Fishy liberals

[Fore2213]

ooooo, grow up?? Took you that long to come up with that?? Trust me darlin, in my line of work, you dont want to debate politics with me...you wouldnt last 5 seconds. My little knicknames got you going....that was my intention!!!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE for hilary to win the Presidency.....you know it, i know it.... everone does. Honestly, between now and the 08 election she will pick up ZERO voters. You either love her now or you never will. Go on Google and do some research, look at her numbers.....what does your gut tell you? You want her to win, but then you realize.....wait, she really cant. Remember.....people didnt vote for Kerry because they liked Kerry.....people dont like her in general. And Bush wont be there in 08 (too bad) for her to lean on and play the blame game. I figured out why democrats are so against the NRA and gun laws. They shoot themselves in the foot on such a regular basis, they figure they will be better off without guns. Hilary has a BOATLOAD of baggage that will be brought to light over the next few years...i wouldnt be surprised if she drops out at some point when this info surfaces. I cant wait to watch it and see her crumble.....like i said, Edwards will win the nom.....he has the least baggage (although that "2 Americas" house he has wont help things)

Osama Obama...for crying out loud...grow up. If you want to discuss politics discuss it with some knowledge and some self-respect. Pepsi Pelosi---it truly okay of you have issues with females being in chargefaint: )....just get used to it...because she is not the first female who is gonna wipe the floor with the with members of the opposite party.

By the way Tampsguys---love the cartoon....I was just debating this very subject with some classmates in my Diversity class!!!

 

[Fore2213]

See my previous post on Romney.......as far as Giuliani (that spelling ok?) he wont win so that doesnt matter. Why is it that everytime i make a statement online that includes a spelling error (im a fast typer)...my facts are ignored and the only complaint is that i made a spelling error, thats just so funny. As much as i would like to see certain people win the Republican nomination....the eventual nominee most likley hasnt even made his intentions know yet. And even if it is someone i dont approve of, id have to go with the lesser of two evils and vote for them to keep a dem (unless Liberman runs) out of the Whitehouse

Hmmmm... Let's just take a minute and see how these fellas stack up:

Jeb Bush is on record in 1995 as stating Gay rights & feminism are “modern victim movements”.
Mitt Romney (2005):"I think it's appropriate for us to indicate that we do care as a society and that marriage is a relationship preserved for a man and a woman."
John McCain has been all over the place on this issue but most recently having been seriously schooled by the wingnuts he's doing his best to placate, he disappoints us who see this as a significant civil rights issue:"Sen. John McCain said Thursday that he supports an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples." Arizona Republic August 26, 2006

Now compare that to...
Rudy Giuliani (please note correct spelling) supports civil unions and signed a generous domestic partnership bill as mayor of New York.

Now -- were I a Republican, I think I know where I'd be putting my money...

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

My little knicknames got you going....

It's Knick-knacks and Nick-names, Newby. And there is NO way calling a member of the US Senate, OSAMA is either -- instead, it is a patently offensive attempt to "Rush Limbaugh" us to death. Take your "Debating" technique to the community board and outta here, please.

 

[meeskamouska]

Your are absolutley right that I wouldn't want to debate you...I don't think that debates have anything to do with name calling and everything to do with being able to state your arugments with a modicum of respect. And actually my respone of "growing up" didn't take me long at all....I was aware by your tones and comments that your male hormone driven antics weren't far off from those reaching puberty, DARLIN'.

 

[Fore2213]

wow, what a bore you are. Bet you love waking up to that image in the mirror every day.......yikes. Didnt know id be debating 5 year olds in here. Honestly, if you cant run with the big dogs, you better stay on the porch.

Your are absolutley right that I wouldn't want to debate you...I don't think that debates have anything to do with name calling and everything to do with being able to state your arugments with a modicum of respect. And actually my respone of "growing up" didn't take me long at all....I was aware by your tones and comments that your male hormone driven antics weren't far off from those reaching puberty, DARLIN'.

 

[Fore2213]

But if someone has something bad to say about President Bush, you dont have a problem right??? Whats the "H" word for people like that??

It's Knick-knacks and Nick-names, Newby. And there is NO way calling a member of the US Senate, OSAMA is either -- instead, it is a patently offensive attempt to "Rush Limbaugh" us to death. Take your "Debating" technique to the community board and outta here, please.

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

But if someone has something bad to say about President Bush, you dont have a problem right??? Whats the "H" word for people like that??

"H" word????
Hmmmm..."Huggable" perhaps? My Grandkids would tell you I'm all about the hugs... "Happy" maybe? I AM pretty comfy in this old skin of mine... but naahhhh -- I don't think that's it -- context is all wrong.

"Humanist" -- ahhh...now we're gettin' somewhere -- I'm thinkin' Mr. Fore might think that's a perjorative (Mr. F, FYI --That kinda means sumthin' like a cuss word). But I'll just bet the word Mr. Fore doesn't want to take a chance spelling is "Hypocrite"

So sorry, Mr. Fore -- Cannot oblige. My conscience is 100% clear -- have never called the president any uncomplimentary names. Name-calling only brings heat to an argument; not light.

This board was never meant to be a "debate" board (intelligent, reasoned, discussion: yes / hostile, demeaning tirades: no). IMHO, I think you owe Meeska and others here an apology for barging in, calling people names, and generally behaving**** badly.
----------
**** Significant distinction here -- You, the person, are probably a fine fella -- I bet you go to church, pay your taxes, work hard, and help out folks who need a hand. Your behavior, here in this thread, not so stellar... Think about it, please.

 

[OrlandoMike]

Fore2213 is a troll from the Community forum, ignore him, and hopefull he will go away.

This is a guy who requested a new server at an EPCOT restaurant because his current server was obviously gay!

 

[hmp2z]

I have the feeling a few troublemakers jumped into a thread that's not a debate thread. Tampaguys asked who was interested in attending a fundraiser for Hillary. If you're not interested, don't reply. End of story.

I, personally, am very interested. That woman ROCKS!

Cheers!
Heather W

 

[Fore2213]

I didnt know I was famous!!!!!! Thankyou for reading my previous material!!!

Fore2213 is a troll from the Community forum, ignore him, and hopefull he will go away.

This is a guy who requested a new server at an EPCOT restaurant because his current server was obviously gay!

 

[Fore2213]

No need to think about it.......im on solid ground here. Nice post though....extremely off base, but a nice post none-the-less!!!!

"H" word????
Hmmmm..."Huggable" perhaps? My Grandkids would tell you I'm all about the hugs... "Happy" maybe? I AM pretty comfy in this old skin of mine... but naahhhh -- I don't think that's it -- context is all wrong.

"Humanist" -- ahhh...now we're gettin' somewhere -- I'm thinkin' Mr. Fore might think that's a perjorative (Mr. F, FYI --That kinda means sumthin' like a cuss word). But I'll just bet the word Mr. Fore doesn't want to take a chance spelling is "Hypocrite"

So sorry, Mr. Fore -- Cannot oblige. My conscience is 100% clear -- have never called the president any uncomplimentary names. Name-calling only brings heat to an argument; not light.

This board was never meant to be a "debate" board (intelligent, reasoned, discussion: yes / hostile, demeaning tirades: no). IMHO, I think you owe Meeska and others here an apology for barging in, calling people names, and generally behaving**** badly.
----------
**** Significant distinction here -- You, the person, are probably a fine fella -- I bet you go to church, pay your taxes, work hard, and help out folks who need a hand. Your behavior, here in this thread, not so stellar... Think about it, please.

 

[wallyb]

Fore2213 is a troll from the Community forum, ignore him, and hopefull he will go away.

This is a guy who requested a new server at an EPCOT restaurant because his current server was obviously gay!

As I thought from his "superior" debating skills of name calling and mocking.
Jeb's got a good team mate here! Good luck with that.

Thanks for "shedding the light"

 

[Psychometrika]

Talk about buying into the media hype. I can't believe anyone with any sense could honestly say Fox has no agenda. Of course they do. It's interesting that this so-called "liberal" media has failed to pick up on at least a half dozen illegal Bush activities over the past 6 years including the reports two months BEFORE Iraq that saw the Bush regime ask the British intelligence to falsify reports of WMD in order to have a smoking gun. It wasn't BAD intelligence, it was FAKE intelligence. It wasn't the fault of our intelligence agencies, it was the fault of its creator - the administration. Didn't see it on Fox. Didn't see it on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. etc. but heard it on NPR.

Are there liberals in the media? Of course, and lot's of them. Are there conservatives in the media? Of course, and too many of them. What is so ironic is the only people who tend to whine about the great liberal media conspiracy are the conservatives. How many more paranoid, drug addict Rush Limbaughs do we need before someone challenges the nonsense of a monolithic "liberal" media. There is actually a media study underway, where subjects watch news stories read by non TV people but using the verbatim transcripts from network stories. Thusfar, from what I understand, the conservatives see conspiracies about liberal media while liberals tend to see the stories as overly conservative. Seems it is the viewer as much as the newsreader who is to blame, as it were.