Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,005 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#28741 Jan 21, 2014
Mr. Barney is still grasping at straws and trying to make his Twilight Zone world that he lives in, our reality.
He was real good at turning people's words around on them, and confusing the hell out of them until they eventually left, but Mr. Barney can't do that anymore.
Oh, now he still tries, but his own party has betrayed him so much, that poor Mr. Barney has been left looking like a fool. He has defended countless times, only to discover his own party were liars, making him wrong, time and time and time again, looking like a fool.
This is when the typical liberal tactics rear their ugly heads, and we begin hearing that tiresome blame game-Bush, race, rich republicans, global warming, etc.
Mr. Barney, you've provided some real good laughs, and your loyalty to this party of liberal loonies is as admirable as the loyalty seen by the faithful Jim Jones supporters, but even the majority of them realized their folly. Of course, it was too late by the time drinks were being served, but they finally did see the light.
Mr. Barney, you ever going to see the light? Before it's too late, of course?
And speaking of global warming-well, there's just no reason to bring up yet another liberal lie that can't take the heat due to all the frigid cold record setting weather. Maybe those global warming scientists were stuck in the ice in Antarctica too long trying to prove it was melting to realize they were stuck in the ice, and it's not melting, to appreciate the irony in it.
I sure can appreciate the irony! I'm just waiting to find out how this is going to blamed on Bush, or because snow/ice are white, or any of the many more excuses liberals use to blame their failed ideas on!
explanation

Ashburn, VA

#28742 Jan 21, 2014
guest wrote:
What does this have anything to do with "did you vote today"? Explain yourself!!
Well, around here, there weren't any elections being held. Therefore, I did not go vote today. That being said, people have chosen this topix thread to continue discussing politics and enjoying the often thrown slam at the other.
I would think it was pretty self-explanatory, but since you didn't seem to get it, I hope that helps clear it up in some small way. I doubt it, but it might.
I've often found if there is a thread I don't really understand, I simply leave it and never look back. It has never caused me grief or stress to chose this path, instead of demanding others explain or change because of me. The tone of your question suggests you may be looking for confrontation more than an explanation, but may be I read it wrong.
guest

United States

#28743 Jan 21, 2014
You really dont make no sense. How about you go find you a man that wants to be with your sorry tale! Keep on trying bc your getting nowhere.
guest

United States

#28744 Jan 21, 2014
Why dont you put it out there and tell me who you are. Instead of hiding behind a fake name. You sure have alot of time on your hands to talk to yourself with so much misery in your life!!
guest

United States

#28745 Jan 21, 2014
I myself knows you dont give a shit about politics. Right?

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28746 Jan 21, 2014
Reality Chek wrote:
<quoted text>
They're on record as unconstitutional and others are not so you tell me. To say that there are no liberal political activist in appointed positions (judges and otherwise) is laughable. You just ended up on the wrong side where you have no evidence to prove otherwise and you're just upset about it. Why don't you do what all liberal progressives do and just make up an alternate reality that fits what you want it to. It won't change anything in the real world but you'll feel better in no time
The case has been heard by the Supreme Court, the ruling is expected in late June, then we shall see if the opinion of the Appeals court is a valid one. Until then, your opinion as well as the courts is in limbo, to suggest other wise is simply ignorant.

Where on earth did you get the idea I said , or implied for that matter,

"no liberal political activist in appointed positions"

I have to say, saying that I did, is laughable.

Do you even know what the Republicans were doing at the time, that prompted President Obama to make those appointments?

If you do, how do you defend what they were doing?

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28747 Jan 21, 2014
billblaze wrote:
Mr. Barney is still grasping at straws and trying to make his Twilight Zone world that he lives in, our reality.
He was real good at turning people's words around on them, and confusing the hell out of them until they eventually left, but Mr. Barney can't do that anymore.
Oh, now he still tries, but his own party has betrayed him so much, that poor Mr. Barney has been left looking like a fool. He has defended countless times, only to discover his own party were liars, making him wrong, time and time and time again, looking like a fool.
This is when the typical liberal tactics rear their ugly heads, and we begin hearing that tiresome blame game-Bush, race, rich republicans, global warming, etc.
Mr. Barney, you've provided some real good laughs, and your loyalty to this party of liberal loonies is as admirable as the loyalty seen by the faithful Jim Jones supporters, but even the majority of them realized their folly. Of course, it was too late by the time drinks were being served, but they finally did see the light.
Mr. Barney, you ever going to see the light? Before it's too late, of course?
And speaking of global warming-well, there's just no reason to bring up yet another liberal lie that can't take the heat due to all the frigid cold record setting weather. Maybe those global warming scientists were stuck in the ice in Antarctica too long trying to prove it was melting to realize they were stuck in the ice, and it's not melting, to appreciate the irony in it.
I sure can appreciate the irony! I'm just waiting to find out how this is going to blamed on Bush, or because snow/ice are white, or any of the many more excuses liberals use to blame their failed ideas on!
Interesting Bill, just what has my party betrayed me on?
Andy

Jonesboro, AR

#28748 Jan 21, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Andy, if proper grammar and lack of typos is what you are seeking, then a Topix thread is not likely where you want to be.
However if you are a conservative/republican who can not stand the truth, lacking any thing positive to defend your own party, so you shoot the messenger,
congratulations, you are right at home!
I guess you are on home detention being here with me. I just expect a little more from someone who seeks to save the world from democracy and the American way. Continue being Barney, we will continue being amused.

“Frankly my dear...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#28749 Jan 21, 2014
guest wrote:
You really dont make no sense. How about you go find you a man that wants to be with your sorry tale! Keep on trying bc your getting nowhere.
This guest writer doesn't care to use double negatives, misspelled words, and sorry 'tails' of woe. Maybe it was intentional, or stupidity, or both. One thing's for sure...it's funny! In a sort of 'bless your pea-picking heart, this is so stupid I can't stop myself from laughing at you' way.
Oh, and my name really is Scarlett O'Hara. I don't know about the other person you are yelling at, but I simply never hide behind anonymity!
Old Army

Quitman, AR

#28750 Jan 22, 2014
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
Jennifer

Jonesboro, AR

#28751 Jan 22, 2014
Old Army wrote:
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
Same as when you left, Barney being Barney and then there are the intelligent posters. Welcome back.

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#28752 Jan 22, 2014
Well, Mr. Barney, this thread has covered the multiple times you defended a party that has lied to you and betrayed you. It really doesn't matter if your pride keeps you from admitting it. It is a fact. It has happened often, and when it does, you tuck tail and run away for a while. You go ahead and tell me how wrong I am, and what a great team you and the democrats make, and how great numbers are, and the economy is on the rise, and if it is struggling in any area, it is because of George W., and how global warming is real, and white snow is racist.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28753 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you, now you can breathe a sigh of relief that he hasn't succeeded at being a socialist.
Have you succeeded in that endeavor yet?

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28756 Jan 22, 2014
Old Army wrote:
I'm back. Watsup Homes?
I don't care about you, but how are the dogs doing?

Welcome back.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#28757 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The case has been heard by the Supreme Court, the ruling is expected in late June, then we shall see if the opinion of the Appeals court is a valid one. Until then, your opinion as well as the courts is in limbo, to suggest other wise is simply ignorant.
Where on earth did you get the idea I said , or implied for that matter,
"no liberal political activist in appointed positions"
I have to say, saying that I did, is laughable.
Do you even know what the Republicans were doing at the time, that prompted President Obama to make those appointments?
If you do, how do you defend what they were doing?
Only pointing out one side's shortcomings while not admitting your side's shortcomings implies that you only feel one side is wrong. In other words, you don't have to say it. What the Republicans were doing is irrelevant. Besides, did what the Republicans were doing affect the courts decision? No, so it doesn't matter. We are speaking on the constitutionality of Obama's actions and those actions have been deemed unconstitutional. End of argument. Now if the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts decision then I will gladly give Obama credit for acting within his constitutional authority. But if the Supreme Court upholds those claims, are you willing to admit that we know that Bush acted constitutionally and Obama did not? We'll see what you are made of if the decision goes against what you believe. Good luck.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28758 Jan 22, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Only pointing out one side's shortcomings while not admitting your side's shortcomings implies that you only feel one side is wrong. In other words, you don't have to say it. What the Republicans were doing is irrelevant. Besides, did what the Republicans were doing affect the courts decision? No, so it doesn't matter. We are speaking on the constitutionality of Obama's actions and those actions have been deemed unconstitutional. End of argument. Now if the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts decision then I will gladly give Obama credit for acting within his constitutional authority. But if the Supreme Court upholds those claims, are you willing to admit that we know that Bush acted constitutionally and Obama did not? We'll see what you are made of if the decision goes against what you believe. Good luck.
The fact that 3 Republican political activist judges said it was unconstitutional is a given.

Good grief Charley Brown, of course it was legal for Bush, that is why it was just as legal when Obama did it, and has been the last 100 plus years.

What the Republicans were doing at the time was most relevant. It was the appeals court that upheld what the Republicans were doing as legal, which in their OPINION made Obama's appointments unconstitutional.

Do you even know who the two parties are behind this law suite pending before SCOTUS?

Obviously you are clueless of the chain events that led to Obama making those appointments.

Good grief man, if you are going to argue a point it would help if you knew what you was talking about

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28759 Jan 22, 2014
scarlett o hara wrote:
<quoted text>
This guest writer doesn't care to use double negatives, misspelled words, and sorry 'tails' of woe. Maybe it was intentional, or stupidity, or both. One thing's for sure...it's funny! In a sort of 'bless your pea-picking heart, this is so stupid I can't stop myself from laughing at you' way.
Oh, and my name really is Scarlett O'Hara. I don't know about the other person you are yelling at, but I simply never hide behind anonymity!
Frankly Scarlett, you don't have to be educated to be smart.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28760 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that 3 Republican political activist judges said it was unconstitutional is a given.
Good grief Charley Brown, of course it was legal for Bush, that is why it was just as legal when Obama did it, and has been the last 100 plus years.
What the Republicans were doing at the time was most relevant. It was the appeals court that upheld what the Republicans were doing as legal, which in their OPINION made Obama's appointments unconstitutional.
Do you even know who the two parties are behind this law suite pending before SCOTUS?
Obviously you are clueless of the chain events that led to Obama making those appointments.
Good grief man, if you are going to argue a point it would help if you knew what you was talking about
Ok, when you wipe away all the asterisks liberals use to justify their argument you are still left with the FACT that legally appointed judges saw Obama's actions as unconstitutional. It wasn't just their opinion but rather how the actions were defined as they stacked up against the way the Constitution was written. Who is behind the lawsuit has no relevance as to whether or not Obama's actions were constitutional or not. They certainly were a result of the unconstitutional ruling but weren't even a thought when Obama decided to act unconstitutionally. If you were going to argue a point it would help if you would not add circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued. This is a great example of how liberals only want things their way. When John Roberts literally changed the Obama Administrations argument for them from Obamacare being argued as a fine to Obamacare being a tax in the court case on whether or not the law was constitutional or not, liberals had no argument but rather hailed John Roberts as a hero that transcends today's partisan politics. Why? because he voted their way. Now this decision goes against the liberal way and all of a sudden there are political activist running wild and circumstances happening at the time of the appointments were crucial. So crucial, in fact, that they couldn't even be brought up in the case. Maybe they were brought up and liberals still lost.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28761 Jan 22, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly Scarlett, you don't have to be educated to be smart.
You must not be educated because you think you are smart! LOL!

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#28762 Jan 22, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, when you wipe away all the asterisks liberals use to justify their argument you are still left with the FACT that legally appointed judges saw Obama's actions as unconstitutional. It wasn't just their opinion but rather how the actions were defined as they stacked up against the way the Constitution was written. Who is behind the lawsuit has no relevance as to whether or not Obama's actions were constitutional or not. They certainly were a result of the unconstitutional ruling but weren't even a thought when Obama decided to act unconstitutionally. If you were going to argue a point it would help if you would not add circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued. This is a great example of how liberals only want things their way. When John Roberts literally changed the Obama Administrations argument for them from Obamacare being argued as a fine to Obamacare being a tax in the court case on whether or not the law was constitutional or not, liberals had no argument but rather hailed John Roberts as a hero that transcends today's partisan politics. Why? because he voted their way. Now this decision goes against the liberal way and all of a sudden there are political activist running wild and circumstances happening at the time of the appointments were crucial. So crucial, in fact, that they couldn't even be brought up in the case. Maybe they were brought up and liberals still lost

As I said, it is a given, what the Appeals Court ruling was.

Now please tell me what,

"circumstances and events that happened after the fact to the point being argued"

did I add?

The bottom line is, the only thing you know for sure is what the appeals court ruling was, you are clueless to the rest of the story, hearing only what you want hear,and making yourself look foolish trying to convince yourself and everyone else you have a clue about what you are talking about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where is the best dance school in El Dorado? 1 hr NikNik 26
duck lover smells like poots 2 hr dan martin 4
El Dorado News Times- Police Log Report 4 hr EldoMasterBlaster 4
Where is Yancy Leach? 4 hr For What Its Worth 10
601 S Parkway 7 hr THigh 4
Whites Lawncare 7 hr HAHA 10
large dope growing inside house at 593 old cali... 8 hr MikeE 5
El Dorado Dating
Find my Match

El Dorado People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

El Dorado News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in El Dorado

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]