Originally posted by tbone42: "They let the payroll tax cuts expire after only one year, but want to renew tax cuts for the wealthy that have had them for a decade!"
Going to keep repeating that half-truth?
YOUR taxes got cut. MY taxes got cut. EVERYONE'S taxes got cut. So it is NOT a "tax cut for the wealthy". Try telling the whole story, instead of the bullshit Democratic class-warfare talking point.
YOUR taxes got cut. MY taxes got cut. EVERYONE'S taxes got cut. So it is NOT a "tax cut for the wealthy". Try telling the whole story, instead of the bullshit Democratic class-warfare talking point.
A half truth is also partially true. YOU should know a lot about that. Yes, our taxes got cut (not even sure if you qualify as middle class, so maybe I see why you are so strongly invested in defending the generous rich tax cuts and avoiding stating your opinion on the expiration of payroll tax cuts..) , but by percentage, the ultra wealthy made out WAAAAAAY better than the middle class with their tax brackets. So you aren't exactly forthcoming with the facts yourself. Thus, its not a half truth at all, although our taxes were cut, the tax cuts were for the wealthy, by percentage, were much better for them.
So when are you going to stop replying to half the things I say like an angry jerk and the other half "pretend hurt" that I dont want to engage in a "serious conversation" with you? I'm getting pretty tired of it, and every time you get like this, in schizophrenic fashion, when I criticize you you say something about "wanting to have a serious debate." Not with that kind of attack and anger in your replies, we won't. Nor would i want to anymore.
"Serious debate" does not start with accusing someone of lying in so many words, ... nor use of incendiary language in an angry rebuttal to a statement from them.
You choose reactionary anger to a non angry post, so there is nothing else for you or I to discuss. You just proved that. I wasn't talking to you any more anyhow, ever since you refused to answer about whether you agreed with letting the payroll tax cuts expire for the poor and middle class, and only wanted to deflect with commentary about them being temporary.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:17 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by tbone42: A half truth is also partially true.
But a partial truth is not a full truth.
quote
YOU should know a lot about that.
I knew enough to be able to explain it to you. But I can't *understand* it for you.
quote
Yes, our taxes got cut
Well, praise Jesus, thank you for at least admitting the "truth" part of the half truth. Now if I could get you to admit that the other part is false, I'd be accomplishing something.
quote
(not even sure if you qualify as middle class, so maybe I see why you are so strongly invested in defending the generous rich tax cuts
Is making less than $50k/yr still middle class?
BTW, I've been rich, poor, middle class, in a union, a small business owner, worked for small, medium and large corporations, high tech, low tech, no tech...I've done a wide variety of jobs. I've seen a little of everything. So I speak from the EXPERIENCE of many perspectives.
quote
and avoiding stating your opinion on the expiration of payroll tax cuts..)
I addressed this on the previous page of this thread. Try reading my posts BEFORE you criticize (would your accusation, then, be a half-truth or half-lie?).
quote
, but by percentage, the ultra wealthy made out WAAAAAAY better than the middle class with their tax brackets. So you aren't exactly forthcoming with the facts yourself.
Well, that's a big-10-DUH. How can you give people a big tax break if they don't pay "big" taxes? Seriously, tbone, do you actually *think* about this, or just repeat Dem talking points (because that's exactly what they say, BTW).
quote
So when are you going to stop replying to half the things I say like an angry jerk and the other half "pretend hurt" that I dont want to engage in a "serious conversation" with you? I'm getting pretty tired of it, and every time you get like this, in schizophrenic fashion, when I criticize you you say something about "wanting to have a serious debate." Not with that kind of attack and anger in your replies, we won't. Nor would i want to anymore.
YOU are the one saying I'm angry. Nope, sorry. Just a bit tired of half-truths and bullshit.
quote
"Serious debate" does not start with accusing someone of lying in so many words, ... nor use of incendiary language in an angry rebuttal to a statement from them.
OK, then maybe you can recommend language for me to use when you say something that isn't true?
quote
You choose reactionary anger to a non angry post, so there is nothing else for you or I to discuss. You just proved that. I wasn't talking to you any more anyhow, ever since you refused to answer about whether you agreed with letting the payroll tax cuts expire for the poor and middle class, and only wanted to deflect with commentary about them being temporary.
OK, so you accuse me of not answering, which I did, you appear to be butt-hurt that I called you out on saying half-truths, which you did, you appear to be ready to walk away from the discussion, and you have the temerity to accuse ME of being angry? Wow. Alrighty then.
Your idea of discussion is anger, insults and accusations. Your last two entries are all the proof I need of that. I tried to have a "conversation" that you keep whining about with you on several occasions, and thats all I get. Rational? you can't handle that. We have nothing more to say to each other, so seriously: bugger off. Any time, from this point forward if you want to address something I say, save your time and everyone's sanity from your posts.. You will get the same response. We're done, not because I cannot continue the "conversation" I choose not to engage those who act like jerks, which you cannot refrain from - ever.
So Bugger off.
Seriously, you are the poster child for the need for an "Ignore" button.
Good day.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:02 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Your idea of discussion is anger, insults and accusations. Your last two entries are all the proof I need of that. I tried to have a "conversation" that you keep whining about with you on several occasions, and thats all I get. Rational? you can't handle that. We have nothing more to say to each other, so seriously: bugger off. Any time, from this point forward if you want to address something I say, save your time and everyone's sanity from your posts.. You will get the same response. We're done, not because I cannot continue the "conversation" I choose not to engage those who act like jerks, which you cannot refrain from - ever.
So Bugger off.
Seriously, you are the poster child for the need for an "Ignore" button.
Good day.
LOL
Get called on telling lies...er...half-truths, and evidently it is too much for you to deal with. So be it. Take the easy way out, your choice.
"So Bugger off."
Wow. Sound...angry.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-28-2011).]
Get called on telling lies...er...half-truths, and evidently it is too much for you to deal with. So be it. Take the easy way out, your choice.
"So Bugger off."
Wow. Sound...angry.
Hmm, yet he still wants to try and talk for some last-word-freak action. I never lied about anything, unlike you who does it to suit any political needs you see fit. My point of view was valid and explained, You provided no proof to say it was otherwise, just anger and language befitting a brainless hack like yourself. It must be convenient to label someone who does not want to interract with a complete jerk like you a liar. THAT must be the easy way out, when you think I would not reply. You're like a child who waits to insult someone until they are speeding away so you dont get in any trouble.
In fact if you want to talk about who's angry, go back and read the last 10 pages of this thread, you have been absolutely hostile at times when everybody does not see the world your way. Awwww... wittle bear cant get anyone to agwee with him, so he throws fit after it.
And I'm not angry, in fact I am happy to let you know:
Speaking your language now? Normally I don't indulge, but since you have always shown the same kind of disrespect towards me and others here with namecalling and insults, now I just return it to you in kind.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:21 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by tbone42: last-word-freak action.
Nope, no anger there.
quote
I never lied about anything, unlike you who does it to suit any political needs you see fit.
You repeated something that YOU ACKNOWLEDGE isn't true. And again, you have the gall to say that *I* lie?
quote
My point of view was valid and explained, You provided no proof to say it was otherwise, just anger and language befitting a
I showed that you are *aware* the tax cuts were for *everyone*, yet you insist on repeating a fallacy. The proof is in YOUR OWN WORDS! Wow.
The Dem talking point "tax cuts for the rich" is an INTENTIONAL fallacy to play up class warfare. It is *propaganda*, and you keep repeating it. Willingly and repeatedly.
quote
brainless hack like yourself.
Still no anger, I see. Uh huh. Yeah. Right.
And this "brainless hack" proved that you are willing to repeat a fallacy if it suits your political agenda (wow, just like you falsely accused me of doing. How about that?!).
quote
Speaking your language now?
No, especially considering I'm not calling you juvenile names, only pointing out that you are a willing participant in retelling LIES. That's not name calling, that's just the facts, Jack.
quote
Back to buggering off, Pedobear.
So what's the message here? Are you accusing me of being a pedophile? That's beyond juvenile, that's actually a CRIME. Got any evidence to back up such an accusation?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-28-2011).]
Get called on telling lies...er...half-truths, and evidently it is too much for you to deal with. So be it. Take the easy way out, your choice.
"So Bugger off."
Wow. Sound...angry.
the right wing would not know TRUTH if it bit their rear ends and stayed clamped on it
funny how you go on about truth when you love to tell BIG LIES in fact that is all the rightwingers have
if BuSh2 had not cut taxes on the rich so much and start two wars WITH OUT 1 cent of funding we would not be in a mess today
the whole teabagger/puppet plans are CORPrat plans and most are failed ideas tryed again harder more markets know best dereg = bubbles and crash + more madeoff's more low taxes for the super rich less benefits less pay and less rights for workers kill the EPA so CORPrats can rape and pillage the lands wirthout fear
the entire GOP DOGMA is a BIG LIE
IP: Logged
11:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I posted proof of what I had to say. All you seem to be able to say is "big lie". Just like tbone, who repeats a fallacy, saying it over and over doesn't make it true, ray.
Heh.. that doesn't hurt at all. Keep trying, I guess, trollmaster.
Don't care. But I'm laughing my ass off at you, and your feeble attempts to deflect attention away from being called on repeating fallacies by way of name calling. Got no facts, so call 'em names. LOL. tbone fail.
A good lesson on why class warfare is so dangerous, why shouting "tax the other guy!" will lead to the downfall of our Republic...
In 1887 Alexander Tyler,
a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to......spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to...great courage; From courage to........liberty; From liberty to......abundance; From abundance to....complacency; From complacency to.......apathy; From apathy to........dependence; From dependence back into...bondage."
=========================
Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2
McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than 5 years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom....
This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn't be more at stake than on Nov 2012.
IP: Logged
01:22 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Wow, Mr. Intelligence .. if you meant there is no depth to which I will NOT stoop, that would actually mean something in context to what you are saying. You are too stupid to even know how to form that sentence properly.
Way to go, Einstein. Like I said, punching a retard. No need to further insult you, you do a fine job proving your own idiocy.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:45 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Wow, Mr. Intelligence .. if you meant there is no depth to which I will NOT stoop, that would actually mean something in context to what you are saying. You are too stupid to even know how to form that sentence properly.
Way to go, Einstein. Like I said, punching a retard. No need to further insult you, you do a fine job proving your own idiocy.
Wow. One word mistake, and I'm a retard. You are getting WAY desperate.
By the way, you really called yourself an a**hole with all those insults. But keep digging that hole you're in. The fact that you have to go to insults proves that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Oh, and I wonder if your new avatar violates any forum rules?
Wow. One word mistake, and I'm a retard. You are getting WAY desperate.
Well I sure wouldn't classify you as some genius you would like us all to believe, that's for certain.
quote
you really called yourself an a**hole with all those insults
Huh, that's funny, I looked all the way back through the last page of this thread, and I never once said anything like that about myself. That must make you a liar. LIAR. (Who do I sound like now?)
quote
Oh, and I wonder if your new avatar violates any forum rules?
Nope. I checked.
quote
Do not use offensive or inappropriate images..
But feel free to go cry to Cliff and see if you can get me banned. I know that would just make you cream in your jeans, just like your obama popularity poll you just posted. I bet you soaked 'em.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:26 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
President Obama achieved the historic downgrading of America's credit rating the old-fashioned way. He earned it. He came into office with federal spending already near an historic peak, with a percent of GDP at 20.7 percent and having increased by one-seventh during the Bush years. One year earlier Bush had joined with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to enact a pointless Keynesian stimulus package of $168 billion, which the record will show created exactly 0.00 jobs, and stimulated nothing but national debt.
Send In the Clowns
Barack Obama surveyed the continuing wreckage of the financial crisis, and decided to follow the advice of the reknowned economist Otter, "who famously said in 'Animal House,' this situation 'absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part,'" as quoted by Andy Kessler in Monday's Wall Street Journal. Barack Obama provided that gesture in the form of the nearly $1 trillion Keynesian stimulus package, which, though five times as big as Bush-Pelosi, still created exactly 0.00 jobs.
But that was just the beginning. President Obama went on to lead the nation to a mercurial increase in federal spending of 28 percent in his first three years alone. Then, after the nation's voters repudiated these policies with an historic New Deal-sized shellacking in the 2010 elections, President Obama repudiated the voters with his historic proposed 2012 budget in February 2011.
That budget proposed to increase federal spending by another 57 percent by 2021, ensuring that President Obama would increase the national debt by more in just one term in office than all other Presidents in American history combined.
On the course set by that budget, America's national debt as a percent of GDP is set to smash through the all-time record set during World War II, rocket right on through the level suffered by Greece when it fell into national bankruptcy, and keep right on rocketing into the unchartered stratosphere. President Obama realized he had fallen behind the political curve when the adult in the room, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, proposed a budget instead that would not only lead to a balanced budget, but would ultimately pay off the national debt, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. And then the Republican-controlled House passed it.
So President Obama did what he does best. He gave a speech. On April 13, he demanded still more tax increases, on top of the sweeping tax increases he already has enacted in current law for 2013, to finance his runaway spending increases. When House Budget Adult Paul Ryan asked the Democrat-appointed CBO Director Doug Ehlmendorf if he had scored President Obama's April 13 proposals, Ehlmendorf replied in exasperation that the CBO doesn't score speeches.
For political atmospherics before the 2010 election, the President appointed his own debt commission, with great fanfare. When the commission reported a debt and deficit reduction plan in December after the election that rightly proposed to cut spending and tax rates, with tax reform, the President ignored it and took no steps to implement any of its recommendations. Instead he proposed the public policy malpractice 2012 budget discussed above, which kicked the proposals of his own commission to the curb.
When Tea Party Republicans tried to impose some spending discipline on Obama in the debt limit fight, President Obama laid on the negotiating table all of $2 billion in spending cuts, which is the equivalent of cutting one penny out of every $20 in federal spending. So all year long leading up to the credit downgrade (despite record setting federal spending, deficits and debt) President Obama effectively refused to cut spending at all, proposing instead still more tax increases, on the road to doubling federal taxes and spending relative to the economy.
Tea Party to the Rescue
The Tea Party-dominated Republican House majority already acted in the spring to completely solve the debt crisis by passing the Ryan budget, with $6.2 trillion in cuts in the first ten years alone. Despite President Obama's unreasoned rhetoric, that budget was carefully crafted so no one would actually suffer as a result of those cuts. Sure some people would lose government windfalls and those who are able, in time, would have to pay for more themselves. But that is exactly what we need right now. If Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration had acted to implement that Ryan budget, then there would have been no debt downgrade. But instead they responded with unreasoned derision, running an ad that showed Ryan throwing an elderly woman over a cliff, even though his reforms would not apply to anyone over 55 today. That ad itself contributed to last Friday's debt downgrade, showing Washington unreasoned and unwilling to address the problem.
Then during the debt limit debate in July, the Tea Party-dominated Republican House acted to completely solve the debt crisis yet again, passing the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. It cut government spending for fiscal year 2012 (which starts on October 1, 2011) by $111 billion -- a modest, reasonable slice of Obama's projected spending of $3,729 billion ($3.7 trillion). It also adopted a cap on total federal spending that would reduce it to the long run, postwar, historical average of 20 percent of GDP by 2017.
The Act provided as well for President Obama's requested increase in the debt limit, if Congress first passes a specified Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and sends it to the states for ratification. That Amendment would require Congress to balance the budget every year except in a wartime emergency once it became effective. That would mean that the federal government would have no legal authority for increased borrowing except under the wartime procedures specified in the Amendment. That Balanced Budget Amendment would also include a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. That means no tax increase could be enacted without a vote of 67 percent in favor in each house. The Constitutional Amendment also specifies a cap on federal spending equal to 19.9 percent of GDP, limiting federal spending to the long-term average for the past 70 years.
But once again the Democrat-controlled Senate failed to even consider the measure, and President Obama laughed it off. Standard and Poors (S&P), however, wasn't laughing. After downgrading the credit rating for U.S. debt from the AAA rating that has prevailed since President Washington, S&P said publicly that Cut, Cap and Balance would have avoided the downgrade.
The debt limit downgrade and the reaction of the markets since then shows that the Tea Party Republicans were right all along in calling for the above measures, and passing them through the House. Trying to blame the Tea Party for the debt downgrade, like the wildly unreasoned President Obama and other Democrat pirates are now trying to do, is like blaming Jenny Craig for obesity in America. The fault lies entirely with President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate, who failed to take any action on the measures to completely solve the problem that the House already passed. S&P and the markets have thoroughly vindicated the Tea Party position.
President Obama's Disgrace
After the historic debt downgrade on Friday, President Obama addressed the nation on Monday. He would have done better to follow Glenn Beck's advice on his radio show earlier in the day: "Shut up, Mr. President."
While the President was talking, blaming everyone but himself, threatening the nation with further crippling tax increases, and further demonstrating that America suffered a President who was only interested in political advantage rather than solving the crisis, the stock market dropped another 200 points, finishing the day down 631. It was one of the worst days in stock market history.
The President said, "So it's not a lack of plans or policies that's the problem here. It's a lack of political will in Washington. It's the insistence on drawing lines in the sand, a refusal to put what's best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology."
This is another example of Obama's political misdirection and even calculated deception. Throughout his entire presidency, Obama has done nothing but refuse to put what's best for the country ahead of what he sees as his own political self-interest. He consistently refused to cut spending -- until the Tea Party forced quite modest cuts on him as part of the debt limit deal -- and he has continued to promote still more tax rate increases. But it is an old Saul Alinsky trick, straight out of Rules for Radicals, to accuse your opponents of exactly what you are doing. And Obama during his "community organizer" days was one of the nation's leading experts and tutors on Alinsky.
Indeed, in Monday's speech, Obama called for still more tax increases "that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share." I am beginning to think that Obama does not even understand the tax code he is administering. Or maybe he really is a Marxist infiltrator who thinks the economy will be just fine if he outright loots all the nation's investors, employers, and small businesses.
Before President Obama was even elected, official IRS data for 2007 showed that the top one percent of income earners already paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of income earners combined. The top one percent paid 40.4 percent of their income taxes for that year (almost twice their share of income). The bottom 40 percent of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes that year. They instead received net payments from the IRS equal to four percent of total federal tax revenues.
The last time America balanced the budget, in the late 1990s, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton did it entirely with spending cuts and no tax increases. Indeed, tax rates were cut to spur economic growth. Clinton and Gingrich enacted the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history, slashing the rate from 28 to 20 percent. Along with some other tax cuts on capital, that helped to promote an economic boom that produced surging revenues. The Republican Congress then cut federal discretionary spending from 1995 to 1996 by 5.4 percent in real dollars, after adjusting for inflation. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending, including defense and non-defense, was slashed by 17.5 percent in just four years, from 1995 to 1999.
The Congress also adopted some entitlement reform. The AFDC welfare program was terminated as an entitlement, and sent back to the states with work requirements and federal financing in fixed, finite block grants. Agricultural subsidies were phased out under the Freedom to Farm reforms (later reversed under House Speaker Dennis Hastert). President Clinton deserves credit for going along with these Congressional Republican reforms.
As a result, $200 billion annual federal deficits (which had prevailed for over 15 years) were transformed into surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. The national debt was reduced by $560 billion in surpluses from 1998 to 2001.
But don't expect the Obama Administration to understand any of this. With all of the serious economists Obama has had working for him, policy is set by the President himself, in consultation only with his campaign manager David Plouffe.
Tea Party Washington
Given the debt downgrade, the market reaction, and the wretched economy, Tea Party Republicans need to understand that they now enjoy the upper hand. Only their policies have credibility on jobs. Proceeding with the Super Committee in the next debt limit round due for completion by the end of the year, Republicans must be aggressive in what they demand.
The Ryan budget included more than enough spending cuts to provide for sweeping, pro-growth tax reform, again as scored by CBO. The same was true of Cut, Cap and Balance. Indeed, the Ryan budget already provided for corporate tax reform reducing the federal rate to 25 percent, and individual tax reform reducing the individual rates to 25 percent for those making over $100,000 per year and to 15 percent for those making less, with generous personal exemptions exempting low and moderate income workers from any tax.
Republicans must demand no less as the price for their agreement in the next debt limit round. If President Obama and the Democrats refuse, Republicans should let the automatic cuts go into effect and take their case to the people in 2012. The cuts can be adjusted as necessary and replaced with much bigger ones after that election.
IP: Logged
02:28 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by tbone42: Well I sure wouldn't classify you as some genius you would like us all to believe, that's for certain.
I don't care what you believe. But now, we all have an idea of your limitations, as proven by your complete breakdown into grade-school insults instead of articulating a position in a discussion. Thanks for making your downfall so easy. It was fun to watch.
quote
But feel free to go cry to Cliff and see if you can get me banned. I know that would just make you cream in your jeans, just like your obama popularity poll you just posted. I bet you soaked 'em.
Oh, HELL no. Watching you melt down was too much fun.
And no, the avatar didn't make me "cream my jeans". I just love it when people like you prove, all by yourself, your lack of intellectual capital. Nothing proves it like the string of immature insults you puked out instead of the argument you couldn't make. Heh heh.
Sorry, this article is untrustworthy and therefore bullcrap. Peter Ferrara is a lawyer, and a hatchetman for Abramoff, the crook.
The entire piece is also suspect due to source, and should be disregarded as more fundamentalist Republican ass-kissing and cheerleading by FieroBear and not taken seriously.
quote
Ferrara took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients. (Ferrara did not disclose which pieces he was paid to write, but Business Week noted that he wrote favorable articles in the Washington Times about the Northern Marianas Islands and the Choctaw Indian tribe, both Abramoff clients.)
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
Originally posted by fierobear: And no, the avatar didn't make me "cream my jeans".
Once again proving what an ignoramous you are. I said "getting me banned would make you cream your jeans." You can't even keep what I post straight when its there in your own post where you quoted me.
Keep drinking, idiot.
quote
I don't care what you believe
Really? You sure put in an awful lot of time arguing about it.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
I am going to bed. But before I go, you should know: I had a shard of glass in my foot that took an hour to dig out today, and I have to say, I enjoyed every second of that more than even one post you have ever made here. *eyeballs your ratings bar* looks like lots of people here have that opinion of you. So as much as you think I am alone in my displeasure with what you call conversation, there are many MANY others here who believe you to be every bit a tool as I do. That's comforting.
Well, sweet dreams... I have work to do in the morning, I am almost sure when i wake up you will have last word-freaked something else here. Who knows, maybe this thread will be in the trashcan by the time I wake from my slumber? If not, I am certain there will be more of the same here tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.
Don't forget to go cry to Cliff about my avatar.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:53 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I am going to bed. But before I go, you should know: I had a shard of glass in my foot that took an hour to dig out today, and I have to say, I enjoyed every second of that more than even one post you have ever made here.
If you are into pain, that's TMI. Whatever.
quote
*eyeballs your ratings bar* looks like lots of people here have that opinion of you.
Another desperate attempt by you. How sad.
quote
Who knows, maybe this thread will be in the trashcan by the time I wake from my slumber? If not, I am certain there will be more of the same here tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.
That depends entirely on you. You're the one trotting out the insults. Let's see what you've belched out so far:
angry jerk bugger off So Bugger off brainless hack douche (picture) Go suck a dick pedobear troll 'I was thinking the same thing about your mom. Because she let a moron like you into the world. pedobear" insulting you is like punching a retard - (but you keep on doing it. can't even keep your story straight?) proving your own idiocy
If this goes to the trash can, it will be because of YOU and YOUR insults.
quote
Don't forget to go cry to Cliff about my avatar.
Repeating another fallacy?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-29-2011).]
rofl.. Should I go collect the insults you have shot at me and others in the past before this thread and list them? Does this website even have enough bandwidth?
Nah I dont have time... you do, thats wonderful. Maybe tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:20 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
the right wing would not know TRUTH if it bit their rear ends and stayed clamped on it
funny how you go on about truth when you love to tell BIG LIES in fact that is all the rightwingers have the entire GOP DOGMA is a BIG LIE
I am a "rightwinger" where have I lied? Or is it that you just are so caught up in polatics that you automatically call people names just because the "line" they follow?
Never mind I have seen the proof I need from you to call this one.
IP: Logged
04:34 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I am a "rightwinger" where have I lied? Or is it that you just are so caught up in polatics that you automatically call people names just because the "line" they follow?
Never mind I have seen the proof I need from you to call this one.
Rick, he pretty much repeats that same answer all the time. "GOP big LIE nazi GoldWaTER teapuppet", and so on.
IP: Logged
10:16 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Later 
