Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Speller Feller

United States

#31943 Aug 15, 2014
gab wrote:
I will now discontinue posting for everyone else's benefit.
If only you meant what you said...but you continue to lie...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#31944 Aug 15, 2014
Speller Feller wrote:
http://www.caintv.com/despite- his-previous-claims-ob
Here, Barney. This should make it easier for you to cut and paste when you begin to parrot your favorite guy!!
This is a perfect example of how Barney can deny, distort, and lie about his previous erroneous claims! He just follows the example set by his hero!
This is what else President Obama said in that answer to the reporter that your C&P omitted .

“And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left…. So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were – a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.”

That’s not a bad answer, though it’s almost beside the point.

The GOP argument seems to be, if only the Obama administration had committed tens of thousands of U.S. troops to Iraq, and left them there for the indefinite future, Iraq would be stable and there’d be less violence. It’s hard not to get the impression that these critics somehow slept through the last decade or so.

Obama’s response, in effect, is that the decision wasn’t ours to make. But put that aside for a moment. If we follow the Republicans’ argument to its next logical steps, some fairly obvious questions arise. If the United States decides it’s in our national-security interests to prevent violence, weaken ISIS, and deter sectarian conflicts in Iraq, it necessarily means a vastly expanded U.S. military presence. How many American servicemen and women should be deployed to maintain stability in Iraq? McCain and his allies haven’t said, exactly, but the answer appears to be,“As many as it takes.”

And how long should Americans expect these deployments to last? McCain and his allies haven’t elaborated on this front, either, but again the answer appears to be,“As long as it takes.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-b...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#31945 Aug 15, 2014
Speller Feller wrote:
http://www.caintv.com/despite- his-previous-claims-ob
Here, Barney. This should make it easier for you to cut and paste when you begin to parrot your favorite guy!!
This is a perfect example of how Barney can deny, distort, and lie about his previous erroneous claims! He just follows the example set by his hero!
As I said previously, those 'Republican talking points just don't stand up to scrutiny when fact checked'.

Want to try again?
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31947 Aug 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what else President Obama said in that answer to the reporter that your C&P omitted .
“And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left…. So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were – a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.”
That’s not a bad answer, though it’s almost beside the point.
The GOP argument seems to be, if only the Obama administration had committed tens of thousands of U.S. troops to Iraq, and left them there for the indefinite future, Iraq would be stable and there’d be less violence. It’s hard not to get the impression that these critics somehow slept through the last decade or so.
Obama’s response, in effect, is that the decision wasn’t ours to make. But put that aside for a moment. If we follow the Republicans’ argument to its next logical steps, some fairly obvious questions arise. If the United States decides it’s in our national-security interests to prevent violence, weaken ISIS, and deter sectarian conflicts in Iraq, it necessarily means a vastly expanded U.S. military presence. How many American servicemen and women should be deployed to maintain stability in Iraq? McCain and his allies haven’t said, exactly, but the answer appears to be,“As many as it takes.”
And how long should Americans expect these deployments to last? McCain and his allies haven’t elaborated on this front, either, but again the answer appears to be,“As long as it takes.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-b...
In essence, you offer nothing, as usual.
Your democratic talking points just don't stick, do they, using your very own logic and reasoning .
Basically, according to your very own argument, the link and opinion you offer is null and void, considering the source. Only multiple rattling of opinion in the form of,'If','seems to be','get the impression', and 'answers appear to be'.

Just a lot of hot air from another bitter liberal, passed on by their parrot, Barney...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#31948 Aug 15, 2014
I wonder how long it will take for Tx. Gov. Rick Perry's mug shot to go public?

Anyone care to guess?
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31949 Aug 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said previously, those 'Republican talking points just don't stand up to scrutiny when fact checked'.
Want to try again?
Yes, you are quite the repeater! That's all you've got...something you have previously said, or the copy and paste from others.

Try again? It's not necessary. Your above argument cut your legs out from under yourself and backed you into your own corner.
You have thus discredited any and every source you parrot, and with your inability to think for yourself, you have single-handedly sank your own battleship!
speller feller

Ashburn, VA

#31950 Aug 15, 2014
guest wrote:
All input from me under this topix has to be considered as fiction,,)
In no way shape or form am I claiming to be somebody,(just in the case that you were wondering)
K.
No one was wondering or cares. Remember, you have established yourself to be a liar...

(
gab wrote:
I will now discontinue posting for everyone else's benefit.
)
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#31959 Aug 16, 2014
Wonder how Barney and gab are related
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31964 Aug 16, 2014
gab wrote:
Please quit calling me a " lawyer "
It isn't your profession. Don't flatter yourself.

It is your character. You don't keep your word...thus, you are a liar.
gab wrote:
I will now discontinue posting for everyone else's benefit.
DBW

United States

#31965 Aug 16, 2014
Here's some information for you that every other person in the world knows.
Al Qaeda today, and has always been, consists of many subordinate groups that call themselves different things. They are all part of Al Qaeda, just like all the divisions that call themselves different names are part of the US Army.
Bush crushed Al Qaed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all you are seeing is some branch of Al Qaeda growing faster than the other branches, and they are successfully taking over enough territory to create their own Islamist terrorist state where the Muslim Brotherhood can come in and regain the status as a governing body in the world like they had before Egypt threw them out on their ass.

The Arab Islamist jihad started the war. This is the Arab Islamist jihad at war.

And your messiah Obama had to move to protect the oil fields in Kurdistan.

How does it feel to discover your messiah Obama is nothing more than just another stooge for the oil companies?
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31967 Aug 16, 2014
gab wrote:
I was set up with fake charges
Probably sick of your rambling lies
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31972 Aug 16, 2014
gab wrote:
I will now discontinue posting for everyone else's benefit.
Still lying. Once a liar....
Donnie

United States

#31983 Aug 18, 2014
18 Aug 2014, 12:04 PM PDT 183 post a comment

After the forensic pathologist that Michael Brown's family hired to do a second autopsy said all of the bullets entered Brown from the front and there was insufficient evidence to reconstruct the shooting at this time, Brown family attorneys on Monday claimed he was "executed" via bullets that entered him from behind.

The Monday press conference created more questions than answers about what occurred because the medical examiners did not interrupt Brown's attorneys to say that their words were not consistent with the results of the autopsy.

On Sunday evening, the New York Times obtained the results from the autopsy that the Brown family commissioned, which determined "that all the bullets were fired into his front."

According to the Times, "Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York... flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy."

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” Baden told the Times.“It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer." One eyewitness claimed that Brown "doubled back" and charged at officer Darren Wilson.

The medical examiners said that Brown was shot six times and could have survived the first five shots. Baden said, "in my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say,‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’” but added that there is "too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting.”

At a Monday press conference, Benjamin Crump, the Brown family attorney who also represented Trayvon Martin's family, said the Brown family wanted answers for the "tragic execution of their child."

Brown family attorney Daryl Parks then claimed the the autopsy showed that it was "clear" that "the direction was the bullet was in a back-to-front direction," though there was apparently nothing in the report to justify that claim. He said Wilson "should have been arrested," and it made "no sense" why Brown was shot "in the top of the head."

Parks also said the autopsy results verified "eyewitness accounts, which is so very important in bringing the story together." He said the results "verify" that the "witness accounts were true." He said they needed to "get all the witness statements out" in order to "to put this picture together."

Yet the preliminary autopsy results seem to contradict Dorian Johnson's initial testimony that the officer shot Brown in the back.

Another Brown family attorney urged media members to "remain balanced" in their reporting, and the medical examiners reiterated that there is not enough evidence to reconstruct the shooting.

----------

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try so hard to deceive...
speller feller

San Jose, CA

#31984 Aug 18, 2014
nobody wrote:
I am learning
Albeit slowly. We learned long ago that you don't tell the truth...
gab wrote:
I will now discontinue posting for everyone else's benefit.
billie

West Memphis, AR

#32014 Aug 19, 2014
Vote for who, this post need to go

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#32017 Aug 20, 2014
billie wrote:
Vote for who, this post need to go
it's the end of this thread since the lake Villa serial troll has ruined it.IT POSTS THE MOSTLY COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#32019 Aug 20, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for Tx. Gov. Rick Perry's mug shot to go public?
Anyone care to guess?
about the same length of time it will take to acquit him

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#32020 Aug 20, 2014
gab wrote:
Speller you remind me of ellen degeneres
you remind every one who happens to read this Thread that it is time for it to end.
JPL

United States

#32029 Aug 20, 2014


1 min ago



As President Barack Obama considers giving more guest-worker permits to companies that have laid off American workers and granting temporary work permits and executive amnesty to millions of more illegal immigrants, a comprehensive survey from Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that a majority of likely voters want even fewer legal immigrants. The poll found that "half of Americans age 65 and over" and 46% of Midwesterners support a zero immigration policy. Furthermore, "independents (47%) were more likely than Republicans (40%) or Democrats (37%) to want zero new immigrants allowed into the country."

The survey, which polled 1,001 likely voters from July 16-20, also revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans want more enforcement of the country's immigration laws and employers to give preference to U.S. citizens over legal and illegal immigrants when hiring. For instance, "90% of likely voters feel that "U.S.- born workers and legal immigrants already here should get first preference for jobs." Even among likely voters who think that illegal immigration laws are enforced "too much," 67% believed that jobs now held by illegal immigrants should go to American workers. Among those who favor legal status for illegal immigrants, that number is 80%. And even among those who favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, 61% feel that Americans should be employed in jobs that illegals currently have.

When asked whether Americans should compete for jobs illegals are doing, 83% of whites agreed while 12% disagreed. Among blacks, 73% agreed while 22% disagreed, and among Hispanics, 73% agreed while 21% disagreed. When asked what U.S. businesses that are having trouble finding workers should do, 75% felt they should "raise wages and improve working conditions to attract Americans" instead of importing more immigrant workers--including 73% of whites, 83% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, 74% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 74% of independents. On top of that, 80% believed that U.S. businesses should try harder to "recruit and train more American workers from groups with the highest unemployment levels, rather than allowing them to bring in more immigrant workers."

After over 60,000 illegal immigrant juveniles, lured by Obama's executive amnesty, have flooded across the border since October of last year, "75% want more enforcement of current immigration laws, including 63% of Hispanics and over 50% of Democrats." Consistent with other public surveys, 60% believed that "sending these children back to their home countries will convince parents to stop sending their children to the U.S. border," and even "a majority of those who do not see immigration as a top ten issue want illegals returned home."

As for Obama's potential executive amnesty, 74% of respondents, including 81% of independents and 75% of moderates, reject it. Another 67%, including 64% of union members, believe that benefits and access to jobs for illegal immigrants should be reduced to compel illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and a majority across party lines want chain migration to be "limited to only spouses and minor children of legal immigrants."

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#32030 Aug 20, 2014
JPL wrote:
1 min ago
As President Barack Obama considers giving more guest-worker permits to companies that have laid off American workers and granting temporary work permits and executive amnesty to millions of more illegal immigrants, a comprehensive survey from Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that a majority of likely voters want even fewer legal immigrants. The poll found that "half of Americans age 65 and over" and 46% of Midwesterners support a zero immigration policy. Furthermore, "independents (47%) were more likely than Republicans (40%) or Democrats (37%) to want zero new immigrants allowed into the country."
The survey, which polled 1,001 likely voters from July 16-20, also revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans want more enforcement of the country's immigration laws and employers to give preference to U.S. citizens over legal and illegal immigrants when hiring. For instance, "90% of likely voters feel that "U.S.- born workers and legal immigrants already here should get first preference for jobs." Even among likely voters who think that illegal immigration laws are enforced "too much," 67% believed that jobs now held by illegal immigrants should go to American workers. Among those who favor legal status for illegal immigrants, that number is 80%. And even among those who favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, 61% feel that Americans should be employed in jobs that illegals currently have.
When asked whether Americans should compete for jobs illegals are doing, 83% of whites agreed while 12% disagreed. Among blacks, 73% agreed while 22% disagreed, and among Hispanics, 73% agreed while 21% disagreed. When asked what U.S. businesses that are having trouble finding workers should do, 75% felt they should "raise wages and improve working conditions to attract Americans" instead of importing more immigrant workers--including 73% of whites, 83% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, 74% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, and 74% of independents. On top of that, 80% believed that U.S. businesses should try harder to "recruit and train more American workers from groups with the highest unemployment levels, rather than allowing them to bring in more immigrant workers."
After over 60,000 illegal immigrant juveniles, lured by Obama's executive amnesty, have flooded across the border since October of last year, "75% want more enforcement of current immigration laws, including 63% of Hispanics and over 50% of Democrats." Consistent with other public surveys, 60% believed that "sending these children back to their home countries will convince parents to stop sending their children to the U.S. border," and even "a majority of those who do not see immigration as a top ten issue want illegals returned home."
As for Obama's potential executive amnesty, 74% of respondents, including 81% of independents and 75% of moderates, reject it. Another 67%, including 64% of union members, believe that benefits and access to jobs for illegal immigrants should be reduced to compel illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and a majority across party lines want chain migration to be "limited to only spouses and minor children of legal immigrants.

Bull shit allert, the source of the above post is..........

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/...

AND A REPUBLICAN POLLING COMPANY!

A Reuters poll found that 86% of Republicans, believe illegal immigrants "threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs," while 63% believe that "immigrants place a burden on the economy.

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
Isn't it sooo funny Hotshots 38 min Ward 14
Kenny Benson 3 hr well 9
Please explain-- community college decisions 4 hr Ben 1
Kevin Jackson 13 hr Dale 6
tiffany lees 14 hr Curious 1
House Bulders (Mar '13) 14 hr friend 13
Judge Landers 15 hr Outtathere 13
More from around the web

Personal Finance

El Dorado Mortgages