Log of Liberal Lies

[rdean]

Between Republicans and Democrats, there are generally two kinds of lies.

There are lies Republicans accuse Democrats of that are so ridiculous, only Republicans could possibly believe anyone says such nonsense.

Then there are the lies Republicans leaders tell, which the base denies, until they can figure out a "spin" or blame it on the Democrats.

 

[BDBoop]

Waiting on the thousands of examples.

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Waiting on the thousands of examples.

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

We can only hope. That should be FUN!

 

[P@triot]

Waiting on the thousands of examples.

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

Seriously? You're going to jump on this "pretend like every college campus and hospital campus in the nation is filled with buildings that came from donors" absurdity too? Stop the passive-aggresive stuff and just make a clear statement. Are you also denying reality just so you can support your child here?

 

[BDBoop]

Waiting on the thousands of examples.

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

Seriously? You're going to jump on this "pretend like every college campus and hospital campus in the nation is filled with buildings that came from donors" absurdity too? Stop the passive-aggresive stuff and just make a clear statement. Are you also denying reality, or are you going to make a fool out of yourself just so you can support your child here?

My child is still a girl, so that pretty much rules out this guy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hey, how 'bout that Mets game?

 

[P@triot]

Oh and the word is "prestigious." You're using a plural of prestige. Which also is not a word.

Bad at math, bad vocabulary, bad poster.

1+1+1=Dummy

Hey, how's that living document education going?

Sorry brother - because your in complete denial of reality, and in the interest of saving time, I've had to write one response, copy it and then paste it with the approprate edits added it. Which means I made one mistake, and it got repeated automatically. But again, that's only because your a whack job radical trying to convince yourself that campuses across the nation are not filled to capacity with buildings that were constructed from generous donors rather than by the force of Communist government.

So you still don't understand about the Constitution being a living document?

So you still want to stick to your story that the "Constitution is what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is"? That's when I replied that if SCOTUS decides tomorrow that your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights no longer exist, you would support that because the document was "living" and at the mercy of SCOTUS? Then, for once in your life, you did the right thing and shut up and went away.

Why you would bring this back up is beyond me. I've owned you on it (and pretty much every other stupid thing you've said).

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Waiting on the thousands of examples.

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

Seriously? You're going to jump on this "pretend like every college campus and hospital campus in the nation is filled with buildings that came from donors" absurdity too? Stop the passive-aggresive stuff and just make a clear statement. Are you also denying reality just so you can support your child here?

There's more to charity than a building on a campus, or a wing in a Hospital, since neither of those places offer overnight sleeping for the homeless or food for the hungry. When private charity can deliver that there is not a single child going hungry and living on the streets in this country, it's our Government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by the glorious and holy private charities, despite their utter perfection, right Dumbfuck?

It's sort if in our Constitutions preamble. But whatever, Guy.

Let me know when you get all those examples together, okay pal?

 

[P@triot]

Counting on private charity is a Fool's game. It's like cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations and expecting that they'll feel compelled to put that discount back into the system, trickling down wealth on the poor. It's proof that Conservatives also can live in a a complete ideological vacuum where real life doesn't enter into the equation.

"Coal-mining and farming magnate James C. Justice II, along with his wife, Cathy, confirmed this week that they are giving $10 million to Cleveland Clinic Innovations, the commercialization and corporate venture arm of Northeast Ohio's largest health system."

Why, by golly gee willickers - you mean to tell me that one of our most prestigious hospitals in all of the nation has received a DONATION of $10 million from an individuals who gave of their own free will and not by the force of the federal government?!?! But....but... how could this possibly be? I mean, according to liberals, rich people are evil and "counting on private charity is a FOOLS GAME". This just doesn't seem to add up.

(It never does when liberals are involved). Schooled again my friend... Schooled again.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Sorry brother - because your in complete denial of reality, and in the interest of saving time, I've had to write one response, copy it and then paste it with the approprate edits added it. Which means I made one mistake, and it got repeated automatically. But again, that's only because your a whack job radical trying to convince yourself that campuses across the nation are not filled to capacity with buildings that were constructed from generous donors rather than by the force of Communist government.

So you still don't understand about the Constitution being a living document?

So you still want to stick to your story that the "Constitution is what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is"? That's when I replied that if SCOTUS decides tomorrow that your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights no longer exist, you would support that because the document was "living" and at the mercy of SCOTUS? Then, for once in your life, you did the right thing and shut up and went away.

Why you would bring this back up is beyond me. I've owned you on it (and pretty much every other stupid thing you've said).

Yes, I absolutely want to stick to my "Story" (known among Constitutional scholars as "facts"), because everything you typed is utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't remove amendments. If you want to remove an amendment, dummy, you have to enter a new amendment into the Constitution that basically says, "Yeah, you can ignore that last amendment because we done fucked up." It's why the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol wasn't deleted, it was repealed by Amendment 21.

Welcome to Constitutional Facts 101 with Professor Derp Derperson.

Holy fuck you're dumb.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Counting on private charity is a Fool's game. It's like cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations and expecting that they'll feel compelled to put that discount back into the system, trickling down wealth on the poor. It's proof that Conservatives also can live in a a complete ideological vacuum where real life doesn't enter into the equation.

"Coal-mining and farming magnate James C. Justice II, along with his wife, Cathy, confirmed this week that they are giving $10 million to Cleveland Clinic Innovations, the commercialization and corporate venture arm of Northeast Ohio's largest health system."

Why, by golly gee willickers - you mean to tell me that one of our most prestigious hospitals in all of the nation has received a DONATION of $10 million from an individuals who gave of their own free will and not by the force of the federal government?!?! But....but... how could this possibly be? I mean, according to liberals, rich people are evil and "counting on private charity is a FOOLS GAME". This just doesn't seem to add up.

(It never does when liberals are involved). Schooled again my friend... Schooled again.

It is a fool's game, counting on it. Because at any point it can dry up and go away if the donor doesn't want to be charitable anymore. That, you fucking walking lobotomy, was my point this entire time. Of course private charity is wonderful, you fuckwit. Of course I think it's great when people money to help big causes. Jesus you're dumb.

The issue isn't whether it's good, fucko. It's over whether private charity is both reliable and sufficient. And the answer to both is a historically resounding "NO!" You show me a time when there was no government assistance program on the books and we did NOT have homeless and starving citizens, and I'll concede this point.

Until then, go read a book, you twat.

 

[P@triot]

I know what's going to happen. I haz a crystal ball.

He'll wait until you go to bed, triumphantly post one link, then wait five minutes.

He will then scream that you are a coward, despite the fact that you've obviously hit the hay.

Seriously? You're going to jump on this "pretend like every college campus and hospital campus in the nation is filled with buildings that came from donors" absurdity too? Stop the passive-aggresive stuff and just make a clear statement. Are you also denying reality just so you can support your child here?

There's more to charity than a building on a campus, or a wing in a Hospital, since neither of those places offer overnight sleeping for the homeless or food for the hungry. When private charity can deliver that there is not a single child going hungry and living on the streets in this country, it's our Government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by the glorious and holy private charities, despite their utter perfection, right Dumbfuck?

It's sort if in our Constitutions preamble. But whatever, Guy.

Let me know when you get all those examples together, okay pal?

I like watching your meltdowns when I point out something stupid you have said.

If you weren't a lazy liberal, and took the time to read the US Constitution just once in your miserable stoned life, you would know that it is not "the government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by" charity.

Your problem, my stoned little liberal friend, is that you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers delegated to it (keyword is delegated) by the states. Which means, the federal government truly has ZERO powers, but the states felt that things would run smoother if they GAVE of their own FREE WILL 18 enumerated powers to them that they could retract at any time. Of those 18 enumerated powers, NOT one of them says to provide for the people or fill in any gaps left form charity or perform any type of social safety net what so ever.

Like I said, you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. You have no idea how our government works, how it was founded, or anything about the Constitution (which is why you ignorantly stated that it is a living document which can be changed on the whim of SCOTUS )

 

[BDBoop]

Counting on private charity is a Fool's game. It's like cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations and expecting that they'll feel compelled to put that discount back into the system, trickling down wealth on the poor. It's proof that Conservatives also can live in a a complete ideological vacuum where real life doesn't enter into the equation.

"Coal-mining and farming magnate James C. Justice II, along with his wife, Cathy, confirmed this week that they are giving $10 million to Cleveland Clinic Innovations, the commercialization and corporate venture arm of Northeast Ohio's largest health system."

Why, by golly gee willickers - you mean to tell me that one of our most prestigious hospitals in all of the nation has received a DONATION of $10 million from an individuals who gave of their own free will and not by the force of the federal government?!?! But....but... how could this possibly be? I mean, according to liberals, rich people are evil and "counting on private charity is a FOOLS GAME". This just doesn't seem to add up.

(It never does when liberals are involved). Schooled again my friend... Schooled again.

It is a fool's game, counting on it. Because at any point it can dry up and go away if the donor doesn't want to be charitable anymore. That, you fucking walking lobotomy, was my point this entire time. Of course private charity is wonderful, you fuckwit. Of course I think it's great when people money to help big causes. Jesus you're dumb.

The issue isn't whether it's good, fucko. It's over whether private charity is both reliable and sufficient. And the answer to both is a historically resounding "NO!" You show me a time when there was no government assistance program on the books and we did NOT have homeless and starving citizens, and I'll concede this point.

Until then, go read a book, you twat.

Well, I'm not a twat, but any excuse to be reunited with my Kindle.

Laterz!

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Seriously? You're going to jump on this "pretend like every college campus and hospital campus in the nation is filled with buildings that came from donors" absurdity too? Stop the passive-aggresive stuff and just make a clear statement. Are you also denying reality just so you can support your child here?

There's more to charity than a building on a campus, or a wing in a Hospital, since neither of those places offer overnight sleeping for the homeless or food for the hungry. When private charity can deliver that there is not a single child going hungry and living on the streets in this country, it's our Government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by the glorious and holy private charities, despite their utter perfection, right Dumbfuck?

It's sort if in our Constitutions preamble. But whatever, Guy.

Let me know when you get all those examples together, okay pal?

I like watching your meltdowns when I point out something stupid you have said.

If you weren't a lazy liberal, and took the time to read the US Constitution just once in your miserable stoned life, you would know that it is not "the government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by" charity.

Your problem, my stoned little liberal friend, is that you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers delegated to it (keyword is delegated) by the states. Which means, the federal government truly has ZERO powers, but the states felt that things would run smoother if they GAVE of their own FREE WILL 18 enumerated powers to them that they could retract at any time. Of those 18 enumerated powers, NOT one of them says to provide for the people or fill in any gaps left form charity or perform any type of social safety net what so ever.

Like I said, you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. You have no idea how our government works, how it was founded, or anything about the Constitution (which is why you ignorantly stated that it is a living document which can be changed on the whim of SCOTUS )

Tell me what the preamble means when it mentions "promote the general welfare." I want to know your genius definition of what the government can do to fulfill that obligation that the Constitution gives it.

 

[P@triot]

Counting on private charity is a Fool's game. It's like cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations and expecting that they'll feel compelled to put that discount back into the system, trickling down wealth on the poor. It's proof that Conservatives also can live in a a complete ideological vacuum where real life doesn't enter into the equation.

"Coal-mining and farming magnate James C. Justice II, along with his wife, Cathy, confirmed this week that they are giving $10 million to Cleveland Clinic Innovations, the commercialization and corporate venture arm of Northeast Ohio's largest health system."

Why, by golly gee willickers - you mean to tell me that one of our most prestigious hospitals in all of the nation has received a DONATION of $10 million from an individuals who gave of their own free will and not by the force of the federal government?!?! But....but... how could this possibly be? I mean, according to liberals, rich people are evil and "counting on private charity is a FOOLS GAME". This just doesn't seem to add up.

(It never does when liberals are involved). Schooled again my friend... Schooled again.

It is a fool's game, counting on it. Because at any point it can dry up and go away if the donor doesn't want to be charitable anymore. That, you fucking walking lobotomy, was my point this entire time. Of course private charity is wonderful, you fuckwit. Of course I think it's great when people money to help big causes. Jesus you're dumb.

The issue isn't whether it's good, fucko. It's over whether private charity is both reliable and sufficient. And the answer to both is a historically resounding "NO!" You show me a time when there was no government assistance program on the books and we did NOT have homeless and starving citizens, and I'll concede this point.

Until then, go read a book, you twat.

Ok, see now we're getting somewhere my stoned little liberal friend. We're having a break through here! Your true feelings are coming out - which is - that you don't like the fact that people can decide when they give, how much they give, or if they give. You want it to be forced on them against their will (ie Communism).

See, this is the problem brother. We could have a good, civilized discussion if you could just be honest about what you are and reality. You have a right to be a Communist. But when you pretend you're not while spewing all things Communism (ie "because at any point it can dry up and go away if the donor doesn't want to be charitable anymore" ie you don't like people to have freedom of choice, you want it forced on them against their will) then you just come across like a whacko radical.

We've taken a major step here this evening, don't regress over night, ok? God bless you brother, I'll be saying a prayer for you. Remember, you have the right to be a Communist. Just be honest about it and have an honest discussion about the philosophies, the results, etc.

 

[P@triot]

There's more to charity than a building on a campus, or a wing in a Hospital, since neither of those places offer overnight sleeping for the homeless or food for the hungry. When private charity can deliver that there is not a single child going hungry and living on the streets in this country, it's our Government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by the glorious and holy private charities, despite their utter perfection, right Dumbfuck?

It's sort if in our Constitutions preamble. But whatever, Guy.

Let me know when you get all those examples together, okay pal?

I like watching your meltdowns when I point out something stupid you have said.

If you weren't a lazy liberal, and took the time to read the US Constitution just once in your miserable stoned life, you would know that it is not "the government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by" charity.

Your problem, my stoned little liberal friend, is that you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers delegated to it (keyword is delegated) by the states. Which means, the federal government truly has ZERO powers, but the states felt that things would run smoother if they GAVE of their own FREE WILL 18 enumerated powers to them that they could retract at any time. Of those 18 enumerated powers, NOT one of them says to provide for the people or fill in any gaps left form charity or perform any type of social safety net what so ever.

Like I said, you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. You have no idea how our government works, how it was founded, or anything about the Constitution (which is why you ignorantly stated that it is a living document which can be changed on the whim of SCOTUS )

Tell me what the preamble means when it mentions "promote the general welfare." I want to know your genius definition of what the government can do to fulfill that obligation that the Constitution gives it.

As I said to your fellow Communist (RightWinger) there is a major difference between promote the general welfare and provide for the general welfare.

The federal government promotes the general welfare by creating an environment for prosperity. They do that by adhering to the Constitution. For example - their primary responsibility is defense. By keeping me free from oppresive regimes and safe, I can focus on pursuing happiness and they have "promoted the general welfare".

Another of the enumerated powers is what we now call "Intellectual Property". By issuing patents and recognizing IP, they "promote the general welfare". It creates an environment for prosperity by giving people the peace of mind to know that their discoveries, inventions, etc. will not be stolen and will result in exclusive financial rights for the length of the issued patent.

Now, lets look at unconstitutionally providing for the general welfare. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all on the verge of bankruptcy. Both parties have said as much over and over (both Bush and Obama have stated this on numerous occassions). It's the one thing both sides agree on. Why do you think that is? Because it's just a form of Socialism/Marxism which has been proven to be unsustainable.

Do you see the difference now between promoting (ie creating the environmen for prosperity) and providing?

 

[P@triot]

So you still don't understand about the Constitution being a living document?

So you still want to stick to your story that the "Constitution is what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is"? That's when I replied that if SCOTUS decides tomorrow that your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights no longer exist, you would support that because the document was "living" and at the mercy of SCOTUS? Then, for once in your life, you did the right thing and shut up and went away.

Why you would bring this back up is beyond me. I've owned you on it (and pretty much every other stupid thing you've said).

Yes, I absolutely want to stick to my "Story" (known among Constitutional scholars as "facts"), because everything you typed is utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't remove amendments. If you want to remove an amendment, dummy, you have to enter a new amendment into the Constitution that basically says, "Yeah, you can ignore that last amendment because we done fucked up." It's why the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol wasn't deleted, it was repealed by Amendment 21.

Welcome to Constitutional Facts 101 with Professor Derp Derperson.

Holy fuck you're dumb.

But according to your own words, amendments are not necessary because the Constitution is living and is "what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is". Those are your own words. So if they say they now remove amendments, according to you, that's how it now works. Still on board with that whole "living" document thing?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

So you still want to stick to your story that the "Constitution is what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is"? That's when I replied that if SCOTUS decides tomorrow that your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights no longer exist, you would support that because the document was "living" and at the mercy of SCOTUS? Then, for once in your life, you did the right thing and shut up and went away.

Why you would bring this back up is beyond me. I've owned you on it (and pretty much every other stupid thing you've said).

Yes, I absolutely want to stick to my "Story" (known among Constitutional scholars as "facts"), because everything you typed is utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't remove amendments. If you want to remove an amendment, dummy, you have to enter a new amendment into the Constitution that basically says, "Yeah, you can ignore that last amendment because we done fucked up." It's why the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol wasn't deleted, it was repealed by Amendment 21.

Welcome to Constitutional Facts 101 with Professor Derp Derperson.

Holy fuck you're dumb.

But according to your own words, amendments are not necessary because the Constitution is living and is "what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is". Those are your own words. So if they say they now remove amendments, according to you, that's how it now works. Still on board with that whole "living" document thing?

They interpret amendments and laws, they don't write them.

Again, this has been "Teaching Retards How the Constitution Works" Wither Derpy.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I like watching your meltdowns when I point out something stupid you have said.

If you weren't a lazy liberal, and took the time to read the US Constitution just once in your miserable stoned life, you would know that it is not "the government's duty to fill in the gaps left behind by" charity.

Your problem, my stoned little liberal friend, is that you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers delegated to it (keyword is delegated) by the states. Which means, the federal government truly has ZERO powers, but the states felt that things would run smoother if they GAVE of their own FREE WILL 18 enumerated powers to them that they could retract at any time. Of those 18 enumerated powers, NOT one of them says to provide for the people or fill in any gaps left form charity or perform any type of social safety net what so ever.

Like I said, you don't even know what it is that you don't even know. You have no idea how our government works, how it was founded, or anything about the Constitution (which is why you ignorantly stated that it is a living document which can be changed on the whim of SCOTUS )

Tell me what the preamble means when it mentions "promote the general welfare." I want to know your genius definition of what the government can do to fulfill that obligation that the Constitution gives it.

As I said to your fellow Communist (RightWinger) there is a major difference between promote the general welfare and provide for the general welfare.

The federal government promotes the general welfare by creating an environment for prosperity. They do that by adhering to the Constitution. For example - their primary responsibility is defense. By keeping me free from oppresive regimes and safe, I can focus on pursuing happiness and they have "promoted the general welfare".

Another of the enumerated powers is what we now call "Intellectual Property". By issuing patents and recognizing IP, they "promote the general welfare". It creates an environment for prosperity by giving people the peace of mind to know that their discoveries, inventions, etc. will not be stolen and will result in exclusive financial rights for the length of the issued patent.

Now, lets look at unconstitutionally providing for the general welfare. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all on the verge of bankruptcy. Both parties have said as much over and over (both Bush and Obama have stated this on numerous occassions). It's the one thing both sides agree on. Why do you think that is? Because it's just a form of Socialism/Marxism which has been proven to be unsustainable.

Do you see the difference now between promoting (ie creating the environmen for prosperity) and providing?

Social Security's not going bankrupt, nor will it ever. Continue with your bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, I absolutely want to stick to my "Story" (known among Constitutional scholars as "facts"), because everything you typed is utter and complete nonsense. The Supreme Court doesn't remove amendments. If you want to remove an amendment, dummy, you have to enter a new amendment into the Constitution that basically says, "Yeah, you can ignore that last amendment because we done fucked up." It's why the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol wasn't deleted, it was repealed by Amendment 21.

Welcome to Constitutional Facts 101 with Professor Derp Derperson.

Holy fuck you're dumb.

But according to your own words, amendments are not necessary because the Constitution is living and is "what ever the hell SCOTUS says it is". Those are your own words. So if they say they now remove amendments, according to you, that's how it now works. Still on board with that whole "living" document thing?

They interpret amendments and laws, they don't write them.

Again, this has been "Teaching Retards How the Constitution Works" Wither Derpy.

So let me get this straight - you say the Constitution is at the complete mercy of the SCOTUS, but somehow I'm the retard who needs to learn how the Constitution works? You need to get on some meds to balance you out son...