| Jump to bottom |
Extension of facts...
Chris:
I guess that we all do not hold and possess both the insight and knowledge that you do in regard to the immaculate-s**thouse reality, philolsophy, ideology, and politics in which you seem to hold all the cards. Congratulations.
Veterans
Libby:
It is funny (not really) how some citizens of the U.S. have no problem that their tax dollars are going to fight unjust wars that are not necessary that is supposedly to make the life better, for those who are not even their own country-men. However, when it comes to those who fought to make people's life better in a whole different country there is an issue over money to care for them and their needs. Hell, for that matter there is always an issue on spending, for something that well give some form of relief to certain citizens of this nation, but when it comes to destroying and rebuilding other nations or offering some form of relief, for its peoples; "it's all good."
Still Alive?
Con. Pat.
Let me clarify by the way. I do not believe that health care reform is an injustice in any way, shape and/or form. However, I believe that a private army that is being funded through our tax dollars, is.
Still Alive?
Con. Pat.
Why do dismiss one injustice, and focus your outrage on another?
Still Alive?
I will respond, but, "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" came out on Xbox 360, and that is where I am concentrating my attention. However, regarding the private v. public issue; is that not in comparison to the fact that I am being forced to pay a tax or increased tax on a private army, i.e., Blackwater (or others)? When there is a standing army of the people (public) that can perform the same functions as private enterprise, and at a lower cost, same effeciency, and is subject to more accountability, for improper and/or unlawful actions or omission. Hell, actually the money that we are paying to Blackwater could go to an increase in hazardous-duty-pay to are gals and guys in uniform who are serving in two different war-zones.
Later.
Still Alive?
Con. Pat and Todd Powley, et. al.:
I have not been to the comment section, for a while, but, after hearing that our president received the Nobel; I just had to come on here to make sure that you were still alive. I was under the presumption that y'all's heads had exploded after hearing the news. However, after review of the forum; I see that both of you made it among others. Congratulations.
Liberal Crocodile Tears
Demi:
Your point is well taken, and understood. Furthermore, the way that you conduct yourself is this forum is appreciated in conjunction with your demeanor, i.e., I like your style.
Liberal Crocodile Tears
Demi:
Your point is well taken, and understood. Furthermore, the way that you conduct yourself is this forum is appreciated in conjunction with your demeanor, i.e., I like your style.
Liberal Crocodile Tears
Demi:
That is apple and oranges. Clinton was not attemting to sale hate. Beck's sole purpose in his boo-hoo'n was to make a buck, which was under the guise of his love, for this nation and its constitution. He is a very good actor, though. If Hee-Haa makes a comeback, then, he is in like sin as a member of the cast. Hell, he could even be the new Junior Samples of the show, because between all of his "cryin," antics, and promotions; they all surmount to nothing more than him being a used pick-up salesman selling his product to a bunch of hill-billies.
1st time on this site
cold beer:
Your first comment on this site was very insightful, intriguing, and profound; and in no way, shape, and form has any of the characteristics of an alcohol induced rave and/or slur(no pun intended).
Typical Social-Conservative
OK. I give up, perhaps, it "may" be construed as speaking, for Jesus, but, for that please don't crucify me too. However, in my mind that claim was based on past precedent. But, I believe that he would forgive me, for doing so. Oh, there I go again.
Typical Social-Conservative
Chris:
You gotta be a lawyer. You are very crafty at twisting and perversing words and sentences. Saying that Jesus was a liberal is not "speaking," for him it is merely an observation from his life, actions and teachings that come from the "Holy Bible," and all of his movies, which I believe constitute him as being liberal by definition, and, by those from the right, which is used in a derogatory fashion by the likes of you.
Liberal:
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms.
Does that not describe Jesus' ideology teeth?
And as far as turning the cheek, I was referring to "debate," and using it as a "metaphor":
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language â€" compare simile
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol 2.
We are in agreement regarding one of your comments which is "I'm going to drop this "dialog", we've reached a point of negative returns...." In conjunction with the fact that I believe your sole purpose is to twist and perverse the statements of those in this forum, for whom that you do not agree with.
Goodluck in your law practic. Are you an attorney, for an insurance company?
Typical Social-Conservative
Con Pat:
You may be correct, but, fact that a public option, or single-payer will fail, and cause the decline of western civilization is only in theory, speculation, and is yet to be seen. However, our current health care sucks, and that is a fact, which recipients who pay large sums of monies on their premiums are at the mercy of decision makers, bureaucrats, and their whims, which could lead policy holders to finacial ruin death, or permanent injury becuase of recieving the proper treatment that is needed, which is based soley upon an insurance company's bottom line. Not to mention the costs of the medical treatment by the health care provider.
Typical Social-Conservative
Con Pat:
Okay, you got me on that one. I do not get totally "free" health care. I do have to pay, for prescriptions at $7.00 a pop, and, if I am hospitalized, for a certain amount of days and/or cost it cost out of my pocket $700.00, which is no matter the length of my stay I believe. It has been so long since I was informed of the terms and conditions they're foggy, but in that vacinity. That is what I meant by "free" health care. What I should have said is "affordable." I hope, that kink of healt care, for all people of this nation who are born and properly within it.
Typical Social-Conservative
Chris:
I would like to add further that I was just merely in agreement with Emma's comments regarding rightwing tactics when engaging in a debate, which from my own personal observation, e.g., look at Bill O', Hannity, Beck, when they are in debate with those who have different views and ideologies in comparison to Maher, Maddow, who do not engage in any of the tactics that were mentioned by Emma, and, so it goes, for this particular formum when comparing those who comment on this in this forum. However, I never claimed to be above that, and have engaged in it on occasion, but, make a concetrated effort not to do so, and, may even "turn the other cheek," but that is not always the case. Because turning the cheek on a debatable issue is a moot notion, and terrible tactic, and should be more at "fighting fire with fire". I may even fire the first salvo, which, also is not a good a good tactic in which morale ground is lost.
| Jump to top |
