On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:20 AM, denstar wrote: >> >>> No. I don't follow the looking for faults I can label teh entire group with. >> >> LOL! =) >> >> Anyways tho: we're talking about the two groups, in general. >> >> Neither one, nor myself, are perfect. > > So if one is a nutter the entire group get's the label? Be careful, I > think there are way more nut jobs on your side.
There's nothing wrong with nuttery, it's the hate preaching nuts that suck. There are *way* more hateful nuts on "your" side. That video of the comedy central rally you posted? Chock full of people saying Muslims are evil and shit, neh? I remember how happy you were about how many people showed up to Beck's rally. Of the two messages, which was more nutty? Which one preached love, and which one preached hate? Which one would have been more appropriate for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s day? ... >> I remember several Democrats running for president. One from my own >> state, even. > > Now you're talking about the primary. There was only one Democrat that > made the ballot for president. > Trust me I was looking for a different republican and noticed Sarah > Palin so I voted for her. Oy. >> I walked over to one from my house. Took the wife and wee one. It was >> swell! > > They profile now. ... And require "Loyalty Pledges"? >> You also think anthropological global warming is a global conspiracy. > > It is. And it's worth billions. Most scientist know this now. That's > not saying it can't be true, just that the facts provided were fake. ... All the facts provided are fake? >> 80% of everybody probably has shit they'd like to see done different, >> but that doesn't mean that they feel the entire premise is incorrect. > > Are you talking about the fake global climate disruption or the health > care bill forced through against the will of the people? So if you see > 3000 pages of corruption you would be fine to accept it because > sometimes bad shit happens? Or would you say, nice try, lets start > over and do it properly. There's no question the system needs reform. Across the board. That's actually *part of the system* though, which is cool. "Against the will of the people" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? ... >> You judge people who say he doesn't suck. Folk can't even give >> constructive criticism without you jumping in to say, no, he's like, >> the worst thing evah, and a /Socialist!/, ta boot. > > You are way wrong and you know it. I never criticize anybody for > believing in him. It's when they say you're an idiot if you don't that > I jump up and say why-you-gotta-be-like-that? LOL! I'm wrong? Remember two days ago, when you were like "Matt was too kind"? >> Show me where I've -- besides with you and Jerry and Rob (who are >> totally extremists as far as Obama goes) -- done anything of the sort. > > You agreed with GMoney when he said you have to be molded to not like > what Obama is doing. > You forgot about that? > @G Money, props Is that what G Money said? Spin things much? =) >> Yeah! And Bush, all by himself, was responsible for all the shit that >> went down over those 8 years. > > You are the one that said Obama doesn't make decisions, not me, why > are we talking about Bush? Change subject? LOL! Without your paragraph that was above that, the sarcasm is lost. Everyone makes decisions, but the President is not a King. Even if his lawyer says he can be. >>> When did you ever criticize Obama on this list except when prompted by me? >> >> Obama? I dunno. Probably when talking about something I'd heard >> about from the EFF. Or agreeing with Judah or Maureen on some >> critique. > > They don't criticize him. Nice try. Could you, pretty please, try to open your eyes too? This is a blatant lie, and one that you constantly perpetuate. It's like you don't *want* anyone to be even close to balanced. You *fight* to see things in the polarized way. >> I'm *way* more likely to not to link that stuff to one man, as I care >> about it (kinda), and recognize that the President only has so much >> power. >> >> The problem isn't the President, per se, it's *us*, generally not giving a >> shit. > > Now were back to the president doesn't do the job? They're called > advisers, sometimes you listen to them sometimes I know you probably got used to how things worked with Bush, but no, the President doesn't make all the rules. There's these things called "checks", which help balance power. :Den -- Man's true nature being lost, everything becomes his nature; as, his true good being lost, everything becomes his good. Bla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:330714 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
