www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528372
Some tidbits:
Obama should make bringing cheney and bush to trial for a myriad of criminal acts,a top priority,
author: Wiscojaydub
The Bush/Cheney administration stands on its own and should be taken to task for their arrogance and deception.
author: brucenewman, Kanuckistan
and then there's SweetBJ, recipient of the Dumb Blonde Award of the Week:
This is why your side lost, Petey. If you ever get to the point where you understand this, you'll understand that even my saying "side" here is a problem- even though you probably accept it now as an accurate descriptor you wish to strengthen.
Again, paraphrased: "There is not a red America and a blue America; not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is only The United States of America."
What part of that don't you get??
At least she sees there are sides, and we know what side this hardcore leftist is on... right BJ?
And a moment of Sanity:
Thank You President Bush for your Courage & Leadership. Thanks for standing up against terrorism--not listening or following the example of the other countries and the left at home--appeasers and white flag wavers--the ones who want to tolerate Islamic Extremism. Thanks for not bowing to liberalism and keeping America safe. True Patriotic Americans salute you!!
author: ArtistPete
11/5/08
Ignorance
This was actually a thread started on Wetcanvas debates.
Perhaps too much drinky on election night?
Barack Obama The True Conservative?
www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528161
Author: Davidm
Let's see? Obama wants to:
"spread the wealth around".
give tax breaks to 90% of Americans. Which means sending welfare checks as 40% pay not taxes.
Visit with our arch enemies without preconditions
Has plans to add $1 TRILLION in spending
Cut our cutting edge defense programs
Reagan?
Privatization.
Tax cuts
Stronger military
Roll back the commi's.
Slight difference.
Like the difference between males and females.
Perhaps too much drinky on election night?
Barack Obama The True Conservative?
www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528161
Author: Davidm
Let's see? Obama wants to:
"spread the wealth around".
give tax breaks to 90% of Americans. Which means sending welfare checks as 40% pay not taxes.
Visit with our arch enemies without preconditions
Has plans to add $1 TRILLION in spending
Cut our cutting edge defense programs
Reagan?
Privatization.
Tax cuts
Stronger military
Roll back the commi's.
Slight difference.
Like the difference between males and females.
11/4/08
Obama's Economic Illiterates
They're plentiful on WC.
There provide wondrous bits like:
No, it's an ignorance thing and Geo... you're a brilliant example.
There provide wondrous bits like:
www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=526972
it is not a partisan thing. it is a money thing.
it is a greed thing. and we are all subject to that.GeoBen, Post #15
No, it's an ignorance thing and Geo... you're a brilliant example.
3/27/08
Maryrose Taken to the Intellectual Woodshed for Another Good Thrashing
Ouch!
Honey, your ass must be really sore after this one...LOL:
This is about as close as it comes to 'fighting words' for me. You must not have read much by him to come to this conclusion. If there was a by word for 'well researched' and well considered, it would be Sowell's last name.
I've read many of his books.. to me this guy is an intellectual giant (and VERY well studied in Economics and History, two subjects which I'm have a deep interest in).
Ad hominum arguments don't suit you mary. 'Shill'? Hardly. This will have to be proven to me with very specific examples.. I'm VERY familiar with his work.. have at it
. Interesting how you take a hit piece against a conservative as proof that he is defending his 'cronies'. He must have known as well as anyone that McCain would very likely get the nomination.. if that is so, why shoot himself and the Republican party in the foot? Integrity would be the answer there. His readers expect honesty, that is all. You'll have to come up with something a tad more complicated than that.
And so what if he is to the right of center (and note his beliefs are Libertarian, not Conservative)? Is that a crime (to read your response, it would seem so, but I've never thought either side was all bad or all good!)??
I'm frequently astounded at how if a source's politics are conservative, it automatically makes all their motivations suspect. That there is no further attempt to understand and think through the implications of such statements. If this were Limbaugh, you'd have me agreeing with you.. he is fond of hypebole and takes positions which sometimes don't make a lot of sense. Sowell's positions are very consistent and very supported. After reading him for 30 years, I've come to expect the highest quality from him, and to date I've never been dissappointed.
Post #27
Click on title to open link to this quote
Honey, your ass must be really sore after this one...LOL:
Quote:
| Originally Posted by maryrose This guy is smart...and he is a political shill, willing to use any means to "destroy" the opposition. [/b] |
This is about as close as it comes to 'fighting words' for me. You must not have read much by him to come to this conclusion. If there was a by word for 'well researched' and well considered, it would be Sowell's last name.
I've read many of his books.. to me this guy is an intellectual giant (and VERY well studied in Economics and History, two subjects which I'm have a deep interest in).
Ad hominum arguments don't suit you mary. 'Shill'? Hardly. This will have to be proven to me with very specific examples.. I'm VERY familiar with his work.. have at it
. Interesting how you take a hit piece against a conservative as proof that he is defending his 'cronies'. He must have known as well as anyone that McCain would very likely get the nomination.. if that is so, why shoot himself and the Republican party in the foot? Integrity would be the answer there. His readers expect honesty, that is all. You'll have to come up with something a tad more complicated than that.And so what if he is to the right of center (and note his beliefs are Libertarian, not Conservative)? Is that a crime (to read your response, it would seem so, but I've never thought either side was all bad or all good!)??
I'm frequently astounded at how if a source's politics are conservative, it automatically makes all their motivations suspect. That there is no further attempt to understand and think through the implications of such statements. If this were Limbaugh, you'd have me agreeing with you.. he is fond of hypebole and takes positions which sometimes don't make a lot of sense. Sowell's positions are very consistent and very supported. After reading him for 30 years, I've come to expect the highest quality from him, and to date I've never been dissappointed.
Post #27
Click on title to open link to this quote
3/26/08
Guilty & Angry White Babe...SweetBJ (aka Sweetbabyj)
"Obama is too young (and Black)"
"Obama is too new (and Black)"
"Obama is a closet Muslim (and Black)"
"Obama's wife is not proud of her country (and she's Black, too!)"
"Obama is winning (and he's Black!)"
Thank gawd it's been brought out to the forefront: Barack Obama is Black. Get over it.
"Obama is too new (and Black)"
"Obama is a closet Muslim (and Black)"
"Obama's wife is not proud of her country (and she's Black, too!)"
"Obama is winning (and he's Black!)"
Thank gawd it's been brought out to the forefront: Barack Obama is Black. Get over it.
Post #214
Click on title to see quote
Hey SweetBJ color doesn't matter (we know you're fixated on it)... but racist comments do. Maybe you would like a president who uses a racist bigot as an advisor for a couple decades. I have the feeling he is your kind of Marxist.
3/25/08
SweetBJ (aka Sweetbabyj) Owner of the Funniest Quote in the Signature Section
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Her using that quote is beyond funny... but... expected because...
... She is a work of art.
Arrogant.
All knowing.
A hard leftist... pretending to be open minded.
SweetBJ is just the biggest lib pretending not to be out there.
I think she's Hillary Clinton with a turbo on the shrill meter.
To see her art go to: www.jstarrfineart.com
One question SweetBJ; why does a half eaten apple and a chick's pump balanced on a glass mean?
3/24/08
There are moments of sanity in wetdiaper world... here is one...
The following is from rjking. One of the few clear thinking sane members active in wetcanvas.com debates.
Read please:
http://www.therant.us/staff/rush/04102007.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YwZjFiYWU4YWE=
Seems like some prominent black men disagree with you.
I can't speak to those that go to the church (I'm sure many of them are just common folks just trying to get by like all of us).. but things re: Rev. Wright aren't as simple as you are making them out to be. On the authors of these pieces: Google Erik Rush for an extra dose of interest. Thomas Sowell is (to my mind) one of the prominent thinkers of our time.. to me his name is another way of saying 'honesty, integrity, critical thinking'.
I am not just following the herd. I've been researching just as you have (since I"m not one to just trust to one point of view). Right now I'm tending to think that Wright and Farrakhan share a belief system, and that sometimes he let that out on the pulpit (from how Sowell puts it, probably more than a little!).
I've never been quick to judge.. but given what I've seen Wright saying, and how some folks in the black community judge him, there is a bit of fire in the smoke.
Post #16
Click title above to access link.
Click title above to access link.
Read please:
http://www.therant.us/staff/rush/04102007.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YwZjFiYWU4YWE=
Seems like some prominent black men disagree with you.
I can't speak to those that go to the church (I'm sure many of them are just common folks just trying to get by like all of us).. but things re: Rev. Wright aren't as simple as you are making them out to be. On the authors of these pieces: Google Erik Rush for an extra dose of interest. Thomas Sowell is (to my mind) one of the prominent thinkers of our time.. to me his name is another way of saying 'honesty, integrity, critical thinking'.
I am not just following the herd. I've been researching just as you have (since I"m not one to just trust to one point of view). Right now I'm tending to think that Wright and Farrakhan share a belief system, and that sometimes he let that out on the pulpit (from how Sowell puts it, probably more than a little!).
I've never been quick to judge.. but given what I've seen Wright saying, and how some folks in the black community judge him, there is a bit of fire in the smoke.
3/22/08
Watch the Liberal... Watch the Liberal Defend Obama... Watch the Liberal Defend Wright... Watch the Liberal Defend Racism... All on Wetcanvas.com
New rules for racism defined by liberals on wetcanvas.com debates
What we learn is racist remarks can be tolerated if you have the right skin color and are put in the right "context".The following threads show those wacko libs defending the "Indefensible".
(Is it any wonder their party animal is an ass?)
Perhaps the New Democrat Party motto should be:
With the right creds, we even have tolerance... of Racist Bigots.
The new Democrat Party... Uniting, Hoping... Changing.
With the right creds, we even have tolerance... of Racist Bigots.
The new Democrat Party... Uniting, Hoping... Changing.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=483762
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=484877
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=485315
3/17/08
Maryrose (aka Venus de Milo), Model Far Left Liberal Illustrates The Fine Art of Liberal Hypocrisy
This is is too perfect.
You just couldn't script it better.
And the hypocrisy couldn't have flowed any faster.
Well, OK Elliot Spitzer did just as good a job...
...though it took him a while longer to set it all up.
PART 1
Here is Maryrose's comment about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama.
Now, I don't think Mrs. Ferraro is a racist.
Her history has no indication of it.
I think her remarks were accurate.
Maryrose thinks otherwise...
OK.
A handful of days and one arm later...
Some real racist remarks by Obama's "Spiritual Guide" of 20-years, the now famous Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
PART 2
Quote:
You just couldn't script it better.
And the hypocrisy couldn't have flowed any faster.
Well, OK Elliot Spitzer did just as good a job...
...though it took him a while longer to set it all up.
PART 1
Here is Maryrose's comment about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama.
Now, I don't think Mrs. Ferraro is a racist.
Her history has no indication of it.
I think her remarks were accurate.
Maryrose thinks otherwise...
MARCH 11, 2008
SOMEWHERE IN MASSACHUSETTS SMOKING A BONG
SOMEWHERE IN MASSACHUSETTS SMOKING A BONG
It IS race baiting...at it's ugliest.
And it is coming straight from the DEMOCRATS.
Geraldine is the treasurer of Clinton's campaign. She's not a low level staffer.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have FINALLY REALLY shamed the Democratic Party....without ANY help from the GOP.
I would cut off my arm before I voted for her/him.
And it is coming straight from the DEMOCRATS.
Geraldine is the treasurer of Clinton's campaign. She's not a low level staffer.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have FINALLY REALLY shamed the Democratic Party....without ANY help from the GOP.
I would cut off my arm before I voted for her/him.
OK.
A handful of days and one arm later...
Some real racist remarks by Obama's "Spiritual Guide" of 20-years, the now famous Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
PART 2
SOMEWHERE IN MASSACHUSETTS...
...5 DAYS LATER
THE BONG AND BRAIN ARE FULLY LOADED
WHAT WAS STATED 5 DAYS HENCE...
...IS LONG FORGOTTEN
...5 DAYS LATER
THE BONG AND BRAIN ARE FULLY LOADED
WHAT WAS STATED 5 DAYS HENCE...
...IS LONG FORGOTTEN
Quote:
Originally Posted by brynmr Obama has hung with this guy for a long time and he's gotten a free ride so far. This warrents investigation. Afterall he is running for president. |
It's all out there.
What needs investigation?
Where's the wrongdoing on Obama's part?
smoke and mirrors.
no substance.
Post #15
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=484877
What needs investigation?
Where's the wrongdoing on Obama's part?
smoke and mirrors.
no substance.
Post #15
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=484877
Interesting that Wright's comments are not racist, not only that, they have "no substance"?
I guess she couldn't bear losing her second arm.
Either that or it's really good dope she's smoking.
Just Say No.
I guess she couldn't bear losing her second arm.
Either that or it's really good dope she's smoking.
Just Say No.
3/16/08
Grasping at Straws...Squirm and Wriggle...Education Time for the Libs
I introduce McCain's latest supporter...The Reverend Rod Parsely:
Post #39
To see the original post click on the title above
Post #39
To see the original post click on the title above
Oh yes, please do Maryrose, but before you and your minions get too excited... please note
There is a difference between "supporter" and "Spiritual Guide" for 20-Years.
Farrakhan is an Obama supporter. He's denounced him.
Wright is a "Spiritual Guide". His light, someone he consulted and consults with for a couple decades.
Notice a difference?
OK. A test. Replace Obama with George Bush, have the same incendiary rhetoric, and let's see how tolerant you libs would be. Would you think Bush would still be called a "uniter"? Someone who could bring "Hope" or positive "Change". No you wouldn't, in fact, remember Gov. Macaca? Trent Lott? One slip by republican and it's adios.
3/15/08
Typically Lib... Blame it on someone else
So much good stuff generated while I was away...
The lead off hitter is txrembrandt...
The democrats got McCain elected (he even thanked them in his victory speech... just watch the first 01:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqBCFw4CI8), but playing to win isn't allowed? Even when the rules allow it?
We are responsible for the sorry way your party runs its races?
Hey TEX, did we also screw up the MI and FL primaries too?
LOL
Your party helped elect our liberal candidate, we're going to help you select yours.
Grow up, take responsibility for your own rules.
The lead off hitter is txrembrandt...
What is happening is exactly what the Rush Limbaugh crowd wanted when he encouraged the people (GOP) to vote for Hillary in Texas. He wanted Hillary to stay in the race and cause mayhem and drag out the race to cause more of this back and forth slander. It's typical of the publicans, their deceit and sorry ways of doing things. They don't care about integrity and fair play.....no such thing to them, its all about winning no matter what it takes.
Post #11
Post #11
Click on the title to get the wetcanvas link to this bit of genius
The democrats got McCain elected (he even thanked them in his victory speech... just watch the first 01:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqBCFw4CI8), but playing to win isn't allowed? Even when the rules allow it?
We are responsible for the sorry way your party runs its races?
Hey TEX, did we also screw up the MI and FL primaries too?
LOL
Your party helped elect our liberal candidate, we're going to help you select yours.
Grow up, take responsibility for your own rules.
3/14/08
Educating Maryrose: Vissi on a Role
Yes. Her gender. As per Ferraro herself.
And no candidate 'puts themself' into political office. They're selected.
If Democrats were really that outraged over racism, bigots like Byrd would never have been selected.
This crap with Ferraro is just more persecution rhetoric from the party that sweepingly refers to US soldiers as Pol Pot's and Stalins and believes that women are too stupid to navigate a science program without federal support. Democrats have zero credibility in these rants given their dismal view of the chance of minorities to successfully carve out a life and their proclivity to exist in a world of perpetrators and victims.
Post #78
To see the original post, and a lot of Liberal gum flapping, click on the Title
1/18/08
Ignorant, Hypocritical, Cheap and Pissed Off
A funny thread chalk full of offended libs trying to defend their record of giving.
The Myth of Liberals being generous
Rockchuk
Post #1
Just caught a 20/20 special called 'Cheap in America". They stated something I've seen for a long time with a lot of my liberal friends...that they are generally cheaper and less generous than conservatives are.
Here are some facts they presented:
*- Conservatives give 30% more than liberals do....even though they make less money per capita
*- 24 of the 25 most generous states are 'Red States' (those who vote Republican)
*- Religious people give 4 times as much than non-religious people do....and this is to all charities, not just their church
*- Middle class is the least generous. The most generous class is the working poor, the 2nd is the Rich
*- Conservatives even give 18% more blood than liberals.
1/17/08
SweetBJ Finally Admits Her Ignorance
Post #83
Canada's program, which I admit to not having a thorough understanding of...
From what I can tell, Canada's *government* doesn't get involved in healthcare issues, they just handle the money. It'd be nice if our government could do the same thing.
Another admission of being a hardcore lib. Government should handle our money (manage our lives)... but it gets better:
After years of being an unapologetic aggressive mouthpiece for socialized medicine, this is an amazing admission. One drink too many? Eating your pastels?
Psssssssssst. Read the below BJ.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/1/54?ct
Canada's program, which I admit to not having a thorough understanding of...
From what I can tell, Canada's *government* doesn't get involved in healthcare issues, they just handle the money. It'd be nice if our government could do the same thing.
Another admission of being a hardcore lib. Government should handle our money (manage our lives)... but it gets better:
After years of being an unapologetic aggressive mouthpiece for socialized medicine, this is an amazing admission. One drink too many? Eating your pastels?
Psssssssssst. Read the below BJ.
One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.
On June 9, 2005, the (Kanuckistan Supreme) court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.
The ruling has impact only on Quebec,...
No BJ, the government monopoly only handles the money, rations care, tells you what you can and cannot have. No involvement there...
1/16/08
Wet Diapers Definition of Troll
Is zimmer still here?
Trolling?
LOL :O
MrOsborne Quote:
"a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community" - courtesy wikipedia Well that really clears things up. What is derogatory to one is not to another. What is sensitive to one, is worth exploring to another. Are not all posts intentional?
All this zimmer talk has me wondering; was zimmer a troll or someone who brought up topics to debate? Did zimmer use derogatory language? Did zimmer require sensitivity training and if so of what kind, and why? If he or she qualified for all these troll type aspects, could they also be turned on others here? Those 180 degrees from zimmer's views? And if not, why not? Did zimmer do anything as tasteless (my definition; perhaps qualifying under "intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory posts about sensitive topics..." wikipedia's troll definition) as posting the lists of dead soldiers on this site? If so, what was it? Just one simple example so I and everyone here knows where the line is.
I don't know if zimmer is still here, but people speak of him or her being resurrected. If zimmer was banished, can anyone say why? SweetBaby 5-Star J? You seem to know all, how about a crack at it?
1/15/08
The Grand Trifect Kills the "Fairy Tale"
Wet Diaper Socialists fear demise of their party due to the Racist Feces Flinging Festival.
This of course began from the smartest woman in the world?
From party leaders (ex-president and Senatorette) and a party that attacks Republicans as racist.
They say stuff comes in 3's. That's quite the Trifecta don't you think?
Sorry, no cooling it now.
The cat is out of the bag, and it was the smartest woman in the world that just didn't let the cat out of the bag but opened door for the world to see.
Just think if a Republican had come close to saying any of this?!!!!!!!!
The Thermonuclear Socialist Press would have exploded.
This of course began from the smartest woman in the world?
From party leaders (ex-president and Senatorette) and a party that attacks Republicans as racist.
From the Clinton's" "Spade work", Obama's "Fairy Tale", and the Dr. King thing.http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470660
Posts 1 through 3
They are touting exactly what I was saying all along. The race thing is hurting them both and the party so both want to cool the issue and return to the issues that confront this country. I was right about the devisiveness and it being a negative to both and the party.
Hillary also said that they were family and are together in their battle agains't the GOP. Amen!
WHEW! They were turning into a couple of nimrods and even had some pundits declaring the demise of the Democratic party due to their pettiness.
They say stuff comes in 3's. That's quite the Trifecta don't you think?
Sorry, no cooling it now.
The cat is out of the bag, and it was the smartest woman in the world that just didn't let the cat out of the bag but opened door for the world to see.
Just think if a Republican had come close to saying any of this?!!!!!!!!
The Thermonuclear Socialist Press would have exploded.
1/14/08
It's the txrembrandt Shooooooooooooow!
This guy delivers some of the best material, and is currently the unadulterated leader of the Socialist Bloc on Wet Diaper World... So today he's been elevated from 3rd place to the #1 spot on the list of Leading Wet Diaper's Socialists.
Why is she nasty? Her entire history and demeanor is filled with nastiness, but as they say, love is blind.
As for "big business"... Hey Dimwit: Check out post #3 on the link below on Socialist Underground. Look who is leading the pack? LOL :O
Obama & Clinton raising millions from big business
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4045549#4045562
No, no big business connection with the Clinton's. LOL :O
Only Communist Chinese money in 96 and today.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threaded=470660
Page 18
Post #256
Why is she (Hillary) nasty? I havn't seen anything in her past to warant such accusations. If she cantinues the status quo then I'd be really disappointed with her, but if she halts the Publican big business agenda of rolling over the public on their way to the bank, then I'm all for her.
Why is she nasty? Her entire history and demeanor is filled with nastiness, but as they say, love is blind.
As for "big business"... Hey Dimwit: Check out post #3 on the link below on Socialist Underground. Look who is leading the pack? LOL :O
Obama & Clinton raising millions from big business
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4045549#4045562
No, no big business connection with the Clinton's. LOL :O
Only Communist Chinese money in 96 and today.
1/13/08
Spoken like a truly ignorant hardcore socialist
The title is redundant... I know.
Socialist = ignorant.
Hardcore = hopelessly ignorant.
Socialist = ignorant.
Hardcore = hopelessly ignorant.
http://wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470099
txrembrandt
Post #7
PS.
The top 1% pay 39% of the taxes.
The top 25% pay 86% of the taxes.
The Top 50% pay 97% of the taxes.
Remember... Democrats vote on the first Wednesday in November.
Post #7
It's not about whos being taxed but who ISN'T being taxed thats the problem and thats the super rich in this country.
PS.
The top 1% pay 39% of the taxes.
The top 25% pay 86% of the taxes.
The Top 50% pay 97% of the taxes.
In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.We need tax relief across the board, we need the pigs in Washington to stop thieving our money, and we need morons like you to start understanding basic truths.
Remember... Democrats vote on the first Wednesday in November.
1/12/08
A Wet Diaper Fuehrerette Lays Down the Law
katsarekool
Post #962
Vissi, I guess your done in this topic. You have nothing concrete to add to this topic besides a bunch of blithering nonsense that few are interested in reading anymore. Your posts change nothing. The majority here do not like Bush and Cheney and would like them out of the White House. How does it feel to be out of the loop?
Ah, the brilliant katsarekool lays down Wet Diaper Law on a right leaning poster. When the swarm of libs have had enough. Yavohl!!!!!
Then she states the obvious. They hate Bush. (Noooooooooo?!!)
Hey kats... Psssst... I think right leaning folks love being out of your and "the swarm's" "loop". We enjoy providing space cadets like you the education you were denied.
One day it might sink in.
We're not expecting it will...
...Only hoping.
1/11/08
How Blind?
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468069&page=11
GeoBen
Post #165i was a Hillary supporter myself for years. I was one of the disappointed liberals that wished SHE were president and her husband were first spouse. But... her drive to the WH has seemed to change her, personally (she seems far less likable) as well as politically. I cannot believe that she never simply acknowledged that whe was duped by a lieing president and the public pressure after 9/11 to support this war and withdraw that support.
Just about pissed myself laughing reading this passage.
That's the value of Wet Diapers Debates. It's chock full of winners like this.
1. Hillary did say she was duped by W.
2. She did withdraw support. She's been all over the issue as Bill was all over Ms. Flowers.
3. Hillary hasn't changed. She's the same rabid character as she was back in Arkansas.
She'll do anything to win. She'll play any and all cards.
That's the value of Wet Diapers Debates. It's chock full of winners like this.
1. Hillary did say she was duped by W.
2. She did withdraw support. She's been all over the issue as Bill was all over Ms. Flowers.
3. Hillary hasn't changed. She's the same rabid character as she was back in Arkansas.
She'll do anything to win. She'll play any and all cards.
1/10/08
Revealing SweetBabyj: A Lib in Denial
She's the Hillary Clinton of Wet Diaper's Debates.
Like Hillary and all things socialist, the moniker she uses betrays her real self.
There's little "Sweet" in SweetBabyj.
The following is one-stop-shopping reveals Sweetbj's core.
Like a snail on a cool summer morning, she's left a long trail of her liberal ways.
Like Hillary and all things socialist, the moniker she uses betrays her real self.
There's little "Sweet" in SweetBabyj.
The following is one-stop-shopping reveals Sweetbj's core.
Like a snail on a cool summer morning, she's left a long trail of her liberal ways.
Quote:
I've been labeled by a few folks here as a liberal, but, surprise! I want to support McCain; he just seems to match up the best of any of 'em, so far- not perfect, but better than anyone else. Why not do a scorecard?Quote:
-He is not clear on abortion. First he says he recognizes legal abortion is necessary, then he says he doesn't support Roe v Wade. Which is it? I cannot vote for someone who does not support a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child. Fundamental platform of a liberal is the right to choose death for an unborn child.Quote:
-I don't mind he's pushing nuclear technologies; despite its boogie-man reputation, nuclear energy is clean, safe and cheaper than foreign oil in the long run. However, I'm less crazy about his connections with a consortium which advocates coal use; I'd want to make sure such a push would involve heavy anti-pollution controls. Nukes; right leaning. Coal; fear of a consortium? Translation; fear of big business. Pollution; nobody is for pollution, but the key word is "heavy". Leftward leaning on 2 of 3.Quote:
-I'd prefer he be FOR gay marriage- A pillar of the far left.Quote:
-I'm okay with his stance on crime, but his far too aggressive stance on 'illegal drugs' is worrisome IF he has to copromise his idea to go after the cartels outside the US, and instead targets dealers and users inside the US. I'd prefer, of course, a huge overhaul of our present drug classification, but why hold my breath? Overhauling drug laws; Could be libertarian or left wing.Quote:
-He's for stem cell research- gets an A-OK from me. What kind? I'll put you in the anything goes camp and slap another liberal point on the card.Quote:
-He's against universal healthcare- that's a concern for me. Another bit of big government control. Certainly liberal.Quote:
-His education record is mixed, but hell, he hopefully can't screw that up anymore than it is already, so, I can suck it up. Confusion about the Kennedy supported bill. Draw.Quote:
-I'm pleased he stood up against the torture of POWs, And then admitted the law might have to be broken. POW's? I call them terrorists, and they don't deserve Geneva Convention protections. Lib point.Quote:
and can only hope he's enough of a hawk to not let the Iraq war drag on and on. Here he has been clear. He'll fight the fight. You score another lib point for wanting him to cut-and-run.Quote:
If I had to choose just one of the present candidates from either party to 'lead the war', I'd take McCain because I trust him to listen to his generals even when they tell him something he doesn't like. Seems Bush has done likewise.Quote:
-His unswerving support for Israel is honorable, but perhaps not feasible. Zing. Another point.Quote:
Palestine and Hezbollah have legitimate gripes, no matter their tendency to whinge about them by blowing up marketplaces; Israel isn't more pure-as-driven-snow in the deal. Another like the other.Quote:
-I also like many of his ideas for campaign finance reform, A liberal move if I ever saw one. Restricting free speech. Add a point.Quote:
I'm all for gun control Liberal point
And you're not a liberal? Come, come, don't be afraid to identify yourself as one.
As for McCain, he is no conservative. He's only modestly further right than Lieberman and he is a liberal with a big L. McCain the RINO. Lieberman the Liberal. I'd say you're like Joe except you don't support the Iraq war and Joe does.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUzOGY0ODA1YzBmNjFhOWE5NWU0OTY5NTZiOGNhOGQ=
The Real John McCain:
1/9/08
Only Conservative are "Trolls" in Wet Diaper World
Grainne takes on the definition of "troll"
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=431845&page=2
Post #29
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=431845&page=2
Post #29
Quote:
slan agat
geo.
Go raibh mÃle maith agat
Well, there you go . . . looks like a shoe that could fit many feet, especially anyone well into the thick of a heated argument!Quote:
I have read in this forum for a long time, only intrepid enough to post on rare occasion.
I have read the posts of atomicbong, backinblack and golfarch, zimmer, etc., as well as all the other denizens of this "established online community," to quote Geo. So I understood who Zimmer was; I just didn't understand the animus usually directed against him, and especially the reference to troll behaviour as it is explained by Geo.
After all, without dissenting opinion there would be no debate
Never could understand why he would be banned and others still be free to roam at will, especially when so many seemed to miss his company when he was goneQuote:
"The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react" -
nah, that doesn't seem to fit . . . as he seems too committed to his point of view, as are we all, to merely be "in it for the thrill" of causing a reaction. . .
They're very tolerant you see... of leftists.
1/8/08
67% of Wet Diapers Find Bush More Dangerous Than Al Qaeda
Of course these folks couldn't be libs.
Or suffering from dementia.
They surely reinforce the ancient notion of artists being mentally instable.
Or suffering from dementia.
They surely reinforce the ancient notion of artists being mentally instable.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=429234
SOME OF THE WACKED-OUT COMMENTARY
katsarekool
post #17
Tommy, I admit I am pleased at the results of this poll. Even though this is a small group of people; the poll results are startling and does speak volumes. I am very appreciative that you started this thread.
brynmr in response to the dimwit above:
Post #22
I'm suprised but pleased. More sane people here than I thought.
katsarekool
post #54
Wow! 70 percent fear GW Bush more than Al Queda. This surprises me.
(Not me. I know you people.)
TWC44 post #87
thewartedtool
You must truly live in some kind of delusional world.thwartedtool called "the-warted-tool"... no name calling here...
was he banned? LOL :O
There is some sanity amongst the morons.
Midwest Painter Post #64
Bush did not cause this. Wake the f*ck up.
List of Islamic Terror Attacks Around the World For the Past 30 Days
Date Country City Killed Injured DescriptionFOR THE LIST SEE POST #64
1/7/08
EVIDENCE! Drugs and keyboards don't mix
The Pukeicans and their lemmings like to downplay the Gobal warming thing because thats what big business tells them.
Translation:
Pukeicans = Republicans. I think. During Clinton's reign no democrat voted for Kyoto (see bottom of this post). Sounds like they qualify too... on this issue. But you know most libs (Lieberman excluded), they'll do anything to win. Hell, they VOTED TWICE TO SEND OUR TROOPS INTO HARMS WAY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A VOTE GETTER.
Gobal Warming thing = Global Warming (Have to ask him about the use of "thing"; an appendage perhaps?)
Pssssssssssssssst... txrembrandt,
I didn't get my memo from big business this month. Is it in the mail?
Do you get one? You seem to know all about big business.
Tell me, which biggies are out there telling us what is what?
You know, spewing propaganda?
Really... I'd like to be in the know. Y'know.
Post it here, or on Wet Diapers Debates.
Last I knew the big propagandists were CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, and the like.
"NO!" you say? Why then have they swallowed the Gobble Warming propaganda like a porn star and spew the end product all over us?
And Hey!
Keep the pipe to yourself and stay away from my kids.
Pukeicans = Republicans. I think. During Clinton's reign no democrat voted for Kyoto (see bottom of this post). Sounds like they qualify too... on this issue. But you know most libs (Lieberman excluded), they'll do anything to win. Hell, they VOTED TWICE TO SEND OUR TROOPS INTO HARMS WAY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A VOTE GETTER.
Gobal Warming thing = Global Warming (Have to ask him about the use of "thing"; an appendage perhaps?)
Pssssssssssssssst... txrembrandt,
I didn't get my memo from big business this month. Is it in the mail?
Do you get one? You seem to know all about big business.
Tell me, which biggies are out there telling us what is what?
You know, spewing propaganda?
Really... I'd like to be in the know. Y'know.
Post it here, or on Wet Diapers Debates.
Last I knew the big propagandists were CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, and the like.
"NO!" you say? Why then have they swallowed the Gobble Warming propaganda like a porn star and spew the end product all over us?
And Hey!
Keep the pipe to yourself and stay away from my kids.
Midwest Painter
Post #23
Post #23
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[67] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
1/6/08
"May dung and piss accompany him in the grave."
He should be executed too!!!
Saddam? Osama?
No! Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Just your typical wetcanvas lib "trolling".
Oops! Sorry... Libs on Wet Diapers Debates aren't "trolls".
They're deep thinkers.
LOL :O
Saddam? Osama?
No! Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Just your typical wetcanvas lib "trolling".
Oops! Sorry... Libs on Wet Diapers Debates aren't "trolls".
They're deep thinkers.
LOL :O
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441574
iii
Post #2
The real pity is that he wasn't arrested, tried, and executed for treason along with the other occupants of the White House.
May dung and piss accompany him in the grave.
canvisishome
Post #5
Thwart,
Yep, I agree. The "Debate" forum has degenerated into a real area of classlessness. Disgusting responses such as above (not yours, but iii's) are, of course, anybody's perogative to spew forth. They are also the reason I choose not to play any further in this sandbox. You can have it in spades, people.
Musket (MODERATOR, Socialist-NH)
Post #6
Oh come off it. Go ahead, take your ball and go home, but stop implying that all us alleged liberals are responsible for everything any individual WC member may have to say here.
You don't like a particular member's 'tude? Put him or her on ignore.
canvisishome
Post #7
Who the hell said anything about 'liberal or conservative' here? That's your doing. All I said was the response (IMO) was disgusting, and this "Debates" forum is becoming a wasteland of bickering and personal attacks.
Musket (MODERATOR, Socialist-NH)
Post #8
There's plenty more than that going on in this forum. I'm sorry if you can't see it. Leave if you want to, but don't expect me to take your dissing of the entire forum lying down.
Funny the Socialits Moderators NEVER showed this tolerance when I needled the Wet Diaper Liberals about the hilarity of their views.
And I'd been the recipient of personal shots on a constant basis.
Wet Diaper Debates Bias?
Nahhh.
LOL :O
And I'd been the recipient of personal shots on a constant basis.
Wet Diaper Debates Bias?
Nahhh.
LOL :O
1/5/08
Why Libs Hate Labels
Quote:
Actually, tt(?), that's total ****ola! You use your political labeling very liberally There are a lot of liberals here, so the "very liberally" application to the term liberal is correct. And accurate. If you support liberal programs, views on national security, intrusions and liberal legislation, what are you other than a liberal? Be proud, stand up, be counted.Quote:
If you actually listened to half the people you call libbielefists, you'd see that "one size" just doesn't fit all...or even many. Dogs come in all shapes and sizes; you may want to have the breed specified, but there is no need to go into that much detail. Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, conservatives are conservatives, and liberals are liberals. There aren't many here on both sides of the fence; a couple, but only a couple as far as I can tell.Quote:
You have shown me how incredibly ignorant it is. Labels aren't about ignorance; just the opposite. If it quacks and waddles it's most likely a duck. There is a lot of quaking and waddling here. That's fine, don't be ashamed of it.
Cheney? The guy is brilliant. We need more men like him; not the finger in the wind, where does the wind blow today politicians. Let's have people stand up and say what they mean. He does. Most liberals don't. They connive about who they are, and as Hillary, a liberal if there ever was one, just illustrated, she has to run from the liberal term and adopt one of the code words; "progressive". Doing exactly what George Clooney condemned; being spineless about being identified as a liberal.
1/3/08
Educating a Lib (and shutting 'em up in the process) About Potential Horrors
golfarch
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3045857#post3045857
Post #29
Musket,
You must think I'm an idiot...I never said anything about physical destruction. Didn't a few well placed planes created havoc economically world wide. WMD comes in many forms...a few packets did a memorable job in the Tokyo subways...
In a paper by the German Health Ministry (one that Herr Schroeder buried during the last election because it didn't conform to his anti-war campaign) the combination of WMD and economic catastrophe is quite obvious:
[quote]Bonn, 9 August 2002
German Health Ministry
[. . .]
The immediate procurement of [funds] for immunization against smallpox is needed immediately for the following reasons:
1. The Risk of an Attack
The international situation as perceived by our intelligence services indicates a heightened increase in the danger [of an attack]. German intelligence services have documented evidence that shows that smallpox is stored illegally outside of the official laboratories in Atlanta and Koltsovo, for example in Russia, Iraq and North Korea. There are also indications that terrorist groups seek to produce biological weapons. Because of the extremely contagious nature of the virus and the mobility of the world population, an attack [with such weapons] anywhere in the world poses an extraordinary danger for Germany as well. Signs of a possible US attack on Iraq are accumulating. It is possible that Iraq may react to such an attack with biological weapons, including smallpox, within its possession.
[Then the report details the possible disaster that could result from a smallpox attack -- up to 25 million German casualties -- and the lack of German preparedness in this area when compared with the US and Israel.][/QUOTE]
25 million casualties in Germany alone.
If it is only 10% of their forecast... 2.5 million, there is a significant economic impact...No?
Tell me, how is the Bush administration playing into his the terrorists hands? How do you propose to defeat them?
What did America ever do? Clinton watched the terrorists for 8 years as they bombed and bombed and bombed. They obviously saw America as weak...and made their attacks more violent. Bush was in office for not even a year when 9-11 occurred. Again, what did America do to deserve this and what would be the result of letting this vermin to multiply, train and seek partners to make their next attacks more violent?
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3045857#post3045857
Post #29
Musket,
You must think I'm an idiot...I never said anything about physical destruction. Didn't a few well placed planes created havoc economically world wide. WMD comes in many forms...a few packets did a memorable job in the Tokyo subways...
In a paper by the German Health Ministry (one that Herr Schroeder buried during the last election because it didn't conform to his anti-war campaign) the combination of WMD and economic catastrophe is quite obvious:
[quote]Bonn, 9 August 2002
German Health Ministry
[. . .]
The immediate procurement of [funds] for immunization against smallpox is needed immediately for the following reasons:
1. The Risk of an Attack
The international situation as perceived by our intelligence services indicates a heightened increase in the danger [of an attack]. German intelligence services have documented evidence that shows that smallpox is stored illegally outside of the official laboratories in Atlanta and Koltsovo, for example in Russia, Iraq and North Korea. There are also indications that terrorist groups seek to produce biological weapons. Because of the extremely contagious nature of the virus and the mobility of the world population, an attack [with such weapons] anywhere in the world poses an extraordinary danger for Germany as well. Signs of a possible US attack on Iraq are accumulating. It is possible that Iraq may react to such an attack with biological weapons, including smallpox, within its possession.
[Then the report details the possible disaster that could result from a smallpox attack -- up to 25 million German casualties -- and the lack of German preparedness in this area when compared with the US and Israel.][/QUOTE]
25 million casualties in Germany alone.
If it is only 10% of their forecast... 2.5 million, there is a significant economic impact...No?
Tell me, how is the Bush administration playing into his the terrorists hands? How do you propose to defeat them?
What did America ever do? Clinton watched the terrorists for 8 years as they bombed and bombed and bombed. They obviously saw America as weak...and made their attacks more violent. Bush was in office for not even a year when 9-11 occurred. Again, what did America do to deserve this and what would be the result of letting this vermin to multiply, train and seek partners to make their next attacks more violent?
1/2/08
Inside the Mind of a Hardcore Lib; Their Lame Reasons for Impeaching Bush... LOL :O
They actually have the balls to post drivel like this as serious debate.
And people wonder why we laugh at them.
LOL :O
And people wonder why we laugh at them.
LOL :O
1. He lied us into war in Iraq. According to the U.S. media-ignored British "Downing Street Memo," he "fixed" intelligence around a pre-determined policy of preemptive war. Results: 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; about 1800 U.S. soldiers dead in two wars, 100s of thousands wounded and traumatized.
(No lie. It was a "slam dunk"...remember? There have been panels on both sides of the atlantic... The BBC had their chiefs lose their jobs because they sexed up the news. Our allies had the same intel. Bill Clinton was on record saying what Bush said. Hillary spoke out about it too.)
2. Under his watch, the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack on its soil. He opposed an official investigation, then stalled for months on testifying before a hand-picked committee. Finally testified behind closed doors.
(For years Bill Clinton neglected the threat of terrorism. Attack after attack was met with laughable responses. The latter part of pt. 2 is not impeachable.)
3. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2000.
(The Supreme Court of Florida went beyond its authority and created law. The Supreme Court of the US spanked them for it. Major news networks spent months doing recounts; the result? Bush won in 2000. Of course this news never got to the deaf, dumb and blind libs.)
4. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2004.
(Yes, that's why there was amazing press coverage of this story in the liberal media. LOL :O
5. He has approved (and his Attorney General Gonzales has re-defined) torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, while simultaneously opposing the International Criminal Court established to check such abuses. According to Amnesty International, the United States has established a Soviet-style "gulag" of torture around the world.
(Proof? We are a sovereign country. We have our own courts. We do no and should not let foreign courts take over our system of justice.)
6. He failed to support the Kyoto Protocols, reducing greenhouse gases, but worked to open up Alaska's ANWR to drilling-despoiling an eco-system and increasing greenhouse gases.
(LOL :O During Clinton's reign it wasn't brought up for a vote. Why? It wouldn't have received one vote in the Senate.)
7. He chose Halliburton toady Dick Cheney to be his running mate-twice.
(You've taken one toke too many.)
8. He has attempted to pack the courts with ideologue-judges intent on overthrowing Roe v. Wade, and institutionalizing the police-state abuses of Patriot Acts I and II.
(Proof you've taken one toke too many. If you want to understand presidential power influencing and packing courts, look back to Roosevelt. Elections are won and the president has the power to nominate his own justices. Hence you get Clinton nominating Ginsberg; a political activist in a robe.)
9.His "No Child Left Behind" education policies have replaced learning with testing and allowed military recruiters access to our schools, cajoling our children with military options before their minds have had a chance to open, question and challenge.
(This is impeachable? OK, in a lib's mind.)
10.He is attempting to dismantle the Social Security system that has ensured "peace and freedom" for tens of millions of working Americans for seven decades ("peace" of mind and "freedom" from economic crises)-- rights hard-won by Labor and Progressives in decades-long struggles.
(Just Say No. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. It's not going to ensure anything if it isn't "fixed".
PS. Bush wanted to let people use a small portion of their (MONEY) social security payments and do with it what they pleased.)
1/1/08
Vissi Reveals How Libs Have Supported Our Troops
Let's face it, the libs have been unpatriotic. "Support the troops but not the war"? BS.
The libs have undermined the effort in Iraq at every turn. Exception Lieberman.
They voted twice to authorize sending troops into battle. Why? Politics. They looked weak on national security post 911, and needed to shore up that glaring weakness before the midterm elections.
These two votes were nothing more than political votes.
How can you trust a party votes to authorize force because it might win some votes?
How can you trust a party that wants to run away-surrender when things get tough?
Not only flees, but undermines the effort and submarines our troops?
Vissi sets a lib straight:
http://wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=462641&page=2The libs have undermined the effort in Iraq at every turn. Exception Lieberman.
They voted twice to authorize sending troops into battle. Why? Politics. They looked weak on national security post 911, and needed to shore up that glaring weakness before the midterm elections.
These two votes were nothing more than political votes.
How can you trust a party votes to authorize force because it might win some votes?
How can you trust a party that wants to run away-surrender when things get tough?
Not only flees, but undermines the effort and submarines our troops?
Vissi sets a lib straight:
vissi d artemaria
Post #30
Quote:
| Originally Posted by maryrose That has to be one of the most UnAmerican things I've heard lately. Who inhabitsYOUR country? All those names on the Vietnam Memorial...you think they were all Republicans and Libertarians who died for this country? Have you served in a WAR? I notice you criticize Vets of Foreign Wars. George Bush had the opportunity...AND didn't. Not because he didn't support the War ... or because he believed no Americans should be facing death over there... But because...HE didn't want to. Commander in Chief...he didn't want to die for any Americans. Look at the Dem records on Vet spending and Military Pay and benefits...as well as MIlitary equipment spending and assuring more time between tours... Then look at the republican votes on those issues. Supporting troops goes further than putting a yellow ribbon on your truck...and wearing a flag on your worsted wool lapel...and voting GOP.. Those are the easy ways to appear to be supporting our soldiers...while actually paying Blackwater and Halliburton the mega-cash that OUR OWN troops and Vets need desperatley. George Bush and the Congressmen who rubberstamp his every -"NO"-support the troops...how? |
Liberals trashed and spit on our Viet Nam military personnel and you have the audacity to feign reverance over the names on the Wall in the name of liberal high ground? Christ.
Supporting troops goes farther than posting about what a great job the same schmucks that crapped all over the US military during Viet Nam are doing now to 'take care' of them, and wearing 'Impeach Bush' buttons.
12/31/07
A Moment of Sanity to End the Year
Hal should post more often. I understand why he doesn't.
From the thread George "Doesn't Play Well With Others", comes one of those rare moments of lucidity, brevity, and sanity:
From the thread George "Doesn't Play Well With Others", comes one of those rare moments of lucidity, brevity, and sanity:
Hiya guys,
Can a conservative patriot get into this little discussion? We conservatives are the silent majority, but we tend to speak up when certain issues are overlooked and the country (as in the media) gets carried a little too far to the left.
Yes, you are right in saying that the war in Iraq has gone a little sour. But that's the way of all conflicts when your are dealing with different ideologies. If Roosevelt had listened to all of his opponents, we would probably be doing the goose step in New York City. If Lincoln hadn't taken the leadership of the Union army away from George B. McClellan and given it to Grant, we would probably have two or three different countries between Canada and Mexico.
There have been different opinions in every conflict since Cain slew his brother Abel but I try to concentrate on right and wrong rather than right and left. It was wrong for a family to rule a country by slaughtering their people, it was wrong for that same family to threaten their neighbors with wars, it was wrong for a whole country to live in fear from this same evil family, fear of rape and death ruled this country where we are trying to replace it with freedom and a Democracy. All one has to do is check out the mass graveyards in Iraq to decide who were the victims. If the world had stood up to the troublemakers before the second World War started, maybe there would have been 57 million lives saved. How many Mozarts, Einsteins, Michaelangelos and just plain nice people were snuffed out before their God given tasks and lives had been fullfilled.
The American President's most important job is to see that the American people can live in peace and harmony and to do that he must prevent any foriegn intrusion into that arena. We were attacked in 2001 which started this whole mess. Lets remember try to put the blame where it belongs and try not to criticize those elected officials who are trying to do their job. Peace at any cost doesn't work with terrorists who's aim in life is to kill you.
CreativeHal
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393696
Post #11
12/30/07
Bush WANTS Nukes (yada yada yada)
I love the title of the thread...Bush wants Nukes
Reveals a certain mentality.
The same mentality expressed by the wacko's when Reagan was president.
I love the following even more.
Reveals a certain mentality.
The same mentality expressed by the wacko's when Reagan was president.
The Times reported that a copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin.
I love the following even more.
Clue bell, folks. The U.S. has always had contigency plans for using nukes. This should not be newsworthy. It is only newsworthy because of some some far left-wing liberal journalist looking to stir the pot.
Contingency plans for nuclear weapons does not equate to a desire to use them. Shame on Mr. Arkin, and others involved in this.
Scottb
With the Wet Diapers, Republicans = "trolls" and "stalkers".
txrembrandthttp://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464600&page=3
Post #31
When I first came on here I figured that most on here, being artists would lean toward the liberal side and be fun to chat with but I soon found out that the trolls and Bush lovers were stalking about. I was a little upset with this delimma...The bit about being upset there is an actual opposition in a "Debates" form?
PS. That is why it's called "Debates".
PS. Dilemma.
12/29/07
The Lone Ranger(s) TROLL ALERT!!!
When I was at Art School, there was one conservative artist, who had to keep his politics to himself because if he said anything against the majority he was ridiculed and attacked.
Tina D
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393696&page=2
Post #16
The only difference between Tina's art school and Wet Diaper's Debates is some conservatives do take on the swarm of venomous Hardcore Libs. Some are labeled "trolls", others simply banned for poking fun at the opposition.
One small victory: Most libs have had the "troll" card schooled out of them. No longer can they throw that card around in an attempt to change the subject or dislodge a conservative artist... because they know it will be used to illustrate their intolerance.
Isn't it odd (LOL :o), never has there been a liberal "troll" in Wettie World.
12/28/07
"Balance" in Wettie World
I've always seen Fox as 'balanced' toward the Christian fundamentalist right ... that's why I rarely watch it. I have nothing against Christians, being one myself, but I want as 'fair and balanced' as possible... I'd love it if I could get BBC to balance off CNN...
Dianne Cutter
Moderator
www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390235
Post #3
LOL :o
Getting the BBC to "balance off" CNN in like getting Pol Pot to "balance off" Stalin.
With moderator like those posted, is it any wonder I kept getting banned?
LOL :o
12/27/07
Hang Saddam?
Responses are no surprise, but some just beg you to say... Please... don't toke and post.
Edited for brevity.
Edited for brevity.
Maryrose
Post #11
...Saddam is just a scapegoat; a cover up for the real reason the US is in Iraq. The Oil is the only reason.
Spectacle of Nothing
Post #15
given the meathods and criteria for hanging Sadaam.. Bush should also be hung.
Darabos
Post #34
i oppose the death penalty.
but when you really think about it, if he wasnt the hardass he was, the region woulda went to complete **** much sooner.
Bliss
Post #41
The US had no business starting this problem.
Musket
Moderator
Post #47
Thus endeth the Bush family's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein,
For more deep thought on the subject (LOL :o), visit the thread at: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390787
12/23/07
Wetcanvas Libs Defend Sexual Predators
Raven schools a few clueless libs...
...and txrembrandt reveals the deep liberal thought process.
So...
Will Raven's education have an effect?
Will they learn anything?
LOL :o. C'mon folks, these are libs.
If you read the entire thread (have a bucket handy) you'll see libs can justify anything.
Defenders of women's right?
Upholders of law?
Moral compass?
Clear thinking?
Ahhhh...No.
...and txrembrandt reveals the deep liberal thought process.
So...
Will Raven's education have an effect?
Will they learn anything?
LOL :o. C'mon folks, these are libs.
If you read the entire thread (have a bucket handy) you'll see libs can justify anything.
Defenders of women's right?
Upholders of law?
Moral compass?
Clear thinking?
Ahhhh...No.
#175 | |
And it doesn't take 3 years to save enough money to go after someone for breaking the law. That's why tax dollars pay the police.
Anyone who deplores sexual abuses like this should feel shame for blaming the victim only b/c the victim pointed at a political figure they support. Shame and embaressment for the hypocrisy of selling out a abuse victim.
Yes, I remember that now.
12/22/07
Lily Katz (soon Flat Katz) gets Wettie Debates Forum Moderator Musket (Lib-NH) to reveal his refined debating skills
To be a conservative, you have to believe that nobody else ever cut and pasted this dreck into a thread in this forum before you did.Musket (Lib-NH), Site Moderator
Better watch it, just in case they think you're zimmer. LOL :o
After all, you only have 64 posts.
That's VERY thin ice.
Believe me, I know.
Should build up a couple hundred before skating on deep waters.
Lily, your post (listed below) makes a ton of logical points, and has fun doing so at the same time, but that's not where the libs brains are.
Logic... NO.
Emotion...YES.
Hence the response from the FORUM MODERATOR.
And how dare you identify and make fun of Libs all in one go!
Watch out for the tires.
LOL :o
From Lily Katz's thread starting post:
22 Ways To Be a Liberal Democrat.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464794
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
... see Wettie World link above for the remainder...
12/21/07
You Have Been Banned! Not!!
Banned, and unbanned in all of three minutes.
Notice the time in the lower right corner.
Yes, I was Box of rain. Just an 'ol Dead Head.
Where have I seen that before? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Never has never been so short.
And now?
LOL.
Notice the time in the lower right corner.
Yes, I was Box of rain. Just an 'ol Dead Head.
Where have I seen that before? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Never has never been so short.
And now?
LOL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)