Saturday, July 28, 2012
On These Two Fellas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'll take "Two Extremely Unacceptable Candidates and the Country is Crying out for Decent Leadership for Two Hundred", Alex.............P.S. Romney DID take the President out of context (not that I necessarily
endorse the text of what the President said about successful businesses, mind you). But so, too, did
the President's folks take Mr. Romney's "I like to fire people" out of
context. Both sides are totally rank/underhanded and, because of that and
other things, I am looking very seriously at Mr. Johnson
Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(710)
-
▼
July
(64)
- Hottest Olympian Ever?
- Note to Congresswoman Bachmann
- On Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, Also Def...
- How it All "Works", Apparently
- I Would Say Not a Single Person Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
- Bodacious and a Wee-Bit Premature
- THIS Came Out of Opie????
- Actually, Mr. Obama
- On President Obama's Recent Upping of Military Aid...
- On Governor Romney's Recent Trip to Israel
- Moral Question
- On These Two Fellas
- Miscellaneous 132
- Miscellaneous 131
- On Cory Booker
- On "Gone With the Wind"
- Between Two Legends
- On This Piece of Shit
- On the Chuckmeister
- Miscellaneous 130
- Better Than or Worse Than Their Father
- I Thought that we Already Bailed Out G.M.
- On John Malkovich and Willem DaFoe
- Dennis Miller on Former Florida Congressman, Alan ...
- Katherine Eban's Theory, I Gather
- On Voting Democratic
- Swab the Deck - And Start With THIS Guy
- On the Movie, "Speed 2"
- Miscellaneoue 129
- Note to "Team Romney"
- Interesting Fact
- President Obama on the Passing of the Family Smoki...
- The Face of Another Decent, Fair, and Well-Respect...
- The Face of a Decent, Fair, and Well-Respected Pol...
- A National Disgrace 3
- Exotic Beauty Showdown
- The Complete, Unabridged List of People Who Think ...
- Miscellaneous 128
- Senator Barack Obama - February 10, 2007
- To Whom it May Concern
- Well, Somebody's Peddling
- This is Me - Any Questions?
- QUITE
- On Whether Abortion is Murder
- Miscellaneous 127
- Tactically Wrong
- Politics (As Practised by the Modern-Day Partisan ...
- Jason Terry to the Celtics
- Clinton, But it's Close
- On Judge Jeanine Pirro and Face-Lifts
- Uh, Try Nobody 3
- Uh, Try Nobody 2
- Dennis Miller on the Difference Between Clinton an...
- Note to Michelle Malkin
- The Greatest List of All Time (Courtesy of Jack Ke...
- Female Fight-Club - The Participants
- Clinton Would Win by a Kilometer and Then Some
- And these Two Individuals are Considered in the Sa...
- ATF Supervisor, David Voth, April 13 2010
- Per the L.A. Times, August 11, 2011 - http://artic...
- On those Kissing Scenes Between a 52 Year-Old Clar...
- And Eban Interviewed a Retired IRS Agent....Why Ex...
- ATF Supervisor, David Voth, April 2 2010
- Hm, Let's See, Who Do I Trust Here,
-
▼
July
(64)
58 comments:
Gary Johnson 2012. The only alternative when there is NO other alternative.
Gary Johnson... Integrity and Common Sense for America.
As of now, he has my vote.
He won't be bringing either his integrity or "common sense" to America, as he has zero chance of winning, thank God. Hopefully he'll take more votes away from Romney than Obama. RN's and Will's decision to throw their votes away simply cancel each other out.
Yawn.
Seriously, what's the "out of context" argument here? Obama said what he said. Maybe he didn't mean it the way he said, but you can't honestly say his quote is out of context.
What is it about Gary Johnson that you like, his foreign policy approach which is unlike either the republicans or Democrats, or his domestic policy approach which is much more like the republicans than the Democrats?
Will likes him because he wants to legalize the ganja......mon.
Jerry, what Rusty said.......Actually, Johnson's domestic policy is WAY different from both the Republicans AND the Democrats. This, in that there wouldn't be any of that crony Capitalism that Bush and Obama have both brought to country in spades and he would actually reduce the bureaucracy instead of making it bigger. I think that he's a decent chap.......HR, I say that they quoted Obama out of context because they made it sound as if he was saying "You didn't build that" in reference to the business when he was actually referring to the roads and bridges.
Will: not that I necessarily endorse the text of what the President said about successful businesses.
Because successful businesses don't need infrastructure?
And in response to what HR said about Obama's qoute not being taken out of context (yea, right), it was actually Romney's quote that was not taken out of context. When he said "I like to fire people" we know he was talking about service providers and consumers shopping around for the best rates... but who the hell uses those words? It was a Freudian slip for sure. He does like firing people... and outsourcing their jobs to other countries. We all know it.
He probably got a perverse pleasure out of firing thousands, destroying people's lives and screwing investors (which is what happens when a company goes bankrupt)... while making millions for himself.
Will: ...there wouldn't be any of that crony Capitalism that Bush and Obama have both brought to country in spades and he would actually reduce the bureaucracy instead of making it bigger.
Everything you just said is completely theoretical since he has ZERO chance of being elected. And FYI, the crony capitalism is part of the price we pay for allowing the wealthy to pour so much money into our elections... And this is something dmarks supports 110%... which shows what an idiot he is. He SAYS he opposes crony capitalism -- but supports the very thing that makes it unavoidable.
WD said: "He probably got a perverse pleasure out of firing thousands, destroying people's lives and screwing investors (which is what happens when a company goes bankrupt)... while making millions for himself."
It certainly then must apply to Obama and his "green energy" scandal in which he wasted billions shipping jobs to China and Finland, and really screwed those involved with Solyndra and other companies.
"And FYI, the crony capitalism is part of the price we pay for allowing the wealthy to pour so much money into our elections."
It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the corrupting nature of power: our ruling elites lining their own pockets, because overlarge "government without limits" lets them get away with it.
"And this is something dmarks supports 110%"
No. Actually, I support limits on campaign contributions. So it is not true at all that I favor the wealthy pouring money into campaigns. Not true at all.
"He SAYS he opposes crony capitalism -- but supports the very thing that makes it unavoidable."
I completely oppose all of it. I say it, and oppose it. And I oppose that which makes it unavoidable: government having too much power, and the ability to spend way more than it takes in.
dmarks: It certainly then must apply to Obama and his "green energy" scandal...
There was no scandal. Obama was responsible for shipping zero jobs to China or Finland. Politifact rates this Koch brother's lie "pants on fire".
dmarks: It has nothing to do with that...
It has EVERYTHING to do with that. It takes money to win elections, therefore the politicians must keep those with the money happy.
dmarks: No. Actually, I support limits on campaign contributions.
You're lying. I didn't mention campaign contributions, I said spending money on elections, and you most certainly *do* support that 110 percent. I said we need to limit what is spent on ads, and you called me fascist for wanting to limit the power of big money.
dmarks: I completely oppose all of it. I say it, and oppose it.
Another lie. You SAY you oppose it, but when it comes to doing something to stop it, you call those efforts "fascist".
Crony capitalism = something dmarks loves with all his heart.
"I say that they quoted Obama out of context because they made it sound as if he was saying "You didn't build that" in reference to the business when he was actually referring to the roads and bridges."
Will, what happened? You're supposed to be the middle-of-the-road guy, invulnerable to political-speak from both sides!
The quote is clear: "If you own a business -- you didn't build that!" One sentence; the subject of the sentence is "a business."
He uses the singular "that." If he was talking about "roads and bridges" from the previous sentence, he would have said "you didn't build those!" He said "that."
The fact is, Obama's remarks are fully in context and, frankly, the full context makes the statement even worse.
You can argue, as Obama and his team are now doing, that he meant the roads and bridges. Maybe, like me, you think he's seen the political backlash and needs to tell everyone what he meant out of necessity because the reality is devastating.
If you're willing to take him at his word, the best you can say is that he misspoke. You can't, however, claim the statement is out of context.
Will, these are things I normally trust you to pick up on.
I'll have to listen to it again, HR. When I heard it, I thought that the "that" that he was referring to was the bridge. I could be wrong, obviously.
Speaking out on political issues is protected by the First Amendment, and yes you embrace fascism when you again and again demand that the State clamp down on the right to speak out.
For crying out loud: if someone says something you don't like, just ignore it.
Again, I oppose all crony capitalism. I want it all stopped and banned. It is another issue from free speech, which you, WD, want banned. And yes, your solution to problems (censoring) is fascist, and is something that the worst regimes agree with you on.
In fact, you simply won't find a totalitarian/fascist regime that allowed the people to speak truth to power. They all instead do what you like: censor criticism.
As for Obama's green energy scandals, Will has already documented it well here. Only a fool would lie and deny it happened.
Yeah, dmarks, I would say that there was a fair amount of crony Capitalism involved with G.E. and that proposed cap and trade legislation (even Peter Orszag asserted that).
Crony Capitalism? What makes you think Libertarians will not reward their supporters just like republicans and Democrats do. And what the libertarians say they will do domestically is much closer to what the republicans are proposing than what the democrats are proposing. Right now all we have are words because Libertarians are too weak to do anything. All they can do is talk.
If a libertarian supports crony capitalism, then he ceases to be a libertarian. And there's a humongous difference between being pro-capitalism (libertarians) and pro-business (Republicans).
How can you not be pro-business when you advocate eliminating business taxes?
Jerry, how 'bout being pro free markets, through low taxes, which just happen to benefit business. You frame it as in the pocket of business, but in fact it's a free market stance.
Jerry said: "How can you not be pro-business when you advocate eliminating business taxes?"
This does not add up to any "reward". Simply choosing not to plunder anything from someone is not a gift or reward.
From the definition:
"Noun:
A thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement.
Verb:
Make a gift of something to (someone) in recognition of their services, efforts, or achievements."
-------------
Will: Also, in regards to the "green energy" scandals, I did not know about the money wasted to employ people in Finland until I read it in your blog.
See, even libertarians spin. I have now learned that "eliminate business taxes" is pro-market, not pro-business. Business just happens to benefit. Pro-market -- good. Pro-business -- bad.
You guys are really funny!
Jerry, I'd say that you learned absolutely nothing and are immune to being convinced by anyone you don't already agree with.
Plunder (definition): to rob, despoil, or fleece; to take wrongfully, as by pillage, robbery, or fraud.
The Constitution give the right to the government to tax. There is no robbing going on.
dmarks: ...I did not know about the money wasted to employ people in Finland...
One cannot "know" something which is false. You only think you know this. Politifact says "pants on fire", as I pointed out earlier.
Of course, it is about me, not the message. Let the spin continue!
Jerry: I am not arguing that it is not pro-business. Just pointing out that the word "reward" doesn't fit at all for a policy that does not contain any reward.
WD said: "The Constitution give the right to the government to tax. There is no robbing going on."
But there is the forcible taking of property from people against their will, backed by what is ultimately a threat of violence.
Like pirates on the high seas, but legal.
By the way, I checked the Politifact information. It's still damning. Very much so. It details how the Energy Department, under the specific direction of President Obama, gave half a billion in loan guarantees to a company to hire hundreds of workers in Finland. Such loan guarantees, are of course, often a gift. Look at the loans to Solyndra. And to GM, which is only expected to pay back some of the so-called "loans".
While the program itself was started under Bush, Obama adopted and fully approved it and made it its own:
"The Obama administration was in charge when the company’s loan was approved"
The Politifact article splits hairs over the fact that only $10 million came from the actual "stimulus program" in order to ship these jobs overseas, while the rest came not from the stimulus program, but from a Federal department program designed to stimulate green energy. Yeah, big difference, right? Only some of the money came from the Federal stimulus program. The rest came from a Federal program designed to stimulate.
Where was all of this money going? The half a billion wasted by the Energy Department and the 10 million wasted by the "Stimulus" (tm) program? According to Politifact:
"the plan from the beginning was to build the cars in Finland"
All of this money going to hire workers overseas, every dollar of it putting a big hole in the debt, $500 million from a stimulus program not officially called a stimulus program, and $10 from the so-called actual "stimulus program"
I smell WD's pants burning.
It would be interesting for Will to re-visit this issue, as he tends to stick to the facts (regardless of whether or not there is a "D" or "R" after someone's name) and I first read about it from Will.
dmarks: ...there is the forcible taking of property from people against their will...
What a whinner. Taxes pay for services, but dmarks wants those services for free. It's dmarks begging for a handout.
dmarks: Like pirates on the high seas, but legal.
Taxes aren't like "pirates on the high seas" at all. Pirates keep the loot for themselves while the government spends legally collected taxes for the benefit of everyone. And, unlike with pirates, the people being "plundered" support taxation.
Also, very infrequently does force need to be used. People usually pay their taxes willingly. I don't know what "violence" dmarks is talking about.
I just have to echo WD on this one: dmarks, you're a whinner.
WD, your words steal from your credibility every time you post a comment. You sure as hell don't need to make it worse by not using spell check.
If you want to give someone a free ride, how about not taking people. Tax only business. After all, most peoples' taxable income comes from businesses in the first place. And businesses already withhold taxes from the income you earn and turn it over to the government. Let's just cut the people out of it.
How about making taxes pro-people instead of pro-business?
That should be "not taxing people", instead of "taking people".
Fine, Jerry. Let's place 100% of the tax burden on businesses that have no people in them and employ no people.
That is the only way to avoid taxing people.
WD said: "Taxes pay for services, but dmarks wants those services for free."
That is an example of you making up something that is entirely untrue just for the fun of it. I favor taxation to provide for necessary services. But just because I favor taxation does not mean I favor excessive taxation to
"Taxes aren't like "pirates on the high seas" at all. Pirates keep the loot for themselves while the government spends legally collected taxes for the benefit of everyone."
Look at the legislators giving themselves pay raises and taking lots of luxury travel. All the perks and riches they give themselves. They do keep a lot of the loot for themselves. Too much of it.
And "the benefit of everyone" is just wishful and ignorant thinking on your part.
Everyone in Finland, maybe, if we look at the $500 million Obama wasted on shipping jobs overseas. As just one little example.
"And, unlike with pirates, the people being "plundered" support taxation."
That's because pirates tend to have lousy PR.
"Also, very infrequently does force need to be used."
But at least you acknowledge that the force is there. And the threat of it makes it so it does not have to be used often.
"People usually pay their taxes willingly."
They don't. They are forced to. No American is given a choice in the matter, so "willingly" does not apply at all.
"I don't know what "violence" dmarks is talking about."
That is because as in most of these matters, you don't know much at all.
Do you want to find out the violence? Go ahead and stop paying your taxes, including your local property taxes. I guarantee you will have people pointing guns at you within a couple of years. But the violence will come.
dmarks,
Businesses already pay the taxes. The only difference is that now they withhold the money from us and pass it on to the government and we have to file paper work. Let's eliminate the paperwork and adjust salaries accordingly. We take home the same amount of money and don't have to bother with tax returns every year. Business already pay the money to the government. Stop with the doomsday scenarios.
Also, to further focus on another carelessly-made statement by WD. In this, he attempted to link an unrelated subject to his pet goal of having large scale government censorship of the "wrong" people having the "wrong" views.
WD said "And FYI, the crony capitalism is part of the price we pay for allowing the wealthy to pour so much money into our elections."
Crony capitalism happens to be very common in Western Europe, which has more socialism than the US does, and the 1% are supposedly reined in.
Finland's famous IKEA company is subsidized through government handouts. Germany (a happy workers paradise to you) is really big on crony capitalism and subsidies to industry. here is just one example. France? The same. From Wikipedia: "The French agricultural sector received almost €11 billion in EU subsidies". Just one example. In Sweden, such handouts have increased a lot in the past few years.
These are Western European socialist countries. Such as WD tells us he admires so much. Places where the 1% are not near as high above the 99%, and for various reasons, there is a lot less money spent on elections. Yet, they have crony capitalism big-time, proving my earlier point It has nothing to do with [allowing campaign advertising], and everything to do with the corrupting nature of power: our ruling elites lining their own pockets, because overlarge "government without limits" lets them get away with it.
Jerry said: "Businesses already pay the taxes. The only difference is that now they withhold the money from us and pass it on to the government and we have to file paper work"
Well, I would love to see reform on this. End the employer withholding on Federal and State income taxes completely. Let us keep this money ourselves until April 15th.
dmarks: I smell WD's pants burning.
You smell your own pants burning (which makes more sense, as we aren't even in the same state and the internet does not transmit smell). Plus it's dmarks who is lying his ass off.
dmarks: All of this money going to hire workers overseas...
None of the money went to hire workers overseas. The loan was for the creation of jobs in the United States. The company also did some manufacturing outside the US, but none of the loan money went toward that.
Politifact says "the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland... Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware".
dmarks: ...every dollar of it putting a big hole in the debt...
FackCheck.org: According to Bloomberg News, even with the losses from Solyndra, the default rate for the DOE's loans to solar, wind and bio-energy projects is less than 3.6 percent, less than a third of what the White House anticipated. [end FactCheck.org debunking].
These were loans. The government MAKES money on these loans. So, not "every dollar" -- no dollars.
dmarks: ...$500 million from a stimulus program not officially called a stimulus program...
Politifact: "...most of the loan has yet to be disbursed. Fisker says it stopped taking loan money from the Energy Department in May 2011, after drawing $190 million..."
So, not 500 million, also it wasn't called a stimulus program because it is a federal loan guarantee program and had nothing to do with the stimulus program.
HR: You sure as hell don't need to make it worse by not using spell check.
A spelling flame? dmarks hates those. I doubt he'll say anything though. He also hates "hollow insults", and when you said "your words steal from your credibility every time you post a comment", that was a hollow insult, as you offered no proof to back up your claim... nobody even knows what words you're talking about.
Also, I think it is your words that steal from your credibility, as all reasonable people know Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said, "you didn't build that". Will doesn't qualify as reasonable all the time, but sometimes he gets it right... although it was funny to see how quickly he knuckled under to HR's Conservative peer pressure (which is how we know Will isn't a real Moderate).
FackCheck.org says, "...it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government -- including government-funded education, infrastructure and research -- assisting businesses to make what he called "this unbelievable American system that we have". They concluded that his comments have been taken out of context.
And above, your defense of your claims actually includes the claim that one-third of the half billion Federal money went to manufacturing a car in Finland. Thanks for proving my point.
Actually, if they didn't withhold the money, then everyone would have to pay estimated taxes quarterly. More paperwork for the individual and a larger bureaucracy to handle it. Is that really what you want, dmarks? Just let it go directly from the business to the government, like it does now, without all the paperwork at the end of the year (actually in April of the following year).
Wow, I missed a lot at work today.............Jerry, I would just add that BOTH parties are exceedingly pro-business (as opposed to pro-markets/Capitalism). I mean, just follow the money. The stimulus package was a veritable giveaway to big energy, big finance, big tech, big concrete, etc.. And that cap and trade turkey, had that have passed, would have been the biggest piece of corporate welfare in United States history (this, not according to me, but according to Obama's own budget guy, Peter Orszag). Throw in G.E., Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie and there is more than enough crony crap to go around.
And I didn't knuckle to HR's conservative peer pressure, wd. I told him what I though that Obama meant but that I could be wrong. HR is sane/a gentleman and I try to reciprocate accordingly (just like when we civilly disagreed on the Chuck Schumer compromise).
dmarks: And above, your defense of your claims actually includes the claim that one-third of the half billion Federal money went to manufacturing a car in Finland. Thanks for proving my point.
dmarks is like a little kid on the playground who has been tagged out... everyone saw it, but he keeps insisting nuh-uh!
PolitiFact said "pants on fire". Zero tax dollars went to Finland. What a dope. They didn't even get half a billion, the amount was lowered to $190 million. And that money was spent here in America hiring Americans. Try to keep up.
Will: And I didn't knuckle to HR's conservative peer pressure, wd. I told him what I though that Obama meant but that I could be wrong.
Baloney. You're not wrong (this time). If this were a disagreement between you and me you'd probably be declaring me a greedy jealous loser already.
sane/a gentleman = a fellow Conservative.
Yes, wd, because you're obnoxious. That and only Mr. Obama knows what he really meant (though, yes, on this one, I agree with you).
sane/a gentleman = Jerry = John Myste = not a fellow conservative.
WD said: "PolitiFact said "pants on fire"."
No, they did not....
"Zero tax dollars went to Finland"
They detail a large amount of money that went to an American company to ship jobs to Finland. $10 million from the "Stimulus (tm)". A half billion the Obama administration offered from another program designed to stimulate activity.... of which about a third got spent. But his administation did offer it to this company.
"And that money was spent here in America hiring Americans"
Lets' check your own link, Politifact: "the plan from the beginning was to build the cars in Finland. Fisker Automotive told ABC News this work employed about 500 Finnish workers."
All in all, WD is the only one here supporting crony capitalism. He is very defensive about the stimulus-funded program for a company to hire 500 workers in Finland. He strongly implies that crony capitalism is OK if the government "MAKES money": even though often it is just a handout. He is silent on the fact that crony capitalism abuses are common in Western Europe.
dmarks: WD is the only one here supporting crony capitalism.
I'm strongly opposed to it. You're the one supporting a system that makes it a REQUIREMENT.
dmarks: He is very defensive about the stimulus-funded program for a company to hire 500 workers in Finland.
I can't defend something that doesn't exist. PolitiFact *DID* say pants on fire. All anyone has to do to see that I'm telling the truth is click the link (so I don't know why dmarks bothers lying about this).
dmarks: Lets' check your own link, Politifact...
They spent their own money to hire the Finnish workers. The loan went toward hiring Americans. "My own link" PolitiFact says your claim is "pants on fire"... i.e. a lie.
And you're conflating this loan program (which existed under bush) with the stimulus. They have nothing to do with one another.
Will: sane/a gentleman = [blah, blah, blah].
Nobody except you has ever called me "obnoxious". The obnoixousness you perceive is only my response to your obnoxiousness.
dmarks: ...even though often it is just a handout.
It isn't.
FackCheck.org: According to Bloomberg News, even with the losses from Solyndra, the default rate for the DOE's loans to solar, wind and bio-energy projects is less than 3.6 percent, less than a third of what the White House anticipated. [end FactCheck.org debunking].
dmarks: He is silent on the fact that crony capitalism abuses are common in Western Europe.
Because I was talking about what fuels crony capitalism here in the United States. You think a company or rich individual spending millions to support a politician's campaign doesn't expect something in return. Only dmarks is that gullible.
This $3.6 represents an outright gift. The rest of it, government picking and choosing what corporations to do special favors for, is all crony capitalism. Thanks for providing more evidence for my case.
"Because I was talking about what fuels crony capitalism here in the United States"
It certainly isn't our right to speak on political issues: a basic civil iiberty you so strongly oppose.
Pointing out that crony capitalism is rampant in Western Europe is a quite valid point, considering that they have it, but without as much of the so-called problems that the Occupy protesters whine about.
"You think a company or rich individual spending millions to support a politician's campaign doesn't expect something in return. Only dmarks is that gullible."
No, I am not gullible. I am just protective of our civil liberties.
Also, in regards to this: "You think a company or rich individual spending millions to support a politician's campaign doesn't expect something in return." and the fact that Western Europe is rife with crony capitalism....
the common factor is the government's power to give something in return. It is a problem that arises when those who rule have too much power, and are unconstrained by limitations of fiscal sanity and decent public policy.
The sensible solution: reign in the power of the government to provide these handouts. Enact balanced budget amendments. Completely abolish corporate welfare programs like the Energy Department loan program that supported a company creating jobs in Finland. Enact other spending limits.
There, problem solved, without crushing any civil liberties.
Nobody here seems to like you, wd (John Myste called you a maniac). And everybody that I work with who I show your comments to laughs.......And you just made an idiotic comment about me thinking that only conservatives are gentlemen and sane. Totally false. I like Jeff Greenfield, E.J. Dionne, Senator Durbin and a whole host of liberals and I totally detest guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Congressman Gohmert. Not that you necessarily care about reality, obviously.
I like wd. He and dmarks do get a little long winded at times, however.
WD is a soundtrack/movie score afficianado. So yeah he's cool.
There's a part of me that wants to like him but it's hard.
Will: ...everybody that I work with who I show your comments to laughs...
Goofing off at work will? In any case I don't believe you. If they're reading why aren't they commenting? Probably because they aren't politically informed enough (no arrogance here dmarks, I'm just stating a fact). If they are laughing they're probably laughing at your explanations/gross mischaracterizations of things I've said.
I've laughed at some of your comments where you twist my words to make what I've said sound utterly ridiculous.
Will: And you just made an idiotic comment about me thinking that only conservatives are gentlemen and sane.
I didn't use the word "only". I just pointed out how you get along best with your fellow Conservatives. Others you can get along with too, so long as they don't disagree with you too much.
Thanks for your support Jerry.
Cheyenne commented and called you an extremist. And, no, they're laughing because you're so over the top.
Will: Cheyenne commented and called you an extremist.
Is she your girlfriend? I guess not everyone where you work hates you, just most everyone.
I can believe one person you work with read your blog and laughed at me, but it couldn't have have been many more, because then there'd have to be at least one person who laughed at dmarks... you can't get more over the top than him.
She's 19, dude.
Post a Comment