RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Obama, Huckabee win Iowa caucuses

Soooo...because Joseph Goebels has talked about Germans then everyone of his quotes is about Nazi's? Or because his original quote was about Nazi's it can't be used to describe anything other kind of idiot?

If Jesus were on this thread, he would call you all weasels.

Hey, that's a topic for the religion forum. Don't go mixing politics and religion, buddy.

Yeah, and Whomod lives by that quote.


If we were just discussing differences of political opinion, and Whomod (and Ray) would limit responses to what we actually said, as opposed to just repeating the same slanderous lies and labels over and over, toward anyone who disagrees with his in-your-face partisan views.

That quote and this one sum up about 90% of what Whomod and Ray post.





It's not your views I have a problem with so much, as I do the level of purposeful deceit and slander that are the cornerstone of virtually every post you make.

I don't understand why the religious right, or holy rollers in general, are into abstinence. Not like it did the Virgin Mary any good when God knocked her up.

I find that to be an incredible double-standard, that Ray unleashes incredible hatred, venom, personal insults, and slander on me in virtually every post, and yet I'm expected to be polite to him every post after that?

Oh kettle, thou art black.

All politeness aside, that's a partisan liar's argument.

My point was that rex didn't call you a name and therefore you're response was disproportionate. Even if he was "trolling".

Wow, blasphemy is so funny.

Almost as funny as beheading Americans.

No way, a virgin getting knocked up is way funnier.

Yes, he did. Rex slanderous misrepresented my true views:

What rex said:



1) I clearly (as I posted) am not a Huckabee supporter, despite thinking on a personal level Huckabee's a nice guy. I wouldn't vote for him.

2) I'm not the radical gung-ho Christian fanatic charicature the usual assholes here make me out to be. Despite being a Christian and reading the Bible, I haven't attended church in a while, and I've never been involved in Christian political activism of any kind.

Like so many other things, you guys select a stereotypical view of what conservative Christians allegedly believe (which coincidentally conforms with what you like to demonize), often in polar-opposite contradiction of my actual views (as in the Huckabee remarks I made above, -vs- rex's slander)

And you do this over and over, deliberately misrepresenting my views on a variety of issues, which I've abundantly clarified in MANY previous posts, even as you continue to deliberately misrepresent what I actually said.

So what? You've always claimed to "retaliate at a fraction of the bile" of others and yet that's clearly not the case here. You insulted him more then he insulted you. You can try and rationa...wait, I know the word "rationalize" gives you and your butt buddy Pariah hemmorhoids so instead I'll say...you can try and bullshit your way out of it but it won't work.

how is it "blasphemy?"
We really need to get you a dictionary.
But I am glad you seem to be taking an anti-death penalty stance. It shows you're not completely full of anger.

It's even funnier when you explain your humor to Jesus, and he throws you in the lake of fire.

It's blaspemous to think God would engage in something as horrendous as sex.

I got news for you Mr I'm-not-as-fanatically-religous-as-people-make-me-out-to-be, if Jesus doen't have a sense of humor, then we're all fucked.

I brought my own:

• American Heritage Dictionary -
  
  blasphemy
  1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
  2. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
  3. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
  
  
  [Middle English blasfemie, from Late Latin blasphēmia, from Greek blasphēmiā, from blasphēmein, to blaspheme; see blaspheme.]

Alleging I misuse words is not the same thing as you simply denying their true definition, just so you can troll some more.

(i.e., you're a liar)

If blaspheming God can be considered "a sense of humor". The Bible says otherwise.




That remark just manifests how little you understand the Bible.

The point is God the Father made Mary pregnant through immaculate conception, so Jesus was not conceived through sex, but through a miracle, from the purity of God.



You shouldn't make mocking offensive remarks about things sacred to other people, that you choose not to understand. If we were like Muslims, you'd find yourself cold on the street stabbed 20 times, with the knife left pinning a page to your chest with the relevant verses of your crime against God.
If we were muslims.
Just the same, it's offensive to speak so callously about things that others revere.

I wouldn't call Ray a "liar." He just misremembers facts (creating "Rayfacts") and doesn't necessarily understand the meaning of words sometimes (again, creating "Rayfact").

There's a difference between being a goofball and being a liar. Ray's just a goofball.

Sometimes he says mistruths out of sheer self-imposed ignorance and stupidity, in his utter devotion to the fairytale myths of his faith-based liberal belief system.

But more often, he deliberately slanders and misrepresents those he disagrees with.

The bible also says jerking off is a sin. Like I said, we're all fucked...by our own hands.



No, it manifests levity, you uptight fanatic.



Well, I'd think that bumping uglies with a supreme deity being immaculate would go without saying.



If you truly believe in something then you don't need to be sensitive to the point you can't laugh about it.

Jeez, I'm surprised you two don't get along better. Peas in a pod.

How about if I make demeaning jokes about cheap sex with your wife, girlfriend or mother. Then we'll see if you need to not be "sensitive to the point you can laugh about it."

My point is, you can say it's a "joke", but it's not funny. More than not funny, it's deeply offensive.

Pfft, I wouldn't care. Hell, if I thought it would take the sand out of your vagina I'd hand her to you with a bow attached.

You have a vagina?

Gee, most men don't.

That might have been exiguously clever if you hadn't quoted me.

Actually, no, it wouldn't have been clever at all. So don't bother looking up the word exiguous.

Yeah, when you're dishing it out, it's "funny".

When you're taking it, it's suddenly not.

Dude, you dished out something incredibly stupid...even by kindergarten standards that was dumb.

I know you are but what am I!

you're a kaka poo poo pee pee head.

Because we keep repeating that Al Gore said he invented the internet?

yeah, it's soooo hard to disprove that one....

Or we keep repeating the "lies" of studies that completely contradict your immaculate facts cribbed from Pat Buchanan's books?

I dunooo.... It's become sport in this country to see how many lies one can count out of the average FOX newscast and commentators. Why you think it's "the left" that lies is beyond me. I guess every zealot has to believe their cause, no matter how discredited it becomes.

Except that FOX is not the news network that's been chastised and fired its anchor Dan Rather for blatant partisanship.

FOX news is not the network that airs 60 Minutes interviews that are basically infomercials for their publishing subsidiaries, while simultaneously making liberal-partisan smears of President Bush.

The venom you spew is laden with personal insults and baseless character assassination.

Defending our borders and expelling illegals, despite our welcoming contributing patriotic citizens of every race and nationality, is slandered as "racism" and "wanting a white-only America".
Opposing the more destructive elements of feminism is slandered as "hating women".

"Al Gore invented the internet" is a silly non-issue.

Pat Buchanan's work is well-footnoted and speaks for itself.



What's truly become a sport is watching liberals like you rant, apoplectic with rage, in their skewed intolerant insult-laden attacks on anyone --including fellow liberals like Ralph Nader-- who deviate from the catechism of the Revolution.

Your tactic is to repeat the same slander over and over, so that the lie becomes perceived truth, through sheer repetition of repeating the lie.
Your methods are dishonest.
And they are evil.
What you allege to be "truth", is a slanderous argument, deeply rooted in deceit.

Do you even watch Fox news? Did you see Chris Wallace's interview with Gen Petraus and whoever that other stooge was last September? Especially in comparison to his interview with Clinton.

And yet... FOX's anchors don't push forged letters, and infomercials for a partisan viewpoint, and the other networks do. I didn't feel Wallace's interview of Petraeus was slanted.
I didn't think Wallace's interview of Clinton was any harsher than Tim Russert's interviews of any number of leaders, Democrat and Republican, have been. It's nice to see them pushed to answer the questions and address theiur inconsistencies, rather than given a free pass.

Well one thing's for certain, it's hysterical watching all the GOP candidates on TV try to convince people that they're agents of change when they all still support George Bush, his policies, and The Iraq war.

There was a piece on Rumsfeld a few years back when he was under heavy criticism. Fox had a guy who did an interview with Rumsfeld. He was laid back, leaning back in the chair, asking Rumsfeld what kept him motivated in spite of all the attacks on him. And Rumsfeld talked about his grandkids, it was a nice little puff piece interview. Then, in the same story, the same reporter sat down with a critic. This critic was a respected CIA expert. The Fox reporter was aggressive and harsh, pointing his finger, and asking if this criticism was any different than treason.

Fox has been licking Bush's balls since 2000. They find longwinded ways to support the war and justify it, instead of just reporting the facts.

They support aspects of Bush's presidency, not everything Bush did.

Pretty much the only things I'd give Bush credit for are :


1) THE IRAQ WAR. After almost 4 failed years of Rumsfeld, Bush replaced him with bipartisan-supported Robert Gates, and Petraeus' "surge", which has been very successful, despite Democrats' attempt to call it a failure every step of the way, right up till now, where casualties are about a fifth of what they were, huge areas resigned to al Qaida are now secure, and al Qaida are leaving Iraq. But Democrats are still screaming "the sky is falling!"
Bush doesn't get a free pass for what went wrong, but he should get credit for a war that is now clearly going in the U.S. direction. Even as the liberal media does its level best to ignore the war, now that it's going well.

2) THE ECONOMY. Despite its slow turn toward recession, the economy has been doing well for most of Bush's presidency. I'm hesitant to praise it, because of the 3 to 4 million jobs that have been offshored, and those now-unemployed Americans displaced and working for a fraction of their former wages. I do feel economic gains are increasingly among the top wage earners, and the middle-class wage-earners who WORKED for those corporate profits are being excluded from the benefit of those profits, as their jobs are increasingly offshored, and cheap labor --both legal and illegal-- is imported to further displace Americans from more jobs, and their health benefits and retirement pensions are being deliberately removed and bankrupted.
But these are problems that --while they have accellerated under Bush-- were put in motion in the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton years. To Obama and Edwards' credit, they didn't heap the blame for this "hollowing" of American industry solely at Bush's feet, but acknowledge it's a problem that has happened on the watch of both parties, across several congresses and presidents.

3) SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. Although Bush selected two outstandingly qualified Supreme Court justices, I haven't forgotten that his choice was Harriet Miers. Justices Roberts and Alito will be remembered as W.Bush's appointees, but what will be forgotten is that Republicans in the House and Senate rejected Miers and forced Bush to pick alternative highly qualified choices.

4) RESOLVE. From standing with the firefighters on Ground Zero after 9-11 until "Mission accomplished" officially ended the Iraq war and the occupation began, Bush was very popular, and deservedly so, with the success of the Afghan invasion, and for the first two months, the Iraq invasion. But then, due to Rumsfeld's influence, and Bush's own poor judgement, Bush dropped the ball.
I still think Bush deserves respect for not caving in to pressure and pulling out of Iraq, despite his tremendous loss of popularity. To his credit, this is not (opposite his predecessor) a poll-driven president. And despite his mistake, because he stuck it out, U.S. forces were able to adapt and come up with the winning "surge" strategy.
And for all the bemoaning of "blood" spilled, five years into this war, the casualties are still less than 4,000 dead.
Japan and Germany were not built in five years. The United States itself did not have a stable democracy in its first five years, or even its first 20 years. So with the military success in Iraq, I think it's reasonable to ask for a bit of patience regarding the political resolution in Iraq. Pressure on the Iraqis, yes, but patience as well.

5)HOMELAND SECURITY. Arguably, improvements in local law enforcement, FBI and CIA intelligence gathering and communication, as well as taking the battle to Al Qaida in Iraq and Afghanistan, have occupied the enemy and prevented their ability to gather the resources to launch an attack on the U.S. since 9-11. I don't buy that it was just dumb luck. These people wanted to kill us, and many pre-emptive arrests of plotters and terror cels have been made, because things are working better than they did before 9-11. Not perfect, not what they could fully be, but vastly improved.


These are some areas where McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson and other, praise Bush, while not giving a free pass to his clear failures. And even Obama, Edwards and Richardson gave a degree of credit, in a show of civility and understanding of the larger issues.
I think it's possible to respectfully address Bush's shortcomimgs, while still maintaining a degree of civility, and respect for the office of the President.

Oh yeah. There's a nice civil and factual response.

You're such a partisan tool.

If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, Many of my points are somewhat reluctant and critical praise of Bush, giving credit to others who pressured him to make good decisions (Roberts and Alito), the dichotomy of the economy under Bush(booming, but displacing the middle class, and millions of offshored jobs and rampant legal& illegal immigration), the good along with the bad in Bush's conduct of the Iraq war (he was obviously leveraged to fire Rumsfeld, but the war has vastly improved since).

I don't see things strictly through a partisan kaleidoscope, Whomod, but you obviously do.

so you say the bad was Rumsfeld's fault and not the fault of the man who appointed him and stood by him during all those failures? It wasn't Rumsfeld on the flight deck with "Mission Accomplished" behind him. And Rumsfeld wasn't the only one lying about WMDs.
And yet another post where you mention evil liberal conspiracies. The "liberal media" and other such blanket generalizing statements to try and clump all the things you dislike in the world into some evil liberal plot.


He sat around in aclassroom looking scared when he was told of the attacks. Then he stood on some rubble and gave a speech. Then he invaded a country and failed to secure it so that now the heroine supply in the world is experiencing an abundance of crops. He then invaded a country that didn't attack us, seemingly dropped any mention of bin Laden, claimed "mission accomplished" and said that it was only a matter of rebuilding (and then botched the very critical early staged of occupation) and you see this as a good thing because his numbers were high?


Bush stuck by Rumsfeld for years. I think it was even a full year between the point when people on both sides were calling for his resignation and his actual resignation after the 2006 elections.


stubborness is seldom a good thing. Bush ignored the facts and the advice he was given consistently. He has shown a love for photo-ops and looking good. I really believe that he stays in Iraq because he can't admit that he was wrong.


you only say that because he's unpopular and doesn't care what the people want at all.



how dense are you that you see sending in a bunch more soldiers as a genius strategy. It doesn't solve the problems it just makes it easier to contain problems. Once the surge is gone, the problems will still be there.


A. That's incredibly cold blooded to say "only" 4,000 are dead. Why don't you support the troops?
B. There are death tolls in the hundreds of thousands if you count the iraqi civilians.
C. 4,000 is more than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.


well Japan and Germany weren't fighting the occupation after the war. In fact most Germans welcomed it after the madness of Hitler. And the American founders didn't have the same sectarian issues that iraq has.
But, as you already stated above, you have no regard for human life. Only 4,000 down. We have more troops to lose, the iraqis have more civilians to lose. So let's show patience and keep giving chances to the man who has fucked up every step of the way.


I hate this argument, it's so stupid. Technically every attack in iraq and afghanistan is a terrorist attack, so actually there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks since 9/11. And by your own numbers they've killed more than they did on 9/11.
We didn't have any attacks on American soil during Clinton's term after the February 1993 attacks so we can argue that Clinton kept us safe and with fewer casualties.




I just wish we had the boards in 1999, you seem like the type who trashed Clinton for the zero deathtoll blow jobs he got.