Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10183 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The implication from your post is that homosexuality/same sex marriage is somehow a threat to your children's souls. Otherwise why the "concern"? I can only conclude, based on your other posts of a rather progressive nature, that there may be some sarcasm involved. Even if you don't condone homosexuality, an open mind would be amenable to a live and let live attitude rather than the former. So sarcasm would be my first guess. However your use of homophobic epithets certainly gives one pause. So maybe the other statement fits. Concern for your children's "soul" because of homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is exactly the kind of thinking that ricky santorum espouses. There is no threat to a child's "soul" from gays or same sex marriage.
Keep reading. It took you to long to type that. I've already responded to that ages ago.
danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10184 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
What is MMS??? Just asking.
MSM, innocent error. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a coffee drinker.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10185 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
<quoted text> MSM, innocent error. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a coffee drinker.
I know I was just messing with you little buddy.
danger zone

Atlanta, GA

#10186 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I know I was just messing with you little buddy.
See, even we can be friends. & thankful for it.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10187 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...
Do people still by that Right Wing Wacko crap about the "Media" being "Liberal".
In a word: YES.

Here are just two quick examples:

In 2006, CNN's Susan Roesgen had NO PROBLEM with a protestor at a rally wearing a George Bush mask that had been altered to also look like Hitler with horns - merely commenting that a "look alike" showed up at the rally.
However, in 2009, when a protestor showed up with a poster depicting Obama at Hitler she is visably incensed when she demands "what does this mean" and when the man says it means he's a fascist, she says "wait, what do you mean he's a fascist he's the President of the United States, do you realize how offensive that is"


Another prime example of MSNBC fraudulently reporting the news by selective editing and cropping (just ask George Zimmerman about truth in broadcasting) is from a health care reform rally where the MSNBC main concern was the protestors at the rally legally carrying firearms and MSNBC desperately trying to make a link between protesting , racism and anti-Obama sentiment and trying to create the idea that "wow, we could have an assassination attempt any moment". The only problem was that the man they showed as an example of this was cropped so that all you saw was his body and the firearms - no visible sign of his head - and why is this important ?- the man was BLACK - that certainly did not fit their narrative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The following link includes video from CNN that shows the above link again and then shows the man from another angle showing the man in full.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caugh...

These are just two examples among MANY that could be used.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10188 May 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
In a word: YES.
Here are just two quick examples:
In 2006, CNN's Susan Roesgen had NO PROBLEM with a protestor at a rally wearing a George Bush mask that had been altered to also look like Hitler with horns - merely commenting that a "look alike" showed up at the rally.
However, in 2009, when a protestor showed up with a poster depicting Obama at Hitler she is visably incensed when she demands "what does this mean" and when the man says it means he's a fascist, she says "wait, what do you mean he's a fascist he's the President of the United States, do you realize how offensive that is"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2WQbNaXJ8PwXX
Another prime example of MSNBC fraudulently reporting the news by selective editing and cropping (just ask George Zimmerman about truth in broadcasting) is from a health care reform rally where the MSNBC main concern was the protestors at the rally legally carrying firearms and MSNBC desperately trying to make a link between protesting , racism and anti-Obama sentiment and trying to create the idea that "wow, we could have an assassination attempt any moment". The only problem was that the man they showed as an example of this was cropped so that all you saw was his body and the firearms - no visible sign of his head - and why is this important ?- the man was BLACK - that certainly did not fit their narrative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The following link includes video from CNN that shows the above link again and then shows the man from another angle showing the man in full.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/busted-msnbc-caugh...
These are just two examples among MANY that could be used.
When Bush was in office it was pro Republican. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks for even uttering a negative comment about Bush. Some of the most beautiful and talented artists to ever grace country music career was all but ended by the media. I concede to the fact that the media is pro liberal nowadays. But like one of your supporters said "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Wouldn't you have to agree?
guest

Anniston, AL

#10189 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Keep reading. It took you to long to type that. I've already responded to that ages ago.
Too long? LOL Forgive me of I don't sit at the computer eagerly awaiting the next response. Also I haven't read anything you've written "a long time ago". I read what you wrote yesterday.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#10190 May 10, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Useless, really useless.
How so? What do you disagree with in that article?

Specifically, I'm NOT asking how the article makes you FEEL, or if it does or doesn't fit in with your pre-programmed views. I'm asking what failures, logically, are there in what was written?
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10191 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Too long? LOL Forgive me of I don't sit at the computer eagerly awaiting the next response. Also I haven't read anything you've written "a long time ago". I read what you wrote yesterday.
I don't either. I have a alert on my cell phone that goes off if someone responds to one of my posts. What's the problem dude? I liked your coping and pasting bit.
guest

Anniston, AL

#10192 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I don't either. I have a alert on my cell phone that goes off if someone responds to one of my posts. What's the problem dude? I liked your coping and pasting bit.
The problem is unjustified animosity towards homosexuals and all of the incumbent implications towards denying them a life void of prejudice and hate which has caused more than a few instances of abuse, over the centuries, both physical and emotional. I thought that by 2013 most progressively thinking folks would have realized the damage to them and their loved ones and tried to mitigate it by not perpetuating the negative attitudes, not too much to expect I don't think.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10193 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is unjustified animosity towards homosexuals and all of the incumbent implications towards denying them a life void of prejudice and hate which has caused more than a few instances of abuse, over the centuries, both physical and emotional. I thought that by 2013 most progressively thinking folks would have realized the damage to them and their loved ones and tried to mitigate it by not perpetuating the negative attitudes, not too much to expect I don't think.
I'm sorry. We disagree. I think they can suck all the peter they want and munch on as many carpets as they so see fit. I don't care one way or the other, But and this is a big but. Marriage is a union between Man and Woman under God. Not to be perversed by any man or queer. It's simple really when a man and woman become one they create life. When a man and man try and become one they created AIDS. To believe otherwise in my opinion is to turn your back to God. You will not live forever and although we are not to judge. Doesn't mean there will not be a judgement day. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in God and this conversation is pointless. I hope you do believe in God as I would like to have this conversation with you in Heaven.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10194 May 10, 2013
Well, surprise, surprise - according to the Associated Press, the IRS is apologizing for "inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status."

The head of the unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner,
admitted "organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#10195 May 10, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...

Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences.
This is a twisted interpretation, Charlene Lamb -Deputy Asst Sec for Int'l Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security stated in Oct 2012 that budget cuts were not a factor in either the refusal to increase security or the decision to lessen security. Eugene Robinson should have done his homework.
----------

Eugene Robinson:
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?

...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees."

That is the main question, WHO made these decisions? And it is irrelevant that the Pentagon has concluded the team could not arrive in time to help. First, there was more than one team available. Second, at the time the decisions were made to tell various teams to stand down, NO ONE could possibly know how long the attacks would continue.

----------

Eugene Robinson:
"...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet."

At least he got that right.

----------

"...Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:“The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
Some cover-up.

And according to Mr Hicks lawyer, the interviews were not videotaped, nor were stenographers used - testimony was written down by "note takers". Mr Hicks was also NOT ALLOWED to review what the note takers took down to ensure he was not misquoted. And surprise, now his detractors are saying that what he testified to this week is not what he said during the earlier interviews.

----------

"Was Hicks “demoted” for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job — with the same pay and rank — until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday."

Mr Hick went from being praised by both Obama and Clinton for his actions in a volatile and dangerous situation to being harshly criticized for his "management style" after he talked to Congressional investigators after being told not to by his bosses and received a direct call from Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills berating him for giving the interview.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#10196 May 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a twisted interpretation, Charlene Lamb -Deputy Asst Sec for Int'l Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security stated in Oct 2012 that budget cuts were not a factor in either the refusal to increase security or the decision to lessen security. Eugene Robinson should have done his homework.
----------
Eugene Robinson:
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?
...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees."
That is the main question, WHO made these decisions? And it is irrelevant that the Pentagon has concluded the team could not arrive in time to help. First, there was more than one team available. Second, at the time the decisions were made to tell various teams to stand down, NO ONE could possibly know how long the attacks would continue.
----------
Eugene Robinson:
"...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet."
At least he got that right.
----------
"...Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:“The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
Some cover-up.
And according to Mr Hicks lawyer, the interviews were not videotaped, nor were stenographers used - testimony was written down by "note takers". Mr Hicks was also NOT ALLOWED to review what the note takers took down to ensure he was not misquoted. And surprise, now his detractors are saying that what he testified to this week is not what he said during the earlier interviews.
----------
"Was Hicks “demoted” for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job — with the same pay and rank — until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday."
Mr Hick went from being praised by both Obama and Clinton for his actions in a volatile and dangerous situation to being harshly criticized for his "management style" after he talked to Congressional investigators after being told not to by his bosses and received a direct call from Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills berating him for giving the interview.
Witch-Hunt.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#10197 May 10, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
Well, surprise, surprise - according to the Associated Press, the IRS is apologizing for "inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status."
The head of the unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner,
admitted "organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews."
It was smart to flag those groups. The Tea Party was invented and funded in whole by the Koch Brothers to advance their anti-everybody-but-them agenda. All of these "non-profit" groups that they funnel money through are tax-exampt, but politics can't be their primary function. However - most of these groups WERE created with politics being their primary function, and this has been discovered numerous times by Koch-backed groups.

If you have to apologize for being smart - I guess they need to apologize. But it just makes sense that they would flag those groups for audits.
Joe Blow

Villa Rica, GA

#10198 May 10, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Witch-Hunt.
Your an idiot Marxist liar.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10199 May 10, 2013
Here's a link for all link loving conservatives.
fapifier

Decatur, GA

#10200 May 10, 2013
Joe Blow wrote:
<quoted text>
Your an idiot Marxist liar.
Republican Debate Time!

What do you do if you see a one-legged Republican?

Laugh and re-load.
guest

United States

#10201 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry. We disagree. I think they can suck all the peter they want and munch on as many carpets as they so see fit. I don't care one way or the other, But and this is a big but. Marriage is a union between Man and Woman under God. Not to be perversed by any man or queer. It's simple really when a man and woman become one they create life. When a man and man try and become one they created AIDS. To believe otherwise in my opinion is to turn your back to God. You will not live forever and although we are not to judge. Doesn't mean there will not be a judgement day. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in God and this conversation is pointless. I hope you do believe in God as I would like to have this conversation with you in Heaven.
Ok - you are what's know as a rick santorum. One of these definitions would certainly fit you then.
1. Rick Santorum
semen mixed with fecal matter often left after continuous anal sex
"I dont care what you guys do in there... just dont leave any rick santorum on the bed sheets.."
buy rick santorum mugs & shirts
rick santrom rick santorum ric santorim rick santorim rick santurom
by Dev321 Jul 14, 2006 add a video
2. rick santorum
1. Santorum refers to the frothy mixture of lube, ejaculate, and the contents of a person's rectum, which is a byproduct of anal sex. To rick santorum means to lick and slurp said santorum directly from someone's ass.
OMTE

Fitzgerald, GA

#10202 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok - you are what's know as a rick santorum. One of these definitions would certainly fit you then.
1. Rick Santorum
semen mixed with fecal matter often left after continuous anal sex
"I dont care what you guys do in there... just dont leave any rick santorum on the bed sheets.."
buy rick santorum mugs & shirts
rick santrom rick santorum ric santorim rick santorim rick santurom
by Dev321 Jul 14, 2006 add a video
2. rick santorum
1. Santorum refers to the frothy mixture of lube, ejaculate, and the contents of a person's rectum, which is a byproduct of anal sex. To rick santorum means to lick and slurp said santorum directly from someone's ass.
You're one sick and twisted individual. Nevermind about talking to you in Heaven; I hope you burn in hell.

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.

Kingsland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Giant Balloon Release to Celebrate Labor Day 13 min Concerned 62
Another Republican scammer 6 hr Dawg 6
Planned Parenthood for those with 2 brain cells 11 hr Jorge 15
For all you so-called Republican pro-lifers 11 hr yup 5
Traitor in Chief 12 hr positronium 11
The Incestuous City of St. Marys / Kiwanis rela... 12 hr Sure 549
Discussion of Debasement of Currency and Social... 13 hr Devalue 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kingsland Mortgages