Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>Why not go the 60's? Relics of JFK & LBJ & the Vietnam war? OR the 40's, relics of "The Great Generation" ? You say Relic like it's a bad thing.
RELIC: 1: an object venerated because of its association with a saint or martyr. 2:souvenir, momento. 3: a remaining vestige. Please explain. Just curious as to your point

A remaing vestige of a time when white men thought they had a divine superiority to minorities and women. You know, like Fred just wrote, when those people knew their "place."

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>Come on DUKEY, I posted no facts to skew. Only hypothesis & opinion.
Your addition of Rupert Murdoch has absolutely nothing to do with my post. I mentioned no political parties, no names, no specific stories or events etc. Did you have a point?
WOOF

Shouldn't hypothesis and opinion have a basis in fact?

[Pops]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try Pops.
You mentioned the "media" as if the entirety of that group was responsible for perpetuating the Obama Phone myth.
I'm simply pointing out to you that that is not true.
woof

Right, I did. And that is a generalization since there are several kinds of media, print, Hollywood movies, TV, radio, so called 'social media' mostly supplied by the web. I didn't mention Murdoch, Hurst, Public radio or public Television. YOU selected a specific for some reason.
WOOF
I'm just having a little fun with the "woofs" hope you don't mind.

[Pops]

ooops, I meant that CHE mentioned a specific name, since you responded, I errored in response. oops

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
A remaing vestige of a time when white men thought they had a divine superiority to minorities and women. You know, like Fred just wrote, when those people knew their "place."

Well,'FRED' is out of line if your interpretation is correct.
IF your thinking is correct, the 40's would be even more accurate because even the military was very segregated too.

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Shouldn't hypothesis and opinion have a basis in fact?

Basis? YES. But I still posted NO facts as such, just a very brief summary. But there are statistical facts to base my accusation on.
But since we are all selective in our opinions & there are facts to dispute facts (take global warming as an example) I'll leave things stand instead of protracted tit for tat argument.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>Basis? YES. But I still posted NO facts as such, just a very brief summary. But there are statistical facts to base my accusation on.
But since we are all selective in our opinions & there are facts to dispute facts (take global warming as an example) I'll leave things stand instead of protracted tit for tat argument.

Not surprising. Kind of like you didn't have facts to support your opinions about voter roll purges.

You "righties" all decide to "leave things stand" when you are shown to be wrong. Just like XXX blaming Obama for the FISA wiretapping law until I taught him the Obama was actually trying to restrict the law. Confronted with facts, your "righties" just change the subject.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
The very few? You better review the 2012 election results and the current polls and reconsider who is part of the very few.

"The very few" was in reference to the 1950s. There weren't many of your type in those days.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>"The very few" was in reference to the 1950s. There weren't many of your type in those days.

Well, today, you are the very few. It's just taking you awhile to learn your place.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, today, you are the very few. It's just taking you awhile to learn your place.

I don't call 48% of the electorate, "the very few." Nor are gun owners, church-goers or military families.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I don't call 48% of the electorate, "the very few." Nor are gun owners, church-goers or military families.

But teabagging, racist, chauvinists are. Dig it? You are giving yourself WAY too much credit.

[Duke for Mayor]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>Right, I did. And that is a generalization since there are several kinds of media, print, Hollywood movies, TV, radio, so called 'social media' mostly supplied by the web. I didn't mention Murdoch, Hurst, Public radio or public Television. YOU selected a specific for some reason.
WOOF
I'm just having a little fun with the "woofs" hope you don't mind.

It was I who mentioned Mr. Murdoch, because all of those lies about the phones came from his network.

woof

[xxxrayted]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Not surprising. Kind of like you didn't have facts to support your opinions about voter roll purges.
You "righties" all decide to "leave things stand" when you are shown to be wrong. Just like XXX blaming Obama for the FISA wiretapping law until I taught him the Obama was actually trying to restrict the law. Confronted with facts, your "righties" just change the subject.

Okay, then lets keep the subject going:

(TheBlaze/AP)— As everyone’s attention is focused on the slew of taxes set to increase in 2013, President Barack Obama has quietly signed into law a five-year extension to the warrantless intercept program that monitors the overseas activity of suspected spies and terrorists.

The program would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president’s approval, but won final passage in the Senate on Friday before heading to the president’s desk over the weekend.

Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept.

The law does not apply to Americans, but the administration has staunchly refused to reveal whether Americans were inadvertently spied upon, or whether they are using foreign intercepts as a “back door” to spy on American citizens.

CBS News elaborates:

The Senate majority rejected arguments from an unusual combination of Democratic liberals and ideological Republican conservatives, who sought to amend the bill to require the government to reveal statistics showing whether any Americans were swept up in the foreign intercepts. The attempt lost, with 52 votes against and 43 in favor.

The Obama administration’s intelligence community and leaders of the Senate’s intelligence committee said the information should be classified and opposed the disclosure, repeating that it is illegal to target Americans without an order from a special U.S. surveillance court.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-oba...

[Go Away Che]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
He doesn't care about facts. He saw a black woman on a cell phone. In his mind, there is no possible way a black woman could have a phone unless the government (or her pimp) gave it to her.

Everyone that has a cell phone (and pays for it) look at your bill.
There is a line item charge called "Federal Universal Service Charge"

From http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp...
"The Federal Universal Service Fund (USF), created by the federal government, is designed to help ensure first-class, affordable telecommunications service for all consumers across the country, especially residents in high-cost rural communities and low-income customers."

So while tax money may not fund free phones for low income customers, we all pay for it every month.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Go Away Che wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone that has a cell phone (and pays for it) look at your bill.
There is a line item charge called "Federal Universal Service Charge"
From http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp...
"The Federal Universal Service Fund (USF), created by the federal government, is designed to help ensure first-class, affordable telecommunications service for all consumers across the country, especially residents in high-cost rural communities and low-income customers."
So while tax money may not fund free phones for low income customers, we all pay for it every month.

Including the black woman that you and XXX assume is on welfare because she is black and a woman, genius.

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, then lets keep the subject going:
(TheBlaze/AP)— As everyone’s attention is focused on the slew of taxes set to increase in 2013, President Barack Obama has quietly signed into law a five-year extension to the warrantless intercept program that monitors the overseas activity of suspected spies and terrorists.
The program would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president’s approval, but won final passage in the Senate on Friday before heading to the president’s desk over the weekend.
Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept.
The law does not apply to Americans, but the administration has staunchly refused to reveal whether Americans were inadvertently spied upon, or whether they are using foreign intercepts as a “back door” to spy on American citizens.
CBS News elaborates:
The Senate majority rejected arguments from an unusual combination of Democratic liberals and ideological Republican conservatives, who sought to amend the bill to require the government to reveal statistics showing whether any Americans were swept up in the foreign intercepts. The attempt lost, with 52 votes against and 43 in favor.
The Obama administration’s intelligence community and leaders of the Senate’s intelligence committee said the information should be classified and opposed the disclosure, repeating that it is illegal to target Americans without an order from a special U.S. surveillance court.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-oba...

Glenn Beck's website isn't a valid source. Obama had said he would sign the bill with the House amendments.

Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that before Obama could sign the bill, it had to pass the GOP controlled House and survive filibuster in the Senate. You are also ignoring that it is an extension of a law originally signed by W.

So, again, when did you jump on the anti-FISA bandwagon?

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Not surprising. Kind of like you didn't have facts to support your opinions about voter roll purges.
You "righties" all decide to "leave things stand" when you are shown to be wrong. Just like XXX blaming Obama for the FISA wiretapping law until I taught him the Obama was actually trying to restrict the law. Confronted with facts, your "righties" just change the subject.

Hugh Vic has posted link after link on the subject. Although I do not consider myself a 'rightie', I'll play for a moment, YOU LEFTIES simply deny deny & then deny some more.
You still haven't presented one bit of info about 'leftys/dems/libs offering any substative efforts to minimize voter fraud.

[Pops]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
It was I who mentioned Mr. Murdoch, because all of those lies about the phones came from his network.
woof

Check the countless videos on YOUTUBE and see how the stories just keep on keeping on.

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Glenn Beck's website isn't a valid source. Obama had said he would sign the bill with the House amendments.
Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that before Obama could sign the bill, it had to pass the GOP controlled House and survive filibuster in the Senate. You are also ignoring that it is an extension of a law originally signed by W.
So, again, when did you jump on the anti-FISA bandwagon?

Don't like the info? Issue Another denial.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>Hugh Vic has posted link after link on the subject. Although I do not consider myself a 'rightie', I'll play for a moment, YOU LEFTIES simply deny deny & then deny some more.
You still haven't presented one bit of info about 'leftys/dems/libs offering any substative efforts to minimize voter fraud.

That is because in person voter fraud is a statistical non-occurance. Why spend money to fight a problem that doesn't exist?