Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Are you for or against angry rhetoric from republicans? "Neither I am indiferent to it As it should be for all of us "

Are you for or against angry rhetoric from democrats? "Krugman needs to STFU and we need to see his like kind call him on his bs . . .But that will not happen . . .there is an agenda to fullfill I guess . . .Civil discourse be damned"

Rarely have you stated your biases so clearly.

Your point fails because you portray the rhetoric as equivalent in nastiness and such. It is hardly.

Conservatives are fed up with the biased treatment from the mainstream press, your bias is representative of that.

Those mainstream media outlets owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and other billionaires.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

You should read the details of the GM 'repayment'.
They're basically using TARP funds from the government to pay them back.
Nice play on words for the most part. They are simply moving piles and columns of money. We taxpayers are still on the hook for the funds.
It was free money to GM.
Now about the buying back the government investment in the company...
WE still hold over $2BILLION in preferred stock and 60% of the company.
GMC = Government Motors Corporation.


Buy Ford.

[rushmc 18]

No

It was free money to the unions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Your point fails because you portray the rhetoric as equivalent in
>nastiness and such. It is hardly.

Agreed. Conservatives have been far more violent and incendiary in their rhetoric lately, but in their defense they were the "underdogs" for a while and were pretty frustrated. And it's still not OK for either side.

>Conservatives are fed up with the biased treatment from the mainstream press . . .

And liberals are fed up with the gun and target imagery, and are fed up with the hateful and violent rhetoric. Let's see if both sides can calm down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

pick your wagon

When somebody attacks a Radio Flyer with a large handled digging tool, the blood will be on your hands!!!

Civility, people...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>Your point fails because you portray the rhetoric as equivalent in
>nastiness and such. It is hardly.

Agreed. Conservatives have been far more violent and incendiary in their rhetoric lately, but in their defense they were the "underdogs" for a while and were pretty frustrated. And it's still not OK for either side.

>Conservatives are fed up with the biased treatment from the mainstream press . . .

And liberals are fed up with the gun and target imagery, and are fed up with the hateful and violent rhetoric. Let's see if both sides can calm down.

You've been shown examples of how incredibly hateful and violent the rhetoric, gun and target imagery among others, was from the left, both lately and in decades past. You seem to choose not to pay attention, which is not a surprise.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

clinton: presided over the longest economic expansion in US history

gwbush: fucked it all up

I guess that the whole dot.com bust and the falling of the economy starting on March 11, 2000 was Bush's fault? Oh yeah - he WAS president in 2000.

Repeat something enough and it will be true. Bush burst the dot com bubble. Clinton caused the churning economy and growth in real estate values and low unemployment in the 2000's, but Bush messed that up, too.

Now Bush has proceeded to stop any and all efforts that Obama has made in the last two years. (You realize he's been in office for two years now?) I get it.

You know, sometimes it boggles my mind that people cannot focus on the actual significant fuckups of someone like Bush, and instead feel the need to put proveably false stuff out there. It'd be like saying that CFC's caused lower atmospheric ozone buildup in the 1980's. CFC's are bad enough based on fact. Why lie about them to make them look worse?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>You've been shown examples of how incredibly hateful and violent
>the rhetoric, gun and target imagery among others, was from the
>left, both lately and in decades past.

Want to compare signs seen at Tea Party rallies to signs seen at Obama rallies?

Want to compare titles of recently proposed legislation?

Didn't think so.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>You've been shown examples of how incredibly hateful and violent
>the rhetoric, gun and target imagery among others, was from the
>left, both lately and in decades past.

Want to compare signs seen at Tea Party rallies to signs seen at Obama rallies?

Didn't think so.

You don't think very well then.

I was thinking more along the lines of what political leaders and members of the press say. That is a lot more important than what someone at a political rally thinks. Do you agree? If yes, why do you bring it up? I've seen a lot of really viscous signs on display at lib events, so I don't think you would have the result you think anyway. Have you forgotten how much Bush was hated and how freely that hate was displayed?

People have attended tea party rallies with signs just so they would get attributed to conservatives. It worked, at least for those that wanted to believe the implication of seeing such a sign at a political event. You don't think it is right to generalize about the larger group based upon a small part of that group, except when it is about conservatives and fits your template.

I've see

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Want to compare titles of recently proposed legislation?

That is really a stretch! I understand that it is frustrating to be wrong and not want to admit it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>>Want to compare titles of recently proposed legislation?

>That is really a stretch!

Really? You're talking about politicians using "hateful and violent rhetoric, gun and target imagery" - but you want to ignore violent language in legislation they are trying to pass because it doesn't fit your bias?

That's a pretty warped reality you have there.

[billvon 2,400]

>People have attended tea party rallies with signs just so they would
>get attributed to conservatives.

So hateful rhetoric from liberals is the liberal's fault. Hateful rhetoric from Tea Partyers is . . . the liberal's fault.

At least you're consistent.

>I was thinking more along the lines of what political leaders and
>members of the press say.

Ironic that in your very next post you want to ignore what political leaders put in legislation, then.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>>Want to compare titles of recently proposed legislation?

>That is really a stretch!

Really? You're talking about politicians using "hateful and violent rhetoric, gun and target imagery" - but you want to ignore violent language in legislation they are trying to pass because it doesn't fit your bias?

That's a pretty warped reality you have there.

Your reality isn't exactly flat sir, that is not what I said, it is you 'twisting' of reality.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>People have attended tea party rallies with signs just so they would
>get attributed to conservatives.

So hateful rhetoric from liberals is the liberal's fault. Hateful rhetoric from Tea Partyers is . . . the liberal's fault.

At least you're consistent.

>I was thinking more along the lines of what political leaders and
>members of the press say.

Ironic that in your very next post you want to ignore what political leaders put in legislation, then.

What you ignore is any sort of weighting factor. To you, any incident is equivalent to any other - no difference in degree due to content or the position of the person doing it. That is a twisted view of reality.

Instead of arguing actual facts, you do a lot of summarizing other people's views in your own words - inaccurately, intentionally wrongly in order to belittle others in your elitist manner. Do you not think we've grown tired of it? It is as if you're having an argument with yourself. That is very bad form, twisting another person's words.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>What you ignore is any sort of weighting factor.

You are correct. I do not weight liberal's words more than conservatives (or vice versa.) Which may be where our disagreement comes from.

>Instead of arguing actual facts, you do a lot of summarizing other people's views
>in your own words - inaccurately, intentionally wrongly in order to belittle others
>in your elitist manner.

I think you missed a few catchphrases in there. You might want to include "job-killing" or "socialist" next time. Otherwise you might actually start thinking about what you're posting.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

You are correct. I do not weight liberal's words more than conservatives (or vice versa.) Which may be where our disagreement comes from.

I seriously doubt that.

I am not calling you a liar.

I just don't think your posting history is even close to allowing anyone here to believe that.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

>What you ignore is any sort of weighting factor.

You are correct. I do not weight liberal's words more than conservatives (or vice versa.) Which may be where our disagreement comes from.

>Instead of arguing actual facts, you do a lot of summarizing other people's views
>in your own words - inaccurately, intentionally wrongly in order to belittle others
>in your elitist manner.

I think you missed a few catchphrases in there. You might want to include "job-killing" or "socialist" next time. Otherwise you might actually start thinking about what you're posting.

Again, instead of discussing the issue, you twist things to belittle others, and to get a last insult in. Very bad form, especially for a moderator.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Your point fails because you portray the rhetoric as equivalent in
>nastiness and such. It is hardly.

Agreed. Conservatives have been far more violent and incendiary in their rhetoric lately,

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. I've already posted a list showing that there's MUCH more violent and incendiary talk coming from the left.
Here's more.

Quote

And liberals are fed up with the gun and target imagery,

Which, of course, is why they used targets and 'behind enemy lines' in one instance, and targets and 'Targeted Republicans' in another - would you like the links?

Quote

and are fed up with the hateful and violent rhetoric.

Except when it's a Dem politician calling for people to be put up against the wall and shot, or people rising up with pitchforks.

Or a liberal banker calling for the shooting of the Wall Street regulators.

Or people threatening to kill Tea Party officials and mutilate conservatives:
"'There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center,' Fuller said. "

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

>What you ignore is any sort of weighting factor.

You are correct. I do not weight liberal's words more than conservatives (or vice versa.) Which may be where our disagreement comes from.

>Instead of arguing actual facts, you do a lot of summarizing other people's views
>in your own words - inaccurately, intentionally wrongly in order to belittle others
>in your elitist manner.

I think you missed a few catchphrases in there. You might want to include "job-killing" or "socialist" next time. Otherwise you might actually start thinking about what you're posting.

Again, instead of discussing the issue, you twist things to belittle others, and to get a last insult in. Very bad form, especially for a moderator.

In Bills defense, I know you don't see that very often, but anyway, i don't read his post as belittling. I guess it depends on how much emotion is meant by his words.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[petejones45 0]

Quote

Quote

clinton: presided over the longest economic expansion in US history

gwbush: fucked it all up

I guess that the whole dot.com bust and the falling of the economy starting on March 11, 2000 was Bush's fault? Oh yeah - he WAS president in 2000.

Repeat something enough and it will be true. Bush burst the dot com bubble. Clinton caused the churning economy and growth in real estate values and low unemployment in the 2000's, but Bush messed that up, too.

Now Bush has proceeded to stop any and all efforts that Obama has made in the last two years. (You realize he's been in office for two years now?) I get it.

You know, sometimes it boggles my mind that people cannot focus on the actual significant fuckups of someone like Bush, and instead feel the need to put proveably false stuff out there. It'd be like saying that CFC's caused lower atmospheric ozone buildup in the 1980's. CFC's are bad enough based on fact. Why lie about them to make them look worse?

well its certainly not Clinton's fault the economy is in the shitter... just look at bush's approval rating

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[lawrocket 3]

Did Bush ruin Greece's economy? How about Ireland's? Portugal? Dubai?
I don't know whether you are aware of this or not, but this economy is a Worldwide thing.

I also don't know whether you are aware of this, but Presidents don't run the nation's economy. Congress "controls the purse strings." Did bush cut taxes or did Congress? Did Obama pass a new health care financing plan or did Congress?
Bush fucked up a number of things and it's why I don't think he was a good president. But I prefer to look at things that WERE his fault versus that sort of rhetoric that was not - much like the fucked up economy in Jan 2001 was not Clinton's fault.

And since when does public opinion describe blame? Public opinion of Reagan was and still is that he was a warmonger. Yet he negotiated the most massive arms limitation treaty with Gorbachev the world has ever seen.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[petejones45 0]

hate to break it to you but the president has a say in alot of things that have to do with the economy.

still the facts are:

clinton presided over the longest economic expansion while bush fucked it up

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

hate to break it to you but the president has a say in alot of things that have to do with the economy.

still the facts are:

clinton presided over the longest economic expansion while bush fucked it up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

hate to break it to you but the president has a say in alot of things that have to do with the economy.

still the facts are:

clinton presided over the longest economic expansion while bush fucked it up

Hate to break it to you but the congress has even more of a say in a lot of things that have to do with the economy.

Still the facts are:

A republican congress presided over the expansion, while a democratic congress was in charge under Bush.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>Hate to break it to you but the congress has even more of a say in a lot
>of things that have to do with the economy.

Actually they both have a similar level of immediate control over the economy - almost none.