm glad you're here.
> 
> Rwc:



C'mon, RWC.  You know nobody opens mail from a right-wing crackpot!

Does Dbrod?!


----------



## AnnECUCherry

PinckleyToros7 said:


> InrXeyelArkvst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Com' on damnit. I just left an AOL board where this kind of spamming was common. Let's leave that childish crap back at AOL. This board has great possibilities with good people. Let's not muck it up with the puerile poop we left behind.*
> 
> 
> 
> _Nice meeting you, too_.
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [COLOR=[RIGHT]Hee,Hee,Hee,You are way too much,Xeye![/RIGHT]"Red"][/COLOR]
Click to expand...


Pinckley, glad I saw you on that weird AOL Beta board and you came over.  I don't think we want to mess with it  --  according to one of the Beta testers, AOL is likely to shut it down with no notice.


----------



## Rightwngcrkpot

*Anne wrote:*  C'mon, RWC. You know nobody opens mail from a right-wing crackpot! Does Dbrod?! 

RWC: You and Dbrod _BOTH _read my e-mail message about the new message board, but Pinky Toast didn't because she never opened it. Neither did Matthew 154 nor SassyIrishLassl9. I tried to include Pagen Kmuck but AOL kept rejecting it as invalid address, and I could not remember the real screen name of Annerexic.

gezztoo	 Read: 4/5/2009 8:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Spindleman51	 Read: 4/5/2009 12:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
MombrandtII	 Read: 4/5/2009 9:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Matthew154	 (not yet read)
IRabbit	 Read: 4/10/2009 9:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Jim73CO	 Read: 4/6/2009 8:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
aka520a	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
change4us5	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
pinckleytoros7@aim.com
	 (not yet read)
dbrod12152	 Read: 4/5/2009 7:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
AnnECUCherry	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
TonyeyesColorado	 Read: 4/5/2009 10:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
sassyirishlassl9@aim.com
	 (not yet read)
RightwngCrackpot	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Sent:  4/5/2009 8:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time


----------



## AnnECUCherry

Rightwngcrkpot said:


> *Anne wrote:*  C'mon, RWC. You know nobody opens mail from a right-wing crackpot! Does Dbrod?!
> 
> RWC: You and Dbrod _BOTH _read my e-mail message about the new message board, but Pinky Toast didn't because she never opened it. Neither did Matthew 154 nor SassyIrishLassl9. I tried to include Pagen Kmuck but AOL kept rejecting it as invalid address, and I could not remember the real screen name of Annerexic.
> 
> gezztoo	 Read: 4/5/2009 8:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Spindleman51	 Read: 4/5/2009 12:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> MombrandtII	 Read: 4/5/2009 9:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Matthew154	 (not yet read)
> IRabbit	 Read: 4/10/2009 9:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Jim73CO	 Read: 4/6/2009 8:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> aka520a	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> change4us5	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> pinckleytoros7@aim.com
> (not yet read)
> dbrod12152	 Read: 4/5/2009 7:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> AnnECUCherry	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> TonyeyesColorado	 Read: 4/5/2009 10:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> sassyirishlassl9@aim.com
> (not yet read)
> RightwngCrackpot	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> 
> Sent:  4/5/2009 8:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time



Ooops!  That I did!  I forgot that I made an exception for you 'cause you're _our_ lovable, harmless right-wing crackpot.

And I see that mail from you has an even higher approval rating than the president.


----------



## PinckleyToros7

Right Wngc Rkpot said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...._there _you are, pinkytoast! Damn, girl.............i sent ya two e-mails telling you where we all went and you didn't even open them!!!
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ah ah
> 
> .................aaaaaaaah but we missed ya and i'm glad you're here.
> 
> Rwc:



 _So sorry,RWC,been very busy trying to save my career,it is good to see some remnants of the old bunch,this board might be a bit much for my style,I enjoy confrontations,jousting with nasty declarations and obscenities,we have enough "brilliant" journalists,lying through their teeth,this board seems to be one big Op-Ed page and more of the same bullshit of one-upsmanship and futuristic fantasies,I egged NorthEaster over here and he is not impressed,either,such is life,"You can never go home again",Thomas Wolfe was correct,besides,this board's format unravels my true identity as one computer illiterate,I need that?  _


----------



## Meister

PinckleyToros7 said:


> Right Wngc Rkpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...._there _you are, pinkytoast! Damn, girl.............i sent ya two e-mails telling you where we all went and you didn't even open them!!!
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ah ah
> 
> .................aaaaaaaah but we missed ya and i'm glad you're here.
> 
> Rwc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _So sorry,RWC,been very busy trying to save my career,it is good to see some remnants of the old bunch,this board might be a bit much for my style,I enjoy confrontations,jousting with nasty declarations and obscenities,we have enough "brilliant" journalists,lying through their teeth,this board seems to be one big Op-Ed page and more of the same bullshit of one-upsmanship and futuristic fantasies,I egged NorthEaster over here and he is not impressed,either,such is life,"You can never go home again",Thomas Wolfe was correct,besides,this board's format unravels my true identity as one computer illiterate,I need that?  _
Click to expand...


Your not on AOL any longer, so please get rid of the red lettering.  Have you even looked at your post?  Can you read it without trying to adjust your eyes?  This is a grown up board...it's OK to just use the standard color of black.  By the way...welcome to the board.


----------



## pagankmck

Rightwngcrkpot said:


> *Anne wrote:*  C'mon, RWC. You know nobody opens mail from a right-wing crackpot! Does Dbrod?!
> 
> RWC: You and Dbrod _BOTH _read my e-mail message about the new message board, but Pinky Toast didn't because she never opened it. Neither did Matthew 154 nor SassyIrishLassl9. I tried to include Pagen Kmuck but AOL kept rejecting it as invalid address, and I could not remember the real screen name of Annerexic.
> 
> gezztoo	 Read: 4/5/2009 8:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Spindleman51	 Read: 4/5/2009 12:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> MombrandtII	 Read: 4/5/2009 9:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Matthew154	 (not yet read)
> IRabbit	 Read: 4/10/2009 9:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Jim73CO	 Read: 4/6/2009 8:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> aka520a	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> change4us5	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> pinckleytoros7@aim.com
> (not yet read)
> dbrod12152	 Read: 4/5/2009 7:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> AnnECUCherry	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> TonyeyesColorado	 Read: 4/5/2009 10:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> sassyirishlassl9@aim.com
> (not yet read)
> RightwngCrackpot	 Read: 4/5/2009 11:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> 
> Sent:  4/5/2009 8:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time


You spelled my screen name wrong, Dude .  : eusa_snooty:


----------



## PinckleyToros7

Meister said:


> PinckleyToros7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right Wngc Rkpot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...._there _you are, pinkytoast! Damn, girl.............i sent ya two e-mails telling you where we all went and you didn't even open them!!!
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ha ha ah ah
> 
> .................aaaaaaaah but we missed ya and i'm glad you're here.
> 
> Rwc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _So sorry,RWC,been very busy trying to save my career,it is good to see some remnants of the old bunch,this board might be a bit much for my style,I enjoy confrontations,jousting with nasty declarations and obscenities,we have enough "brilliant" journalists,lying through their teeth,this board seems to be one big Op-Ed page and more of the same bullshit of one-upsmanship and futuristic fantasies,I egged NorthEaster over here and he is not impressed,either,such is life,"You can never go home again",Thomas Wolfe was correct,besides,this board's format unravels my true identity as one computer illiterate,I need that?  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your not on AOL any longer, so please get rid of the red lettering.  Have you even looked at your post?  Can you read it without trying to adjust your eyes?  This is a grown up board...it's OK to just use the standard color of black.  By the way...welcome to the board.
Click to expand...

 _                                           Surely,you are jesting,to critique my choice of colors is as crazy as telling me to eat green tomatoes,get a life and worry about your own insecurities,before you plan my life for me,comprende,Homer?_


----------



## Meister

PinckleyToros7 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PinckleyToros7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So sorry,RWC,been very busy trying to save my career,it is good to see some remnants of the old bunch,this board might be a bit much for my style,I enjoy confrontations,jousting with nasty declarations and obscenities,we have enough "brilliant" journalists,lying through their teeth,this board seems to be one big Op-Ed page and more of the same bullshit of one-upsmanship and futuristic fantasies,I egged NorthEaster over here and he is not impressed,either,such is life,"You can never go home again",Thomas Wolfe was correct,besides,this board's format unravels my true identity as one computer illiterate,I need that?  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not on AOL any longer, so please get rid of the red lettering.  Have you even looked at your post?  Can you read it without trying to adjust your eyes?  This is a grown up board...it's OK to just use the standard color of black.  By the way...welcome to the board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _                                           Surely,you are jesting,to critique my choice of colors is as crazy as telling me to eat green tomatoes,get a life and worry about your own insecurities,before you plan my life for me,comprende,Homer?_
Click to expand...


 I won't need to read what you have to say, Gomer, comprende?  Geeze talk about insucurities?  Your color is like your baby blankie for sucking your thumb, I guess.


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

PinckleyToros7 said:


> _Surely,you are jesting,to critique my choice of colors is as crazy as telling me to eat green tomatoes,get a life and worry about your own insecurities,before you plan my life for me,comprende,Homer?_


They've got some here that are all freaky about form over content. And they tend to wander topically until they find a sniping point. Watch out for curse laden PMs and de-reps. Weird. It's as if they've got a hybrid of OCD, ADHD and Tourette's.


----------



## InrXeyelArkvst

pagankmck said:


> You spelled my screen name wrong, Dude . : eusa_snooty:


Hey, Dudette.


----------

