T1B

Derron wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Of course, the "that" in the quote refers to "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive," and "roads and bridges," not to your "business."

I understand that you're a fucking waterhead so do you need me to diagram that sentence for you and perhaps review some of the rules of English grammar covering subordinating conjunctions and dependent clauses?

Oh....what if you own a construction business?

What seems to escape all the libtards here is that those business's paid FUCKING TAXES that went to build that public infrastructure. Is that not what taxes are supposed to provide ? Those services ? Roads, public infrastructure to allow the business to function to make money and pay their fucking TAXES?..those fucking government cocks paid for it with TAX MONEY. Yeah..somebody else did it ..with my fucking tax money.

Exactly.

RACKETH Derron!

Terry wrote:Oh, and let's not forget, there is the little issue of the press release in a Honolulu newspaper announcing his birth in August 1961. Apparently, the Republican/birther crowd must believe that Obama also owns a time machine and was able to transport himself back to Honolulu in 1961 to plant that announcement in the local fishwrap.

Apparently you are not too bright.

A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement is not an official document.

Duh!

A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement also does not verify that the pdf file Barry passed out last April is a copy of the supposed BC Hawaii has on file.

To date, nobody has verified that what he released is a copy of what is (supposedly) in Hawaii.


It's a forgery.


You're not really a lawyer, are you??

bwaa...

Van wrote:But you still aren't expecting Romney to win, are you?

It's a push.

That's just another Jesus sex joke, innit?

If it really does come down to a match-up between Romney and OFailure, I think Romney is going to win.

The economy is ruined, people know it, and Barry really has almost nothing positive to run on.


That said, Americans failed their IQ test in 2008 and I guess I can't completely put it past them to fail it again in 2012 by voting for the fraud.

Van wrote:Some people still like Obama. No one likes Romney.

We're getting four more years of Obama.

No, we're not. BTW, Nobody likes Obama. You live in California. NOBODY thinks like you people do. Sucks that you made a hungus bet. Gonna miss you, dawg...

http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp? ... n-november

poptart wrote:If it really does come down to a match-up between Romney and OFailure,

what?

Yes, that's what it has come down to.

You should stick to religion, more your cup of tea.

I just double-checked my calendar.

Not November 6th.


Don't cross me.

poptart wrote:If it really does come down to a match-up between Romney and OFailure, I think Romney is going to win.

If?

How are you not yet convinced that this next presidential election has indeed already come down to Romney vs Obama?

Van wrote: How are you not yet convinced that this next presidential election has indeed already come down to Romney vs Obama?

Doesn't matter. Make use of your time. Dead Man Walking. Dumbass.

Van wrote:

poptart wrote:If it really does come down to a match-up between Romney and OFailure, I think Romney is going to win.

If?

How are you not yet convinced that this next presidential election has indeed already come down to Romney vs Obama?

The political environment being as toxic as it is, I'm not convinced that a major implosion of some sort isn't going to happen in the next three months.

Looks like Barry v. the Magic Undie Man right now, but...


We'll talk later.

haha

Yes, well, I smack on Christians, too.

Some of 'us' are the biggest idiots around. :|

Derron wrote:

mvscal wrote:If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Yeah..somebody else did it ..with my fucking tax money.

After smashing submit thousands of times durron finally typed something that made sense.

The world will be ending now.

Van wrote:Romney simply can't inspire anything but the most tepid support even among hardcore Republican types.

Not that it matters, since they don't have a vote and aren't subject to his reign, but he's not doing much to garner support among our allies, either. David Cameron dropped some pretty respectable Olympics smack on him, too. And while the Prez's accountability is to American citizens, and domestic/economic matters should be the voters' primary focus, the job description does demand interaction with other heads of state. He may be facing somewhat of an uphill battle if he doesn't get a little more polished and be able to overcome perceptions such as:

It’s a little difficult to be the leader of the free world when the world’s leaders think you’re a dolt.

Sammy wrote:

Irony, thy name is Sudden Sam.

Based on posting style, if there is one person on the board
who I would consider most likely to kill a person of another
belief (specifically... a fucking Christian), it would be you.

KC Scott wrote:say what?

Yeah, I don't really see Sam as the killin' type. Though if he were, I'm guessing he'd inflict Sudden Death.

poptart wrote:

Sammy wrote:

Irony, thy name is Sudden Sam.

Based on posting style, if there is one person on the board
who I would consider most likely to kill a person of another
belief (specifically... a fucking Christian), it would be you.

Ease up on the Sake. Sheesh.

Sam expresses himself (if you call it that) as EASILY the biggest faith bigot on the board.

Some just don't know because they don't visit the theology forum.

The topic clearly fascinates him, yet he somehow never engages in anything beyond, "Damn, that's fucked up. You're seriously an idiot to believe it. And my wife and friends are idiots, too. But whatever."

x4,376.


Bring me somethin', Sam.
Please?

That's understood, pops, but to suggest that Sam would resort to violence over it (let alone kill) is beyond absurd.

On the other hand, you blowing up an abortion clinic seems totally plausible.

Smackie Chan wrote:

It’s a little difficult to be the leader of the free world when the world’s leaders think you’re a dolt.

Now that's not really fair, is it? It wasn't David Cameron who referred to Romney as a "dolt," it was merely the Op-Ed writer who did so.

The funny thing is, Romney raised some legitimate issues in stating his concerns about these Olympics.

Van wrote:It wasn't David Cameron who referred to Romney as a "dolt," it was merely the Op-Ed writer who did so.

I didn't mean to imply Cameron made the remark, but I can see how it could've been taken that way.

Romney raised some legitimate issues in stating his concerns about these Olympics.

Probably so, but he has to take into account the implications of his words. Given that the Games were just about to begin when he voiced his concerns, what good were they? Did he intend to try to get security beefed up either before or during the Games? Kinda late for that. In the role he was playing and considering the timing, when asked the question, his reply should've been a simple, "Yes," especially in light of the fact that by being critical, it gave the perception, deservedly or not, that he was trying to contrast the preparation for these Games with that of the SLC Games and make himself look good when compared to the city that was hosting him. Not a smart political move, even if his concerns were legit.

He should just go ahead and apologize.
-Obama

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Of course, the "that" in the quote refers to "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive," and "roads and bridges," not to your "business."

I understand that you're a fucking waterhead so do you need me to diagram that sentence for you and perhaps review some of the rules of English grammar covering subordinating conjunctions and dependent clauses?

Oh....what if you own a construction business?

Unlike you, Fezcal, English is my first language. You're conveniently omitting the sentence which immediately preceded the one you put in big bold print. And for anyone who is not blinded by an insane level of rage toward Obama, the interpretation I mentioned is the only reasonable interpretation.

But by all means, keep pretending that Obama never said the first sentence. After all, that's part of your hero's playbook, isn't it? Repeat it often enough, and sooner or later, someone is bound to believe it. Maybe you'll even believe it.

At worst, Obama made a grammatical error, and his language clearly wasn't as concise as it could/should have been. But let's leave that discussion to the Dinses of the world, mmmkay?

poptart wrote:

Terry wrote:Oh, and let's not forget, there is the little issue of the press release in a Honolulu newspaper announcing his birth in August 1961. Apparently, the Republican/birther crowd must believe that Obama also owns a time machine and was able to transport himself back to Honolulu in 1961 to plant that announcement in the local fishwrap.

Apparently you are not too bright.

A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement is not an official document.

Duh!

No it isn't. But it's there nonetheless. So how do you explain it?

A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement also does not verify that the pdf file Barry passed out last April is a copy of the supposed BC Hawaii has on file.

To date, nobody has verified that what he released is a copy of what is (supposedly) in Hawaii.

Nobody except the Government of the State of Hawai'i, that is. But of course, even that's not good enough for you, since it's not the answer you wanted.

It's a forgery.

Link from a source more credible than Joe Arpaio or Oily Taint? Let's not forget, it's the birthers who have the burden on this point.

And since you brought up the birther subject yet again . . .

Let's talk about two erstwhile candidates for President, shall we?

One ran against Obama. The other is very closely related to another person who will run against Obama.

It is undisputed that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone one year before it became a U.S. Protectorate.

It is also undisputed that George Romney, Mittens Rmoney's father, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1968 (and later served as Nixon's HUD Secretary, placing him, at least in theory, in line for the Presidency under the Presidential succession statute) was born in Mexico.

Neither of those men, concededly, was born in the U.S. Yet neither received any serious questioning as to their Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President.

Now, if you want to argue that they were eligible for the Office of President by virtue of having been children of U.S. citizens, I don't disagree with that. But then again, it's also undisputed that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen. So there's no basis for differentiating between McCain and the elder Romney, on one hand, and Obama, on the other.

Given the birther movement's unique focus on Obama, as well as its intentional misapplication of all precedent as applied to this particular topic with respect to Obama, I don't think that this particular birther movement can be fairly defended against charges of racism. Sorry you had to find out this way.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: You're conveniently omitting the sentence which immediately preceded the one you put in big bold print.

The reason it was omitted had nothing to do with convenience nor does it change the meaning of following sentence in any way, shape or form.

The so-called context you are attempting to place this moronic utterance in is, at best, a banal Marcus Allen reset which conventiently omits the fact that business owners and successful people pay the lion's share of the taxes which build all this wonderful infrastructure in the first fucking place.

So, yes, they built "that," too. Now shut the fuck up, idiot.

Van wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:

It’s a little difficult to be the leader of the free world when the world’s leaders think you’re a dolt.

Now that's not really fair, is it? It wasn't David Cameron who referred to Romney as a "dolt," it was merely the Op-Ed writer who did so.

The funny thing is, Romney raised some legitimate issues in stating his concerns about these Olympics.

Let's have the full quote so we can parse it for context.

I'm little surprised that our resident liberal fucktards aren't already on it what with their latest attempt to prove that Obama didn't say what we all saw and heard him say. I'm sure they just forgot.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: You're conveniently omitting the sentence which immediately preceded the one you put in big bold print.

The reason it was omitted had nothing to do with convenience nor does it change the meaning of following sentence in any way, shape or form.

The so-called context you are attempting to place this moronic utterance in is, at best, a banal Marcus Allen reset which conventiently omits the fact that business owners and successful people pay the lion's share of the taxes which build all this wonderful infrastructure in the first fucking place.

So, yes, they built "that," too.

This cannot be (successfully) refuted.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

poptart wrote:

Terry wrote:Oh, and let's not forget, there is the little issue of the press release in a Honolulu newspaper announcing his birth in August 1961. Apparently, the Republican/birther crowd must believe that Obama also owns a time machine and was able to transport himself back to Honolulu in 1961 to plant that announcement in the local fishwrap.

Apparently you are not too bright.

A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement is not an official document.

Duh!

No it isn't. But it's there nonetheless. So how do you explain it?

The announcement of the birth of a child to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama went into (we think) two Hawaii newspapers.

Do you know who put those in the paper and what the standard was for such announcements going in?

Do some research, champ.

poptart wrote:

Terry wrote:A photocopy of a newspaper birth announcement also does not verify that the pdf file Barry passed out last April is a copy of the supposed BC Hawaii has on file.

To date, nobody has verified that what he released is a copy of what is (supposedly) in Hawaii.

Nobody except the Government of the State of Hawai'i, that is.

FALSE.

You're either lying or completely ignorant.

Either way you are dead wrong.

Hawaii has NOT verified that what Barry presented is a copy of what they (supposedly) have on record.

poptart wrote:

Terry wrote:It's a forgery.

Link from a source more credible than Joe Arpaio or Oily Taint? Let's not forget, it's the birthers who have the burden on this point.

The Arpaio evidence is not credible?

Did you even look at the evidence?

Sorry, you're not very bright.

mvscal wrote: The so-called context you are attempting to place this moronic utterance in is, at best, a banal Marcus Allen reset which conventiently (sic) omits the fact that business owners and successful people pay the lion's share of the taxes which build all this wonderful infrastructure in the first fucking place.

You do realize that when your taking a black dick in your ass each day, that you are not doing that on your own and that you need a large black man to actually shove his dick in your ass right?

poptart wrote:The announcement of the birth of a child to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama went into (we think) two Hawaii newspapers.

Do you know who put those in the paper and what the standard was for such announcements going in?

Do some research, champ.

So you're saying that somebody falsely put the birth announcement in a Hawai'i newspaper kn 1961, knowing that the child in question would be a candidate for President 47 years later?

Seems to me that whoever did that probably should have been investing all of his or her money in lottery tickets. Could've made one helluva return, if that person was so prescient.

x infinity

What color is the sky in your world, dude?

poptart wrote:

Terry wrote:

poptart wrote:It's a forgery.

Link from a source more credible than Joe Arpaio or Oily Taint? Let's not forget, it's the birthers who have the burden on this point.

The Arpaio evidence is not credible?

Did you even look at the evidence?

Sorry, you're not very bright.[/quote]

Considering that Arpaio is facing a civil trial right now over alleged racial profiling, we'll see how credible the jury thinks he is.

Besides, Arpaio doesn't have jurisdiction over this, regardless of what he thinks, or you think.

This argument is over, at least in the court of public opinion. But I do think Romney should use it every chance he can.

And what say you as to McCain and George Romney? I see you ignored that point altogether.

Terry wrote:So you're saying that somebody falsely put the birth announcement in a Hawai'i newspaper kn 1961, knowing that the child in question would be a candidate for President 47 years later?

That''s idiotic.

That's why you said it and I didn't.

Can you think of other reasons why parents in 1961 wanted their child to have U.S. citizenship?

Think hard.


Hey, Barry may have a U.S. birth certificate, I dunno.

If he does, we haven't seen it.

The issue is, there are forged documents.


You ask about Arpaio's credibility.

Wtf kind of credibility does Barry have?

His credibility has been shot to hell on multiple fronts, and on this particular front, he was on record for 16 friggin' years as being Kenyan-born.


Have you been fitted for your straight jacket yet?

Papa Willie wrote:You're using homosexuality in a negative reference here. Why do you hate gays so much?

El Gordito loves the gays. He loffs them eenhees ahhss.

what's this truth you speak of, buttsy?

Neither is the poor state of our economy any time soon.

Because that would take a bipartisan effort in Congress.

Jsc810 wrote:This campaign is falling apart as we watch. Gosh, what a surprise.

Doesn't really matter. BHO would win handily based on his record of achievement. right?

Jsc, you do realize that none of these incidents matter in the least, right? They aren't going to change a single voter's mind. Conservatives who are bashing these little episodes still will not vote for Obama come November, and those who are planning on voting for Obama couldn't care less about these stupid tax-disclosure/he-said-this-about-Obama diversions.

People are either going to vote for or against Obama, and that's it. That's the sole compelling mandate in this election. Romney isn't even a factor. He's merely The Obligatory Opponent.

That's a bit simplistic,. Van, to say the least.

It's also dead nuts accurate. We're dealing with the American electorate, remember? "Simple" is as much as they can handle, and "simple" is what we have here: Do you want four more years of Obama, or do you want him out?

No matter who the Republicans would have propped up as his opponent, the outcome would've been the same. No one is voting for Romney. They're simply voting against Obama. And, for that matter, no one is voting against Romney. They're simply voting for Obama, the current captain of their team.

Van wrote:It's also dead nuts accurate. We're dealing with the American electorate, remember? "Simple" is as much as they can handle, and "simple" is what we have here: Do you want four more years of Obama, or do you want him out?

No matter who the Republicans would have propped up as his opponent, the outcome would've been the same. No one is voting for Romney. They're simply voting against Obama. And, for that matter, no one is voting against Romney. They're simply voting for Obama, the current captain of their team.

Nonsense. Some of us see the country as being doomed in the short term. It's going to get worse over the next 4 years, regardless of who is in office. But which ever party is in office is going to take the blame, with long term consequences. I'd just as soon it was the Republicans. So I'm voting Romney.

The polls move from week to week, indicating that voters are uncertain, changing their minds back and forth. You're suggesting that the ultimate outcome is preordained. Hey, you'd make a good Christian.

Goobs is voting for Romney? Yeah, right.