“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161369 Apr 18, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I do hope you are right. Time will indeed tell. Working that 7-11 route didn't do much to improve my thinking but it is a new day. And its so good to be awake during the day now. Take care.
You too.

:)
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#161370 Apr 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>When in doubt, rant about liberals...
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.

Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:

*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.


*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.

*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.

* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."

*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there they add racial or class or sex or so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.

* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.

* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!

* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.

* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.

But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.

Since: Sep 10

Lima, Peru

#161371 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there they add racial or class or sex or so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
Another rant.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161372 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there they add racial or class or sex or so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
Who ordered the 'Liberal Dictionary' as presented by a quasi-conservative?

Wasn't me...enclosed, please find my copy, including receipt and invoice.

Sheesh.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161373 Apr 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have no rebuttal but have a compulsion to negatively comment, you have a habit of grabbing a mildly offensive word like "rant," change it's meaning, throw it at the poster and hope it sticks.
Here, add "RANT" and it's revised liberal definition to these:
*discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
*diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other diversity promoted within a single society which they of course define.
*equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
* progressive: A "progressive" focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. And liberals get to define "the rules."
*prejudice: Prejudice means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there they add racial or class or sex or so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word on a whim.
* racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
* rainbow: a rainbow is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of diversity. Pick the one you like!
* tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
* union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
=======
Liberals are presently working on the correct, new and improved definition of "marriage." The word itself has been around for about 1300 - 1400 years and the ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman has been practiced for even longer but liberals want to redefine that one too. Knock yourselves out.
But do me a favor, Willie. Save your "liberal vocabulary hijacking" for someone who doesn't know the game you play in order to squelch comments you find too difficult to rebut.
I'm not playing any game here, Lyndi; I'm just a guy who likes to talk about politics and current events on a message board.

Thing is, I don't consider scripted attacks on liberalism or conservatism to be talking about politics or current events. It's just talking.

For me to even ATTEMPT to rebut something it would have to be worth my while, and I've been on the record for 3-4 years before you joined the thread as saying the liberal-liberal-liberal stuff isn't worth it.

It is worthy of a little ridicule, however, or maybe pointing out the dodges some people use to talk a lot without saying anything.

You don't like it? Don't read it, or puff yourself up by claiming I can't rebut you, or crank out buzzword-laden scripted schtick like the above, or ... well, whatever you want to do.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161374 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't consider scripted attacks on liberalism or conservatism to be talking about politics or current events.
Yes well liberalism or conservatism IS about politics, including
attacks, when perceived by <the poster> to be merited.

Of course the poster may be ignored (or poked at), as is often the case. The problem then becomes like the boy who cried WOLF! When so many complaints emerge over liberalism or this administration, the fallback measure is to just pass it off as another "scripted attack".

Makes for a lot being swept under the carpet, easy to handle, AND doesn't leave the original msg unanswered.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161375 Apr 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another rant.
You traveled to Peru to say that? Not much to do in Lima.

I'd at least see if there was a museum or something else of interest in the area, and save the sniping for later.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161376 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes well liberalism or conservatism IS about politics, including
attacks, when perceived by <the poster> to be merited.
Of course the poster may be ignored (or poked at), as is often the case. The problem then becomes like the boy who cried WOLF! When so many complaints emerge over liberalism or this administration, the fallback measure is to just pass it off as another "scripted attack".
Makes for a lot being swept under the carpet, easy to handle, AND doesn't leave the original msg unanswered.
I don't know how to state my opinion any better than I've been doing for years, bob.

There is a difference between referring to liberalism/conservatism in the normal course of discussing politics, and talking about liberals/conservatives in cheap stereotypes on the other. That's true whether you spend all your time outright talking about 'the other guys', or work just a little harder and use politics and current events as props to give a bit of polish to talking about 'the other guys'.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161378 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know how to state my opinion any better than I've been doing for years, bob.
There is a difference between referring to liberalism/conservatism in the normal course of discussing politics, and talking about liberals/conservatives in cheap stereotypes on the other. That's true whether you spend all your time outright talking about 'the other guys', or work just a little harder and use politics and current events as props to give a bit of polish to talking about 'the other guys'.
I get all that Wilson.

But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.

As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.

I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.

And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.

However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161379 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I get all that Wilson.
But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.
As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.
I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.
And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.
However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).
You want to talk about Benghazi, fine.

I'll talk about Benghazi without ever using the word conservative, at least until someone else refuses to listen to what I have to say about it and attributes my opinion to me being a liberal who's only goal is to defend Obama.

The same goes for Fast & Furious, health care, or any other issue.

That's not what happened here, of course. Here you and I were talking about Soros (not that we're ever going to agree), and somebody purportedly joined the conversation only to launch into a what I've called a scripted tirade about 'liberal hypocrisy' not very different from the sort of scripted tirades some posters used to make about neo-cons.
Roberta G

Duluth, GA

#161380 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I get all that Wilson.
But often in the course of discussing politics, where liberals or liberalism happens to be the focus, that ideology MAY be portrayed in a bad light for one reason or another, depending on the poster.
As a committed liberal, no matter if the poster has a legitimate beef, you take it upon yourself to downplay the seriousness of the issue, often by comparing actions by the previous admin., whether similar or not.
I'm now Indy, leaning right, but I will NOT blindly defend the right, especially the far right, when they have stepped over the line. As I've said b4, BOTH sides are guilty of certain strategies, oppositional chess, back room deals, and other shenanigans on The Hill. But I strongly object to people sugar- coating issues where "someone" should be held accountable, RE:
the Benghazi crisis, or Fast & Furious.
And B4 you drag GW Bush onto the carpet again, let's remember there's a big difference between holding a POTUS or other leader accountable while in office, and trying to accomplish that long after the fact, when nearly 5 years have elapsed.
However, I'd still agree that <if> it were determined that Bush (Sr OR Jr or anyone else) have been convicted of a serious crime(s), they are REQUIRED to be held accountable and brought to justice (IMO).
My hero :)

Since: Sep 10

Lima, Peru

#161381 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You traveled to Peru to say that? Not much to do in Lima.
I'd at least see if there was a museum or something else of interest in the area, and save the sniping for later.
You would be surprised.

You gringos are sooooo provincial.

Google Larco Herrera for starters.

That's a start.

There is so much more in this world of ours.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161382 Apr 19, 2013
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'll talk about Benghazi without ever using the word conservative, at least until someone else refuses to listen to what I have to say about it and attributes my opinion to me being a liberal who's only goal is to defend Obama.
What difference does it make? You propose to restrict the use of certain words as derogatory rather than descriptive? I've already said I have no beef with someone taking conservatives to task when the issue involves conservatives.

But this administration is made up of what? Liberals. So if a crisis happens during this administration, which ideology is likely to be responsible?

The opposition in this forum over the years has generally attempted to show a pattern of misguided ideology (Liberalism), which may not have been best for the US, and then attempted to put a finer point on it by illustrating the various misdeeds and errors, sometimes fatal errors. Your usual response is to remind everyone that the sky is really NOT falling.(Or something similar).

Of course, it's only natural that Liberals wanna rise up and be heard not only in defense, but as partners equally guilty. Going forward, I think it'd be interesting to compare which side has America's best interests in heart, over the years, and has backed up their words with actions. That study can be tabled for now, but one must be mindful of the aforementioned shenanigans on Capitol Hill to thwart any attempts to outperform the other side of the aisle.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
The same goes for Fast & Furious, health care, or any other issue.
That's not what happened here, of course. Here you and I were talking about Soros (not that we're ever going to agree), and somebody purportedly joined the conversation only to launch into a what I've called a scripted tirade about 'liberal hypocrisy' not very different from the sort of scripted tirades some posters used to make about neo-cons.
So what? As I said above, if liberals (or liberalism) shows a pattern of detriment, let's call it a duck, instead of making it into a paper airplane. It's true you ARE an equal opportunity skewer, and well known to stand up for the right when they've been
"misrepresented". Kudos for that.

But I don't believe that alone earns the left a pass (or whitewashing) when myself or someone else becomes angry over an important or emotional issue and rants about the opposition.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#161384 Apr 19, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be surprised.
You gringos are sooooo provincial.
Google Larco Herrera for starters.
That's a start.
There is so much more in this world of ours.
Provincial:

having or showing the manners, viewpoints, etc., considered characteristic of unsophisticated inhabitants of a province; rustic; narrow or illiberal; parochial: a provincial point of view.

Yep, you are a bigot.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161385 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
<quoted text>
What difference does it make? You propose to restrict the use of certain words as derogatory rather than descriptive? I've already said I have no beef with someone taking conservatives to task when the issue involves conservatives.
But this administration is made up of what? Liberals. So if a crisis happens during this administration, which ideology is likely to be responsible?
The opposition in this forum over the years has generally attempted to show a pattern of misguided ideology (Liberalism), which may not have been best for the US, and then attempted to put a finer point on it by illustrating the various misdeeds and errors, sometimes fatal errors. Your usual response is to remind everyone that the sky is really NOT falling.(Or something similar).
Of course, it's only natural that Liberals wanna rise up and be heard not only in defense, but as partners equally guilty. Going forward, I think it'd be interesting to compare which side has America's best interests in heart, over the years, and has backed up their words with actions. That study can be tabled for now, but one must be mindful of the aforementioned shenanigans on Capitol Hill to thwart any attempts to outperform the other side of the aisle.
<quoted text>
So what? As I said above, if liberals (or liberalism) shows a pattern of detriment, let's call it a duck, instead of making it into a paper airplane. It's true you ARE an equal opportunity skewer, and well known to stand up for the right when they've been
"misrepresented". Kudos for that.
But I don't believe that alone earns the left a pass (or whitewashing) when myself or someone else becomes angry over an important or emotional issue and rants about the opposition.
Where am I proposing to restrict anyone from saying anything, bob?

Anyone can say anything they want. I can comment back at em, and if I feel they aren't saying anything, that's what I'm going to say.

Are you now trying to restrict me from saying what I want, bob?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161386 Apr 19, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Where am I proposing to restrict anyone from saying anything, bob?
Anyone can say anything they want. I can comment back at em, and if I feel they aren't saying anything, that's what I'm going to say.
Are you now trying to restrict me from saying what I want, bob?
Negative. By declaring you'll discuss issues WITHOUT using the term "conservative", that's just another way of stating your preference to continue, and is a direct challenge for any counterpart to do the same (IMO).

Shouting "liberal liberal liberal", may not ALWAYS be legit, but
I don't think you should cover your eyes & ears by default.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161387 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<MAY BE DUP-OTHER LOST IN TRANSIT>
<quoted text>
What difference does it make? You propose to restrict the use of certain words as derogatory rather than descriptive? I've already said I have no beef with someone taking conservatives to task when the issue involves conservatives.
But this administration is made up of what? Liberals. So if a crisis happens during this administration, which ideology is likely to be responsible?
The opposition in this forum over the years has generally attempted to show a pattern of misguided ideology (Liberalism), which may not have been best for the US, and then attempted to put a finer point on it by illustrating the various misdeeds and errors, sometimes fatal errors. Your usual response is to remind everyone that the sky is really NOT falling.(Or something similar).
Of course, it's only natural that Liberals wanna rise up and be heard not only in defense, but as partners equally guilty. Going forward, I think it'd be interesting to compare which side has America's best interests in heart, over the years, and has backed up their words with actions. That study can be tabled for now, but one must be mindful of the aforementioned shenanigans on Capitol Hill to thwart any attempts to outperform the other side of the aisle.
<quoted text>
So what? As I said above, if liberals (or liberalism) shows a pattern of detriment, let's call it a duck, instead of making it into a paper airplane. It's true you ARE an equal opportunity skewer, and well known to stand up for the right when they've been
"misrepresented". Kudos for that.
But I don't believe that alone earns the left a pass (or whitewashing) when myself or someone else becomes angry over an important or emotional issue and rants about the opposition.
What happened, Bob? Lose yer 'idiot mittens'? The stuff you're posting lately is making sense. That's so unlike you.
Just yakking at ya' Bob. Good post.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161388 Apr 19, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative. By declaring you'll discuss issues WITHOUT using the term "conservative", that's just another way of stating your preference to continue, and is a direct challenge for any counterpart to do the same (IMO).
Shouting "liberal liberal liberal", may not ALWAYS be legit, but
I don't think you should cover your eyes & ears by default.
My eyes and ears are wide open, my head's not in the sand, none of the other things that people routinely accuse someone who refuses to concede a point of are true.

There ain't nothing cons say about libs that libs don't say about cons, and you may not like it, it may just baffle you all to hell and back why I think this way, but I don't see a whit of difference between the rants of people who go on about the hypocrisy of liberals or conservatives. I don't see any more 'truth' in the sort of demagoguery that makes either a Soros or a Koch brothers into a convenient antagonist/enemy of all things good and right.

You can take that same principle right on down the line for every point where people retreat behind the convenience of shouting 'liberal liberal liberal' or 'conservative conservative conservative'.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161389 Apr 19, 2013
I hope this terrorist in Boston stands trial in Federal Court, rather than being labeled an 'enemy combatant', and shipped off to Gitmo - he's a naturalized citizen. May his trial be speedy, and efficient. And may his name be lost in the mists of history.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161390 Apr 19, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
<quoted text>
What happened, Bob? Lose yer 'idiot mittens'? The stuff you're posting lately is making sense. That's so unlike you.
Just yakking at ya' Bob. Good post.
Thanx, Oh I was hypnotised earlier. But I'm feelin' much better now.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Michael 568,509
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 min Peace_Warrior 607,272
Is colin powell a traitor??? (Oct '08) 4 min kuda 539
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min BenAdam 796,475
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 32 min cheer the f up 120,756
Where do you get your news? Todd Charske (Jan '09) 44 min Fitzwalkerstan Pu... 10
Scientific proof for God's existence 47 min Jac 629
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 267,560
More from around the web