Bush is a hero

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168924 Sep 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
The 3 traits mentioned were:
sense of entitlement
victimization
avoidance of responsibility
Let's try this then, using the last presidential election as an example.
Romney or Obama?
1) Which candidate promised the most freebies?*entitlements
2) Which candidate told gays, women and racial minorities a war was being waged on them by his opponent?*victimization
3) Which candidate promoted taxing the rich more so that the "little guy" could have more?*promoting personal irresponsibility
It's mathamatical, Willie. We know what platform Obama ran on and we know liberals voted for him. What do those two knowns equal?
I don't know how dark exactly that box is you're sitting in but if that simple demonstration doesn't display a liberal platform of entitlements, victimization and avoidance of personal responsibility maybe you should chuck the democrat recommended but soon to be federally enforced or face jail time lightbulb and buy a good old fashioned republican lightbulb. Maybe you'll see better.
Those 3 traits are indisputably the embodiment of liberalism and that's bad for many reasons. First, it gave us an absolute moron for a president and secondly, the dumbing down of America is in full swing proven by the fact that his supporters actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.
That's very well done, Lyndi - probably the best artificial argument I've seen posted in this thread by anyone for as long as it's been going on.

You may not believe it, but that's sincere.

I've already told you why I think it's an artificial argument, and you've done nothing to address that. You keep plugging away, banging on your drum, trying to force me to accept or overlook the flawed premise.

In the end you're still trying to make political points off of something that isn't political. No matter how creative you get, no matter how hard you work, no matter how much you ratchet up the invective, it's still not going to work.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168930 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.

This was really lame.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168931 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.
This was really lame.
Consistency has to count fer sumpin'

;-)
Lost In Transition

United States

#168932 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
I like waffles. And asses. Sounds like a winning combo.
I can overlook the tattoo.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168933 Sep 24, 2013
The bill currently active in Congress, which was introduced on February 5 of this year by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Col.), would:

remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act;

revise the definition of “felony drug offense” to exclude conduct relating to marijuana;

prohibit the transporting of marijuana into any place where its possession, use, or sale is prohibited;

require marijuana producers to purchase a permit like commercial alcohol producers do;
subject marijuana to the federal provisions that apply to intoxicating liquors and distilled spirits;

and reassign jurisdiction of marijuana regulation from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.

Said Representative Polis,

This legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug war.

Now that doesn’t mean that Representative Polis is a Democratic version of former Congressman Ron Paul. It doesn’t mean that he is a libertarian. It doesn’t mean that he opposes the wasting of federal tax dollars on anything else. It doesn’t mean that he wants all the states to legalize marijuana, for medical use or otherwise. It doesn’t mean that he favors the legalization of drugs besides marijuana. All it means is that, at least on this issue, Representative Polis wants to transfer the oversight of something from the federal government to the states; that is, at least on this issue, he wants the federal government to follow the Constitution.

The Constitution nowhere grants to the federal government the authority to have anything to do with marijuana or any other drug. No regulations, no restrictions, no drug schedules, no controlled substances, and certainly no prohibition.

Maybe Congress should read it sometime.
Lost In Transition

United States

#168935 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
The bill currently active in Congress, which was introduced on February 5 of this year by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Col.), would:
remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act;
revise the definition of “felony drug offense” to exclude conduct relating to marijuana;
prohibit the transporting of marijuana into any place where its possession, use, or sale is prohibited;
require marijuana producers to purchase a permit like commercial alcohol producers do;
subject marijuana to the federal provisions that apply to intoxicating liquors and distilled spirits;
and reassign jurisdiction of marijuana regulation from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.
Said Representative Polis,
This legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug war.
Now that doesn’t mean that Representative Polis is a Democratic version of former Congressman Ron Paul. It doesn’t mean that he is a libertarian. It doesn’t mean that he opposes the wasting of federal tax dollars on anything else. It doesn’t mean that he wants all the states to legalize marijuana, for medical use or otherwise. It doesn’t mean that he favors the legalization of drugs besides marijuana. All it means is that, at least on this issue, Representative Polis wants to transfer the oversight of something from the federal government to the states; that is, at least on this issue, he wants the federal government to follow the Constitution.
The Constitution nowhere grants to the federal government the authority to have anything to do with marijuana or any other drug. No regulations, no restrictions, no drug schedules, no controlled substances, and certainly no prohibition.

Maybe Congress should read it sometime.
Yah, sure. And go back to when politics was a part time gig, where they had to hold down a real job in the real economy? I don't think so.

I was listening to a "greeny" today describe the T-party candidates who were fighting obamacare. He said these guys went into politics on a principle, not as a career. That they didn't give a damn about the party or re-election, they came to make a stand and were more than willing to return to their private sector jobs if that stand took them down. He said, speaking strictly from a political point of view, they were insane. I got a kick out of that.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#168937 Sep 24, 2013
UidiotRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>But the smell, the look ...of dirty azz? U don't where lyndi azz had gone through... EWWWWWW Non appetizing to say the least? BSAAaHaHaaaa
[email protected]' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#168938 Sep 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
[email protected]' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.
If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.

This was really lame.

(Thanks, Sister Kathryn)
Roberta G

United States

#168939 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
Reported, you jerk.
Roberta G

United States

#168940 Sep 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
[email protected]' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.
Reported.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168941 Sep 24, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah, sure. And go back to when politics was a part time gig, where they had to hold down a real job in the real economy? I don't think so.
I was listening to a "greeny" today describe the T-party candidates who were fighting obamacare. He said these guys went into politics on a principle, not as a career. That they didn't give a damn about the party or re-election, they came to make a stand and were more than willing to return to their private sector jobs if that stand took them down. He said, speaking strictly from a political point of view, they were insane. I got a kick out of that.
Most of the cats that founded this nation would be viewed as insane today. Guess you have to laugh, if not you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen. Heard this today on radio concerning the nation's first President:

As the delegates filtered in the week and a half prior to the start of the Constitutional Convention in May of 1787, George Washington turned to Gouverneur Morris and said:

“It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? The event is in the hand of God.”
Larry

Lakeville, MN

#168942 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.
This was really lame.
(Thanks, Sister Kathryn)
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
You dipchit..........

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168943 Sep 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
If I can interrupt your confetti throwing for a minute...
John McCain's position and the position of multiple republican senators on the defunding issue hasn't been properly explained in here. But putting that aside, his record has been exemplary as both a senator and a soldier. The man was a POW longer than Obama was a senator and he was the extraordinary leader who refused to leave his men behind so he could come home due to Washington connections. We shouldn't ever forget that.
Maybe you're caught up in your enthusiasm over Ted Cruz but I'm a taken aback of how incredibly disrespectful you're being to an American who has put his country ahead of himself again and again. "McLame" and such isn't okay. He doesn't deserve that.
Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm about the new kid on the block but maybe you could leave out kicking the old workhorse McCain as part of your party games.
Two things to note about Cruz. One he's doing this in great part to position himself as presidential candidate in 2016 so his motives aren't as entirely selfless and pure as you're making them out to be and two, if this strategy of his isn't the correct one, he's running full throttle into a standing bayonet and his 15 minutes will be up.
Most of this I agree with. When McCain ran I strongly supported him. I do think in recent times with him calling certain people hobbits from middle earth it wasn't his best moment. And I get the frustration. People like the former Sec. of State Powell saying that the republicans need to be bigger tent, making a case for moderates like McCain and Romney, how has that worked out? Don't pretend to know what the answer is but do think term limits across the board would be a great start.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168948 Sep 24, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah, sure. And go back to when politics was a part time gig, where they had to hold down a real job in the real economy? I don't think so.
I was listening to a "greeny" today describe the T-party candidates who were fighting obamacare. He said these guys went into politics on a principle, not as a career. That they didn't give a damn about the party or re-election, they came to make a stand and were more than willing to return to their private sector jobs if that stand took them down. He said, speaking strictly from a political point of view, they were insane. I got a kick out of that.
Much as it would otherwise pain me to say such a thing, I have respect for any Tea Party Republicans, it would be the 'politically insane' ones. Unfortunately, the majority of Tea-party Republicans, don't fit this description, and are far more 'ideologically insane' than politically so...in that most of them have been just as busy stumping for re-election as any Democrat, since they took office.

Talk about 'all hat and no cattle'....

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168950 Sep 24, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the cats that founded this nation would be viewed as insane today. Guess you have to laugh, if not you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen. Heard this today on radio concerning the nation's first President:
As the delegates filtered in the week and a half prior to the start of the Constitutional Convention in May of 1787, George Washington turned to Gouverneur Morris and said:
“It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? The event is in the hand of God.”
You said it yourself: "...you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen."

How's that 'hand of God' thing working out, so far?

Perhaps you should consider that the hand of God has steered us in this direction...his hands are much stronger than our own, after all...aren't they?
Larry

Lakeville, MN

#168955 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You said it yourself: "...you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen."
How's that 'hand of God' thing working out, so far?
Perhaps you should consider that the hand of God has steered us in this direction...his hands are much stronger than our own, after all...aren't they?
No, the devil made God do it..........

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168957 Sep 24, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the cats that founded this nation would be viewed as insane today.
Not by me - I'm a huge fan of those cats.

Their political ideology really turns me on.

:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168958 Sep 24, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the devil made God do it..........
Aaaaa...balone.


The devil is a patsy.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168960 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You said it yourself: "...you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen."
How's that 'hand of God' thing working out, so far?
Perhaps you should consider that the hand of God has steered us in this direction...his hands are much stronger than our own, after all...aren't they?
Fine. Oh make no mistake whatever happens it is indeed in His hands. It always has been. Every look at pictures of people from many years back? Last year at the Tampa airport they had some from close to a hundred years ago. What struck me was the way people dressed. Even in the last 25 years just getting on a plane I've noted changes.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168962 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Not by me - I'm a huge fan of those cats.
Their political ideology really turns me on.
:)
Like this?

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they intended to signify the importance and power of each branch of government in the order that the powers are granted. The Founders saw the legislative branch as the most powerful of the three with the executive being weaker and the judicial branch being the weakest. It was the intention of the Founders for the judicial branch to serve as a final backstop against oversteps of government power.

Not thinking many in government at this time seem to be such a fan. Like the dear leader that makes end runs around other parts of our government because he just knows whats best. Example epa madness.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Joe Fortuna 87,816
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min New Age Spiritual... 665,068
The Future of Politics in America 9 min Johnny 118
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 10 min Joe Fortuna 406
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Jedi Mind Master 977,162
I. .My Somali husband and the impending second ... (Feb '14) 24 min Sir didi 9
Need Gay under 16 Facetime numbers ;) (Feb '14) 44 min Dan sky 12
More from around the web