One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What is the liberal agenda? Not what liverals think.
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
May 3, 2014 13:37:00   #
Lena
 
LAPhil wrote:
Lena: First of all, you need to use the Quote Reply when you're replying to a post so people know who you're talking to, otherwise they have just to guess. Second of all I'm not a h**er, but the reason I asked you earlier if you read the whole article is because, if you'll notice, the idea that Obama has issued more executive orders than other President is refuted in the second part of the article. I'm not defending Obama here because I rarely have any reason to defend him, just pointing out that you missed this.
Lena: First of all, you need to use the Quote Repl... (show quote)


No i didnt. Read the rest of my posts. I know ovomit did not issue all those edicts. But, over the years, the democrates have.

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:00:35   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Lena wrote:
As usual, attacking me does not negate the facts. I laugh at your idea of govt. No, I cry. Because you give it all away. I watch this dog and pony show and wonder when America will wise up. There is a reason the tea party is a threat to the establishment. There is a reason fox news and tea party membership is on the rise. The facts are obvious to those who look. You will know them by their fruit. Those apples are rotten.


Lena, I am lost. I saw no connection between the things you have on the posts I have viewed and the fact that Obama has not issued anywhere near the EOs some have reported.

Also, the tea party is well past growing. It is fading rapidly to an oddity in political history. Will soon have no effect whatsoever.

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:07:41   #
Glaucon
 
Glaucon wrote:
It is amazing how everything and anything proves your delusions to be true. You are batting a thousand .....in your mind.



I think we need to look closely at Lena and decide to cease reading and responding to her comments. First she tried to pass off a Snopes analysis as proving her assertions that actually revealed her assertions to be completely false and to refute it soundly. To her credit, among her present barrage of peculiar comments, she did admit that her parroting of this standard extremist charge was false. However, her admission that this charge against Obama was entirely false was imbedded in a rambling comment that was totally out of any reasonable bonds of reality. I list some of them below with my comments:
“Both sides have an agenda.” There are probably more than two sides. Sides have agendas or they wouldn’t be sides.
“The various sides exaggerate.” I think we might all agree on that.
The “Obummer” label is an insult to our president and adds nothing to our understanding and working together to improve our country. It adds a lot to mindless hatred and nothing to reason, evidence, t***h, problem identification and problem solutions .
“Obama has been disregarding our laws.” What laws? We have our Constitution and its balance of powers to keep any one of the three branches of our government from disregarding our laws. Is the constitution not working? How and why is it not working?
“Obama is giving my money to Hollywood.” What?
“Obama is giving my money to himself.” What?
“Obama is giving my money to Radical Muslims.” What?
“Obama IS a Kenyan.” What?
“Obama won the e******n through rampant v***r f***d.” Did he win both e******ns through” rampant v**er fraud? Why is it that no one has been able to produce ANY evidence of this rampant v***r f***d.”
“The t***h is he has forsaken our allies.” What has he done or not done that would indicate he has forsaken our allies? Which allies? Allies against what or whom?
“These are facts.” Not by any accepted definition of the word, fact.
We have differences of opinion and that is good for democracy. However asserting things we know to be untrue, insults, and asserting other worldly factoids – statements beyond belief to any reasonably informed and intelligent person - must be off limits if the exchanges on this site are to be anything more than an opportunity for cathartic release of our pent up rage.
I have nothing against Lena, but she appears unable to stay within the bonds of reality, common sense, and civility so I am no longer reading or responding to her comments and I encourage those who want this site to have some usefulness to do the same.

Reply
 
 
May 3, 2014 16:13:36   #
Glaucon
 
Lena wrote:
No i didnt. Read the rest of my posts. I know ovomit did not issue all those edicts. But, over the years, the democrates have.


Lena, Just admit it, you attempted to support your views with bogus stuff, end of story. You did get in a d********g insult, "ovomit" and a vague and totally unsubstantiated effort to double down on your bogus assertion about executive orders. You probably mean well, but your comments are not those of a mentally balanced person. This is the last time I will read your comments.

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:37:49   #
Glaucon
 
Lena wrote:
No i didnt. Read the rest of my posts. I know ovomit did not issue all those edicts. But, over the years, the democrates have.


Lena, You apparently can't let go of that h**e turd. Hold it by the clean end or drop it and go wash your hands. ovomit???? That is truly d********g.

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:52:31   #
astrolite
 
LAPhil wrote:
Lena: First of all, you need to use the Quote Reply when you're replying to a post so people know who you're talking to, otherwise they have just to guess. Second of all I'm not a h**er, but the reason I asked you earlier if you read the whole article is because, if you'll notice, the idea that Obama has issued more executive orders than other President is refuted in the second part of the article. I'm not defending Obama here because I rarely have any reason to defend him, just pointing out that you missed this.
Lena: First of all, you need to use the Quote Repl... (show quote)


Either way, Snopes can't be believed either. I wouldn't put any credibility in their statements.

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:53:45   #
Lena
 
Glaucon wrote:
Lena, Just admit it, you attempted to support your views with bogus stuff, end of story. You did get in a d********g insult, "ovomit" and a vague and totally unsubstantiated effort to double down on your bogus assertion about executive orders. You probably mean well, but your comments are not those of a mentally balanced person. This is the last time I will read your comments.


Thank God. The t***h is out there and if you wish to ignore it, i can do nothing but, grab my gun and shoot you when you come round to take the rest. Lol. I was showing that all of you are stupid for believing anything your govt says.



Reply
 
 
May 3, 2014 16:56:00   #
astrolite
 
Glaucon wrote:
Lena, You apparently can't let go of that h**e turd. Hold it by the clean end or drop it and go wash your hands. ovomit???? That is truly d********g.


Well, can you prove it's not his name? He won't provide any proof of anything, but you still give him the benefit of the doubt! But that's the proof of your refusal to investigate! Like I say: "I believe in Jesus and God! All others must prove it"

Reply
May 3, 2014 16:56:55   #
Lena
 
Attack is what you morons do. Fight your opressors and not your neighbors. Socialism will ruin us and ens***e us but, your to stupid to see it. God said it would happen this way. Forgive them father, they know not what they do. Revolution not civil war. Be a puppet, dymbass

Reply
May 3, 2014 17:03:45   #
Glaucon
 
astrolite wrote:
Either way, Snopes can't be believed either. I wouldn't put any credibility in their statements.


You would certainly put loads of credibility in their statements if they supported your factoids.

I have never known or heard of any credible evidence to believe Snopes is unreliable. Have you? Snopes would lose all credibility if they weren't super accurate and super unbiased. Snopes can, indeed, be believed even when they are in disagreement with you and, perhaps, specically when they disagree with you.

I would be very careful about attempting to smear Snopes. There credibility is the foundation of their enterprise and your mindless slander could cause you to end up with a law suit and a very large settlement. What I am trying to say is that your bull s**t, dishonest crap could cost you a lot of money.

Reply
May 3, 2014 17:06:14   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
Glaucon wrote:
You would certainly put loads of credibility in their statements if they supported your factoids.

I have never known or heard of any credible evidence to believe Snopes is unreliable. Have you? Snopes would lose all credibility if they weren't super accurate and super unbiased. Snopes can, indeed, be believed even when they are in disagreement with you and, perhaps, specically when they disagree with you.

I would be very careful about attempting to smear Snopes. There credibility is the foundation of their enterprise and your mindless slander could cause you to end up with a law suit and a very large settlement. What I am trying to say is that your bull s**t, dishonest crap could cost you a lot of money.
You would certainly put loads of credibility in th... (show quote)
What the hell are you talking about? He can say anything he pleases on this forum without fear of being sued for slander. It's an OPINION forum and he's anonymous anyway for God's sake! Where do you get this crap from?

Reply
 
 
May 3, 2014 17:06:22   #
Glaucon
 
astrolite wrote:
Well, can you prove it's not his name? He won't provide any proof of anything, but you still give him the benefit of the doubt! But that's the proof of your refusal to investigate! Like I say: "I believe in Jesus and God! All others must prove it"


Astroturf, You have proven you are too stupid to attempt to have any kind of reasonable exchange of views with. I am putting you on my list of those I will no longer be reading.

Reply
May 3, 2014 17:10:19   #
Glaucon
 
LAPhil wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? He can say anything he pleases on this forum without fear of being sued for slander. He's anonymous anyway, hello? Where do you get this crap from?


I get it from our law. Read and attempt to understand before you emote.

How difficult do you think it would be to break the anonymity of this site?

Reply
May 3, 2014 17:21:23   #
Glaucon
 
LAPhil wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? He can say anything he pleases on this forum without fear of being sued for slander. It's an OPINION forum and he's anonymous anyway for God's sake! Where do you get this crap from?
You are not required to fear being sued, but that fact is that if you cause someone harm as a result of a knowingly false accusation, any competent lawyer could find out where you are hiding in about thirty minutes and sue your ass off for every miserable dime you have in that fruit jar buried in your rose bed. However, there are exceptions such as some public figures. You can accuse Obama of anything and you can just make it up.

Reply
May 3, 2014 17:23:50   #
Lena
 
What does the rest matter. You cannot refute the millions given to muslim brotherhood( our enemy ) . You cannot refute he has abandoned oue allies. You cant refute that he and his wife think they are the American king and queen. You cant refute that he lies just to lie and you believe it. You cant refute that is NOT American or christian. You cannot refute things that are true. You can however choose not to see what is as plain as the nose on your face.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.