Thank heaven for maranelloman! Makes me proud to be a Republican! Bush/Cheney 04, that is what I am voting for. If I get into UT Austin Law school. Mr. Maranelloman is the first one I am visiting, granted he wants to meet.
It has come to my attention, although not really on this thread but on others, that I have stated, nearly verbatim a majority, if not all, of Maranelloman's comments. From the Terry McAwful Global Crossing David Copperfield "I can turn $80,000 into $12 million" deal to the facts about William Jefferson "It IS possible to commit suicide by shooting yourself in the back of the head" Clinton. It is downright scary, I read Dave's post and thought I was "sleep-posting" again. Yet, for some reason Art and Slim seem to keep bashing me for being an antagonist, ardent partisan, a meathead who name calls anyone who disagees with me, the list goes on. Nevertheless, Dave, nice to see you back. It is refreshing to have another voice of reason, truth, justice and the American way among this sea of commie, socialist pinkos! LOL (had to get that last part in there)
You are missing the point. The UN is MADE for small countries, so they can re-unite. It is made so that everyone can be heard, and so that not only the superpowers can be heard. The fact that the US is the only superpower is exactly the reason why they should listen to other countries, and not just do what they please. Because they can do what they please. No one has the resources to stop you. That's why you have to respect other countries, we all should have a say. That's how democratic politics work. You say you want someone who acts in the best interest of the US. What does that have to do with, lets say, Iraq? - The only thing there I can think of is oil. And it is ****ing insane to start a war because of oil. Many people said the Saddam had no WMD, that's why the UN wouldn't approve. And look now, the UN was right. He didn't have them. He destroyed them. That he wouldn't admit it, that's another story. Many of the horrible things saddam did, was back in the late 80'es, early 90's - the things your president used as excuses. He did bad things all the time, no doubt. Not trying to support him. He was a ****er, but the mass murders and genocides was many years ago. Jeffb has given alot of facts, facts that I have written many times. You can say what you want, he's one bad ****er. He isn't even figthing the war against terror anymore. That was his big thing, now he doesn't care. The Taliban is rising in Afghanistan again and Osama Bin Laden is still running around spreading more fear than Saddam ever did.
HAHA, LMAO. You are saying in one and same post, that you disagree with people saying you dont respect others opinions, and then in the end of the post, you write something that clearly shows that you DON'T accept other than your own opinion. Good Job Tifosi, here's a smiley for ya
Hello all, IMHO - By definition, any fanatic is firstly and foremostly wrong. IMHO - When someone's first line of defense (read offense), is to respond with insult clearly demonstrates the overwhelming lack of ability to support their intellectual, philosophical or political viewpoint with truth, logic and reason. A person whom I regarded as wise once told me, "Never argue with a fool, someone observing may not be able to tell the difference". Apply these wherever you may feel they may be appropriate. Regards, Bill
Nah, I still agree with Maranelloman. As far as the insult, get over it, a little humor (however painfully truthful it must be to the liberals) is a good thing. BTW, I notice there certainly is NOT a sense or reciprocity here when it comes to who is allowed to bash and insult and who is not. That's cool, everybody has to pay their dues and I'm down with that.
tifosi69 wrote: "I notice there certainly is NOT a sense or reciprocity here when it comes to who is allowed to bash and insult and who is not." If what you meant to say is, that because someone posted something of an opinion divergent to some other's, it bestows the right to personally assault them, I will disagree. Although I feel that political discussions do not even belong in the "Off Topic" section of this site, everyone has the right to express their opinion but if an argument can be supported with verifiable fact rather than personal insult and slander, I might find it of a much more convincing nature. Regards, Bill
Original posting sponsored by: Uncle Teddy's Late Night Driving and Diving School Democrat Fried Chicken-A Liberal Helpin' of Left Wings House of Gore-clinical treatment center for sore losers
LAFun2, I would be glad to meet. By the way, I am a registered Libertarian, just like the owner of this site. Bill, yes, I threw a few choice insults in there. Interesting that you completely ignore the fact that Jeffie's post was full of outright lies compounded upon lies, which I also refuted fact by fact. The slight insults were thrown in because the magnitude of the lies, and the mean spirited nature of them, clearly shows all we need to know about the poster's character. Draw what conclusions you want about my character from my post, I don't car. But at least I used FACTS, not partisan DNC cut & paste garbage. You'll note that when I used ot debate Art, I was much more respectful, because most of the time he was, too. And Art is much too intelligent to just do a McAuliffe cut & paste, IMO. Tifosi69, howdy, pardner.
Relax tiger. Throughout your reply, you acknowledged that it was a cut & paste, so stop making it seem like I calculated each sentence as maliciously as I could with lies & more lies. Like a previous post, I saw it on another board and got a kick out of it. No need to get emotional & insulting. You almost hurt my feelings.
Hello MM, Let me first state that, I am of an independent political nature. I feel that to rise to such station and office (i.e. president), is almost always indicative of a less than admirable and usually criminal character. GWB is no exception. What I was referring to in my post was, that in no way did Jeff insult any member of the F-chat group. Intelligent and mature responses, do not need to include insult, this only advertizes the respondents inability to support their opinion with empirical data. Public figures, regardless of position or title, IMHO are acceptable targets, this is the path they have chosen. If you care to respond, in citation of fact and source to refute someone's assertions fine, even in heated fashion, OK. But to then go into personal assault regarding sexual disposition and others, is uncalled for. It may be amusing to a number of members, and it may make you feel better about something in yourself, but it doesn't need to be included in this forum. I find it truly amusuing, when someone criticizes GWB, many of his loyal followers regard it as near treasonous action, while these same persons will eagerly issue vituperous attacks at any previous president that they feel is deserving.
Bill, I have absolutely no problem with anyone criticizing GWB, contrary to your assertion. What I do have a problem with is massive accusatory crap & overt lies, regardless of who the presidential target is. Some of the critique of Clinton was way off base & way too personal, and way untrue. Same here. I am an equal opportunity offender. I expect the same of others.
LOL Please add the following to the list: Hillary's Leveraged Commodities Trading for Beginners Seminar / Magic Show Tips for Eliminating Those Pesky AR State Troopers by Billy C.
Hi Clint, In my last post, the only actions that were directly attributed you, was the personal attacks. The rest of the statements we quite generally applied, in no way expressly pointed at you. Sorry if you thought that was the case. Regards, Bill
HA HA HA That's hilarious, and don't forget Bill's "How to beat DNA testing" with guest lecturers Johnny Cochran and O.J. Simpson and the always popular "How Do YOU Define the Word 'is'?" seminars
