published Saturday, June 23rd, 2012

Pay-to-Playstation

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

300
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Looks more like an X-box controller to me.

But at least it's not a ski outfit.

June 23, 2012 at 12:05 a.m.
acerigger said...

Too funny! Sad tho' when you think about it.

June 23, 2012 at 12:58 a.m.
alprova said...

Today's diversionary post of the day

I ran across this during my nightly web surfing. Scary to say the least to think that there are politicians out there like this.

Kinda sounds like a couple of people who hang around in here.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/16/152205/commentary-texas-congressional.html#storylink=cpy

June 23, 2012 at 12:59 a.m.
acerigger said...

alprova said.."Scary to say the least"

AMEN!

June 23, 2012 at 1:15 a.m.
Anklejive said...

Is that Sheldon Adelson? I didn't know he was a gamer.

June 23, 2012 at 1:16 a.m.

Hate-fest, as in making movies and writing books about how to kill a President Bush?

W

June 23, 2012 at 2:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Blonde,

What are you even talking about?

June 23, 2012 at 2:32 a.m.

We should watch what say about Dear Leader, huh?

shhhhhhhh, don't say that about Barack, and remember don't you dare ask any questions.

I think the liberals on this site would feel much more at ease in a dictatorship, like the one Obama thought he would have by now. Oh, that pesky 1st Amendment and the free flow of information.

June 23, 2012 at 2:33 a.m.

The link Alprova posted.

June 23, 2012 at 2:34 a.m.
acerigger said...

blondebutnotdumb,,,scary, huh?

June 23, 2012 at 2:41 a.m.
Easy123 said...

All you want to do is slander. The overwhelming majority of what you say about the President is either misinformed or an outright lie. You already have your opinion on the President and you refuse to accept facts.

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Google the word "dictator". You're talking out of your rectum, madam.

If you want to bash the President, go ahead. But, for your sake, at least bash him about things that are true. And I'm sure democrats will continue to hate on Willard Mitt Romney. But please, spare us of your indignation. We get it. You hate Obama. Mostly for debunked reasons but that's normal for right-wingers. This is just a fair warning. You're going to get called out when you keep posting misinformation and lies. Alprova, Bulbs, and I will gladly do this.

June 23, 2012 at 2:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Me thinks BBND has been imbibing a bit tonight.

June 23, 2012 at 2:47 a.m.

Doesn't work. Hate has nothing to with it. Try as you may to label all critics and those with a different opinion as haters, but it won't work. OOO, I'm scared the Obama brown shirts are on patrol in this forum.

My opinion, which is what this forum is for, opinions, is that Obama is uncomfortable with tough questions and finds the legislative process nothing but an irritant.

Hate, as in making movies and writing books about how to kill President Bush?

That's the standard all "hate" is to be judged by. Saying Obama is a socialist is not slander. That's my opinion based on what he's trying to do and what his history is. Now, the lastest attempt to label Romney as racist is closer to slander. There's no evidence of it.

June 23, 2012 at 3:13 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Ah, so it only counts as slander when YOU say so. Thanks for clearing that up.

And your opinion is truth because you say so.

Name a book or movie that is a how-to on assassinating George Bush.

You're crazy. But that's just my opinion. And yes, you hate Obama. Denying that fact only solidifies my claim of your psychosis.

June 23, 2012 at 3:30 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Who pays Clay? Who pays you liberals here? "To whom ye yield yourselves slaves to obey, his slaves ye are to whom ye obey..."

Slaves of hatred, slaves of contempt, obviously..."imbibed too much...crazy...psychosis." Not that you have a monopoly on that (obviously), or on dubious policies, but this administration is worse than the one before--deficits worse, joblessness worse, even respect/affection from Muslims less. Criticism differs from hate--all the prophets of Israel criticized things Israel was doing. Repent.

June 23, 2012 at 6:04 a.m.
degage said...

Easy, on july 25 2011 Obama said he couldn't do an end run around congress to take care of the illegal hispanics. Fast forward June 2012 he did just that. Not a lie easy the video is all over the place. Just because you,alpro and bulbs get the same tingle up your leg that Chris Matthews gets doesn't mean everyone else has to. Some of us don't have our heads buried in the sand.

June 23, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Christ, where's Abraham Lincoln when we need him. Count Romney looks thirsty.

June 23, 2012 at 8:38 a.m.
fairmon said...

This cartoon is applicable to both candidates. I predict both will make extensive use of teleprompters and a hearing device in their ear when speaking or debating. Congress is the real culprits, they are out of control trying to gain control. The more you stir Sh#t the more it stinks. The democrats have stirred it a lot and it really stinks. The republicans want to do the stirring but neither offers a plan to stop the odor just what they use to stir and mask the odor with.

June 23, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Assrigger. Anybody who claims to be "ace" anything is usually the complete opposite.

June 23, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
EaTn said...

On the subject of Romney and fat cats: read this article on his tenure at Bain for an eyeopener of reality on his management style.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/politics/companies-ills-did-not-harm-romneys-firm.html

June 23, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

"This electorate has a white floor. And it has broken for this president. Democrats cannot depend on demographics to save them," and that's what Obama is depending on. He's depending on a coalition of every fringe minority you can find out there. And he's written off the American mainstream. Not racially but demographically and politically. He's just written them off. Do you know the United Nations is thinking of saying Obama should give back his Peace Prize because of the drone attacks? I'm not kidding. The story is in the Stack. My point is, he's losing support everywhere you turn".

My Rush quote of the day! They don't even read it and they squirm.

June 23, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Hey Easy!! You've got to read this!! HAHAHAHA!!

Your main man comes clean!! What a revelation!

June 23, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Better than robbing the country into bankruptcy.

June 23, 2012 at 10:25 a.m.
davisss13 said...

That's Karl Rove with a K. K-Street, that is.

These people are elevating the rich and kicking the poor and elderly in the teeth. The sad thing is they are cheering it and portraying themselves as patriots, Christians and morally superior.

June 23, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
EaTn said...

nooga said...

"EaTn sounds like Bain got paid for robbing the company into bankruptcy"...........there is a difference between what is legal and what is unethical. The right-wingers legally nearly run us into bankruptcy--I want leaders who are more concerned with the workers than making millions for the financial backers.

June 23, 2012 at noon
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect."

You dismiss global warming all together. And this is just one scientist. Admit the global warming is real and that humans play a part in it.

degage said..

"Easy, on july 25 2011 Obama said he couldn't do an end run around congress to take care of the illegal hispanics. Fast forward June 2012 he did just that. Not a lie easy the video is all over the place. Just because you,alpro and bulbs get the same tingle up your leg that Chris Matthews gets doesn't mean everyone else has to. Some of us don't have our heads buried in the sand."

I don't care what he said. He did it. And guess what? It's legal! He must have been mistaken when he made his first statement.

I don't watch Chris Matthews. You don't have your head buried in the sand, it's buried in your rectum.

June 23, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.

Exactly right, Degage. Obama's intentions are very clear.

June 23, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

blonde,

Please tell me what they are psychic lady! It would seem like his intention are only what you want them to be or seem like so you can continue to bash him. Please tell everyone what the President's intentions are.

June 23, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy123 seems to have a rectum fetish. Oh well, anything goes with the left.

June 23, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

Funny none of you dummycrats were saying that 4 years ago when Osama was getting all the $$ from Wall St. and many other top companies. But of course that was before he done nothing he said he would. It is funny how those facts are never mentioned by any of you, but that is just typical.

June 23, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Lame attempt at slander from Jack Dennis.

After all this time, your posts STILL lack any kind of substance. Keep it up!

June 23, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: And YOUR posts are substantive? Puleeeze

June 23, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Anyways, Easy123. It would be libel, not slander. (as any 1st year law student would know) Maybe you're attending the YMCA Skewl of Law. At night.

June 23, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

Who was it that signed the NAFTA agreement that sent more jobs out of American than any single event? That would be Bill Clinton the other perfect president in these fools minds. Which company has outsourced more jobs out of America well that would be GE whose CEO is one of the biggest money pits for Obama. But that is fine with you as well.

June 23, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Yes, they are. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

I'm glad you know the law definition of slander and libel, but this isn't a courtroom and there is no publication involved (as any first year law student knows).

Good try though. I would expect you to attempt to look intelligent when, indeed, there is no intelligence to bare. Keep it up, Jack. Bask in your ignorance.

slan·der noun 1. defamation; calumny. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

June 23, 2012 at 1:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rogerdodger,

Keep reaching.

June 23, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The world hangs on Easy's posts.

June 23, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack hangs...himself on every post.

Say something with substance. Provide a link. Give an opinion based on facts. To this point, you're nothing but a troll. SAY SOMETHING WORTH READING. I dare you. Everyone calls you out but you never say anything. Add to the conversation. Damn, at least TOES provides links and attempts to argue his position. You just troll everyone that you disagree with. Join in the conversation. We are all here waiting.

June 23, 2012 at 1:53 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy is a global warming fruitcake Jack. Need not take Easy seriously. Easy still thinks the polar bears are dying off from the heat.

June 23, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Your own article said that global warming was true. Yet, you still don't believe it.

June 23, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5599916/Polar-Bears-are-not-dying-out-say-scientists-in-book-on-popular-scare-stories.html

"He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances".

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, BUT says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were INCORRECT.

June 23, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You're the only person talking about polar bears here. Admit global warming is real, then we can talk about the specifics.

June 23, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
alprova said...

rogerdodger wrote: "Who was it that signed the NAFTA agreement that sent more jobs out of American than any single event? That would be Bill Clinton the other perfect president in these fools minds."

Do you ever check out the facts to anything before you post? Bush the negotiated all but a few, final details of the terms in NAFTA during his 4 years in the White Hous.

Bush worked to fast track the ratification and signing prior to the end of his term, but ran out of time and Clinton finished it up.

"Which company has outsourced more jobs out of America well that would be GE whose CEO is one of the biggest money pits for Obama."

GE isn't even in the top ten companies that have been responsible for sending U.S. jobs abroad.

"But that is fine with you as well."

It sure is funny to watch you people switch sides on some issues. A couple of years ago, all you Republican cheerleaders were yelling that unions were responsible for jobs disppearing and that those workers deserved to be displaced.

Now it's the fault of Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA.

Sheesh....

June 23, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.

Hey Dumb Al, I said Clinton signed it, then you said same thing but then said my facts were wrong. LOL way to make yet another fool out of yourself. I rest my case. DUMMYCRAT

June 23, 2012 at 2:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rogerdodger and lovetheusaorleave are the same person!

rogerdodger wrote: "Who was it that signed the NAFTA agreement that sent more jobs out of American than any single event? That would be Bill Clinton the other perfect president in these fools minds."

lovetheusaorleave said... Hey Dumb Al, I said Clinton signed it

I thought rogerdodger said that? LOL way to make a fool out of yourself!!!!

Caught you slipping! Now we know your conservative guerilla tactics!

June 23, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions."

I never made any doomsday predictions. I've talked about future ramifications if we keep it up. But never any doomsday predictions. This is all coming from your own brain.

Admit global warming is real. I dare you. Or are you too proud to admit something that is stated clearly in your own source?

June 23, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.

His intentions are exactly what they seem to be, pretty obvious.

His overall goal is to make citizens, and non-citizens, more dependent on the federal government.

Anyone with any knowledge of current events, history or some economics knows that what he wants has failed in others countries. What we need in the White House, and in every state, are governors like Scott Walker, or former Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. We don't need exactly what we have now, an absolute buffoon who is only interested in power and lining his own pockets. Spending as if it's monopoly money. We need responsible management at the top, along with congress, who will respect taxpayers.

It doesn't matter to me what party they're from, if the fit the mold that's all that matters.

Obama has conducted himself exactly they many said he would, like a spoiled teenager with his daddy's credit card.

June 23, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Baseless assumptions galore.

June 23, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.
alprova said...

LTUSAOL whined: "Hey Dumb Al, I said Clinton signed it, then you said same thing but then said my facts were wrong."

I've never denied that Clinton signed NAFTA into law. I've always known that to be true. What has always been a point of contention is any assertion that Clinton hade a thing to do with the negotiation process with the other two countries and ratification.

He signed it.

June 23, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
alprova said...

If James Lovelock is alleged to be "The Godfather" of global warming, how is it that he is not more famous? I've never read a thing that the man has written on the subject.

If he indeed now endorses fracking for gas over nuclear energy, I think an examination of his bank accounts over the past few years is in order.

June 23, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: Beware the man that relies on links. That would be you, junior.

June 23, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

You're basically saying. "Beware the man that relies on evidence."

Still, nothing intelligent from you. TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Keep trolling old timer.

June 23, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulletin for you Easy. Links aren't evidence. You'll never make it past 1-L.

June 23, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Remember all that crap that some of you posted and opined regarding the taking away of sharp silverware from a group of Latinos before an appearance by the President?

Fox News got one right for a change. They wrote about the fact that this is normally done at any setting when a President is speaking.

The difference this time, was that it is never announced publicly before the Secret Service collects eating utensils from the attendees.

That was the fault and decision of a board member of the latino group that the President was there to speak to.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/23/fork-it-over-secret-service-confiscates-utensils-at-obama-speech/

June 23, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

How AREN'T they? If they provide proof then they serve as evidence.

Once again, you continue to troll. You're not very good at this whole providing substance thing.

Keep trying.

June 23, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

If they're from a radically partisan website (as most are), they're just opinion. Usually wrong. Not getting the troll thing, either.

June 23, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

No, they aren't radically partisan or opinion. They just expose your side. That's why you attempt to discredit them. They are usually correct as well in debunking the right-wing propaganda/misinformation

However, your lovers at Fox News are radically partisan and omit facts and present things out of context. Usually incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(I...)

June 23, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
mymy said...

Well, looks like another day of LOL left lunacy. Why bother sending them any info, their heads are buried too deep in the dark stinky place to see the light. They are definitely brainwashed.

Remember, poor Clay has to make a living or his “beautiful and talented” spouse would have to work harder to support him. Talented she may be, but can she support him

The Democratic Party knows their base well and what buttons to push to keep them loyal/distracted because they “created” them over many decades with handouts in return for their vote. We have a broken society in many ways. Too many took the handouts and made it a lifestyle rather than use as a helping hand to get educated and self-sufficient or to make sure their children did. This produced more and more generations of takers-uneducated and not understanding anything but getting a handout. They continue to want more on the backs of others. That will not work forever! It is just one way this country is being destroyed within. This house of cards is on the brink of caving in.

In 2008 the time was ripe for enemies of this country’s system (which has worked for a long time) to put their man forward. He is a first in a lot of ways not just the color of his skin. He was a slick snake oil salesman who fooled a lot of people including some on the left and the young. Many were just ready for change, but did not use their head to figure out what kind of change this person was talking about. Of course, the MSM no longer does its job of informing just being part of the left campaign team. As seen in clips from yesterday, many that vote don’t have a clue what is going on in order to make a good choice. Seems they only hear what the left MSM puts in their brain dead heads in a little news clip. Divide and conquer!

The most amazing thing is how after all this time so many don’t want to see the truth/facts about Obama’s background/ the people that influenced his views, his destructive policies that make the economy worse and the difference in what he says and what he does.

Obama cannot run on his record and as we are seeing has to throw whatever out there to keep his base primed and distracted from the truth.

So, all one can do on this site is have fun getting their panties in a twist or just shake one’s head and LOL.

June 23, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Hey Easy! Here's another bulletin for you. There was life before Wiki. You would have been at a loss.

June 23, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

The economy is doing better.

And per usual, you are presenting baseless opinion.

All we can do is watch you Repulicants sweat, bitch, and moan until November. We continue to debunk and refute your arguments with proof. But you still don't get it. You present Obama as the person you want him to be, not the person he actually is.

All I do is laugh and wonder how you conservatives managed to make in past infancy. Surely, if we were living in a more uncivilized time, Darwinism/evolution would have killed you idiots off long ago.

June 23, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

No Pay-to-Play with the Obama administration, nope.

The other side of this story would be a crowd of often conflicting special interest groups logged onto their Play Stations with the amateur plugged into the other end of the on-line game session twitching and drooling while he spouts incoherent gibberish.

"green, uh... gay, uhm... contraception, er... Bush!, dugh, um bitter…cling, dough... my committee, uuuuhg… 57 states, er…like…um…ah... "

June 23, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

This is the internet! It's modern technology! Wake up and join the rest of us in the real world! The internet is the main source of information for everyone now.

I know I read and research far more than you do, old man. You are always at a loss and continue to be with every post. Happy trolling!

June 23, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett has not had an original thought in a very long time. What is wrong with the sad sap? It must be very painful to watch yourself go through a mental decline like this.

June 23, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said, If James Lovelock is alleged to be "The Godfather" of global warming, how is it that he is not more famous? I've never read a thing that the man has written on the subject.

I guess if the all powerful and knowing Al has not heard of him, then he is not relevant. You really are full of yourself aren't you

June 23, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

Have you heard of James Lovelock?

June 23, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Global warming compared to what? We've only been keeping track of weather for around 200 years. The earth is over 5 billion years old. Nobody even knows what constitutes "normal" temperatures for the earth.

I know you think otherwise, but the history of earth did not start the second you were born. Maybe in the grand scheme of 5 billion years, higher temperatures are the "norm".

Like I said before, if the history of earth were a calender beginning with January, human existence would be a tiny pencil dot on the bottom right hand corner of December.

It's fairly arrogant to assume that of a mere 200 years of recorded temperatures, you can deduce what is "normal".

June 23, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.

I've not lived in my house for long, but I sure can recognize when my neighbors are dumping trash in my yard.

But I still think the controllers are wrong.

June 23, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.

alprova, there you go again, proving that their manufacturer hysteria and faux outrage isn't based on genuine concerns.

How can you be so cruel? Don't you know they have illusions they can't question!

June 23, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Rucker then asked whether it would be wise for Branson to tax his clients, considering that “support for global-warming science is eroding worldwide.” Over one thousand climate scientists dispute the hypothesis that global warming is man-made, Rucker noted, and over 31,000 natural scientists have signed a statement saying there is no convincing evidence that humans are causing catastrophic global warming".

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/303790/rio20-showdown-richard-branson-david-rothbard#

June 23, 2012 at 8:21 p.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "Well, looks like another day of LOL left lunacy. Why bother sending them any info, their heads are buried too deep in the dark stinky place to see the light. They are definitely brainwashed."

Said the bimbette with a Bachelors degree from Fox News.

"Remember, poor Clay has to make a living or his “beautiful and talented” spouse would have to work harder to support him. Talented she may be, but can she support him"

Was there a point you were attempting to make? Regardless of your opinion of Mr. Bennett's work, I'm quite sure that the TFP considers him to be an asset.

"The Democratic Party knows their base well and what buttons to push to keep them loyal/distracted because they “created” them over many decades with handouts in return for their vote."

Lady, I am one of many who have never received so much as a penny in "handouts" throughout my lifetime. I would be willing to bet that I have paid more in taxes than just about any one of you Republican cheerleaders, maybe even all of you combined. Your theory is hardly sound.

"We have a broken society in many ways. Too many took the handouts and made it a lifestyle rather than use as a helping hand to get educated and self-sufficient or to make sure their children did."

Another baseless generalization. Ignorance and a lack of education exists on both sides of the aisle. I've witnessed much more sheer ignorance contained in right-wing posts in this forum than those who bat from the left.

"This produced more and more generations of takers-uneducated and not understanding anything but getting a handout. They continue to want more on the backs of others. That will not work forever!"

Personally, I find it rather difficult to associate a lack of education with people who receive monetary assistance for their support. I would love to see what kind of evidence you can dig up to support such a declaration.

"It is just one way this country is being destroyed within. This house of cards is on the brink of caving in."

I'm sorry, but the numbers don't begin to support that theory either. Excluding Social Security and Medicare, which are hardly "handouts," because one must contribute to those trust funds in order to qualify for benefits, low income assistance as part of the U.S. Budget is around 5.3% per year. Add in 4.6% for Unemployment Compensation, and another 2.9% for medical payments to hospitals for indigent care, and you have a grand total of 12.8% of the entire budget spent in income assistance to those in need.

"In 2008 the time was ripe for enemies of this country’s system (which has worked for a long time) to put their man forward."

Who knows what that means?

(To be Cont.)

June 23, 2012 at 8:40 p.m.
alprova said...

Cont.)

my my wrote: "He is a first in a lot of ways not just the color of his skin."

The very fact that you raised the issue, indicates that you hold preconceptions about the man due to his skin color.

"He was a slick snake oil salesman who fooled a lot of people including some on the left and the young."

Both blocks of voters still overwhelmingly support the President, despite any and all claims otherwise that can be found on sites that are well known for bashing and working to demean the man's character.

"As seen in clips from yesterday, many that vote don’t have a clue what is going on in order to make a good choice. Seems they only hear what the left MSM puts in their brain dead heads in a little news clip. Divide and conquer!"

Those clips are almost four years old and nothing makes people smile more than for a budding reporter to spend a day seeking out the dumbest interviews possible for entertainment purposes whenever attempting to make a point. This same tactic is used by the media whenever seeking comments on weather related catastrophes and instances of crime in low income neighborhoods.

"The most amazing thing is how after all this time so many don’t want to see the truth/facts about Obama’s background/ the people that influenced his views, his destructive policies that make the economy worse and the difference in what he says and what he does."

By all means, please feel free to post anything you feel that qualifies as factual or truthful, that can be verified with supporting proof, rather than someone else's opinion, regarding his background, or any "destructive policies" that he has personally instituted, that have made the economy worse.

"Obama cannot run on his record and as we are seeing has to throw whatever out there to keep his base primed and distracted from the truth."

Blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah blah. You're a broken record, playing the same stuck track over and over and over. Try offering something concrete for a change, rather than repetitive garbage that is nothing more than personal regurgitated opinion.

"So, all one can do on this site is have fun getting their panties in a twist or just shake one’s head and LOL."

You're as bothersome as a fruit fly that sneaks inside a screen door when it is opened to let someone in the house. You cling to Fox News for your daily digestion of information, filling your belly full of excrement, just like a fruit fly clings to a toilet.

June 23, 2012 at 8:41 p.m.
rogerdodger said...

LOL at Easy, once again you prove that you come to some type of conclusion and think it is the right one, but yet once again as usual you are wrong. Yes I was on his computer and forgot to log out we are brothers and I went by to feed his dog. But the point still remains what I said was correct and no matter how your stupid ass tries to deflect that you can't. But just like a dummycrat try to hide behind the truth and facts by a delision. Good try but wrong again

June 23, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Global warming compared to what? We've only been keeping track of weather for around 200 years. The earth is over 5 billion years old. Nobody even knows what constitutes "normal" temperatures for the earth."

I'd be mighty careful if I were you. Such a statement puts you squarely at odds with Conservatives who cling to the theory that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as substantiated by the Bible.

"I know you think otherwise, but the history of earth did not start the second you were born. Maybe in the grand scheme of 5 billion years, higher temperatures are the "norm"."

I don't happen to subscribe to the doom and gloom theories first purported by the likes of Al Gore either, but only an idiot would believe that the last hundred and twenty years of ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels, spewing pollution and deadly chemicals into the air and water have had no effect whatsoever on our climate and the future of the Earth.

"Like I said before, if the history of earth were a calender beginning with January, human existence would be a tiny pencil dot on the bottom right hand corner of December."

The global population has exploded in the last 50 years. Modern technology, like the automobile, large factories, power plants, etc. have only been around for just a little over a century. The long term global impacts of these things are not definitely known yet. To disregard the possibility that they are detrimental to human life is foolish.

Enough evidence exists that pollution to the air and water is a real and undeniable threat. Rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide is way up and verifiable. To disregard such evidence is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.

"It's fairly arrogant to assume that of a mere 200 years of recorded temperatures, you can deduce what is "normal"."

It's equally arrogant to disregard the possibility that not everything man does, was, is, or could be expected to sustain Earth's fragile existence forever.

June 23, 2012 at 9:08 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: I was utilizing the net before you were even a wet-dream.

June 23, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
alprova said...

rogerdodger wrote: " Yes I was on his computer and forgot to log out we are brothers and I went by to feed his dog."

What a wonderful excuse for using sockpuppets in a forum. I've read it all now.

"But the point still remains what I said was correct and no matter how your stupid ass tries to deflect that you can't."

Both of your statements were factually incorrect.

NAFTA nor Bill Clinton has been responsible for "exporting more jobs than any single event."

According to the Economic Policy Institute, since NAFTA was enacted, it has led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs through the end of 2010.

The number of employed wage and salary workers employed in union represented jobs fell from a high of 20.1 million in 1980 to 17.4 million in 1984. In 2011, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were still represented by a union.

The unions didn't disappear on their own. The jobs were pulled from the unions and exported. A more relevant statement would be to say that unions and and the combined effort to bust them, have been responsible for the exportation of 3.8 million jobs, or roughly 3.1 million more job losses than NAFTA ever has been.

"But just like a dummycrat try to hide behind the truth and facts by a delision."

Please let the peanut gallery know when it is that you offer something truthful or factual, so that we can stand up and clap.

June 23, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
rick1 said...

Thge Great and All Knowing Al has spoken on Global Warming. Oh please tell us Great One, what are your credentials that would make you so much more superior to James Lovelock.

June 23, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.

Silly, silly, liberals. You're all sock puppets on here. You sound just like Shultz, O'donnell, Maddow, Mathews on MSNBC, and those obnoxious cows on The View. Please, you're embarrassing yourselves.

I'd like all of you to convince me that Mitt Romney is a racist. That is what's being perpetuated by leftists like you. Prove it. In fact, I'm still waiting for one of you to convince me that we need another four years of Obama. Prove to me that Obama is a good steward of tax payer dollars.

June 23, 2012 at 10:22 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Thge Great and All Knowing Al has spoken on Global Warming. Oh please tell us Great One, what are your credentials that would make you so much more superior to James Lovelock."

The same as yours.

Any more questions?

June 23, 2012 at 10:36 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Alpo the windbag.

June 23, 2012 at 10:49 p.m.
alprova said...

BBND wrote: "Silly, silly, liberals. You're all sock puppets on here. You sound just like Shultz, O'donnell, Maddow, Mathews on MSNBC, and those obnoxious cows on The View."

And you sound like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly. What's your point?

"Please, you're embarrassing yourselves."

How many times must you be reminded of the simple fact that your negative opinions of others are of no consequence?

"I'd like all of you to convince me that Mitt Romney is a racist."

I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone in this forum expressing that sentiment.

"That is what's being perpetuated by leftists like you."

Oh...I see. So because someone outside of this conclave of people HAS expressed such an opinion, every person you make a decision to include into a group you hold disdain for, must agree somehow with an expressed opinion by someone else, by default?

"Prove it."

Nope. Sorry. It's not up to us to prove someone else's assertions.

"In fact, I'm still waiting for one of you to convince me that we need another four years of Obama. Prove to me that Obama is a good steward of tax payer dollars."

Forget it. It would be a complete waste of time to post a thing that you will completely disregard and dismiss with a wave of your hand.

Your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it, and that's fine.

Just understand one thing; You're never going to convince anyone who is equally convinced that President Obama does indeed deserve a second term that they are wrong at all.

Rather than to pleasantly agree to disagree, you folks are like an Evangelical preacher giving his Sunday sermon, where you just keep offering the same repetitive garbage, unprovoked and unasked for I might add, in some expectation that your feeble attempts to infect minds will save some souls and bring them to your alter in repentance and acceptance.

Dream on...

June 23, 2012 at 10:56 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Based on the data that you provided that is one of the stupidest assessments I have ever seen."

Your opinion too is of no consequence.

"Are you sure you don’t want to retract some of your post are maybe provide anymore information that could possibly move this B.S. out of fantasy land."

Hey...you think that you are the person who does such a fine job of debunking "Libtards" in here. Knock yourself out.

"Is that you opinion or are you claiming it as fact? If the latter I think I’ll have to see some backup or it will be placed in your usual B.S. bin."

While I am definitely prepared to back up anything that I ever present as fact in this forum, I will forever make exception when it comes to any challenge you ever offer. Feel free to post away anything that would come close to refuting it. I'll gleefully ignore it.

I thought I had made it clear that I do not intend to indulge your quest to conduct your anti-social behavior in this forum.

What? Oh okay. Miss forever alone...your blow-up Billy doll with the kung fu grip is hollerin' for you.

June 24, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.
alprova said...

Someone offered a partial quote that may lead one to believe that because some people are allowed to keep their eating utensils and others not at functions where the President appears, that it might have to do with some perceived mistrust of members in attendance.

It is a simple matter of distance of the audience from the President that determines which call the Secret Service makes.

The next paragraph following the one quoted explains the criteria used by the Secret Service.

"If the president plans to keep a fair distance from his audience, for instance, then guests might be allowed to keep their place-settings."

Fox News saw fit to include that sentence in their story. It's no surprise at all that someone made the conscience decision to leave it out in a pathetic attempt to refute the truth to the matter.

It's a typical ploy to present misinformation whenever someone just can't accept the truth, and is rather committed to conjuring up a conspiratorial view, for some inexplicable reason.

The Secret Service is dedicated to protecting the President from any and all possible attempts on his life. Despite all precautions taken to screen the people in that room prior to their invitation to attend, a rogue individual with a sharp instrument, such as a knife or a fork, reaching the President before a Secret Service Agent has time to close the distance to thwart such an attack, presents a remote but plausible threat.

At any event where the President appears, everyone is a possible suspect as an assassin. It's unfortunate that such a drastic measure must be taken to protect the President, but there are indeed people out there who would love to make their way into the history books.

June 24, 2012 at 12:37 a.m.

Selective editing?

Oh surely they wouldn't do that.

After all, they're so concerned about anybody else's impropriety, they would take extreme steps to remain pure themselves.

But I can think of a lot better ways to get into the history books. For example, you can write them yourselves, and convince a major state to adopt them!

June 24, 2012 at 12:44 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "None of this requires any indulgence from you as I do this for my entertainment alone and since mocking and denigrating you and your low grade B.S. gives me much satisfaction I will continue to do. For your part you can stand there unarmed and not defend yourself and it will only make my task that much easier."

Thank you for your honest admission that your sole intent is to troll this forum with demeaning attacks. While it would give me equal pleasure to lower myself to your level of participation, from my perspective, it serves no purpose for me to be continuously and intentionally impolite.

Your choice to engage at every turn in your brand of anti-social behavior is your problem -- not mine.

So fire away and think it bothers me in the least. You're hardly the first forum troll that I have ever had to deal with.

What you are and what you shall remain forever is a legend in your own convoluted mind.

I pity you for it's obvious that you are suffering from some rather severe emotional trauma to be so anti-social in an anonymous setting.

June 24, 2012 at 12:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

So Al, what exactly is a troll?

June 24, 2012 at 1:34 a.m.

After black Americans who choose to vote Republican, there's nothing that bugs liberals more than a woman who is not a liberal or Democrat. It just frosts you, doesn't it.

That's why your level of anger, which oozes from your posts, is so high. You don't like black Americans and women leaving the reservation.

You're all laughable.

I can see why you're so passionate about keeping Obama in office, you like a guy who will put the boot to the neck of those you don't agree with. You'd be more comfortable living under a dictatorship.

June 24, 2012 at 1:46 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Blonde. EXACTLY. That's why BHO just gave a free pass to 800,000 undocumented democrats.

June 24, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.

Jack, Alprova is a troll. He feels by replying to every post by an Obama critic he's doing his part to help Obama. What he and others, like Easy, believe is that there should only be one opinion, theirs.

June 24, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.

Yes, Jack. Obama is attempting to buy votes. He's also a typical Democrat who prescribes to racist stereotypes. Of course he'll get 100% of the "Mexican American" vote because all Mexicans think alike and are ok with lawlessness. If they're of Mexican ancestry they must be ok with illegal aliens from Mexico because they all stick together no matter what.

June 24, 2012 at 1:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Blonde,

You're buddy Jack is the definition of a troll. But you wouldn't know that. You don't even know what the word means.

It's easy to refute your opinion when it is based on misinformation and lies. Do you understand?

Obama won't get 100% of the Latino vote. He'll probably get 75%.

By the way, this is what politicians do. They do things to get people to vote for them. I'm not sure how that is a bad thing considering EVERY POLITICIAN DOES IT. But I guess it's only negative when Obama does it.

Still preaching that "lawless" crap? At least you're consistent with your propaganda. And you still need to look up the word "dictator". Oh and last time I checked, Obama is still YOUR President. Are you living under a "dictatorship"?

The thing that frosts me is ignorance. And you're covered in it lady.

Jack,

Still nothing? Darn.

Jack and blonde,

I'm pretty sure these folks won't be eligible to vote. I don't think people on work permits can vote in elections.

June 24, 2012 at 2:26 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Blonde,

All the immigrants aren't Mexican. Why would you even assume that? I guess you think every Latino is Mexican, right?

Why do you keep saying this line:

"Of course he'll get 100% of the "Mexican American" vote because all Mexicans think alike and are ok with lawlessness. If they're of Mexican ancestry they must be ok with illegal aliens from Mexico because they all stick together no matter what."

Who has said that? You've made that up in your mind. That's what your little brain thinks Obama is thinking, right? You're like a child. Making up little stories and scenarios. Somewhat sad actually.

And, of course, only you bring race into the mix; as usual.

June 24, 2012 at 2:33 a.m.
raygunz said...

dayam,,the trolls are gorging tonite!

June 24, 2012 at 2:41 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE TRIUMPH OF MYTH OVER REALITY

I see the tea bagging brigade has been busy whining and wheezing and patting each other on their figurative backs. What a bunch of loons.

I have yet to see any of you defend the splendid robotic stylings of Myth Romney.

He promises to balance the federal budget and put more people back to work by cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating the financial and energy sectors, and spending even more money on the already bloated military budget.

Same old crap from the same old sniveling masses. Trickle down / supply side economics have ruined America but tea baggers couldn't care less.

You all are giddy at the prospect of going back to the policies that ruined our economy in the first place, and it's tiring to constantly respond to your mind numbing stupidity.

Since Obama took office the stock market has doubled from 6,000 to 12,000, over 4 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy, and we've ceased hostilities in Iraq. Also, GM and Chrysler are alive and Bin Laden is dead.

Remind us all about the stellar executive achievments of the last republican president.

Please.

June 24, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "So Al, what exactly is a troll?"

There are several definitions, but tu_quoque fits the most common definition of an internet forum troll due to her consistent behavior of stirring the excrement pot by responding with ad hominem attacks on people whom she self-appoints as opponents.

About 99% of the time, her posts are constructed to see if she can elicit a response from her targets by posting fallacious objections to their arguments, factual claims, or stated opinions, rather than to address the substance of the subject at hand. Her sole intent is to always attempt to discredit others.

June 24, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
alprova said...

BBND wrote: "After black Americans who choose to vote Republican, there's nothing that bugs liberals more than a woman who is not a liberal or Democrat. It just frosts you, doesn't it."

You've got a big problem with putting people into boxes all the time. Not one self-declared or perceived liberal leaning person who regularly participates in this forum has ever posted a word of discontent or loathing of black Republicans or Republican/Conservative women.

Yet, you routinely lay claim to having some imaginary powers of perception granted to you, that allows you to know what other people think.

"That's why your level of anger, which oozes from your posts, is so high."

Contrary to your assertion, the nastiest posts in this forum that contain hints of anger behind them, are from people such as yourself, through routine occurrences of blatant disrespect for our President and liberals in general.

"You don't like black Americans and women leaving the reservation."

I seriously don't have the first clue what you are basing that conclusion upon. Such sentiment has never been expressed in here.

When I was an avid listener back during the Clinton Presidency, I do recall Rush Limbaugh making similar statements as a matter of routine.

"You're all laughable."

Then laugh until your side splits. Who's stopping you and who cares?

"I can see why you're so passionate about keeping Obama in office, you like a guy who will put the boot to the neck of those you don't agree with."

I'm sure if I were to ask for an example of what you are referring to, that you will ignore it. I can think of several examples of people who routinely put their boots against the President's neck.

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and many others out there have made public declarations that their sole intent is to make the President a one-term proposition.

I truly haven't heard or read one word of disrespectful disagreement uttered by the President towards any of his detractors. Have you? Yet you claim that it is the President who puts his boot on the necks of people he disagrees with?

Amazing. Simply amazing.

"You'd be more comfortable living under a dictatorship."

Such an assertion is so outrageous and illogical that it deserves no response.

June 24, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
dude_abides said...

blondeandblonder says... "Of course he'll get 100% of the "Mexican American" vote because all Mexicans think alike and are ok with lawlessness."

Yes, they're all okay with lawlessness in the same way that all blondes are stupid and sexually promiscuous.

June 24, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Braggadocio is such an ugly trait … especially for those that do it so poorly and transparently false."

You're hardly in any position to accuse me of lying about it. And you never will be.

"It’s one of those universally accepted truisms that only an idiot would not accept."

I reject stereotypical musings and consider them nothing short of expressions of pure ignorance. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

"Although it is true that one must contribute to qualify for the standard types the payout on average exceeds the input even when inflation and interest are taken into consideration. Thus even these programs are eventually handouts. Kind of makes your claim to be nothing more than your usual B.S."

By that standard you just expressed, any return on an investment, at least in your mind, should be determined to be a handout.

In response to my statement, "The very fact that you raised the issue, indicates that you hold preconceptions about the man due to his skin color."

tu_qupque responded with: "No … it’s called preemption."

Do you even know the definition of that word?

"Oh … I think we will post what we please and your only option is to attempt to censor us by flagging our posts."

No...I have a better option available to me. I am quite content to ignore your posts and allow them to simply sit there and ferment like an unflushed toilet.

"For you Fleabagger types I’m sure that is always a viable alternative to being confronted by truths that conflict with your fantasy world views."

I have no doubt that you think that you routinely offer "truths," but the fact of the matter is that your batting average is painfully sub-par.

You are however, the Queen of ad hominem attacks on others.

June 24, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Al: I would suggest you amend your definition of troll to include anyone that even remotely disagrees with your leftist dogma.

June 24, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "BTW ... are you suggesting that if this relationship was not anonymous that it might not be so pleasant for me."

Not at all. I'm suggesting that if you were not anonymous, that your demeanor would be far different than it is because you are hiding behind your monitor.

"I don't think I would address you in any different manner but it's up to you to decide how you proceed."

I'd just about bet my life that in person, you are a someone who wouldn't have the guts to confront people in the manner you do via your keyboard.

June 24, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "Al: I would suggest you amend your definition of troll to include anyone that even remotely disagrees with your leftist dogma."

I rarely, if ever challenge opposing opinions of others. I do however challenge misinformation presented as fact all the time. If people could stick to the truth when it comes to our President, I'd probably sit on the sidelines.

I have no problem at all with opposite opinions. I detest dishonesty with a passion.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, but you are quite incorrect to size me up as a "leftist." I am a registered Republican who is not on board at the moment with the National Republican Party.

Locally, I support many of the Republican candidates in my district, mainly because they are doing fantastic jobs. Politics and political agendas are not evident in the way they conduct themselves as elected officials.

That is not the case when it comes to so many of our politicians who run for or who hold positions on a Federal level. Everything is political to some.

June 24, 2012 at 11:03 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Al: Fair enough. "everything is political to some"......does that apply to BHO and his group of chicago thugs?

June 24, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Less than 2% economic growth. He needs to create over 300,000 jobs a month for three straight years to get the unemployment number back down to 6%. That's never going to happen with his anti-energy, anti-corporation and anti-growth policies.

The union members at Chrysler are alive, yes. Bin Laden is dead, yes. (Albert Schweitzer would have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden).

When "Obama's stash" runs out on Chrysler they'll be back for more union handouts. The fact is that, People who earn less than the union workers at Chrysler must now pay these workers retirement.

Bin Laden's dead! Chrysler unions are solvent once again on the backs of taxpayers!! YIPPEEE! LET'S VOTE OBAMA!! That's a pipe dream. Romney 48%, Obama 43%. It's not working. You all thought Obama was a shoe-in for re-election, you all thought wrong.

June 24, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al said "I do however challenge misinformation presented as fact all the time. If people could stick to the truth when it comes to our President, I'd probably sit on the sidelines."

So the sources use is fact and the sources that those who do not agree with you use are fiction.

It is only the truth if you agree with it.

June 24, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Partisan websites (left or right) are NOT proof of anything. Regrets to Easy and his ilk.

June 24, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1 and Jack,

The vast majority of links I provide (and Alprova) are link that disprove, debunk, refute your right wing articles. You want to deem them 'partisan' because they discredit your articles. Jack does it every time. A 'partisan' website can be proof.

Example: Fox News ran the story that Obama said "You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.” to the rich people at a fundraiser.

Then mediamatters exposed how the right-wing news networks took the statment out of context. :http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206150009

You only want to discredit these sites because they expose your side.

"It is only the truth if you agree with it"

This is called projecting. This is how you think. You believe that Fox News is true because it says what you want to hear. However, when you read sites that refute what you believe, you automatically deem them partisan and dismiss what they say.

June 24, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You think Romney is leading. But you thought wrong.

Why would you base your opinion on ONE poll? Because it says what you want to believe.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

June 24, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Exactly right rick1. Truth is, if we weren't posting on this site and just let Alrova, Easy and bulbs have it all to themselves, they probably wouldn't visit this site except to see the new drivel Bennett has. Below I think would be a typical conversation between the three:

Bulbs: "I just LOVE me some Obama, he's the smartest and most articulate black man I have ever seen"!

Easy: "I agree Bulbs! He's so suave and debonair! He's been just SO great for the country! I just can't wait to vote for this man again"!

Alprova: "I know guys! Obama's awesome! I never knew we'd have such prosperity! Obama's great! OK guys, see you here tomorrow!"

June 24, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

WOW, what a surprise! All the liberal polls show Obama in the lead! I'm completely stunned!

June 24, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

These little stories you make up are getting weird. It's actually an early sign of mental disorder. Making up extraordinary stories to keep people's attention. That's your MO. Might want to go get checked out.

By the way, I can't vote for Obama "again" because I didn't vote for him the first time. Just clearing that up.

June 24, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

So Rasmussen is the only correct poll, right? And all the polls that don't show Romney in the lead are "liberal" polls. You're deluded.

Realclearpolitics actually takes all the poll results into account and averages them together. And, according to them, Obama is in the lead. Those results are probably more accurate than any single poll out there.

June 24, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy! you're going to smacked for lying! You do EXACTLY the same thing you just accused rick1 for doing! What makes YOU so above the rest of us with your great and vast knowledge?

You do this ALL THE TIME!! You rip someone for using partisan sources, and you immediately post a partisan source! Have you EVER been told "no" as a child? You seem like a very spoiled little person who always had your way!

June 24, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy, please stop beating the same dead horse. The links you approve of are "proof" and "expose" the other side. Are you too thick to see that it cuts both ways? You are all that is naive. Stay away until you gain some perspective.

June 24, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Liberal pollsters are known for asking pointed questions. An example of this is when a pollster calls and asks: "Would you be afraid to vote for the first black president"? Of course the person would say "no". So the pollster then writes down that the person he questioned was an Obama supporter. Falsely driving up Obama's poll numbers.

Liberal polls had Walker losing by slim margin, yet he won big! Liberals are known to try and effect the outcome they want by revealing false information. That's why they lie about exit polls before the election is even over, trying to make people think there's no sense in voting because it's a done deal.

June 24, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Because I'm more well read than you for sure.

No, I don't. I posted links that expose your links. The links I provide disprove, debunk and refute your links.

Disprove my links if they are biased. I dare you. Don't just claim the site is partisan. If I provide a link that disproves yours, attempt to disprove mine. But you can't and won't be able to. Because Fox News and Rush Limbaugh only present you with misinformation and lies. And you accept it as truth. And when you read something that exposes those lies, you automatically deem that site "liberal" or partisan. When, in fact, it's just the truth that you aren't getting.

Jack,

No, the things that tell the real story are proof, like in the example I gave. Are you too thick to see reality? You are all that is ignorant. Stay away until your Bengay kicks in.

When I provide a link, refute it if you can.

You only want to discredit the sites and links because they expose your side. They expose Fox News. They expose your right-wing propaganda. And you can't have that now, can you?

June 24, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Baseless assumption. I could replace "liberal" with the word "conservative" in your post. And it still wouldn't mean anything.

June 24, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy, everything you post is a "story". If you're trying to be a lawyer, you're not going to be a very good one. Your arguments are flat, and without merit (except by liberal websites).

I really don't think you have ever seen another view other than your own. That's sign of a personality disorder to think that you are right about everything on the planet and everybody else just needs to be "enlightened".

By the way, I watch PMSNBC and CNN all the time. When was the last time you tuned in to Rush and watched FOX news? I get both sides of the story, I just think yours suck. You see everything from the PMSNBC perspective.

June 24, 2012 at 12:34 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

And Jack, you MUST know that if the Huffington post says it, it MUST be the gospel truth! Politico as well.

June 24, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

This is you projecting.

My arguments are supported by facts. You deem them biased because they expose your side and tell a narrative you don't like.

I've seen every view. Mostly conservative views actually. But you just like to imagine a person you think I might be.

I don't think I'm right about everything on the planet. I just know you're wrong. And once again, you make up these little stories "everybody else just needs to be "enlightened"." I've never said that. You just like to create this person that you think I am in your head and type what you think I believe. It's strange.

June 24, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Yes, Huffington Post can tell the truth. They won a Pulitzer. And I've never read anything from Politico.

June 24, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Pulitzer means nothing! How do know I'm wrong great wise one? That's funny shi#! You and Bulbs are the strangest people I've read posts from.

June 24, 2012 at 12:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

I know you're wrong because of statements like this:

"Pulitzer means nothing!"

That is the most moronic statement I've read today, maybe all week.

I'm glad you think I'm strange. That's a compliment coming from you.

June 24, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Your "facts" are only what you perceive to be "facts". They're facts only because you want them to be.

June 24, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You're projecting again.

You try to discredit the sites and links because they expose the lies you believe.

June 24, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama won the Nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing.(although they want it back now because of his rampant use of drones).

Pulitzer prizes have nothing in their criteria for being non-partisan or honest. Again, winning the Pulitzer prize means nothing in terms of honesty or being non-partisan. You can be the biggest liar of all ans STILL win the Pulitzer prize. Keep trying to legitimize yourself and your sources. You can't do it.

June 24, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

You do exactly the same damn thing. Glass house, meet stone.

June 24, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

The Pulitzer Prize for journalism has everything to do with honesty. You cannot be the biggest liar and win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism. I have legitimized my sources and myself. You, however, have made yourself look like an idiot with your moronic claims.

I discredit your sites and links with proof. You simply say, "Those are liberal links/sites." . You never actually debunk the site or link. You just say they are biased. You're projecting. I do none of these things.

June 24, 2012 at 1:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You do realize that was published in 2009, right? ALPROVA is about to have a field day with that.

June 24, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

What proof? You've NEVER debunked any argument with proof. Just partisan website blather.

June 24, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You wouldn't know what truth was.

You try to discredit the sites and links because they expose the lies that you believe.

June 24, 2012 at 1:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

"In the reporting that won him the Pulitzer Prize, Duranty held that the Russian people were "Asiatic" in thought. That meant to him that they valued communal effort and required autocratic government. In his view, individuality and private enterprise were alien concepts to the Russian people, which led only to social disruption, and were unacceptable to them just as tyranny and Communism were unacceptable to the Western world. Failed attempts, since the time of Peter the Great, to apply Western ideals in Russia were a form of European colonialism that had been finally swept away by the 1917 Revolution. Vladimir Lenin and his New Economic Policy were both failures tainted by Western thought."

This is how it's done. You present misinformation and I show you how you're wrong. The Pulitzer in question did not involve the famine. People don't receive Pulitzer Prizes in journalism for bad reporting.

It is simple as that. Congratulations on making yourself look like your sweethearts at Fox News.

June 24, 2012 at 2:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

I'm not going to spend my whole day trying to debunk every single statement in the link when all you had to do was post the link. Toes hasn't made a claim. He just posted a link.

I'm not deflecting or deferring. You have done nothing but post a link. I'm not obligated to do anything. "When given the opportunity"? I debunk stuff everyday. This isn't an opportunity, it's the norm around here.

Thou whoreson impudent embossed rascal!

June 24, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

I think moronic just about covers your situation. (See above proof)

June 24, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

You're still an idiot and you're still reaching. The Pulitzer in question did not involve the famine. Apparently, you can't read your own link. You're grasping at straws.

June 24, 2012 at 2:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You still haven't shown anything I've said is a lie. Keep trying to boost your ego, sweetheart.

You cannot receive a Pulitzer by reporting lies or being dishonest.

"You've been punked dunce and you are just now realizing it but not yet ready to admit it. But you and I know the truth don't we?"

^^^^^^^PROJECTINGGGGGGG!!!!^^^^^^^

We all know the truth, don't we?

June 24, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Come on tu_balls and thump your chest some more about how you got the good stuff and are always proving the rest of us wrong.

You're so easy that it should be a crime to mock and ridicule you like I can do any time I like.

LMAO at your situation. You like to pat yourself on the back. You must be terribly insecure. You have literally done nothing to prove any of my statement wrongs. However, I have proved yours to by misinformed. Go talk to your cats. I'm sure they'll support you.

June 24, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy said I posted links that expose your links. The links I provide disprove, debunk and refute your links.

And we have disporved your links as being false time and time again and you refuse to accept the truth.

Toes is right you were never told no as a child and you can never face the fact that you are wrong.

You are a young punk and you think you know everything. You are in for a rude awaking in the real world.

June 24, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.

Still going strong, eh?

Maybe y'all need some better video games.

June 24, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

2009 or not! The promises are still the same, and still not kept. 2009 doesn't mean crap! Has Obama had a change of heart and kept some of those promises since then? Again, debunk it! You can't!

June 24, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

"And we have disporved your links as being false time and time again and you refuse to accept the truth."

Provide and example. I did.

"Toes is right you were never told no as a child and you can never face the fact that you are wrong."

You are one of those people that make up little stories too! Might want to go to a psychologist!

"You are a young punk and you think you know everything. You are in for a rude awaking in the real world."

You are an old man and you think you know everything. You are in for a rude awakening when you are placed in a nursing home.

June 24, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Again, Your organic milk is getting warm and your tofu is starting to dry out! Now off to nappy time with you!

June 24, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Still no debunking of my very old 2009 link? Hurry along!

June 24, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
alprova said...

"So the sources use is fact and the sources that those who do not agree with you use are fiction."

I don't present other people's opinions as factual information. I present facts from sources that document information from verifiable sources.

If you disagree with my above statement, I challenge you or anyone else to post anything at all that I have presented as being factual in nature, that was not supported with credible evidence when I have presented a source to back it up.

Everything I post to support my presented truths or facts never includes strictly sources of opinion from someone else. Documentation will always be included to support their opinion -- information that can be verified to a solid conclusion.

For instance, sites like Media Matters, Politifact, Factcheck dot org, Snopes, etc. do include opinions of the writer(s) involved, but in each case of subject or matter that they address, verifiable facts are included and used to arrive at their conclusions.

Johnny Jim Bob's blog (hypothetical name)that may filled with rants about the President's past, without a shred of proof offered to substantiate his or her claims, is nothing but unsubstantiated and unsupported opinions.

Donald Trump's claim that the President's birth certificate is a baseless and unsubstantiated claim that he continues to perpetuate, despite all the evidence that is out there that proves that the man was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Do you believe Donald Trump's version of the "truth" even though he cannot begin to support it, just because he says it or perhaps because you may agree it?

"It is only the truth if you agree with it."

That may be how you view the issue as to what you consider truth to mean, but the fact of the matter is that the literal and provable truth will stand when the world is on fire, whether you agree or disagree with it.

June 24, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

I'm simply reciting your projection. It's absolutely true. But not about me, but you! My original thoughts have totally refuted yours. I have already retorted and proved you to be full of misinformation. And once again, keep patting yourself on the back, honey. I know you need it.

June 24, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.
rick1 said...

Toes, I bet he has a sippy cup.

June 24, 2012 at 2:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You should take two weeks off, then quit. You're drowning! Keep grasping at straws.

June 24, 2012 at 2:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick1,

I bet you get sponge baths and drink Ensure. Along with your monthly prostate exams. I can do this all day if you want to keep going.

June 24, 2012 at 2:53 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "You do this ALL THE TIME!! You rip someone for using partisan sources, and you immediately post a partisan source!"

If you are trying to claim that Real Clear Politics is partisan, you're totally off your rocker. I urge you to browse the site for a few minutes to see just how wrong you are.

Easy is exactly correct. They average many different polls, some of which receive more partisan traffic than others, but they include both sides, to arrive at a rather middle-of-the-road glimpse into the current situation.

Articles that can be read on that site are equally critical of Democrats as they are of Republicans. The difference is that they uphold a standard of presenting respectful and constructive criticism at all times.

It's not a site that bashers will find appealing because such criticism is offered respectfully.

Case in point;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/24/obamas_justice_upside-down_114589.html

June 24, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
rick1 said...

You should try a sponge bath they are wonderful. Since you act like a little pussy it is obvious you are not a male and you were not born with a prostate.

June 24, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick,

Such intelligent conversation! But I'm sure you are an expert on prostates and the parts that make someone "male". Keep going. I can do this all day.

June 24, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

It's the summer! I don't have classes in the summer. Keep reaching!

LMFAO

June 24, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

TOES: But the Huffington won a Pulitzer. HAHAHAHA

Easy: Give it a rest on the use of "projection", please. We all get it that you've had Psych 101.

June 24, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You're still bring that up. And you were still wrong the whole time.

Keep patting yourself on the back. I know you need it.

I found this site for you:

http://www.giantego.com/

I hope it helps!

June 24, 2012 at 3:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

You're correct about that Pulitzer. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Give it a rest on the use of nothing in your posts, please. We all get it. You are incapable of adding to the conversation. TROLL ON!

June 24, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy, you're in waaay over your head. Come back in a few years.

June 24, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

You've already drowned. There will be no coming back for you.

It's amazing that you still haven't posted one thing on here worth reading. Literally, all you do is troll. Nothing else. You don't even attempted to add to the conversation. You are the ultimate troll. TROLLFACE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(I...)

June 24, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Tu, here are some more of Obama's lies.

Obama has claimed his late mother's health insurer refused "to pay for her treatment" for cancer while citing a "pre-existing condition," when Cigna paid all her hospital bills and never denied payment.

Obama claimed his father "fought when he got back to Kenya against tribalism and nepotism, but ultimately was blackballed from the government," when in fact he fought against capitalism and lost his job when he advocated communism.

Obama claimed the father of his Indonesian stepfather was killed by Dutch soldiers while fighting for Indonesian independence, when in fact the story turns out to be "a concocted myth in almost all respects," Maraniss found.

Obama claimed his parents decided to marry in the excitement of the Selma civil-rights march of 1965 — and that he personally has "a claim on Selma" — when in fact they were married several years earlier.

Obama claimed his father got to study in the U.S. thanks to JFK's efforts to bring "young Africans over to America," when in fact the Kenyan airlift his father participated in occurred in 1959 under Ike

http://news.investors.com/article/615581/201206201901/obama-tells-stories-to-support-radical-agenda.htm?p=full

June 24, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Politicians lie. All of them. Why are you trying to hold lies against a politician? That's like getting mad at a dog for wagging its' tail. Politicians lie. Get over it.

June 24, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.

The real problem is they never admit their own lies.

But less than 90 to go. You can do it! Be strong!

June 24, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: **"Debunk this. (supplying a link to a World Net Daily article)

Okay...here goes.

Claim: "Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, on Jan. 20 – only two days after its passage."

The bill was passed in the House while Bush was still in office, in early January. It was passed in the Senate on January 22, 2009. The President signed it on January 29, 2009.

Claim: "He signed a second bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program just three hours after Congress passed it."

The bill was passed on January 14, 2009 by the House of Representatives. On January 29, 2009, it was passed in the Senate. President Obama signed it into law on February 4, 2009.

Claim: "Again, on Feb. 17, Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress – without allowing for five days of public comment."

This particular piece of legislation was introduced while GWB was still President, but nonetheless. the House passed the bill on January 29, 2009. It was passed by the Senate on February 10, 2009. It was reconciled on February 13, 2009. The President signed it on February 17, 2009.

Claim: "Broken promise -- Capital gains tax elimination" (for small businesses)

True only at the time of passage of the stimulus bill in 2009. Legislation passed since then meets the test of him keeping his promise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/3/eliminate-capital-gains-taxes-for-small-businesses/

Claim: "Broken promise No. 3: New American jobs tax credit"

"Obama promised to give businesses a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each full-time employee hired. The final bill falls short of that promise. The tax credit is non-refundable, which means that while it reduces the employer's tax liability, he or she cannot get a refund--hence the name. On the other hand, the bill gives employers a tax exemption of up to $6,600, which is more than Obama promised."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/

Claim: "Broken promise No. 4: Hiatus on 401(k) penalties"

Score one for the writer. This promise never came through at any time.

Claim: "Broken promise No. 5: ‘No jobs for lobbyists’"

Another hit. Promise broken.

Claim: "Broken promise No. 6: Earmark reform"

Ruled a compromise by Politifact in an amended report.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/

Claim: "Broken promise No. 7: Bring troops home in 16 months"

Hit number 3, and an optimistic promise to be sure. He did the best that he could given how deeply the military was embedded in that nation.

(To be cont.)

June 24, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
alprova said...

(Cont.)

Claim: "Broken promise No. 8: Sign ‘Freedom of Choice Act’"

You can't hold the man to a broken promise to sign a piece of legislation that died in the Congress in 2007.

Claim: "Broken promise No. 9: $4,000 college credit"

True as it is written. A credit of $2,500 is still in effect.

Claim: "Broken promise No. 10: Transparency"

Too complex to substantiate one way or another. It's a matter of opinion, but the overwhelming consensus of opinion out there is that his administration is the least transparent of the last four, although these charges have been lobbed at every administration.

Claim: "Broken promise No. 11: Executive signing statements"

Barack Obama never promised to not use signing statements, but was indeed critical of former President Bush for issuing one in particular.

Are signing statements really an issue of contention by the American people?

June 24, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ALPROVA,

I predicted you would have a field day with this.

My lame attempt pales in comparison to yours. I applaud your research and constant search for the truth. I appreciate the tremendous effort on your part.

June 24, 2012 at 5:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Your posts are a clear sign of psychosis or intoxication.

June 24, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
mymy said...

The Liar in Chief is partying today now that he has his "brothers" in place in Egypt.

June 24, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

You're just to ignorant/illiterate to read it all. If it isn't short and sweet, you give up. You only get to the first "Yadda", the rest is too difficult.

mymy,

Romney is partying everyday. On his space ship back to Kolob.

JonRoss,

Other than Mecca, Jerusalem is the "holiest" of Islamic places.

If you're a Christian, you should be THRILLED! Your infamous Rapture is coming soon! Why complain?

June 24, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

You're correct.

"Barack Hussien Obama is not responsible for the hellish things that are about to come out of that nightmare."

June 24, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
alprova said...

Easy123 wrote: "ALPROVA, I predicted you would have a field day with this."

I was fair. Four out of eleven were clearly true. Four were patently false. One was mostly false. And two were strictly matters of opinion.

"My lame attempt pales in comparison to yours. I applaud your research and constant search for the truth. I appreciate the tremendous effort on your part."

Thanks. It looks like you are today's target by the Brady Bunch. Don't let it get you down. Contrary to their assertions, you do a better job than most in proving and backing up your points.

Keep your chin up.

June 24, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Alprova,

It doesn't bother me in the least. I enjoy the challenge. But thank you.

June 24, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "I will repeat it once more, because it stands to be repeated over and over. Barack Hussien Obama has intentionally installed radical Islamists in Cairo"

Really? What in the world are you talking about? Dare I ask you to substantiate your statement with a thing that proves that our President was in any manner involved in that nation's first free election...ever?

I thought you Republican/Conservative/Warmongering cheerleaders were all for the spreading of Democracy throughout the world.

Egypt is a country where the citizenry took charge of its own destiny, without the aid of the U.S. Military intervention, which I'm sure is a deep disappointment to you. And because the results of the election were not what you think is right for those people, who cast their own votes, it is the fault of President Obama?

Excuse me, but there is not nice way to put this, but you are a total loon on this one.

"Obama is the biggest threat to U.S. national security in the world."

Oh brother. You must spend half your day on Alex Jones's website.

June 24, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Strangely, this cartoon brought out more idiocy than most. (I know, Easy. Where's the proof?)

June 24, 2012 at 6:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Happy trolling Jackie!

June 24, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Trolling? Where's the PROOF?

June 24, 2012 at 6:43 p.m.

The proof is in the pudding. At the very bottom. Dive down, you'll get there!

June 24, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

I missed this one earlier today.

Jack_Dennis wrote: "Al: Fair enough. "everything is political to some"......does that apply to BHO and his group of chicago thugs?"

Setting aside your "Chicago thugs" disclaimer, President Obama is a national politician running for reelection at the moment, so of course he is being political in most everything he says and does.

National politics has become nasty to an extreme. It's a shame, but a candidate who fails to play along will lose out. Ask John Huntsman about that.

I liked the guy strictly because he stayed extremely positive throughout his entire run for President. Did it cause him to lose? Maybe...maybe not. He was a virtual unknown, nationally, but he definitely got my attention because he stood out from the crowd ethically.

June 24, 2012 at 6:56 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs: I'm guessing diving down would be more down your alley. But I do appreciate the uncommon less than Tolstoy like post.

June 24, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Yep...I goofed on that one. Upon review, I discovered that the introduction of the bill in the House occurred on January 09, 2009, while GWB was still President, but was actually voted by th House on January 27th, 2009.

Since it was signed nine days after he took office, thus making it a bill in transit between two administrations, it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not it rises to the level of a "broken promise."

I seriously doubt that too many of the American people are overly concerned with the timeline between the passage of legislation and the time that the President signs them.

It's a petty complaint.

June 24, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Where in the hell do you get this crap you post?"

I'm holding firm on CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2009. The House passed the bill on January 14, 2009. The Senate passed it on January 29, 2009. The only thing that happened on February 4th prior to the signing of the bill was for the House to rubber stamp a Senate amendment.

The bill was up and available for viewing by the public, in its final form, for five full days prior to signature by the President.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ3/content-detail.html

June 24, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.

Jack_Dennis, sorry that your attention span is so short that you can barely finish the average sentence, let alone a whole paragraph. Perhaps that explains your continuing inability to contribute anything in the way of an effective post to the discussion on this site.

Oh dear, perhaps that would be too long for you. Should I stick to words of one syllable as well?

In that case, go jump in a lake.

You know, one day you may well manage to produce something of actual discussion, however I suspect that will be shortly after somebody invents a time machine and brings back an army of dinosaurs.

Alprova, of course it's a petty complaint and entirely dishonest in its outrage. They prefer being able to invent false claims about death panels and now RFID chips being inserted.

It's like their complaints about the troops not being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, or the prison at Guantanamo Bay being closed. They don't actually want any of it, so wait, are they upset that Obama listened to their concerns, or upset that he didn't doggedly ignore them?

June 24, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Well Bulbous, the amazing thing is that you think your posts contribute. You do better with the crayons.

June 24, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.

Actually what's amazing is that you don't realize the contribution your posts offer to proving why the purported right-wingers on this site have nothing in the way of honesty or integrity, but are only shrill gibbering gremlims who are so obsessed with their own self-worth that they don't realize the poop they're flinging is landing on themselves.

Well, maybe you do. Be honest, this one time, admit you are really a paid shill for the Obama campaign, producing posts of such self-demeaning quality that you make all Republicans everywhere look bad.

We know joneses is, and conservative, and so many others. Why not free yourself by confessing your sins?

You know you believe he's that cleverly Machiavellian, so if you really do detest him, you'll admit you are his pawn, and thus free yourself from the deceptions you've let chain you.

Don't you want to be free of your shame?

June 24, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Bulbs, please go to hell! Your arrogance is overwhelming. You've obviously been dropped on your head a few times. You're just one of a shrinking number who still get horny watching Obama. Take a cold shower and realize Obama is through.

June 24, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

Sorry, TOES02800, your words are revealing your own compulsive despair. You know you'll have to wake up one morning in November and realize that America once again wasn't bamboozled by the charade you tried to pull.

That you've decided to sexualize it only highlights the profoundness by which you recognize it. You wouldn't be making such exaggeratedly preposterous nonsense otherwise.

You really need to get over your lack of self-worth. It might even help you get over your poor relationships with others.

June 24, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Your misguided view of reality is amusing. And again, you're projecting.

If anyone or anything is done it's your mental faculties. You just talk crap and make blind assertions based on one article or nothing at all. Who told you democrats or liberals were shrinking in number? You're the one getting off to Obama. You get all hot and bothered talking about him. Bashing Obama is your religion and you worship everyday.

June 24, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.

Keep pretending you're upset. Somebody might believe you one day.

Easy123, you think the cult of Anti-Obama is going to try to merge with the Westboro Church?

June 24, 2012 at 10:57 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs and Easy. Now that's a delusional pair. And to equate conservatives with Westboro is way over the line. But that's the way of your ilk.

June 24, 2012 at 11:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Well just cry a little more about it sweetheart! Are you offended?

Bulbs, I think they are probably charter members. I'm sure there is much Obama hate at Westboro. That's their MO though. Hate and stupid. In that order.

June 24, 2012 at 11:26 p.m.

Jack_Dennis, your outrage is as full as pretension as your claim to be a Conservative.

You're not. You're just claiming to profess such virtues in order to disguise your own loathsome failings.

You're a member of a self-delusional cult, you don't have the principles to be part of any reputable political movement. Even if you did, they'd drum you out in a heartbeat because you'd be so profoundly embarrassing to them.

That's why you're more likely to be an operative for the Obama campaign. But if you confess to it, think of what you'll get! A ticket to luxury as you get a book deal revealing their political perfidity.

It'll be much easier than continually proclaiming your hypocritical outrage while trying to pretend your own conduct doesn't make anything your critics say pale in comparison.

Easy123: Don't forget the dishonesty and the lack of personal responsibility, and the self-proclaimed martyrdom. But they suffer so that they may save us from ourselves!

We really should appreciate them more. They're taking so much abuse, just to fix the world.

Truly noble they are.

TQ: So did you call the Federal Reserve's press office or not yet?

Ah, you know you didn't. Your self-proclaimed victories are like the medals a pompous monarch awards himself even as defeat crashes in upon you. Careful, the tide is turning, and the rebels will soon be in the capital, you must flee!

June 24, 2012 at 11:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Since Presidencies last 4 years, no Alprova doesn't lose. You lose for not grasping that. Just because it was true in 2009, doesn't make it true in 2012. Are you truly that stupid? You are trying to look intelligent but you're really making yourself look very stupid. You like to argue semantics and tiny, erroneous details. You must really need these personal ego boosts. It's sad really.

June 24, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.
alprova said...

"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it." - President Obama

"You got the dates right but they were right about the 5 day period and that was the basis for the claim so they win by meeting their claim"

Every piece of legislation is posted online and updated in live time as it passes through Congress. The bill was passed by both Houses five business days before it was signed and therefore was available for viewing online for each of those five business days.

The final reconciliation, or rubber stamping of the bill in agreement, was done on Friday February 13, 2009. Therefore, the President absolutely waited five business days before signing it, although he never claimed that weekend days were excluded from his promise.

It is intentionally deceitful for the author to use the reconciliation date as a reference as to when the bill was passed. Nothing was changed in that bill, and it had been up for viewing, in its entirety, for three days prior to reconciliation, and then for two weekdays following reconciliation, plus two additional days over the weekend.

It was signed on Tuesday February 17, 2009, a full 7 calendar days after being passed, or five business days if weekend days are to be excluded.

Any way that you look at it, my timeline claim is on target. Hers doesn't begin to wash. It's simple arithmetic. Seven days straight through from passage to signing, or three plus two equaling five, in terms of business days.

Would you care to try again?

June 24, 2012 at 11:48 p.m.

Intentionally deceitful? Say it ain't so!

Why next Mitt Romney will claim there's a relationship between the ships the US Navy had in 1920 and the number we have today that makes such a comparison meaningful!

How will the world stand such mendacity?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/22/12359704-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxiii?lite

Oh my oh my.

June 24, 2012 at 11:51 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque, to argue that what I offered to refute some of the claims in the referenced article was irrelevant because the article was written in 2009, was a lackadaisical response.

The link to the article was posted today. It was supplied with the statement "Debunk this." It was not posted with any disclaimer to only debunk it with dated material prior to March 12, 2009, the date that the article was written.

Updates that prove that the President did indeed keep his word are most certainly relevant today, because that woman was raking him over the coals just two and a half months into his Presidency for "broken promises."

As to your last attempt to discredit me, I again reiterate that at no time did the President ever promise to not use signing statements, nor is there a direct quote of the man referring to them as being unconstitutional. You're grasping at straws. Therefore, no promise has been broken regarding signing statements...period.

And again, I have serious doubts that there are more than a handful of people in this country that number one, have even heard of signing statements, and number two, give two hoots about them.

June 25, 2012 at 12:12 a.m.
alprova said...

HWNB wrote regarding Mitt Romney: "How will the world stand such mendacity?"

That was indeed an interesting article. I'm going to go back when I get time and read earlier editions. They are well documented.

The man apparently has no shame, and he claims to be religious too.

When he passes away and stands before God, who will surely inquire of him, "Why did you bear false witness so many times Mitt?" I wonder if he will respond with, "Well you see, it's just politics."

It would almost be worth it to see him win this November. Republicans are all fired up with the thought of a Mitt Romney Presidency. They are in for a very big letdown if they think that Mitt is going to tote buckets of water for the Republican Party.

What does it mean to them that President Obama continues to lead Mitt Romney in Massachusetts by 20 points? It has to be embarrassing.

Does it ever occur to any of his cheerleaders that if he so shamefully lies on the campaign trail, that he will magically transform into an honest and ethical President?

June 25, 2012 at 12:45 a.m.

He's not lying, he's telling the truths they want to hear. I agree, it'd almost be worth it to see Romney win, though the victory would not be as crushing as so many people want to claim it would be.

Seeing what happened in the country, seeing the lack of improvement, would, to honest folks, reveal the Republican/Conservative plan for the emptiness it is. Not to mention the endless blame they'd try to heap on Obama would reveal their lack of responsibility. No wait, it wouldn't, at least not to the people who need to see it.

However Mitt's biggest supporters are fine with his lies, he's lying for them, to get what they want done, even as it makes the rest of us suffer.

I suppose somebody might decide to pick at your reference to Massachusetts with some state where Obama is down, but I think they'd be overlooking the key point that Obama has no connection to those states, compared to Romney who was actually Governor.

Hawaii, where Obama was born has him up over 20 points on Romney, close to 30. Illinois has Obama up 10-20 points as well.

But hey, at least Global Warming has been finally proven to be a fraud, with the record lack of high temperatures...huh, wait.

Well, maybe Austerity will work in Europe, then we'll bring it here.

June 25, 2012 at 12:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

Who would evaluate it from a 2009 perspective? It's not 2009. It's 2012.

I didn't weasel out of any research. I never offered to do it.

You attempt, so very hard, to make yourself appear intelligent to everyone. You love to pat yourself on the back when you feel that you have "won" an argument. I guess you need it. I guess commenting on the TFP website makes you feel important or gives you some type of ego boost but your come off as a major prick. You haven't proven ALPROVA wrong. There were a few minor mistakes but you are basically arguing semantics or minuscule details, which were erroneous anyway.

I don't know how you perceive yourself. I'm sure you think you are demi-god of sorts. But the fact that you think you are "winning" or insulting anyone here is a clear sign of your massive ego.

I'm rather enjoying law school and I feel that it's a worthy profession. I'm glad you have an opinion and have the time to create scenarios about my future, but, like most people on here, I don't care what you think of me. And your misguided views on me and others are quite amusing. It's like listening to a child tell a grand tale or watching a teenager trying to impress a girl. In other words, it's B.S.

I would appreciate the good wishes but I know they aren't genuine. Maybe you're jealous. I'm not sure. But you do seem like a sad, lonely individual that needs constant self-ego boosts and you use the TFP as the avenue to fill that need. And I'm not the only one that sees you in that light. Maybe one day you'll realize how full of crap you really were, but I doubt it. Someone as deluded and self-absorbed as you doesn't have a chance to realize anything, much less their own impropriety. But, for your sake, it would be nice if you stepped down from your pedestal, removed the spruce from your rectum and realized that you aren't the person you have mentally built yourself up to be.

June 25, 2012 at 1:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy123: the part about removing the spruce from your rectum....do you have a link for that? Thanks so much.

June 25, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

tu_: Perhaps the post of the decade. Plain y simple.

June 25, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: Not so fast my friend. Only left-wing links apply.

June 25, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy in in the basement, under the leggo table.

June 25, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
mymy said...

Easy may be in summner school.

June 25, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Fourth: George W. Bush is a dumb Texan. Bush has a Master’s Degree from Yale. If I’m not mistaken he’s only the second President ever to hold such a degree. George Bush released his entire records as well as transcripts from his college days as proof. Our current President’s college records are sealed. We have to take his word on whether he even graduated. No one, and I mean no one, becomes President of the United States by being dumb. Well, that used to be true".

Rush's new stuff don't come out until later. This will do until then. Can't wait to here the tripe.

June 25, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
anniebelle said...

The repukes commenting on this board remind me of the movie Blazing Saddles. The scene was when the new sheriff, a black man, was being ridiculed by the town folk. Gene Wilder says, "they're just country folks, you know, morons. You can change that to "they're conservitives, you know, morons.

June 25, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: Easy in summer skewl re-taking Links101.

June 25, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

How charming. You took the time to read all my comments.

If you'll click on my profile and review my previous posts, you will find all the information you need.

I do feel that I've struck a nerve with you. Did you get mad, sweetheart? I pegged you, didn't I?

Jack,

I never left old timer. Proceed with your trolling.

June 25, 2012 at 10:25 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

anniebelle. Shouldn't you be in the barn gettin milked?

June 25, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy, No job, supposedly taking classes, probably on the government dole. I'm no psych major, but I've been around long enough to know that people like you (holier-than-thou types) generally have inner pain which resulted in a very low self-esteem issue. You seem to be afraid to leave the house for fear a big bad republican might be lurking to take your foods stamps away.

I know, you'll "project" and say I'm mentally unstable. But at least I'm not too scared to leave the house.

June 25, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Old-timer not a troller, sonny.

June 25, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

I have a job. It's the summer, school is out. Government dole? Wrong again.

I've been around long enough to know that you don't know me whatsoever.

Again with the stories. Why do you feel the need to try and make assumptions about my situation? You never get it right.

"But at least I'm not too scared to leave the house."

Congratulations "Macho Man" Randy Savage. What a badass! Put that on your resume: I'm not too scared to leave the house.

June 25, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Deny all you want. But this is you, coffin-dodger.

June 25, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Your projecting again Easy. You really should get out more, you're starting to come unglued. We can all see it in your posts. You're coming apart quicker than slow roasted pork. Just go in to the light, it'll be easier that way.

June 25, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

coffin-dodger? How very civilized of you, Ease. With respect to trolling, my posts may be inflammatory, but hardly off-topic.

June 25, 2012 at 11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Do you even know what you're talking about? Keep reaching.

June 25, 2012 at 11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

Don't scan. You must read. Then you will find your answers. The proof, debunking, evidence, research, refuting, proof (you said proof twice), and facts are in my previous posts. Review them. Then you will have the answers.

And my manly gonads are right where they usually are. In, on and around your oral cavity.

I must have really struck a nerve. You still mad? Talk it out with your cats.

June 25, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

You never address the topic. Therefore, your posts are the epitome of "off-topic".

June 25, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

Not quite. I and many others would like to stay on topic but people like Jack, Toes, and others like to add their "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages" and it brings everyone off-topic in order to address those remarks.

So no, it doesn't describe us all. But really, you mad?

June 25, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

No, sweetie. You have to read them to get all the details.

No, you coped out on several of the refutations by saying they were "true in 2009, so you lose". You are trying to set up the rules so that you have an out. But you don't, you just can't refute it.

You're the only one chest thumping. That's kindof your thing. Don't be so mad, bro!

June 25, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You know a thing or two about slurping, don't you sweetheart? Keep trying. I know you're mad but you're grasping at straws.

Can you not say what you mean? I know you're attempting an insult but it doesn't have the same effectiveness when you skirt around it like that.

Take a Xanax, which I'm sure you have, and relax. Talk it out with your cats.

June 25, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: "coffin-dodger"? That's not extraneous, off-topic, etc? Where's the proof I'm a coffin-dodger? Need a link! Bwahahahaha

June 25, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Jack_Dennis said... Old-timer not a troller, sonny.

:)

June 25, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Anytime you used the argument:

"Since the article was written in 2009 it was true at that time so it meets their claim. – You lose again"

That isn't a refutation. You are setting up the rules so that you appear to be correct. It's 2012. Not 2009. The claim was presented yesterday by Toes. Not in 2009. See:

TOES02800 said... "2009 or not! The promises are still the same, and still not kept. 2009 doesn't mean crap! Has Obama had a change of heart and kept some of those promises since then? Again, debunk it! You can't!"

You used that argument 4 times. And all you refuted were the dates for several others.

How's that? Keep going. Keep patting yourself on the back. You have done nothing but argue minuscule details or shirked responsibility with you "2009" argument.

We have already pegged you as a lonely prick that needs constant ego boosts but you have done refuting or debunking.

June 25, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

TU,

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed the Senate on February 10, 2009. And was available for public viewing on February 12, 2009, possibly sooner but the 12th was the first time it was summarized after it passed the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@D&summ2=2&;

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061

It was signed into law on February 17, 2009. That's at least 5 days but closer to 7 since it passed Congress on the 10th.

Does that prove you are wrong? Afraid so.

June 25, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

You mad?

You need to look at the link:

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91286/

All the claims ARE NOT true today (2012). Keep boosting that ego, sweetie.

June 25, 2012 at 12:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You were wrong the whole time.

"Mean net worth fell to about the level in the 2001 survey, and median net worth was close to levels not seen since the 1992 survey (data not shown in the tables)." Page 17.

http://federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf

The assessment was made in the bulletin. But you don't like to read! I wouldn't expect you to get to page 17.

You're the fool. Keep thumping that little bird chest.

June 25, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

ALPROVA already responded. I am not obligated to respond, EVER. I know it's killing you that I won't do what you say!

All the claims are not true. See ALPROVA's posts on this.

I know you're mad. But don't let that get in the way of reason and logic.

June 25, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "My responses were to AlBaby and to this point the only one he is seriously contesting is the signing agreements."

Sorry, but each and every one of my challenges still stand as written. I made one goof and posted it.

If you think that you are correct in your declaration that it was proper to change the timeline of the criteria used for debunking the misinformation contained in that article, more power to you.

I fairly rebuked what was incorrect in it and admitted the things that were correct.

"That was written in 2009...so you lose" is your motto, I guess.

June 25, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

b-b sized Noogies: Off topic....is tinyNoogs a troll, Easy?

June 25, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jack,

You're allowed to guess for yourself.

nooga is your arch nemesis. He's a Jack_Dennis troll. I rather like nooga though!

Keep it up nooga! Give Jack as much hell as possible!

June 25, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

You're hopeless.

June 25, 2012 at 4:47 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: I enjoy all the hell you two limp-noodles can throw out.

June 25, 2012 at 4:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Come on now, Jack. You're one to talk! Mr. Limp Noodle himself, considering you never "throw out" anything of your own!

TROLL!

June 25, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

You're making up the rules. Who said the window starts when the final vote is taken? It passed through Congress on the 10th. Yes or no?

Check out the dates I posted. Not the ones that support your claim. It was passed through Congress on the 10th. It's plain and simple! LOSER.

Are you mad? I bet you're pissed.

June 25, 2012 at 5:15 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque, I'm done with the back and forth on this one. You go right ahead and think that you have thoroughly debunked my stance on that article.

I stand by my analysis of each of the points addressed in the article and all my stated reasons are there to read as well. Your Highness, I rest my case.

June 25, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tu,

This is the press release from Obama after it passed through Congress:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-agreement

June 25, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Easy and Alprova give us a freakin' break and park your GIGANTIC butts somewhere else! DANG! You sit here the whole dang day jumping on any opinion you don't like as if it's your job to get rid of anyone who has a different opinion!! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FORUM TO EXPRESS OPINIONS NOT A PLACE FOR YOU TWO FAT A$$ES to DEMAND EVERYONE JUSTIFY THEIR OPINION TO YOU UNTIL YOU'RE SATISFIED or you make them feel STUPID. WE GET, WET GET, BO CAN DO NO WRONG!

June 25, 2012 at 6:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

shifarobe,

Are you mad? I take it you're yelling with your extensive use of capital letters. Anyone can do anything they want to on this forum. Since when is asking for proof or justification a bad thing? Do you just accept everything you hear? Any other situation in your life, you would need proof to believe something or substantiate a claim. Why is this forum any different? I guess you just like getting away with lies and misinformation.

We get it, Obama only does wrong and no one should defend him!

Get off your soap box. You aren't the moderator. Anyone can do as they please on this forum.

June 25, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
shifarobe said...

WHO THE HELL STAYS IN HERE ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT, DAY AFTER DAY JUMPING ON ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION?? AND RIGHT AWAY! YOU TWO LOSERS MUST HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO. GO WORK FOR OBAMA, VOLUNTEER FOR HIS CAMPAIGN. YOU'RE BOTH PSYCHOTIC AND A HUGE BORE!

June 25, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Is this better for you, Mr. Easy? Does this pace meet your approval?

June 25, 2012 at 6:17 p.m.
shifarobe said...

"Lies and misinformation" ???? You are pathetic!! You're taking this forum WAY, WAY, WAY TOO SERIOUSLY! Someone's opinion does not need to be justified to you! YOUR CRAZY, MAN! You should lay off the bath salts!! LOL

June 25, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Shifarobe,

Are you mad? :D

No one is jumping on anyone. I can only speak for myself but I believe opinions should be accompanied by proof or some type of information to substantiate the claims.

I have plenty to do. Not as much now that it's summer. But I happen to like debating/conversing on here.

Please, don't think your demands or opinions carry any weight with me.

I notice you don't say anything about anyone other than ALPROVA and I. Why not? Maybe because you side with others like tu_quoque, Toes, Jack_Dennis, etc. They are on this forum just as much as anyone else. I don't see you calling them out. Seems strange to me.

June 25, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: "anyone can do as they please on this forum". I need proof. And a link or 2.

June 25, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Shifarobe,

Yes, lies and misinformation.

How am I taking it too seriously? By asking for an opinion to be substantiated with facts?

Opinions should be justified. Why shouldn't they be?

June 25, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
shifarobe said...

Who cares what it seems like to you??? I DO NOT agree with everything they post but the BIG difference between you and Alprova and the people you mention is that you two have some kind of pathological need to promote BO on here. It AIN'T just a love of debating for you two, it's WACKO!

June 25, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

Bulletin Boards, Chat Rooms, etc.

This site offers many features, including but not limited to bulletin boards, chat rooms and other on-line forums where users share information. You may be exposed to content that you find offensive or to content that is inaccurate. The Times Free Press does not monitor all of the information posted in these forums and is not responsible for the content or accuracy of information (or your reliance thereon) supplied through these forums.

http://tfponline.com/news/2007/nov/12/publication-information-privacy-policy-terms-and-c/

Per your request.

June 25, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
shifarobe said...

YES, YES, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO STAMP OUT LIES AND MISINFORMATION FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE. GAG! YOU DON'T GET IT DO YOU???? Someone can say they don't trust Obama and there's no way in hell he should have a second term. They don't have to ELABORATE for you. WACKO.

June 25, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Shifarobe,

And you, along with many others feel the need to bash Obama on here. It's not just a mental thing. It's your religion. And you hate it when people promote/defend/talk positively about Obama.

Let me alter your first sentence to suit myself: I don't care what you think either.

June 25, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Shifarobe,

I totally agree. Anyone can say what they wish and they do not have to elaborate or go any further. But, as you may have noticed, opinions are not fact. And until they are supported by facts, they will remain just that, a baseless opinion.

Do you just not like explaining yourself? Is it that hard to support a claim that you, yourself, hold? Honestly, is it hard to say "this is my opinion...and this is why I feel that way."? And why get mad when someone tells you that your opinion is based on misinformation or a lie? Wouldn't it be helpful to know the truth?

June 25, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Shifarobe wrote: "I DO NOT agree with everything they post but the BIG difference between you and Alprova and the people you mention is that you two have some kind of pathological need to promote BO on here."

If all you want to do is to express your opinions, feel free to do it all day long. When expressed opinions cross the line and are presented as facts, expect them to be called out and spread out all over the carpet.

You might be tired of my posts defending the President, and to that I say, "So what?" I'm just as tired of reading people's lies about the man. Stick to expressing opinions and they will be left alone.

This is not a forum where people are going to sit around all day and demean the President with lies and get away with it. If that's your sole intention, you might as well find another sandbox to play in.

Like it...don't like it. I'm not going anywhere.

June 25, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy said "Check out the dates I posted. Not the ones that support your claim."

There you have it folks, it is only fact if Easy says so.

June 25, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@S

Come on now, tootles.

2/10/2009: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 61 - 37. Record Vote Number: 61.

This was the claim:

"Again, on Feb. 17, Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress – without allowing for five days of public comment."

Now when did it pass through Congress? It's there. Plain as can be. It's even on Wikipedia. Check the legislative history.

Of course you would discredit the press release. I guess press releases from the Office of the President are below you.

June 25, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Keep thumping. Are your breasts sore yet? Keep grasping at those straws. I know you won't quit. Are you mad still?

June 25, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
shifarobe said...

The truth? Funny how the truth always goes to the LEFT!! ANYBODY who thinks BO NEEDS TO stay in office for the good of this country is a CRACKPOT! A CRACKPOT! Your Opinions are just, that opinons. IT DOESN'T MATTER ALL how evidence there is of something, you won't buy it because you have a hard on for BO.

June 25, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Shifarobe,

I notice that you haven't presented any EVIDENCE . YOUR OPINIONS ARE JUST THAT, OPINIONS. IT doesn't MATTER how MUCH evidence THERE is TO support OBAMA, you WON'T buy IT BECAUSE you ARE NOT OPEN TO the TRUTH if it is positive about OBAMA. YOU get off to BASHING OBAMA, even when the reasoning is BASED ON MISINFORMATION OR LIES. It's your RELIGION. AND you come here to worship EVERYDAY.

It's hard to type like that. How do you do it?

Try typing like an adult. Try thinking like one too.

June 25, 2012 at 8:49 p.m.
shifarobe said...

First of all, Easy, kiss my rump.

OH WOW. Guess I've been put in my place. WHAT TO DO? WHAT TO DO? What evidence do you want?? What is the TRUTH? If the truth as you see it is that Mexicans entering the US illegally is really a positive thing, then you're nuts. If the truth as you see it is that BO is doing this just to help people and not get votes, then you're nuts. I know enough history to form an opinion on the danger of weak borders.

June 25, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15249094

Is this to get votes?

He's doing both. Helping people that already live here, formerly illegal, and getting votes at the same time.

June 25, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy is naive beyond belief.

June 25, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack,

You're deluded beyond comprehension.

Troll on!

June 25, 2012 at 10:40 p.m.

tu_quoque, sorry, but once again, you show you are so desperate to avoid admitting that the Federal Reserve did in fact have a press release that you make up claims about me.

You didn't even have to call them, you could e-mail the journalists who wrote the stories...or you could have just read the articles, and noted the phrasing, which was clearly quoting Federal economists, therefore claiming that the Washington Post had made any such assertion would be as false as you claiming I said something I didn't.

But hey, go ahead and believe something that exists in real life doesn't exist if it's not put on the Web somewhere. I know how false a claim that is.

Ah well, the trolls almost managed to kick things up to 400 posts.

At least it saves the world from their repugnance causing real harm.

shifarobe, why do you never speak out against the real trolls? Oh I know, because they purport to stand with you.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Easy123: Oh his delusions can be comprehended. But nobody wants to bother. What's the point? Let him spew out his own filth all over himself.

June 25, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.
raygunz said...

shifarobe said...

"The truth? Funny how the truth always goes to the LEFT!!"

It's well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

June 26, 2012 at 12:18 a.m.

I thought it was reality.

June 26, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

-Thomas Jefferson

stanleyyelnatsDOTcom

July 1, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.