OCinBuffalo

I swear to God, if you start trotting out the sorry-assed "Lincoln would be a Democrat today" or lay claim to both Jefferson and Adams, at the same time ....I will start dogging you worse than Tom.

51: England

Oh whatever will conner/pBills do? The "whack-a-mole" is still going on 3 days after the election, and it's not the Republicans doing it. Meltdown in 5...4...

FUTILITY! Olbermann is, I mean was , so ridiculous, and so unprofessional, but that is not why this happened. The reason is: he was allowed to get away with unprofessional behavior for so long by NBC. You have to set standards for your people, and you not only have to enforce them, you have to make sure that they see the value in those standards. This Griffin guy didn't do any of that, AND, Olbermann made him look like a fool because of it. This is the main reason why Olbermann is suspended. OCinBuffalo's Rule #2 for Rookie Consultants: Never surprise your manager, and never means never.

1. The TEA party was absolutely started by the reporter for CNBC saying that maybe the country needed a new Tea Party. It was not started by racists, bigots, or any of the other fairy tales people like to tell. This was purely about who followed the rules feeling screwed over by those that don't, or can't, follow the rules. 2. Talking about who leads the TEA party is like talking about who leads the Internet. It's simply preposterous to hold out Sarah Palin as "the leader of the TEA party". Every time you see the "leaders" of the TEA party being interviewed, there's always 4+ of them, and the first thing they say is that it has no leaders. That is why these tactics: 1. pick an "enemy" from the other side, elevate that person by constantly referring to her, and only her, when talking about the opposition as a whole 2. move them to the front, and then start an all out assault that not only smears them, but smears the whole group by association 3. when that person fights back, claim that this is only evidence of how unhinged they are 4. then immediately contradict your efforts of 1+2, by saying that you would love to run against the person YOU elevated, because they are a fool will NEVER work against the TEA party, because there is no one person to pick. Palin doesn't lead the TEA party any more than LABillz does. This is why the TEA party cannot be beaten, and will be near-impossible to marginalize. And, even if it could be betean, do you think the current crop of Democrats in power can do it? Hardly. 3. The liberal elitists, and elitists in general, are divided into 2 groups. One that actually believes that where they went to school, where they work, where they live automatically makes them permanently superior to others. The other wants to be in the first group, and will say/do anything to be included. Believe me, I have been part of the first group, and it disgusts me. I work with both groups all the time, and both groups are mentally weak. I don't mean stupid, I mean mentally weak. The slightest slight, the smallest threat to their "status", and they go berserk. Never mind if actual physical evidence of the fact that they aren't elite is produced: like the fact that Keith Olbermann went to the state Ag school at Cornell(called Cornell State by the Cornell trolls I know ) they will always take the bait, lose their minds, and do anything they can to prove they "belong". What these tools don't seem to understand, is that ongoing performance is the only thing that makes you truly "elite".

And that design failed badly with Health Care and Spendulous. WTF happened? Oh that's right, corruption and paying off political constituencies happened. So, is it that the rules are bad, or, is it that the rules were broken?

Careful, you are all about to get called bigots, homophobes and every other name in the book, so that certain tools can feed their need to feel morally superior. You do have an out though: if you say you are for gay marriage, then you can make all the gay jokes you like.

I agree. The biggest flaw the Republicans have is: they can't talk about government intrusion fiscally, and then support it socially. And, the Fundamentalists are not known as small government people either. They want farm subsides, etc. Also, I am not sure I want people who have a bad habit of presuming that they speak for God being in charge of anything. But, then again, the Republicans weren't the ones who started the gay marriage fight, and the rest of the fights. The Democrats calculated that they could use these issues as a way to regain power. They used gay people, and their rights, as a political tool. And, the Republicans need to realize that in this day of people winning elections by 400 votes, they need everybody. It seems that if the economy is doing well, the minority party always uses social issues to try and weaken the majority. The minority party has been the Democrats, hence they keep starting trouble. Perhaps, one day, the people involved in whatever social issue is being used, will wake up, and realize they are being used. The only way you can win on any social issue is with bipartisan support. Example: the civil rights movement would have gotten nowhere, nowhere at all, without Republican support.

I doubt it as well. First of all, Obama is out of ammo. He shot all his rounds down range already. If the economy gets worse, he loses. If it stays the same, he loses. If it gets better, he will only be able to claim partial credit. He will be competing with the Republicans in the House, and, with the perception that the economy got better on its own, without his help. Hey take a look at this guy: Mitch Daniels. Based on what you have been posting here, this is your man in 2012. He raised taxes to erase debt. Got spending under control and removed a whole lot of useless government people Fixed the budget. THEN he cut taxes, capped property taxes, and even increased education spending in this economy. This guy crushes Obama based on that record right there. I can hear it now: He is reasonable, Obama is not He is willing to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done, Obama is only willing to push his crap ideology He has taken on his own party and risked low popularity to get results, Obama takes on the American people instead This guy is definitely "TEA party" accessible(see willingness to cross Republicans if it means results), but he's also not a loon. He's got a 70% approval rating, won his last by 17 points, he ran the OMB, and served as a division president at a Fortune 500. He even got busted for pot in college. (Bah, FOX is now putting him on as I write this. Bastards, I thought I was way ahead of the curve on this. And yes, for the retards, I watch Bret Baier's show because it is hands down the best analysis you will find.)

I know I don't want them decided by 1 billion in union money, that outpaces all the Republican money by $300 million, and is being given without the consent of union members. Union member should be allowed to vote on who to give their money to, up or down. In fact, I would like to see a law that requires a majority of locals' consent before any money is given to any candidate.

Sends a reminder that "we can kick your ass from the sea". Not a big deal to me. You have to remember that India isn't necessarily our friend. They got to the "land grab game" late, and didn't get anything. They antagonize Pakistan every bit as much as Pakistan antagonizes them. There's all kinds of trouble in that part of the world just waiting to break loose. Our navy, and the rest of NATO's, is one of the reasons it doesn't.

But...but...but "we hate facts and science"TM. I saw this and was gonna post the same thing. I think the difference in spending ended up being $300 million for the Democrats. And, Democrat political action committees 572s have been doing this stuff for the last 10 years. This was the first year that Karl Rove used the same exact tactics, and they cry about it? Democrats have to stop blaming everything but themselves for their crappy results, and the fact that the Pelosi Congress was one of the worst of all time. Democrats need to go back to representing the middle class, the real middle class, not the "creative class", or they can forget about 2012.

The problem is: I never said that. It is impossible for me to believe that because... I don't believe that you know the DNC talking points well enough to apply them to any topic that comes up. I love it how you accuse me of relying on talking points, and when I prove that I don't, you accuse me of saying that you use talking points, which I haven't. I already told you, Karl Rove, and all his donors, place a very high priority on proving that you are a moron. That's why they assigned the task to me. They know I don't miss. But honestly, they could have assigned it to a lesser minion, like Wacka. (No offense wacka, just seeing how far this idiocy goes)

Fellas, remember, we hate facts. :lol: You aren't allowed to post facts, because we hate them. Oh, and I am almost out of patience with NYS. I did a year-long project in Dallas, and it was f'ing great...

I watched that live. First of all, he stuttered through the whole thing, as per normal, so it's tough to write exactly what he said, without sounding like Roger Daltry. It's true he never said "tingle". It's also true that any sane person who watched it knows that "tingle" is exactly what he meant. He did say: "I felt something running up my leg"... <-- hence, this thing right here

Hey, you said: everything I ever post is coming directly from Karl Rove. Since you are right, I am simply confirming that my latest mission from Karl is making you look dopey using your own posts. I emailed Karl today and told him to give me a more difficult mission next time.

FUTILITY! What are you kidding me? pBills has no evidence of any of this. (And thanks for helping me out with the "prove pBills is a dolt using his own posts" mission that Karl Rove sent me on) Beat me to posting this. I would also add: I decided to take the high road, and not revel in their suffering. I was certain this thread would be here sooner or later anyway. Chris Tingle.... :w00t: Hehehe, conner has no idea what you posted or why. He just had a bunch of worthless links that he hadn't posted yet.

Where is it written that only the religion of Islam is inviolate? Isn't it possible that some of the problems in the Muslim world are inherent to Islam? Or, that some of the problems are partially derived from Islam? (EDIT: How is the Pedopriest poblem for Catholics not inherent to the Caltholic religion?) Objectively now, the only people who are making this distinction, AREN'T Muslims. I would like the people directly involved to make the distinction, instead of being told I have to rely on non-Muslim opinion. Edit: oh, and of course be called a bigot if I don't rely on non-Muslim opinion.

I'm sure you will walk right into it, as designed. Then you will try to tell us that you were only kidding, or, that we hate facts, or, any of a number of lame ass excuses you try to pull when your doltery gets exposed, again.

All you tools ruined my fun. But, after reading this thread, it appears my will has been done regardless, and that makes me I will save what I was gonna do for later.

Yeah, you got the wrong guy on this one, and, I don't like this "call people bigot" because of what they say. Show me real evidence of real bigotry here. Hint: There isn't any. What is happening: you can't separate the terrorists from the religion of Islam, because the terrorists are Muslim, and operating in Islam's name. So is Iran, the Taliban, the Saudis, and every other Islamic nut. Mo matter how hard you try, they are all linked to Islam, and they will remain linked for exactly as long as it takes moderate Muslims to get off their asses and do something visible to confront the d-bag Muslims. We can't tell a moderate Muslim from a nutty one, because the moderate Muslims "aren't getting any separation" that allows us to make that distinction. That's not our fault. That's their responsibility because it's their religion's problem. You keep telling us that we should be tolerant of all Muslims. Does that include the nuts? How are we supposed to tell who we should be tolerant of, and who we should fight, if the moderate Muslims refuse to make that distinction clear?

Isn't this fun?

Which is of course, hysterical. :lol: And the media, and quite a few respectable pundits, all stand in awe of the massive turnaround since 2008.

Fox has a car chase on right now...carry on. Re-read my 5 sentences and don't be a turd. I am not defending his post, but I am defending his right to say it, without being called a bigot. As if real bigotry can be defined by a message board post.

I was waiting for you to nail that. But, I expected the hammer. What, are you busy today?