Jump to content

Random News Observations


Recommended Posts

Of course, that's what they are paid to think. It's like 4 justices against 5 CEO's.
I'm confused, are you saying the SC justices that don't toe the Obama Koolaid drinking sheep are being bribed to rule against the constitution?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The most interesting thing about the worlds largest beaver dam is that it was discovered via Google Earth and some guy trekked out there to see it IRL and was the first person to ever set foot in that

Beware of overcharging someone. Thats the #1 lesson learned from the Zimmerman case. He was guilty of avoidable behavior that ultimately culminated in a fatality- manslaughter- but he was not guilty

You should've tried to get on the jury and convince the rest that he was not guilty.

Posted Images

of all the dumb things posted this is #1...on soooo many levels.
You misquoted me. I called Reagan an asshole, not an *******.You guys should google Gorbachev, maybe learn a thing or 2 about reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should google Russia,Gorby had no control over what happened. He was just the last man standing when it all came crashing down. Crashing down from the weight of reality hitting the make believe socialist experiment called the USSR.But if you mean he prepped the place for a complete take over by the Russian Mafia..then yes, you are right. To the Russian Mafia, he is the greatest leader any country has ever known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorby had no control over what happened.
False. And I never said Russia was awesome. The place looks, from here, like a giant hellhole, hardly any better than it was under communism. So on that point we appear to agree.
Link to post
Share on other sites
False.
So you think Gorby wanted to lose complete control over all satellite states and collapse the internal government structure while watching a few men take over all major money making businesses while the rest of the country starved?
And I never said Russia was awesome. The place looks, from here, like a giant hellhole, hardly any better than it was under communism. So on that point we appear to agree.
I had a guide tell me that she couldn't buy anything under communism, but now the stores are full and she can't afford anything.Over all though Not communist> communist unless your benchmark is cost of vodka and cigarettes
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think Gorby wanted to lose complete control over all satellite states and collapse the internal government structure while watching a few men take over all major money making businesses while the rest of the country starved?
No, I don't think that.Do you think that's what Reagan wanted?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't think that.Do you think that's what Reagan wanted?
Reagan wanted America to win.We did.Screw them other people who thought they could keep up with us.USA USA USA
Link to post
Share on other sites
You misquoted me. I called Reagan an *******, not an *******.You guys should google Gorbachev, maybe learn a thing or 2 about reality.
i miss quoted you? all i said was it was the dumbest post ever...and all you have done since then is make posts that are attempting to raise the bar on stupid. i don't have the need to quote you i can your lunatic posts.Gorbachev = good guy, ends cold war, yea RussiaReagan = *******got it - your postion is clear comrade.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i miss quoted you? all i said was it was the dumbest post ever...and all you have done since then is make posts that are attempting to raise the bar on stupid. i don't have the need to quote you i can your lunatic posts.Gorbachev = good guy, ends cold war, yea RussiaReagan = *******got it - your postion is clear comrade.
I don't know what you're doing to change my swears to asterisks in your quotes of me, or why, but it's weird. That's all I was saying. I was making a small joke, but I still find it weird that you did it again.I also never said "yea Russia." In fact I said basically the opposite.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you're doing to change my swears to asterisks in your quotes of me, or why, but it's weird. That's all I was saying. I was making a small joke, but I still find it weird that you did it again.I also never said "yea Russia." In fact I said basically the opposite.
honestly not a thing, no idea why it does that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not erring. It's the Republican's complete lack of knowledge on science and reality. Well, and their desire to see how many babies they can have born so they can feel righteous denying them health care, food and a decent education.
Gotta give you the decent education point. The teacher unions are assuring us of that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://boston.com/news/politics/articles/2.../?p1=News_links
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy spokesman, a gay man whose support for same-sex marriage infuriated social conservatives, has quit less than two weeks after he was hired, saying the intense focus on his sexuality was making it impossible for him to do his job.Richard A. Grenell, who served as the spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, announced his decision in a statement, which was first reported by the Washington Post.
Because social conservatives are just the worst. "Boooo gay marriage because...because!"
Link to post
Share on other sites
The pressure and focus was from the left....
The distaste for his support of gay marriage was from the right. Also you could at least source what you said. But that's not even the main point (if true). The main point is the other thing I just said.
Link to post
Share on other sites
> ‘Diversity is strength’This is partially true, in that a diverse population is more resilient and inventive than a homogenous one. The left is wrong that forced diversity is strength though; that just causes resentment and friction.> ‘Violence never solved anything’I'm not sure anyone actually believes this literal statement. I think it probably means "violence never permanently solved any major problems", or possibly "random mindless violence never solved any world problems", both of which are true.> ‘The living Constitution’Yeah, the left is really dumb about this.> ‘Social Darwinism’Thiis is just Godwin's Law Lite, a way of accusing the other side of genocide without actually saying it out loud. It's especially stupid in its latest context, which is the criticism of Paul Ryan's budget. Obama wants a $4.8T increase; Ryan only wants the budget to double. And the D's are claiming Social Darwinism? WTF? It's gotta be embarrassing to have to say stuff that stupid in public.> ‘Better 10 guilty men go free . . .’I mostly believe this one. There are rare cases where it is not true, but history has shown us that, by an overwhelming margin, we have more to fear from the state than from petty criminals.
Link to post
Share on other sites
> ‘Violence never solved anything’I'm not sure anyone actually believes this literal statement. I think it probably means "violence never permanently solved any major problems", or possibly "random mindless violence never solved any world problems", both of which are true.
"Despite what your mama told you violence does solve problems."-- Ryan Job, SEALFrom the book American Sniper
Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. We’re kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama — and the intellectuals and journalists who love them — often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the “reality-based community,” and if only their Republican opponents weren’t so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.
Got this far. As much as I enjoy the snarky sarcasm, he gets it wrong right off the bat. Yes, conservatism is an ideology and liberalism isn't, that's because liberalism is a "method" to governance. It seeks to try what actually works as opposed to simply following dogma regardless.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Got this far. As much as I enjoy the snarky sarcasm, he gets it wrong right off the bat. Yes, conservatism is an ideology and liberalism isn't, that's because liberalism is a "method" to governance. It seeks to try what actually works as opposed to simply following dogma regardless.
Thanks Randy, I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Link to post
Share on other sites
liberalism is a "method" to governance. It seeks to try what actually works as opposed to simply following dogma regardless.
Housing projects? Amtrak? 80's era welfare? Solyndra?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Busing, the insane war on poverty, Nickleback, Jimmy Carter, NOW, slashing military budgets, midnight basketball, Algore, Canada, banana flavoured licorice...The list can go on for ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...