Does stupidity really skip a generation?

[Hawk]

Johnny, please step away from the Koolaid.



Has it become your full time job to be the professional spinmeister for the Messiah?

As typical - nothing to add to the conversation but an attempt to insult. All too commonly typical and showing a lack of real insight.

[witchhunt]

Johnny, please step away from the Koolaid.



Has it become your full time job to be the professional spinmeister for the Messiah?

As typical - nothing to add to the conversation but an attempt to insult. All too commonly typical and showing a lack of real insight.

Yeah, the messiah comments, the kool-aid comments, etc. are getting really old. Please at least try to make it a little more interesting for the readers. Thank you.

[JackANSI]

Johnny, please step away from the Koolaid.



Has it become your full time job to be the professional spinmeister for the Messiah?

As typical - nothing to add to the conversation but an attempt to insult. All too commonly typical and showing a lack of real insight.

Yeah, the messiah comments, the kool-aid comments, etc. are getting really old. Please at least try to make it a little more interesting for the readers. Thank you.

[songsmith]

Yeah, bitch about political threads if you must, but this thread has nine times more readers than posters. Somebody pays attention. --->JMS

[Banned]

Johnny, please step away from the Koolaid.



Has it become your full time job to be the professional spinmeister for the Messiah?

As typical - nothing to add to the conversation but an attempt to insult. All too commonly typical and showing a lack of real insight.

My insight is perfect. Liberal socialists like you and Johnny will defend this Messiah no matter how much damage and harm he does to our nation. Is it Koolaid or a Vulcan mind meld?

You and Johnny defending this abomination is not conversation in any way. It is total mindless obedience to your leader.

Take the red pill, get out of the matrix. There is another world outside of total socialist control of your lives.

[Hawk]

Johnny, please step away from the Koolaid.



Has it become your full time job to be the professional spinmeister for the Messiah?

As typical - nothing to add to the conversation but an attempt to insult. All too commonly typical and showing a lack of real insight.

My insight is perfect. Liberal socialists like you and Johnny will defend this Messiah no matter how much damage and harm he does to our nation. Is it Koolaid or a Vulcan mind meld?

You and Johnny defending this abomination is not conversation in any way. It is total mindless obedience to your leader.

Take the red pill, get out of the matrix. There is another world outside of total socialist control of your lives.

I respect the fact that your ideology is consistent. I believe you to be a smart man (unlike some other righties) . If you believe that Insults give you the upper hand, they don't. Insults show your lack of ability to defend your position with any substance.

Insults and lack of substance ? I expect more from you Joe.

[Banned]

Ok, no insults, I will reward your asinine liberal thought. Good boy, you defended the messiah just like you are trained to. Good boy.

Now drink your koolaid, good boy.

[witchhunt]

Yeah, bitch about political threads if you must, but this thread has nine times more readers than posters. Somebody pays attention. --->JMS

Boredom makes people do strange things.

[RobTheDrummer]

It is funny to see some people still buying into Obama's rhetoric. Sure the man can talk, he can talk all damn night. His actions speak more truth than his mouth....

[songsmith]

My insight is perfect. Liberal socialists like you and Johnny will defend this Messiah no matter how much damage and harm he does to our nation. Is it Koolaid or a Vulcan mind meld?

You and Johnny defending this abomination is not conversation in any way. It is total mindless obedience to your leader.
.

Hey, it's not like I'm a Reaganite or something. THAT would just be stupid.

BTW, how's the Fox Total Mindless Obedience thing going? (Then Joe answers, 'Oh, I don't watch Fox!' then repeats everything they're talking about today, verbatim.)
That whooshing sound you hear is the point, spinning out of control, just over your head.
'Nother day, another burn on Joe. Goodnight all, I'm off to see The Gypsies, who we'll be playing with March 27th at US Hotel. Damn, I even worked a gig-plug in. I rucking fule sometimes. --->JMS

[Banned]

I don't need Fox or anyone else to point out how fucked up the messiah is. It is plain for all to see. You are the one obsessed with Fox, Beck and Rush. I do not listen to talk radio anymore. So how could I know what Rush is saying?

Fuck Rush anyway, if he was truly conservative and cared about the Constitution, he would champion Ron Paul, but he totally disses him.

Here is a fact for you. Libertarians and Constitutionalists both hate what B. Hussein is doing to ruin this country. Fox and talk show hosts do not represent Libertarians or Constitutionalists, they are actually trying to co-opt the Tea Party Movement and make is sound like it is a Republican wave. It is not.

BTW, how exactly is B. Hussein different from Bush on the war in the middle east?

Can't you step out of your defender of the democrats role to see that democrats and republicans have both fucked this country?

[songsmith]

I Here is a fact for you. Libertarians and Constitutionalists both hate what B. Hussein is doing to ruin this country. Fox and talk show hosts do not represent Libertarians or Constitutionalists

Libertarians and Constitutionalists hate all forms of govt unless they each personally have 100% control over every facet, which is horribly unrealistic and narcissistic, and your arguments are proof. If the Tear Party had started after his first term, or halfway through, or even a year in, I'd have agreed that it was a reaction to perceived failures of Big Bad O. But the first local event was less than 3 months in. The Tear Party is NOTHING more than malcontents who felt (and still feel) frustrated that the power they usurped as a result of 9/11 is no longer available to them. In a nutshell, they're angry and embarrassed at the results of the last presidential election, and the relative ease with which they were so soundly beaten. You can't blame the lefties for taking over, that's how the system laid out by the Founding Fathers of these great United States Of America, works. If you disagree, then I'll be copying and pasting your words when and if the GOP takes Congress back. (Note: the Libertaricons won't be sweeping any election anytime soon.)
As for divorcing the Tea Party from Fox News... pure nonsense. Beck went to Fox for one reason: money. Spewing rightwing effluvient is what Becky does for his substantial living, and the 'baggers belong to Beck. If you're telling me that Tea Partiers don't watch Fox or other extremism-for-cash outlets, it kind of speaks to your nearsightedness and state of denial.--->JMS

[PStl]

When I get down to Washington, DC on August 28th, I'll report as to what the makeup of the crowd is. Until then, I'm in support of the Tea Party movement because of a number of reasons. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. The fact that the basis of the 9/12 group is about educating yourself as to how our country was founded, and how important it is to stay true to our core beliefs, appeals to me, and many others. It isn't blindly getting on a bus, transported to a rally, given a union tee shirt, and told when, and what to say. You guys can poo-poo the Tea Party, but I think it would be a mistake.

OK, Fox News news:
the mosted trusted name in news is no longer just a slogan!
http://article.nationalreview.com/42327 ... sh-ponnuru
Scoreboard!!!!

I posted this last night, but then removed it. If you're reading this thread, you may be interested in knowing why the two sides think like they do.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkn ... FlMmUyNjI=

Back to Obama's speech, I didn't really want him to say anything in particular, but it was glaringly obvious that he didn't actually give a description at all about the state of the union. He keeps getting beat, but continues to say "I won't quit". Punch drunk, or stubborn, either way, very dangerous for us. Everything from day 1 of Obama's term IS HIS FAULT! The extreme modern progressive is such a small portion of society, and doesn't reflect the attitude of "Joe Lunchbucket". 400 more speeches won't change the fact that deep down, people know that Obama's policies are wrong, and will not work, and most importantly, are not American in principle.

[Banned]

Libertarians and Constitutionalists hate all forms of govt unless they each personally have 100% control over every facet, (Note: the Libertaricons won't be sweeping any election anytime soon.)

Libertarians and Constitutionalists want the Constitution to have control over our government, like it is supposed to be. Hint, that is why they are called Constitutionalists. Like the Founders of this country set it up to run.

[THEM BONES]

Please go back to page one of this thead and read Bassist_25's post over and over and over again until you wake the fuck up. Where do constantly find the time in the day to comment on every little fucking thing about President Obama. We get it, you don't like him and we don't care.

Dude, go for a walk, get some fresh air, step back for a minute or two. You're becoming obsessive about the guy and it's becoming really fucking freaky. Relax a bit Lee Harvey!

[Banned]

Please go back to page one of this thead and read Bassist_25's post over and over and over again until you wake the fuck up. Where do constantly find the time in the day to comment on every little fucking thing about President Obama. We get it, you don't like him and we don't care.

Dude, go for a walk, get some fresh air, step back for a minute or two. You're becoming obsessive about the guy and it's becoming really fucking freaky. Relax a bit Lee Harvey!

It would probably be a whole lot easier for you to stop reading these posts. Or is somebody holding a gun to your head, making you read them?

[lonewolf]

My insight is perfect. Liberal socialists like you and Johnny will defend this Messiah no matter how much damage and harm he does to our nation. Is it Koolaid or a Vulcan mind meld?

It cannot be a Vulcan mind meld. Because liberalism is based on feelings and not logic, to say that Vulcans are liberal or foster liberalism would be illogical. It is a foregone conclusion that Vulcans are libertarian.

Besides, the needs of the many (300+ million US citizens) outweigh the needs of the few (20 or so million US citizens presently with no health insurance) or the one (Obama's historical legacy.)

[songsmith]

Libertarians and Constitutionalists hate all forms of govt unless they each personally have 100% control over every facet, (Note: the Libertaricons won't be sweeping any election anytime soon.)

Libertarians and Constitutionalists want the Constitution to have control over our government, like it is supposed to be. Hint, that is why they are called Constitutionalists. Like the Founders of this country set it up to run.

I think that's incorrect, based on the rhetoric they spout. I think they want the Constitution AS THEY DEFINE IT to have power. Like the Bible does for Christians. Each denomination has their own views on what the Bible says, each sees themselves as correct, yet there are hundreds of denominations. Correct isn't a blanket term, only one God means only one real definition... so which denomination is the TRUE Christian? Which church should I be forced to attend?
For example, the 2nd Amendment as written declares the right to bear arms in the context of a militia, but makes no other definition of gun use or ownership. It could be construed that the defined right is to carry a weapon in the military, as in you have a right to be a soldier if you want to. It doesn't mention home or self-protection, hunting, target practice, or overcompensating for a lack of manhood. Those reasons for gun-ownership are open to definition by any party, even liberals... at least I don't think the Constitution has outlawed liberal thought yet. I don't recall any passage that even mentions conservative or liberal views... you have to filter it through your own views for that conclusion.
The Constitution is NOT a book of right-wing by-laws. It allows for free thought, including liberalism or any other idea. You should, too.--->JMS

[Hawk]

When I get down to Washington, DC on August 28th, I'll report as to what the makeup of the crowd is. Until then, I'm in support of the Tea Party movement because of a number of reasons. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. The fact that the basis of the 9/12 group is about educating yourself as to how our country was founded, and how important it is to stay true to our core beliefs, appeals to me, and many others. It isn't blindly getting on a bus, transported to a rally, given a union tee shirt, and told when, and what to say. You guys can poo-poo the Tea Party, but I think it would be a mistake.

OK, Fox News news:
the mosted trusted name in news is no longer just a slogan!
http://article.nationalreview.com/42327 ... sh-ponnuru
Scoreboard!!!!

I posted this last night, but then removed it. If you're reading this thread, you may be interested in knowing why the two sides think like they do.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkn ... FlMmUyNjI=

Back to Obama's speech, I didn't really want him to say anything in particular, but it was glaringly obvious that he didn't actually give a description at all about the state of the union. He keeps getting beat, but continues to say "I won't quit". Punch drunk, or stubborn, either way, very dangerous for us. Everything from day 1 of Obama's term IS HIS FAULT! The extreme modern progressive is such a small portion of society, and doesn't reflect the attitude of "Joe Lunchbucket". 400 more speeches won't change the fact that deep down, people know that Obama's policies are wrong, and will not work, and most importantly, are not American in principle.

Finally I get top talk to a tea party supporter. Can you help me out with a few questions. I did go to the local tea party at Faith Baptist Church. Phil Waite was an extremely passionate speaker and I enjoyed his speech very much, although I didn't agree with all of it. I would like to see prayer back in schools, but I digress.

The local tea party had a lot to say about God relative to the founding fathers and their belief in God. Are all of the tea parties related to God or is this because it was held at Faith Baptist ?

Much of the tea party rhetoric was about taking back the government and a smaller federal government. Could you PLEASE tell me EXACTLY what the tea party wants to take out of the federal government in order to make it smaller ? Is there a list of things ? Where can I find it ?

One of their points was that the government should be run by the people. This is wrong in that the people do not vote on issues but vote on representatives to do as they see fit for the well being of the US.

They also seem to think that the founding fathers wanted a small federal government. Not so with all of them. Alexander Hamilton realized that a strong federal government was necessary.

They also seem to think that most everything the federal government does is not in the constitution. It is. "Implied Powers" is in the constitution. Everyone form George Washington to Thomas Jefferson used "implied powers".

Implied Powers was written into the constitution because the founding fathers realized that they could not conceive all of the things that might come up in the future that would need to be done by the federal government. Implied Powers can be used by the federal government if the means to the end is for the general well being of the country. You may argue what they do IS or IS NOT for the general well being (which is what congress and the president do) but you cannot say it isn't in the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to buy Louisiana. That was unconstitutional. Fortunately it turned out to be a good thing. What Is in the constitution that allowed Jefferson to buy Louisiana is "Implied Powers", which is exactly what allowed him to buy it. And that spending added a deficit to the country. And not everyone was for it.

To digress a little again. One (like me) sees the health insurance reform as being a good thing for the "general well being" of the country. The end does justify the means according to the Constitution. It IS in there.

I would like to see that list of what they will remove from the federal government in order to make it smaller. Thanks so much.

[songsmith]

. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. .

The so-called socialist ideologue was cast into power by a popular election. People were given a choice between more fumbling, dangerous rightwing cluelessness, and anything else. They were so fed-up with the authoritarian status-quo, they easily chose "anything else." The ideologue part about Obama seems to be true, and simply having an opposing ideology isn't a crime. The "socialist" part is pure Rovian spin, and gets reinforced by Obama's detractors every time he takes aim at the top 2% of wage-earners who control 50% of the wealth. If there's a class war, like Warren Buffet says, "the aristocracy is certainly winning." When 50% of the population controls 50% of the wealth, maybe things will really be "fair and balanced."--->JMS

[Hawk]

. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. .

The so-called socialist ideologue was cast into power by a popular election. People were given a choice between more fumbling, dangerous rightwing cluelessness, and anything else. They were so fed-up with the authoritarian status-quo, they easily chose "anything else." The ideologue part about Obama seems to be true, and simply having an opposing ideology isn't a crime. The "socialist" part is pure Rovian spin, and gets reinforced by Obama's detractors every time he takes aim at the top 2% of wage-earners who control 50% of the wealth. If there's a class war, like Warren Buffet says, "the aristocracy is certainly winning." When 50% of the population controls 50% of the wealth, maybe things will really be "fair and balanced."--->JMS

Seems to me, if a segment of the population owns 50% of the wealth, they should cover 50% of the taxes.

EDIT: This is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Although I do think they should at least cover what they did Under Reagan.

[songsmith]

Everything from day 1 of Obama's term IS HIS FAULT!

deep down, people know that Obama's policies are wrong, and will not work, and most importantly, are not American in principle.

That is the only tactic of the modern conservative movement. Ignore the realities of the damage done while conservatives were in power, and define all definitions. To that, I say "No," and "No."--->JMS

[Banned]

Everything from day 1 of Obama's term IS HIS FAULT!

deep down, people know that Obama's policies are wrong, and will not work, and most importantly, are not American in principle.

That is the only tactic of the modern conservative movement. Ignore the realities of the damage done while conservatives were in power, and define all definitions. To that, I say "No," and "No."--->JMS

How about libertarians who say Republicans did terrible damage to this country and so do Democrats right now? What do you say to them?

My point is that we have to break the 2 party strangle hold on this country and get back to a limited, Constitutional federal government.

[lonewolf]

. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. .

The so-called socialist ideologue was cast into power by a popular election. People were given a choice between more fumbling, dangerous rightwing cluelessness, and anything else. They were so fed-up with the authoritarian status-quo, they easily chose "anything else." The ideologue part about Obama seems to be true, and simply having an opposing ideology isn't a crime. The "socialist" part is pure Rovian spin, and gets reinforced by Obama's detractors every time he takes aim at the top 2% of wage-earners who control 50% of the wealth. If there's a class war, like Warren Buffet says, "the aristocracy is certainly winning." When 50% of the population controls 50% of the wealth, maybe things will really be "fair and balanced."--->JMS

Seems to me, if a segment of the population owns 50% of the wealth, they should cover 50% of the taxes.

EDIT: This is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Although I do think they should at least cover what they did Under Reagan.

So, are you proposing a huge tax cut for the rich?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

[Hawk]

The so-called socialist ideologue was cast into power by a popular election. People were given a choice between more fumbling, dangerous rightwing cluelessness, and anything else. They were so fed-up with the authoritarian status-quo, they easily chose "anything else." The ideologue part about Obama seems to be true, and simply having an opposing ideology isn't a crime. The "socialist" part is pure Rovian spin, and gets reinforced by Obama's detractors every time he takes aim at the top 2% of wage-earners who control 50% of the wealth. If there's a class war, like Warren Buffet says, "the aristocracy is certainly winning." When 50% of the population controls 50% of the wealth, maybe things will really be "fair and balanced."--->JMS

Seems to me, if a segment of the population owns 50% of the wealth, they should cover 50% of the taxes.

EDIT: This is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Although I do think they should at least cover what they did Under Reagan.

So, are you proposing a huge tax cut for the rich?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

What does the top 2% ACTUALLY pay in taxes ? After they shelter and "off shore" their monies ?