On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:09 PM, denstar wrote: > >> There's nothing wrong with nuttery, it's the hate preaching nuts that >> suck. There are *way* more hateful nuts on "your" side. > > I don't think so. Ever read Kos or Dowd of huffpo?
Nope. I'm more of a PBS guy. And on PBS, they said one of the things hurting the Republicans was all the hate speech they were spewing. The PBS folks said it a little nicer though. =) (Queue the cries of how left-leaning PBS is.) >> That video of the comedy central rally you posted? Chock full of >> people saying Muslims are evil and shit, neh? > > We don't hate like your side does, If we did we'd make a BS video and > post it, kind of like you guys did. > Amazing how we're the hateful nuts but you guys spread the hate. Heh. I'm thinking there wasn't much hate to find, or it would have been posted. Come on man, why do you even try to argue this? I mean, I can see why you'd want to rationalize that your side wasn't hate-filled, as it's your side, but still. =)p ... >> Of the two messages, which was more nutty? Which one preached love, >> and which one preached hate? > > The Beck one was about love and the Stewart one was about mocking the > Beck one so I'll go with the former. Why so much hate from the left? The Beck one was about love? Seemed to me to be more about Religion. Which isn't exactly all inclusive. The ComedyCentral one wasn't about mocking Beck. Did you watch it? Though it did make fun of the mainstream media. "You'll wake up dead!" LOL. Beck's said America sucks, and needs to be "restored", and Stewat's said AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! (I've been speaking in Sam dialect for these conversations, obviously. We all love America, right?) >> Which one would have been more appropriate for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s >> day? > > Definitely Beck, could you imaging the insult of having a couple o > flame comedians representing anything but a comedy hour? If you are not allowed to laugh in heaven, I don't want to go there. =) Which one, honestly, do you think he would have supported? >> And require "Loyalty Pledges"? > > Same shit just different heading on the paper. To Obama himself, like Bush did? Maybe you should edit this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath#Republican_party >> All the facts provided are fake? > > Very funny, see technically they weren't facts at all. None? >> "Against the will of the people" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? > > Even when the majority says no and you push it through in the middle > of the night? Majority of what? Congress? The House? >> LOL! I'm wrong? Remember two days ago, when you were like "Matt was too >> kind"? > > Saying he was too kind is a bit different from: > "no, he's like, the worst thing evah, and a /Socialist!/, ta boot." I didn't say I was quoting you word for word. =) >> Is that what G Money said? Spin things much? =) > > You tell me: > ....yeah, I can understand why people are upset. (with Obama) > Not me ...other than people are fickle, reactionary, impulsive, and easily > molded. I'm surprised that after re-reading his post as many times as you have, that you still don't understand what he was saying. Not that I'm trying to put words in his mouth. That would be a *totally* lame thing for me to do. =)p >> Everyone makes decisions, but the President is not a King. Even if >> his lawyer says he can be. > > He said that the other day, same day he said vote against your > enemies. He seemed pissed when he said the king thing. Obama said that he was the King of America? =)p I'm messing with you. I bet we can both agree that the Executive Branch probably needs some reeling in after the Bush fiasco. >>> 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. > > What did they criticize his ties? I bet you're still claiming that the Daily Show never pokes fun at Obama either. >> It's like you don't *want* anyone to be even close to balanced. You >> *fight* to see things in the polarized way. > > I strive for balance, that;s all I ask of you. Be honest and stop > grouping the entire right as "hate preaching nuts." It's just a few, but my point is, y'all need to talk some sense into them. Tell 'em to sit down and shut up already. It's hurting your party, and when one party is that badly fucked up, it messes with the System. >> 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. > > Are you saying Bush ignored the other two bran Are you saying that Bush (and Cheney) did not (unprecedentedly) expand the powers of the Executive Branch? Look, I'm right there with you man. Obama ain't doing much to rectify the situation. Which, if you'll recall, is fucking *exactly* what I predicted. Thanks for speaking out with me, back then. =)p :Den -- Men often take their imagination for their heart; and they believe they are converted as soon as they think of being converted. B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:330725 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
