Why are people so damn unhappy and miserable lately?

[ChrisL]

It's the right wing.
Anti science
anti education
racist
ignorant
anti everyone
90% of the GOP
Don't understand anything except bombs and guns.
Without any discernible talent.
And so very scared all of the time.

A recipe for disaster.

Deany, every right winger on this board has more education than you . Little in life is more ignorant than blindly reciting memes from hate sites, which is all you do.

It's strange you should say that. Considering you can go through right wingers thread and comments on this very site and READ THE PROOF. It's right there. Spelled out.
Anti science. Look who the GOP put on national science committees.
Anti education. Really? "Mystical creation?"
The GOP is 90% white. They call the president boy, tar baby, say he and his wife are "uppity". What else can you say.
Name a GOP foreign policy that doesn't involve "bullying, guns and/or bombs".
Remember the last election? A trifecta of fear. Isis, Ebola, threatening refugee children running from danger.

Then there are all the endless "hate Obama" threads.

No wonder they don't like what I say. The truth hurts. Poor babies.

The left does the exact same thing. Both sides do this. It is a tactic. Sorry, but I think communicable diseases and terrorists are REAL threats, and I'm not a right winger.

Also, the left uses the race card a LOT.

 

[Iceweasel]

Eh... Reagan did do the former but other than using it as a convenient stick to poke the opposing 'team' when they have the WH I don't think anybody genuinely cares, as it doesn't affect them personally.

But the latter was going on well before Reagan. Eisenhower had the cojones to warn us about it on his way out the door 54 years ago.

"God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- DDE

The 70's were a very depressed era - similar to now under Obama. Reagan restored hope to America. People in general became a LOT happier under Reagan, and remained that way until 9/11. Obama of course is all about misery and hopelessness.

I lived through the whole thing, and I assure you what you have there is subjective fantasy.
Or as the rest of us call it with your usual range of insipidity, "Friday".

Wrong again. I was there too, even historians say it, leftists somewhat begrudgingly. Maybe your life sucked but I started a business in the mid eighties serving other businesses and there was a boom going on.

My life didn't " suck" in the ' 80s... matter of fact it developed in positive ways that benefit me to this day. But the same is true of the ' 70s. Absofuckinglutely none of that had jack squat to do with who the goddam President was. I don't chain myself to that mentality.

That wasn't the point. Interesting that you thought is was though. I was very unpolitical and only knew about Reagan what I saw on SNL or old movies. But I benefited from the uplifting spirit and entrepreneurship that came about and learned later on why as I became more politically aware.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong again. I was there too, even historians say it, leftists somewhat begrudgingly. Maybe your life sucked but I started a business in the mid eighties serving other businesses and there was a boom going on.

He's not wrong, he's lying. Pogo has a party to serve, and reality interferes with that. Pogo offers falsehood about the past in hopes of presenting his party in a better light right now. Contrasting the failure and despair spawned by Obama to the renaissance of America under Reagan casts the left in a bad light. So Pogo lies.

I don't have a "party", Pothead. As I just told one of your fellow traveller Strawman fantasizers who tried to lay the same wreath around my neck because he couldn't think of an argument either, I've never been a joiner. Of anything, certainly not political parties. I am sui generis.

As I keep saying -- as everybody here keeps saying -- you just pull this shit out of your ass and stand on the street corner trying to sell it. Ever occur to you that nobody buys it?

Duh...

I don't have a party either, Dope. I vote Republican because I am against socialism but I'm not registered, just a conservative. It's obvious where you line up politically, you have only managed to fool yourself.

 

[airplanemechanic]

As it is, I'm happy, no, I'm downright thrilled with my life. I really could not ask for more.

Me either. And I'm a Christian. 'plain that.

 

[Pogo]

Eh... Reagan did do the former but other than using it as a convenient stick to poke the opposing 'team' when they have the WH I don't think anybody genuinely cares, as it doesn't affect them personally.

But the latter was going on well before Reagan. Eisenhower had the cojones to warn us about it on his way out the door 54 years ago.

"God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- DDE

The 70's were a very depressed era - similar to now under Obama. Reagan restored hope to America. People in general became a LOT happier under Reagan, and remained that way until 9/11. Obama of course is all about misery and hopelessness.

I lived through the whole thing, and I assure you what you have there is subjective fantasy.
Or as the rest of us call it with your usual range of insipidity, "Friday".

Wrong again. I was there too, even historians say it, leftists somewhat begrudgingly. Maybe your life sucked but I started a business in the mid eighties serving other businesses and there was a boom going on.

My life didn't " suck" in the ' 80s... matter of fact it developed in positive ways that benefit me to this day. But the same is true of the ' 70s. Absofuckinglutely none of that had jack squat to do with who the goddam President was. I don't chain myself to that mentality.

That wasn't the point. Interesting that you thought is was though. I was very unpolitical and only knew about Reagan what I saw on SNL or old movies. But I benefited from the uplifting spirit and entrepreneurship that came about and learned later on why as I became more politically aware.

Actually it was the point. Your words, and I quote, "Maybe your life sucked" [in the '80s] on the heels of Pothead's customarily unhinged fantasy about crying the blues when some Democrat's in office and singing Glory Hallelujah when a Republican's in there. That's the soup he swims in, because he's not intelligent enough to see beyond a simplistic dichotomy where everything has to be one or the other.

Well I ain't built that way and my life doesn't suck or soar depending on a political party. And I kind of pity those who hang their hat on that crutch.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong again. I was there too, even historians say it, leftists somewhat begrudgingly. Maybe your life sucked but I started a business in the mid eighties serving other businesses and there was a boom going on.

He's not wrong, he's lying. Pogo has a party to serve, and reality interferes with that. Pogo offers falsehood about the past in hopes of presenting his party in a better light right now. Contrasting the failure and despair spawned by Obama to the renaissance of America under Reagan casts the left in a bad light. So Pogo lies.

I don't have a "party", Pothead. As I just told one of your fellow traveller Strawman fantasizers who tried to lay the same wreath around my neck because he couldn't think of an argument either, I've never been a joiner. Of anything, certainly not political parties. I am sui generis.

As I keep saying -- as everybody here keeps saying -- you just pull this shit out of your ass and stand on the street corner trying to sell it. Ever occur to you that nobody buys it?

Duh...

I don't have a party either, Dope. I vote Republican because I am against socialism but I'm not registered, just a conservative. It's obvious where you line up politically, you have only managed to fool yourself.

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

 

[Pogo]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

 

[Pogo]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

 

[ChrisL]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

Too bad that most of the candidates aren't worth the paper their names are printed on, huh?

 

[DIRECTOR]

I'm sorry, but this OP is just plain dumb! Soooo many erroneous statements in one opener, I almost fell off my chair laughing (or was I shouting at my monitor? Hmmmmn...)


Hey! It's been a LONG and arduous winter, folks! It just **MIGHT** be that!?...

*sighs*

 

[Unkotare]

But everyone acts like a spoiled brat child whining about all the supposed oppression and unfairness they face and acting like a reality TV drama queer.

"Everyone" who?

 

[Pogo]

Good for you. I didn't ask or presume to know how you vote. That's your business. Pothead's up there presuming all sorts of shit he has no clue of and can't document, because again he's not creative enough to see past the narrow fences of his own partisan head. And you're jumping in the same soup. Have fun, I don't play that.

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

Too bad that most of the candidates aren't worth the paper their names are printed on, huh?

Amen to that. It would be SOOO much less work to just join a party, "trust them" to supply good candidates, assume they've taken care of that and just vote the straight party line.

I've never done that, ever. I can't outsource decisions like that; I insist on making my own choices. I won't even drive an automatic transmission.

 

[ChrisL]

It should be obvious how I vote, as it is with you.

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

Too bad that most of the candidates aren't worth the paper their names are printed on, huh?

Amen to that. It would be SOOO much less work to just join a party, "trust them" to supply good candidates, assume they've taken care of that and just vote the straight party line.

I've never done that, ever. I can't outsource decisions like that; I insist on making my own choices. I won't even drive an automatic transmission.

They all put party before country.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not a scorekeeper. I don't even see a "game" going on.
It's very simple -- I don't believe in hanging blanket labels on people. Some issue or election comes up, I'm not going to presume to know what your position is going in -- that's for you to say, not me, and I assume you'll evaluate each such decision on its own merits. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, but that's what I do.

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

Too bad that most of the candidates aren't worth the paper their names are printed on, huh?

Amen to that. It would be SOOO much less work to just join a party, "trust them" to supply good candidates, assume they've taken care of that and just vote the straight party line.

I've never done that, ever. I can't outsource decisions like that; I insist on making my own choices. I won't even drive an automatic transmission.

They all put party before country.

That's my whole problem with the RINO/DINO critics. When we eventually do elect a Congresscritter they're supposed to represent constituents, not a political party.

 

[ChrisL]

Unless it's a referendum (which I disagree with) I vote for candidates, not "issues". It's clear to me that you will go for the Democrat and I freely admit I'll go for the Republican. There's no game or soup to sip, it is what it is.

Well fortunately it's not clear to me. I always analyze the candidates. If possible I'll do that analysis without the party of the candidate even showing so that my choice is entirely on the merits. That's driven my vote to Republicans, Democrats, and other parties. Voting for a label would be voting for a label. And that would be stupid.

Wankers like Pothead can't imagine that sort of approach because in their simplistic dichotomous world, there is only "Democrat" and "Republican" and if you're not licking the ass of the candidate he likes, you must be the bad guy. He's not intelligent enough to see it any other way.

Too bad that most of the candidates aren't worth the paper their names are printed on, huh?

Amen to that. It would be SOOO much less work to just join a party, "trust them" to supply good candidates, assume they've taken care of that and just vote the straight party line.

I've never done that, ever. I can't outsource decisions like that; I insist on making my own choices. I won't even drive an automatic transmission.

They all put party before country.

That's my whole problem with the RINO/DINO critics. When we eventually do elect a Congresscritter they're supposed to represent constituents, not a political party.

The two major parties have sold out. They represent those who donate the most money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Zero.

Your own posts, Pothead. They ain't going away. Even though you tried to cut them out of the quote.
Here they are comin' back. Grow a fucking pair and own 'em, pissant.

Yes stupid, they are my posts, and they're right on target.

You're not very good at this - I think it's because of the inhalants you abuse..

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's strange you should say that. Considering you can go through right wingers thread and comments on this very site and READ THE PROOF. It's right there. Spelled out.
Anti science. Look who the GOP put on national science committees.

The most anti-science phrase ever uttered is "consensus." The left confuses dogma with science.

Anti education. Really? "Mystical creation?"

Your hatred of Christians does not make you educated, quite the opposite really.

The GOP is 90% white.

And you are a racist who hates whites. We all know this.

They call the president boy, tar baby, say he and his wife are "uppity". What else can you say.

You mean all the things you and your party call Clarence Thomas, Dr. Ben Carson, or any other black person who dares break from the party?

Name a GOP foreign policy that doesn't involve "bullying, guns and/or bombs".
Remember the last election? A trifecta of fear. Isis, Ebola, threatening refugee children running from danger.

Then there are all the endless "hate Obama" threads.

No wonder they don't like what I say. The truth hurts. Poor babies.

Name a democratic foreign policy that doesn't involve treason, attacking our allies on behalf of those who are at war against us?

 

[Roadrunner]

I'm sorry, but this OP is just plain dumb! Soooo many erroneous statements in one opener, I almost fell off my chair laughing (or was I shouting at my monitor? Hmmmmn...)


Hey! It's been a LONG and arduous winter, folks! It just **MIGHT** be that!?...

*sighs*

Shit, what a first quarter of the year.

We have gone straight from blizzard to monsoon.

I hate it when that happens.

; - )