Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#169209 Sep 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm no I don't believe you did. Here's her msg:
<quoted text>
What you did was opine about how "misinformation" is spread, followed by the opposition's all-out attack on anything Obama.
www.merriam-webster.com
refute:&#8206;
to prove that (something) is not true.: to say that (something) is not true. Full Definition of REFUTE. 1.: to prove wrong by argument or evidence ...
That's the one.

Lyndi's "Honey Boo Boo" post.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#169210 Sep 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm no I don't believe you did. Here's her msg:
<quoted text>
What you did was opine about how "misinformation" is spread, followed by the opposition's all-out attack on anything Obama.
www.merriam-webster.com
refute:&#8206;
to prove that (something) is not true.: to say that (something) is not true. Full Definition of REFUTE. 1.: to prove wrong by argument or evidence ...
The first post was directed to the author. It wasn't necessary to spell it out for her - I have every confidence that she knew exactly where the stretchers were. I'm guessing I give her credit for more intelligence than some others.

You, as an observer uncertain about the facts, requested further information. Apparently you needed the lies pointed out. I did so. Did I really need to add, "....and "government takeover" is a lie because there is no government takeover". What proof, you say? Uh, because there is no government takeover.

More proof, you say, because you still don't know? You've got a computer right there, Google "Romney Explains ObamaCare Not Socialized Medicine".

Hell, Romney tried to completely avoid the subject, but in one primary debate he cornered himself, and only had two paths out of his predicament - to answer intelligently or die on the spot. As I'm SURE you recall, he directly refuted the charge that RomneyCare (aka ObamaCare) was a government takeover.

So, "government takeover" was Lie#1, and so being, by default, anointed "socialist" to be Lie#2.

This ain't about an opinion - it's either raining or someone's pissing up our leg.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#169211 Sep 27, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe gossip is the wrong word but generally gossip is meant to hurt someone and they know about it. But this patting someone on the butt and saying yeah that guy is terrible, just makes me sick. My problem. I'll deal with it.
As I'll deal with it, somehow, the next time someone "pats" you "on the butt" and expands in graphic detail for the ninety11th time why they don't read this or that one's posts.

Or you could just dispense with the blatantly slanted self-righteousness gig......just a thought.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#169212 Sep 27, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, what fun! A visit from a social worker for this non socialized program which we mustn't call socialism.
What are you worried about...ya got nothin' ta HIDE, do ya....?

(A familiar refrain, in response to those who bemoaned the passage of the Patriot Act, by lots and sundry right here in this room...they know who they are...)

:)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#169213 Sep 27, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>As I'll deal with it, somehow, the next time someone "pats" you "on the butt" and expands in graphic detail for the ninety11th time why they don't read this or that one's posts.
Or you could just dispense with the blatantly slanted self-righteousness gig......just a thought.
I don't do that and you know it. It is nice that you are showing a modicum of shame. It would just be nice if you were direct. You think that by talking with someone about another person you aren't doing the "ad hominem" attacks. I'd rather you did them outright, it's at least honest. Anyway just saying I hate that. Don't get all upset.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#169214 Sep 27, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
"Dan, you pompous ass!"
I see health care, in general, and the uninsured as two seperate problems. One is structural, the other societal. They'll have their tangents, but should be addressed initially on two distinct planes for the most part. This was not done with the ACA.
Ok, this sounds interesting on paper, but could you elaborate on why the uninsured and the state of health care in general are on two different planes? We're having these problems because we are so structured as a society. JMO.
Gonna have to cut this short...

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#169215 Sep 27, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, I can't figure out exactly what the "architects" were thinking that threw this mess together.
I think they were thinking : "Gee - what would we have to do to get everybody and their dog pissed off??
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't contain costs, it doesn't guarantee medical attention for the poor, and it doesn't prevent the very real threat of illness induced bankruptcy and/or poverty. What it does do is grow the insurance industry, the managed care industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and last but not least the government. Yikes! A failure on every level.
FINALLY: A JOBS PLAN.
(yeah, I went there)
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
The present medical structure needs to be dismantled completeley. And de-centralized. There should be no monetary incentive, particularly from the government, for becoming a behemoth where medical treatment is involved. It's immoral. Just the opposite should be our goal. Provide incentives for the one-room family doctor, the local clinic, the independant practice. Not in monetary payments, but in tax breaks.
We'll wind up with 67% of the populace "not paying taxes" instead of 47%. Let's think about this....
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
These people are public servants, cut them a little slack. Or a lot, they deserve it. If the government feels they MUST get involved, they can use their weight to twist big-pharma's arm.
Why not Big AG's arm, since the bioengineering companies are producing the majority of our produce these days...how healthy can it be to bypass years of evolution, and eat grains in the first place, much less the ones we ourselves designed to KILL things...???
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Break it if they want, those guys bug me.
Pun intended?
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Get the lawyers off the doctor's back. Send disputes to arbitration, no blood suckers allowed.
Good gig for arbiters.
(cutting it short again...)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#169216 Sep 27, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it. I'll have to keep a pack of smokes on hand. Anyone that comes to visit from the government will be interviewing a smokestack in a closed office, and since I'm a dumb Tea Party type, I'll have a lot of questions.
Heck, if they set up an appointment time, I can eat a bunch of Slim Jims, hard boiled eggs, broccoli, onions and a few beers before they get here.
:)
Whoever they send will carry that particular essence home to their significant other...probably linger for days.

Sounds like a plan...the next one will put off the visit until it's no longer feasible, and pass it on to their successor if possible in the meantime...for years...

Well played.

:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#169217 Sep 27, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Quit acting like some catty person. It is so unbecoming. I can tolerate almost anything but a gossip.
Gee Marmie... you gonna put him in time-out if he doesn't behave to your specs?

Condescension, and your Lissy prissypants persona, aren't all that "becoming" either.

Jus' sayin'...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

#169218 Sep 28, 2013
Visit website get clues wrote:
Texans are notorious fanatic xenophobes.
How would you know that? Have you ever lived in Texas? Have you even been to Texas?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

#169219 Sep 28, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Whoever they send will carry that particular essence home to their significant other...probably linger for days.
Sounds like a plan...the next one will put off the visit until it's no longer feasible, and pass it on to their successor if possible in the meantime...for years...
Well played.
:)
We're not called 'old farts' for no reason.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#169220 Sep 28, 2013
Bad move.

Elizabeth O’Bagy, the Syria analyst who was fired after it emerged that she had misrepresented her academic credentials, has found new employment with Sen. John McCain, Foreign Policy’s The Cable reported.

O’Bagy was an analyst for the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War where she advocated for U.S. intervention in Syria. Her work was cited by McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading voice in favor of action in Syria.

But earlier this month, the institute announced that it had “learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University” and terminated her employment.

“Elizabeth is a talented researcher, and I have been very impressed by her knowledge and analysis in multiple briefings over the last year,” McCain told The Cable in a statement.“I look forward to her joining my office.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/27/sy...

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#169221 Sep 28, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not called 'old farts' for no reason.
Another day, more lies and smears from a coward:

Top Dem. Actually Refers to Ted Cruz Supporters as ‘Tea Baggers’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/27/to...

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#169222 Sep 28, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Save your 'Dixie Cups', the South shall rise again!
:)
Ha!

Confederate battle flag-raising scheduled Saturday south of Richmond

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/confedera...
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#169223 Sep 28, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
There were only two points made. I refuted them both - "government takeover of healthcare" is an outright lie. Plopping "socialist" on top of the lie is just sweetening a manure pile with candy sprinkles.
If it needs to be further explained why it's an outright lie, and why the term "socialist" is falsely employed, then it only proves why the tactic is so effective at reaching it's target audience.
Please, keep these two examples in mind every time you hear about "low information voters".
This is a great example as to why we shouldn't wonder why the national debate is so absolutely FUBAR.
<edited for space>

We can micro-debate all day long over the words "government takeover" which can imply a hostile coup ---> OR a "government takeover" which in this case meant barely passing a law giving a majority portion of control of healthcare to the federal government; a law which the majority of Americans didn't want and still don't want by using everything within the power of the executive branch and the willingness of the judical branch to help rewrite the law which then made it "legal" to cram it down the throats of a resistant population.

And of course you can say "well, they voted him in" and I can say "true but they're low information, so in reality they didn't know what they were voting for" and so on. But let's not do that. Let's focus on Obama's socialist tendencies which are heartily supported by a good percentage of his upper circles,(unbeknownst to the average Joe Blow average low information democrat voter) because it's not something they probably know a lot about.

Here, chew on this.
"LEAN FORWARD" and "FORWARD" is wording we often see tied to Obama if you read the small print. It's a sub-heading for MSNBC as a matter of fact, flashed to it's TV viewing audience dozens of times a day. Do you think for one minute the average Joe Blow low info democrat knows where that phrase originated?
The word >FORWARD< has a very special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been used mutiple times as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications. The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and although it isn't a secret, it's not common knowledge.
Here. Have another one to add to your wad of cud.
"Redistribution." An Obama term, yes?
It is a direct rewrite of this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
You know who said that? Here's a hint. A guy named Groucho had the same last name.
MARX.

Now, you can sputter and spew and and stomp your feet all you want but not everyone out here is ignorant to what Obama's "vision" of America is and if you are one of those who was overly enamoured with the man before you knew what you were getting, then that's your problem. Don't make it mine. You're emotionally invested in the guy, you're angry he's failing and making mistake after mistake and you're taking it out on anyone who's saying, "I told you so."

Post Script:
Btw, his approval ratings are tanking because a sleepy America is finally waking up and you know what they're seeing? A bumbling president who is so FUBAR (to use your term,) he'll negotiate with Assad, he'll negotiate with Putin, he'll negotiate with Iran yet out of the other side of his mouth comes:

"I WON'T NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS."

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#169224 Sep 28, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
<edited for space>
We can micro-debate all day long over the words "government takeover" which can imply a hostile coup ---> OR a "government takeover" which in this case meant barely passing a law giving a majority portion of control of healthcare to the federal government; a law which the majority of Americans didn't want and still don't want by using everything within the power of the executive branch and the willingness of the judical branch to help rewrite the law which then made it "legal" to cram it down the throats of a resistant population.
And of course you can say "well, they voted him in" and I can say "true but they're low information, so in reality they didn't know what they were voting for" and so on. But let's not do that. Let's focus on Obama's socialist tendencies which are heartily supported by a good percentage of his upper circles,(unbeknownst to the average Joe Blow average low information democrat voter) because it's not something they probably know a lot about.
Here, chew on this.
"LEAN FORWARD" and "FORWARD" is wording we often see tied to Obama if you read the small print. It's a sub-heading for MSNBC as a matter of fact, flashed to it's TV viewing audience dozens of times a day. Do you think for one minute the average Joe Blow low info democrat knows where that phrase originated?
The word >FORWARD< has a very special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been used mutiple times as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications. The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and although it isn't a secret, it's not common knowledge.
Here. Have another one to add to your wad of cud.
"Redistribution." An Obama term, yes?
It is a direct rewrite of this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
You know who said that? Here's a hint. A guy named Groucho had the same last name.
MARX.
Now, you can sputter and spew and and stomp your feet all you want but not everyone out here is ignorant to what Obama's "vision" of America is and if you are one of those who was overly enamoured with the man before you knew what you were getting, then that's your problem. Don't make it mine. You're emotionally invested in the guy, you're angry he's failing and making mistake after mistake and you're taking it out on anyone who's saying, "I told you so."
Post Script:
Btw, his approval ratings are tanking because a sleepy America is finally waking up and you know what they're seeing? A bumbling president who is so FUBAR (to use your term,) he'll negotiate with Assad, he'll negotiate with Putin, he'll negotiate with Iran yet out of the other side of his mouth comes:
"I WON'T NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS."
Paranoia.

Pure and simple.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#169225 Sep 28, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
<edited for space>
We can micro-debate all day long over the words "government takeover" which can imply a hostile coup ---> OR a "government takeover" which in this case meant barely passing a law giving a majority portion of control of healthcare to the federal government; a law which the majority of Americans didn't want and still don't want by using everything within the power of the executive branch and the willingness of the judical branch to help rewrite the law which then made it "legal" to cram it down the throats of a resistant population.
And of course you can say "well, they voted him in" and I can say "true but they're low information, so in reality they didn't know what they were voting for" and so on. But let's not do that. Let's focus on Obama's socialist tendencies which are heartily supported by a good percentage of his upper circles,(unbeknownst to the average Joe Blow average low information democrat voter) because it's not something they probably know a lot about.
Here, chew on this.
"LEAN FORWARD" and "FORWARD" is wording we often see tied to Obama if you read the small print. It's a sub-heading for MSNBC as a matter of fact, flashed to it's TV viewing audience dozens of times a day. Do you think for one minute the average Joe Blow low info democrat knows where that phrase originated?
The word >FORWARD< has a very special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been used mutiple times as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications. The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and although it isn't a secret, it's not common knowledge.
Here. Have another one to add to your wad of cud.
"Redistribution." An Obama term, yes?
It is a direct rewrite of this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
You know who said that? Here's a hint. A guy named Groucho had the same last name.
MARX.
Now, you can sputter and spew and and stomp your feet all you want but not everyone out here is ignorant to what Obama's "vision" of America is and if you are one of those who was overly enamoured with the man before you knew what you were getting, then that's your problem. Don't make it mine. You're emotionally invested in the guy, you're angry he's failing and making mistake after mistake and you're taking it out on anyone who's saying, "I told you so."
Post Script:
Btw, his approval ratings are tanking because a sleepy America is finally waking up and you know what they're seeing? A bumbling president who is so FUBAR (to use your term,) he'll negotiate with Assad, he'll negotiate with Putin, he'll negotiate with Iran yet out of the other side of his mouth comes:
"I WON'T NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS."
Translation from Back-clawing Gibberish to English: "OK, so the government isn't really taking over healthcare like I said, but my cadre doesn't really care about boring facts. So let's don't focus on my words and instead twist some red-flag terms to my ends, denigrate you a little bit, and finish with a thinly-veiled frustration piece about the sour grapes. That's my modus operandi and it works for me."
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#169227 Sep 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoia.
Pure and simple.
7am California time and here you are you're sitting on my front porch waiting for me to come out.

Think about that.
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#169228 Sep 28, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Redistribution." An Obama term, yes?
It is a direct rewrite of this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
You know who said that? Here's a hint. A guy named Groucho had the same last name.
MARX.
An Obama term, eh? I'll bet the low information voters who lap up your spew aren't aware of this from perennial Presidential candidate John McCain c.200 (pre Rove-slapdown that turned a conservative maverick into a party-line shill) defending the "redistribution of wealth" concept:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/...

So, you're full of it. Again. Redistribution of wealth is an economic concept that underlies all taxation policy from the beginning of this nation, NOT the re-branded version used so crassly by right-wing shrieks since 2008.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#169229 Sep 28, 2013
...and oh look. Catcher brought Hip along with him. Two Obama junkies are on my front porch waiting for a word with me.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaa
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Welcome to liberal Nutsville!

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
chat with demi lovato 112 (the real official de... (Jan '09) 2 min Ermelisa 1,853
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 542,732
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 min Dr_Zorderz 259,578
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min mike 601,118
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 26 min Stilgar Fifrawi 739,551
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 55 min Patrick n Angela 227,595
The Anti-Christ 58 min Bev Jamison 8

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••