pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.
Liberals are the parents who set rules for there kids
Conservatives say think Lord of the Flies is the way to a better future.
Businesses are responsible for one thing, making money for stock holders. Someone needs to be there to make sure what they are doing is not harmful to the rest of the people.
People like you would say let the fucking kids have lead paint on there toys, I am sure the parents can figure it out for themselfs. And to stop them would be hurting that poor buisness. PS feel free to put cancer causing chemicals in the water and air...I don't want to stand in the way of your profits and say you can't do that,
bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.
bla bla bla..not one republican willing to admit attacking the president for gas prices going up, and then down 2 months later...is a douche bag move.
My above post #79 was edited for "personal attacks". I bow to the judgment of the moderator who edited my post. However, I'd like the opinions of others here regarding this question: "If an unpleasant claim is made about a poster, and if the claim is supported by facts; is it wiser to consider it "the truth" or a "personal attack"?" Had I called Adolph Hitler "a racist" and "a murderer", and had I provided facts that supported the claim, should my post have been edited to protect Adolf from the truth?
Prior to posting my comments in post #79, the "target" of my alleged "personal attack" had accused me and other Conservatives here of stupidity, and had purposefully lied about our position on the issue. He accused us of being "douche bags", and accused us of lying. At the same time, that accuser CLEARLY lied about our stated position on the issue at hand, and I quoted our position in my post. There were very few conclusions that could be drawn from my "target's" posts. I simply stated each of those conslusions, and they were considered "personal attacks". Is it a "personal attack" to speak the truth?
I have noticed there are few people here who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the other side or acknowledge when their drive-by accusations have been debunked with linked facts. In these cases it's probably just a waste of time to respond, because your only going to get the same answer, which is usually "your stupid" "your an idiot". They won't change, it's the way they are programmed, and they probably get a kick out of riling up those that will play their sick game. texas tea has it right.
My above post #79 was edited for "personal attacks". I bow to the judgment of the moderator who edited my post. However, I'd like the opinions of others here regarding this question: "If an unpleasant claim is made about a poster, and if the claim is supported by facts; is it wiser to consider it "the truth" or a "personal attack"?" Had I called Adolph Hitler "a racist" and "a murderer", and had I provided facts that supported the claim, should my post have been edited to protect Adolf from the truth?
Prior to posting my comments in post #79, the "target" of my alleged "personal attack" had accused me and other Conservatives here of stupidity, and had purposefully lied about our position on the issue. He accused us of being "douche bags", and accused us of lying. At the same time, that accuser CLEARLY lied about our stated position on the issue at hand, and I quoted our position in my post. There were very few conclusions that could be drawn from my "target's" posts. I simply stated each of those conslusions, and they were considered "personal attacks". Is it a "personal attack" to speak the truth?
This ONE Republican specifically said in my post #3 of THIS thread, "I didn't blame Obama for gas prices when they were higher...... I blamed him for not allowing the exploration and exploitation of more and more oil and natural gas.” POS even quoted that comment in his post #8 of THIS thread! In my post #38 of THIS thread, I said, "Read my earlier posts, lefty! I clearly stated that I DON'T blame the ups and downs in oil prices on ANY President. I blame this worthless President for obstructing the full exploration and exploitation of our nation's energy resources.”
edited for personal attacks. please don't do this as its a violation of forum rules.
why would anyone admit a false accusation ? cause and effect P, cause and effect.
Notice you still say nothing about the Hypocrites attacking for both...Thread was not about your personal views...it was about Fox News and the Republican base as a group.
What come on, just a month or 2 ago it was all Obamas Fault...so now that is low, any credit for him? what? none?? Its almost like Hypocrisy!
I guess in your word the word Republicans...only refers to this board?
The Hypocrisy of this board was that the same people who bitched about Obama for prices going up, sit in silence as they go down.
all the blame but no credit.
I don't give him credit or blame...But some on here do...but only one way.
Politics is politics -- there is ad after ad of Democrats going after Bush for gas prices that were lower than what we see today -- not a peep from them now.
This is simply the way it goes.