pBills

:thumbsup:

Challenge me all you want. You should challenge his as well.

Fixed it for ya... my bad. Side note: What makes him stupid is that he labels people, puts words in other peoples mouths, verbally attacks... then complains "oh don't do that to me" cry, whine, sniff, pout. Pathetic.

Totally agree. However knowing that they were expecting a huge number that may have been there best option. Who knows.

Just using your strategy. "Inbred" hahaha... you're so stupid. Fixed it for ya!! Sorry I was doing other things when I wrote that. My bad.

Seriously? How is it a bad thing to hope that people will be smarter about their statements knowing full well that morons out their in society may be taking every word as if it came from the bible? So in your mind it's ok that people can demonize others, spread lies or skew the truth. All of that is fine right? You would think that people would want and expect their elected officials to act a certain way, to not demonize, etc., etc. It's sad that you don't want that because of what happened 200 years ago. History does have significance... however I am not going to base my actions on what people did 200 years ago. No way, no how. Actions should be based on what is appropriate to the here and now. Anything other than that, in my mind is just making excuses for inexcusable actions/statements. So in other words... stop making excuses and expect a higher level of discourse.

Some unions do use strength in numbers (membership) in order to reach an agreement. Sure. That being said to label all union members as thugs is stupid. I highly doubt your father received calls on a nightly basis to join or else. Give me a break. Both my parents are union members... they have NEVER said to anyone join or else. I know hundreds more union members who do not do that. So your "facts" are skewed.. no well they are just wrong. I will state again. what happened 200 years ago means absolutely nothing to what is being said today. Nothing. And to say that things shouldn't change because of back then is even dumber. Basically saying society shouldn't grow or strive to have civility because there was some lack of it back then. I do love that every Republican that is against this also says "well, they didn't use civility when Bush was in office" sniff, sniff. I have stated that I think the posters demonizing him were wrong, I also think stating Obama is this huge anti-white, non-american, socialist who is out to get you and yours is wrong as well. YET, you feel as though that is fine right. HAHAHA... cry about Bush yet it's ok to do it Obama. At least I can say I think BOTH are wrong. Granted I found it weird that people were cheering on a bit much... but at the same time. You never know what will happen when a community comes together after such violence. I don't think they should have all just sat there and cried either.

Giffords opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting. BRAVO Joe Scarborough!!

I find it funny how you can't understand the difference between someone acting out against a war vs. someone acting out because someone incited a group with a statement. There is a difference there. You understand that right? Also, did I say the anti-war movement is not political at some level? No. I do love how people try to make points by saying someone said something, when in fact they didn't. Um no that's you're dumbass statement and belief. Fact of the matter... not true. "thugocracy" nice made up word you got there Sarah. Oh but no,you didn't insinuate that unions were thugs... nooooo Last time. If you believe that the rhetoric should not be toned down. Give me a reason why... not stating things like "well, 200 years ago... it was heated so it's fine". An actual reason why politicians should not strive for civil discourse between both sides of the aisle, the tv/radio hosts and their supporters. Now don't stray from this SIMPLE question. First off... EVERY president is polarizing one way or another. Secondly, I said "All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people." That being said I NEVER claimed that the attack in Arizona was because of the political climate. Fact of the matter is that no one knows why he did it as of yet. I say now and HAVE said that the rhetoric SHOULD be toned done. Simple enough.

Show me ONE time where I said ANY union rep should as you say be a thug? ONE time. And talk about labeling every union person as a bad person. So dumb.

You know I am not going to go through year by year and say which one was worse because you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!! I put that in all caps so MAYBE it would sink into your brain. What matters is that people need to think about what they are saying before they release anything. Knowing full well that some idiot may follow their moronic words to a "T". Do you understand that? And by the way... Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected was assassinated because of that. He was openly gay. The attempt on Ronald Reagan as Hinkley said was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world,". In other words, he was crazy. Gerald Ford - one assassination was by a woman believed to be a follower of Manson (crazy) and the other by another woman who was believed to be part of some radical anti-war group. The 1968 DNC, before my time as well... again anti-war. All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people. So for you to use those as examples, well it just shows that your throwing nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. Speaking of running along... do so.

And response to that... as stated before who cares what they did 200 years ago? How is the relevant to how our society should act today? What I bolded above I agree with 110%. Unlike many people in this country, I can process the statements that are released and in no way do I hang on every word spoken by the talking heads on TV. I do not watch those programs. In the future, you should refrain from making statements like "you're leading that parade" or "you said that politics...". It makes it hard to take you seriously when you state things that aren't true. As compared to what people did 200 years ago it may not be worse. As compared to 20, 10, 8 years ago... it is worse. I do believe in civil discourse, however I also believe when someone verbally attacks... you shouldn't sit back and take it. So don't act like your innocent with the "I rarely say..." garbage.

Sorry. I never said it "reached a new low". I have always said that it needed to be toned down... that people (politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc) need to think and be smarter about the statements they release. Should I bash you for getting that wrong?

Rarely. HAHAHAHA!!! You are a dick. I have dug myself in deep by stating that politicians, tv/radio hosts, etc. should strive for civil discourse? They should be smarter about the statements they release? Wow, I can't believe someone should want that? OH MY LORD, I have dug myself in deep now. HAHAHA!!!

Nope. Thank you for the concern though.

I know that it's not a recent trend. Fact of the matter is that the strategies change every few years or in some cases every year. All depends on data and other information presented to the campaign. Now I am a dumb bastard? Ok, your experience is reading a book. My experience comes from actually working in campaigns. Your so ridiculous it's funny. It cracks me up, when someone disagrees with you.. they are lazy, dumb, etc., etc. You are a shining example of what is wrong with America. That being said, just because politics was a certain way 200 years ago or 4 years ago doesn't mean that it's right. AND it should be toned down. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

No your a dick you instantly start to call someone a lazy bastard because you read about Andrew Jackson and politics back 200 years ago. Just because people acted a certain way 200 years ago, doesn't mean it should be acceptable in today's society.

Don't be a dick. Believe me I am not just now becoming aware of it. I have worked with MANY campaigns on pretty much every level for the past 10 years. And really you are referencing Andrew Jackson? Come on.

Of course 24/7 media has it your face you troll. That goes without saying. The political game itself has become a bit more nasty.

Sad that someone is blasting her for not writing the piece. HAHAHAHA

Sorry I didn't take it as something that was only happening on the right. I definitely will not agree with you about Olberman and Garofolo (a nobody) being more hateful than Rush, et al. There all about the same to me. Just face the fact much of all their programs radio/tv are about stoking emotions. And that statement covers Olberman, Rush, Beck, etc., etc.

Why is that? Should I be worried about the masses here at PPP?

Agree, thanks for posting that twice. Stay away from redstate.com it will warp your mind.

Granted he shouldn't have stated that the shooter acted because of some sort of political statement. And let's face it, this Sheriff wasn't going to be investigating anything. That would be the FBI. I do not think he made his statement in order to gain political points. The point of his statement was very true though.

But you play one on twobillsdrive? Sorry, just had to say that.