pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) OK I see what you're problem is. Blindness. I highlighted connerifically. My problem is blindness. I do love how people that generally agree with the right side of the aisle have a hard time with someone saying that all of the rhetoric needs to be toned down. It's quite pathetic. Blaming anybody except the psycho who did it is the same as blaming the Beach Boys and Terry Melcher for Manson and the Tate-La Bianca murders. Totally agree. People should be 100% blame the guy who did this. The fact that you "found it disgusting all along" but chose now to display your disgust is well.....rather disgusting. Sorry, I should post everything I disagree with online. Edited January 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Sorry, I should post everything I disagree with it online. Well let's see, you've posted 2,757 times here on PPP but didn't feel it was worth posting about something that disgusts you (political [that would be the first P in PPP] rhetoric) until everyone was pointing their fingers at the right for this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well let's see, you've posted 2,757 times here on PPP but didn't feel it was worth posting about something that disgusts you (political [that would be the first P in PPP] rhetoric) until everyone was pointing their fingers at the right for this incident. Well Chef. For you I will clearly state AGAIN that I feel as though the rhetoric that is coming from BOTH sides of the aisle is ridiculous. I HAVE felt that way for a LONG TIME NOW. I felt that way when people were saying that Bush should be hung, etc. I felt that way when people were stating Obama was Hitler, etc. I felt that way when people mention weapons in their statements, etc. How is that? Do you feel better now? Now answer this.. do YOU feel as though things need to be toned back? Civil discourse is something that both sides of the aisle and their supporters should strive for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I do love how people that generally agree with the right side of the aisle have a hard time with someone saying that all of the rhetoric needs to be toned down. We've been talking all morning how the rhetoric has nothing to do with the killings. But every time we say that, you come back with some generic, mindless comment like "So you don't think we should tone down the rhetoric?" It's like trying to have a discussion with a mop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) We've been talking all morning how the rhetoric has nothing to do with the killings. But every time we say that, you come back with some generic, mindless comment like "So you don't think we should tone down the rhetoric?" It's like trying to have a discussion with a mop. And I have been agreeing with that fact. How is it mindless to ask the question? I'm not allowed to ask such a question? I love the seeing the same response over and over again... this incident is not related, etc. By the way has the shooter stated why he opened fire yet? Edited January 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well Chef. For you I will clearly state AGAIN that I feel as though the rhetoric that is coming from BOTH sides of the aisle is ridiculous. I HAVE felt that way for a LONG TIME NOW. I felt that way when people were saying that Bush should be hung, etc. I felt that way when people were stating Obama was Hitler, etc. I felt that way when people mention weapons in their statements, etc. How is that? Do you feel better now? Now answer this.. do YOU feel as though things need to be toned back? Civil discourse is something that both sides of the aisle and their supporters should strive for? No I don't feel better. Why is it you didn't feel compelled to say anything about the attacks on Bush? Oh that's right you're a partisan hack. And do I feel the rhetoric should be toned down? !@#$ no! I'm an adult and feel that people can say whatever they like. If people can't process that as rhetoric that's their problem not mine. I think the Limbaugh's, Beck's, Gibson's, Olbermann's, Madow's of the world are a bunch of mindless blowhards that realized you can make a lot of money being a mindless blowhard. And I have been agreeing with that fact. How is it mindless to ask the question? I'm not allowed to ask such a question? I love the seeing the same response over and over again... this incident is not related, etc. By the way has the shooter stated why he opened fire yet? He hasn't said why but it's my opinion she hurt the nutball's feelings when she didn't answer his question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) No I don't feel better. Why is it you didn't feel compelled to say anything about the attacks on Bush? Oh that's right you're a partisan hack. And do I feel the rhetoric should be toned down? !@#$ no! I'm an adult and feel that people can say whatever they like. If people can't process that as rhetoric that's their problem not mine. I think the Limbaugh's, Beck's, Gibson's, Olbermann's, Madow's of the world are a bunch of mindless blowhards that realized you can make a lot of money being a mindless blowhard. He hasn't said why but it's my opinion she hurt the nutball's feelings when she didn't answer his question. Here we go, I am a partisan hack because I didn't mention during the 8 years Bush was in office that I did not like the signs being displayed about him. As stated, before I didn't and I should have. Ok, so you are an adult and we think you can understand that statements are just that... statements. However there are many people out there that can't do that. They follow every word / statement released. Sooo if we know that some people can't process the rhetoric wouldn't it be smarter, maybe a bit more responsible to tone it down. Maybe show a little class? Edited January 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Here we go, I am a partisan hack because I didn't mention during the 8 years Bush was in office that I did not like the signs being displayed about him. As stated, before I didn't and I should have. Ok, so you are an adult and we think you can understand that statements are just that... statements. However there are many people out there that can't do that. They follow every word / statement released. Sooo if we know that some people can't process the rhetoric wouldn't it be smarter, maybe a bit more responsible to tone it down. Maybe show a little class? No you're a partisan hack because I can read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No you're a partisan hack because I can read. Congratulations. And let me guess... you're independent right? HAHAHAHA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Ok, so you are an adult and we think you can understand that statements are just that... statements. However there are many people out there that can't do that. They follow every word / statement released. Sooo if we know that some people can't process the rhetoric wouldn't it be smarter, maybe a bit more responsible to tone it down. Maybe show a little class? You just spent 4-5 posts explaining that this particular incident didn't have anything to do with your wanting to tone down the rhetoric. Yet, when explaining why you want the rhetoric toned down, you very specifically cite this guy's actions as the reason. By doing so, you're inferring (or implying, I'm sure DC Tom will tell us which one it is) that the rhetoric influenced the guy, and that is why you're running into so much disagreement in here. I'm not sure why you don't understand that? You're implying a link between rhetoric and this guy's actions that doesn't appear to be backed by facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Chef have a great night. Take care, I'm done for today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Congratulations. And let me guess... you're independent right? HAHAHAHA!!! That's how I'm registered yes. What's your point? Chef have a great night. Take care, I'm done for today. Dude, you should have packed your toys and left a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) That's how I'm registered yes. What's your point? Dude, you should have packed your toys and left a long time ago. Hell I was registered as an Independent before. and packed up my toys... sorry you feel as though my question about toning back the rhetoric was childish. Edited January 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You just spent 4-5 posts explaining that this particular incident didn't have anything to do with your wanting to tone down the rhetoric. Yet, when explaining why you want the rhetoric toned down, you very specifically cite this guy's actions as the reason. By doing so, you're inferring (or implying, I'm sure DC Tom will tell us which one it is) that the rhetoric influenced the guy, and that is why you're running into so much disagreement in here. I'm not sure why you don't understand that? You're implying a link between rhetoric and this guy's actions that doesn't appear to be backed by facts. Implying. You imply to me, I infer from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Implying. You imply to me, I infer from you. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html But according to you it's a "stupid meaningless idea", so what the !@#$ does it matter? good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html But according to you it's a "stupid meaningless idea", so what the !@#$ does it matter? good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html But according to you it's a "stupid meaningless idea", so what the !@#$ does it matter? good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html But according to you it's a "stupid meaningless idea", so what the !@#$ does it matter? good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html But according to you it's a "stupid meaningless idea", so what the !@#$ does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) good to see the Boner and company have a mandate on this issue http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/poll-support-for-health-care-repeal-drops.html Hey...Rasmussen today shows the same thing. Oh, wait. No it doesn't. But it's probably because Rasmussen is totally biased. Unlike, say, an AP poll. Support for repeal of the national health care law passed last year remains steady, as most voters continue to believe the law will increase the federal budget deficit. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose repeal. Just 40% Strongly Favor repeal, matching the lowest level found since the health care bill became law. Thirty percent (30%) Strongly Oppose repeal. Edited January 18, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Hey...Rasmussen today shows the same thing. Oh, wait. No it doesn't. But it's probably because Rasmussen is totally biased. Unlike, say, an AP poll. Here's another poll on repealing it.. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Here's another poll on repealing it.. link Duelling polls. Wonderful. Just missing a banjo soundtrack. And the above linked article? All that proved to me is that most Americans are clueless idiots. Did you read that mess? How the hell is anyone supposed to derive any sort of conclusion from that nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts