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)

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24054 Mar 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts show that you in fact do agree with my statement. No conservative wants to avoid change completely but rather wants change to come at a reasonable responsible rate. For example, trying to give everyone who is on welfare a cell phone. People don't need a cell phone to survive. Welfare was designed to meet the NEEDS of those who experienced hard times and could not provide for themselves. Whereas a conservative would have required any recipient of welfare to be taught to become self sustaining and given them a reasonable timeframe to get to that point. Why? Because conservatives believe that ALL men and women are created equal and there is within each individual the ability to be self sustaining if given the chance. Liberals on the other hand believe that if a person is poor than it's not their fault so it's the government's responsibility to take money from those who are self sustaining and give it to those who are not. In other words liberals think there are people who are incapable of doing better for themselves. You and other liberals would say that conservatives who don't want to help the "less fortunate" are just cold and "reluctant" to change or compromise.
Perhaps you find me impossible to talk to because I will not let you put words in my mouth, such as this attempt;

"Liberals on the other hand believe that if a person is poor than it's not their fault so it's the government's responsibility to take money from those who are self sustaining and give it to those who are not"

To this I can only say you are totally clueless, and I could not possibly disagree more.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#24055 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO,
Sounds like you have evaluated yourself and your total is much higher than that of most others.
I have said before you folks on here are rather wanting in interpretive and comprehension abilities.
You have said lots of things before that also make no sense. You continue to prove your ignorance daily. I do admire your tenacity at never letting the facts get in the way of your opinions!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#24056 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you find me impossible to talk to because I will not let you put words in my mouth, such as this attempt;
"Liberals on the other hand believe that if a person is poor than it's not their fault so it's the government's responsibility to take money from those who are self sustaining and give it to those who are not"
To this I can only say you are totally clueless, and I could not possibly disagree more.
So in disagreeing you are saying that IT IS the fault of the poor person that they are poor! Interesting thought process!
guest

United States

#24057 Mar 23, 2013
Yes

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#24058 Mar 23, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>So in disagreeing you are saying that IT IS the fault of the poor person that they are poor! Interesting thought process!
There's a saying that I've seen many times on Topix, and heard from so many people...."The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
This is often true and for good reason. We are all in control of our own circumstances. Our actions, or non-actions, determine our destiny...(most of the time.)

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24059 Mar 23, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>So in disagreeing you are saying that IT IS the fault of the poor person that they are poor! Interesting thought process!
Since that is your conclusion and not mine, it is very predictable that you find your own thought process interesting.

I do not, as I have said your stock holds a higher value with you than it does with me.
cannot understand

Tempe, AZ

#24060 Mar 23, 2013
you need to pay more tax wrote:
CBS
March 2013
Biden's Hotel Bills Rival Michelle's spending
Vice President Biden and his entourage spent a little time in London in early February during his first foreign trip of the second term of the Obama administration. A document released today revealed that the cost of lodging in London alone was close to half a million dollars. The contract was awarded on January 30, 2013 to the Hyatt Regency London for a total of $459,388.65.
As it turns out, Vice President Joe Biden's London stay in February was not the most expensive part of his trip, however. A government document released on February 14, 2013 shows that the contract for the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand came in at $585,000.50. FOR ONE NIGHT.
I looked around and see this on even the lefty commie sites, that and a bunch of other stuff, like the 10s of millions the obamas blow on vacations and golf and everything else at our expense, obamas illegal alien Kenyan relatives allowed to stay in the States, them moving more family into the WH, obama lying his butt off about everything and mrs obama talking about what a beauty she is (HA) and telling everybody else they have to eat what she says is healthy while she stuffs her fat face with lobster and stuff at our expense and just cant understand why anybody who pays taxes still thinks he is a good president or even a decent human being. I work hard and know I'm lucky just to have a job in this obama world but still have trouble with just basic needs for me and my family. The obamas and bidens of this world never would have been able to afford to live like this on their own and I don't know why anybody at all would be ok with their spending the tax $$$ they take from guys like me on their own selves like they do.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#24061 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that is your conclusion and not mine, it is very predictable that you find your own thought process interesting.
I do not, as I have said your stock holds a higher value with you than it does with me.
My stocks are doing quite well thank you. Maybe you should AGAIN clarify all of your past statements like you as a lib usually have to do!

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#24062 Mar 23, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>My stocks are doing quite well thank you. Maybe you should AGAIN clarify all of your past statements like you as a lib usually have to do!
Mine are doing great too. If only I would have invested more $$ five years ago!!
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#24063 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you find me impossible to talk to because I will not let you put words in my mouth, such as this attempt;
"Liberals on the other hand believe that if a person is poor than it's not their fault so it's the government's responsibility to take money from those who are self sustaining and give it to those who are not"
To this I can only say you are totally clueless, and I could not possibly disagree more.
Again you twist what I say. Your president and his party which you have, on countless occasions, quoted, agreed with, and defended, have said as much and their policies show my statement to be true. Wait a second, are you up for re-election for some office in 2014? That would explain you talking as if you aren't as liberal as you have been in the past.
what

Keller, TX

#24064 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you find me impossible to talk to because I will not let you put words in my mouth, such as this attempt;
"Liberals on the other hand believe that if a person is poor than it's not their fault so it's the government's responsibility to take money from those who are self sustaining and give it to those who are not"
To this I can only say you are totally clueless, and I could not possibly disagree more.
Wow, a completely baseless opinion from someone who demands facts from others. You've answered my question. You are incapable of preventing yourself from being made a fool.
guest

United States

#24066 Mar 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you twist what I say. Your president and his party which you have, on countless occasions, quoted, agreed with, and defended, have said as much and their policies show my statement to be true. Wait a second, are you up for re-election for some office in 2014? That would explain you talking as if you aren't as liberal as you have been in the past.
Left-wingers twisting the meaning of words is a tactic that's as old as the devil itself. Where do you think they got the tactic?

Go to the book of Luke in Chapter 4 where Satan temps Christ in the desert. Satan deliberately twists Old Testament scripture to try to get Christ to fall into a trap. Now, fast forward to the 1971 and "community organizer" Saul Alinsky. Alinsky is the architect of the current prograssive/liberal/socialist movement. Their bible is his book "Rules for Radicals." Obama is a well known follower of Alinky's tactics and taught his tactics in Chicago in the 80's. In fact, Alinsky's son, Saul, wrote in the Boston Globe after the 08' convention:“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

Obama has been the most divisive President on purpose. Why? He learned it from Alinsky who said in his book:
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent." And:“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems."

What does the epigraph of Alinsky's book say?: "“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Alinsky give credit to Lucifer because he used and taught Lucifer's tactics and Luke 4 is the most glaring example.

So, the next time you hear a liberal claim moral superiority and that their way is based on Biblical accounts, as they often feebly attempt to do, as Alinsky said, "The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments" they are not lying, it's just the biblical accounts that they are based upon are the ones of Satan deceiving and exploiting man and they are well aware of it.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#24067 Mar 23, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Left-wingers twisting the meaning of words is a tactic that's as old as the devil itself. Where do you think they got the tactic?
Go to the book of Luke in Chapter 4 where Satan temps Christ in the desert. Satan deliberately twists Old Testament scripture to try to get Christ to fall into a trap. Now, fast forward to the 1971 and "community organizer" Saul Alinsky. Alinsky is the architect of the current prograssive/liberal/socialist movement. Their bible is his book "Rules for Radicals." Obama is a well known follower of Alinky's tactics and taught his tactics in Chicago in the 80's. In fact, Alinsky's son, Saul, wrote in the Boston Globe after the 08' convention:“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
Obama has been the most divisive President on purpose. Why? He learned it from Alinsky who said in his book:
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent." And:“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems."
What does the epigraph of Alinsky's book say?: "“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Alinsky give credit to Lucifer because he used and taught Lucifer's tactics and Luke 4 is the most glaring example.
So, the next time you hear a liberal claim moral superiority and that their way is based on Biblical accounts, as they often feebly attempt to do, as Alinsky said, "The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments" they are not lying, it's just the biblical accounts that they are based upon are the ones of Satan deceiving and exploiting man and they are well aware of it.
Good point.
I

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24068 Mar 23, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, a completely baseless opinion from someone who demands facts from others. You've answered my question. You are incapable of preventing yourself from being made a fool.
If you have not caught on my political views tend to favor the Left.

Being my opinion was based on what this Liberal believes, it was hardly baseless.

I think it takes a couple of pompous asses to presume you know more about what I think than I do.


Hmmm

United States

#24069 Mar 23, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the next time you hear a liberal claim moral superiority and that their way is based on Biblical accounts, as they often feebly attempt to do, as Alinsky said, "The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments" they are not lying, it's just the biblical accounts that they are based upon are the ones of Satan deceiving and exploiting man and they are well aware of it.
Naw, most liberals don't fear the debil on a daily basis, we leave that one to the hypocrites pretending to know God's mind.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24070 Mar 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you twist what I say. Your president and his party which you have, on countless occasions, quoted, agreed with, and defended, have said as much and their policies show my statement to be true. Wait a second, are you up for re-election for some office in 2014? That would explain you talking as if you aren't as liberal as you have been in the past.
I have said as much.

Is that how you say, that was not your exact words, but you are a Liberal so that is what you meant?

BTW- I did not "twist" what you said I quoted you verbatim.

I will tell you the same thing again, as it applies here just as well it did the last time.

Your theory is preposterous


Hmmm

United States

#24071 Mar 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point.
I
Sure is...that is if one is trying to qualify today's political situation by associating it with Stone/Bronze/Iron Age thinking.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24072 Mar 23, 2013
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine are doing great too. If only I would have invested more $$ five years ago!!
Your buddy is in good shape because he tows the Fox News line, maybe you should watch Fox also, here is what Fox said;
..........

Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP

S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.

Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

Due to their “tax-and-spend” reputation, investors expect Democratic administrations to underperform Republican ones and be “poison to any portfolio,” Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ, wrote in a note.“History shows the opposite to be true, however.”


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/09/...

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#24073 Mar 23, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>My stocks are doing quite well thank you. Maybe you should AGAIN clarify all of your past statements like you as a lib usually have to do!
Your stocks are doing quite well are they, I do seem to remember not so long ago you saying something about a 20% correction in the market was imminent and you took all your money out of stocks.

Maybe I am wrong, but did you not say you were putting that money into bonds?

Perhaps if you could, just kind of clarify that for me, if you would please?
what

White Oak, TX

#24074 Mar 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have not caught on my political views tend to favor the Left.
Being my opinion was based on what this Liberal believes, it was hardly baseless.
I think it takes a couple of pompous asses to presume you know more about what I think than I do.
It simply takes one to be awake to know that you favor the left and even less to know what you think. Being that your opinion was not based on any fact is what makes it baseless. Being that it was made by a liberal makes it pointless.

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.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mikey 9 hr what? 8
jennifer truitt (Dec '15) Thu Robert 14
Fantasha rutledge (Feb '13) Thu Amen 32
Gerry thielemier likes it in the anal cavity Thu Gerry 5
News Two arrested on meth charges in Lawrence County (May '10) Thu Yep 60
Stop lights in pocahontas Wed research 4
Lindsey harris Nov 30 babydaddy 4

Pocahontas Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pocahontas Mortgages