The liberal left just trying to dig up dirt whereever they can...if you look for it on anyone you will find it.Originally Posted by packinpatland
Did you know Biden used to plagerize speeches years ago? Did you know Hilary and her husband were involved in shady land deals when Bill was a governor?
Why is it you never have to look very hard when it's the Dems you're talking about?The liberal left just trying to dig up dirt whereever they can...if you look for it on anyone you will find it.
Did you know Biden used to plagerize speeches years ago? Did you know Hilary and her husband were involved in shady land deals when Bill was a governor?
And why is it the media glosses it over and defends them anyway when it's the Dems you're talking about?
Why is it the careers of Biden, Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and a whole host of other Dems continued unscathed, while the fag Congressman from Florida, George Allen, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, the governor of Illinois who ran for senate against Obama, etc. etc. etc. had their careers ruined for the same or actually much less?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Dirt? At least not in the classic sense. That's just how she does business. Favoritism ahead of professionalism? We should be used to that considering who we as a nation have put in power over the last few years.The liberal left just trying to dig up dirt whereever they can...if you look for it on anyone you will find it.
Did you know Biden used to plagerize speeches years ago? Did you know Hilary and her husband were involved in shady land deals when Bill was a governor?
C.H.U.D.
Ah, Skin with another ad hominem attack. What a surprise.
Ah, the Times...
The graph clearly shows the NYT is biased.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Skin with another ad hominem attack.
The graph clearly shows the NYT is biased.
Find some numbers that prove mine wrong then.Skin with another ad hominem attack.
The graph clearly shows the NYT is biased.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Forget the numbers, graphs.......show me where the NYT was dead wrong with their facts.
Am i disputing your graph?Find some numbers that prove mine wrong then.Skin with another ad hominem attack.
The graph clearly shows the NYT is biased.
We await your research on voting by education/smarts, real critique of the numbers i posted by ANY source, and any critique of the NYT story that disputes the acccuracy of the work.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever you say Tyrone.
Getting testy scott..must be fearful of obama win.Yeah, yeah. Whatever you say Tyrone.
I thought this was funny.
The graph clearly shows the NYT is biased.
C.H.U.D.
It's a shame how some of these decent issue and candidate oriented threads degenerate like this.
I think it's the fault of the lame leftists--who are so grossly WRONGHEADED and OUT OF TUNE with America and good normal Americans on the issues that all they can do is DIVERT and RUN AND HIDE.
You see the same thing on the national scene too. The America-hating ...... rectums ........ just don't dare confront McCain/Palin on the issues, so they try to blur things and divert toward character assassination and irrelevancy.
The Obama campaign and their leftist mainstream media allies are testicularly challenged, just like our lame forum leftists.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Tyrone, no one knows what the fuck you're disputing anymore because you dispute everything on the forum without ever saying anything.
I gave you your fucking critique on your numbers. Read it again if you've forgotten. You made excuses about google failing you instead of addressing the fact that your data doesn't mean shit to the argument at hand.
Forgive me if I don't consider the NYT a credible source of unbiased news. I hardly think I'm alone. And neither is Palin in doing what every politician does when they take office. They fill jobs with those who helped them get there and those who share their views. Of course it's only news to the Times when a republican in need of smearing is the subject.
I certainly didn't read anything that suggested Alaska fell into a state of unrecoverable turmoil as a result of her appointments. Or that there were even any complaints about the jobs those people she appointed were doing. Other than of course *GASP* she knew them growing up!!! In fact, the 80% approval rating would seem to indicate that those who were affected most by these decisions are happy with them, even if the New York Times isn't.
The rest of the article is the same recycled non-stories that every anti-Palin publication has been trying to push since she took the stage at the convention and scared the shit out of Obama's flock.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Tyrone, no one knows what the fuck you're disputing anymore because you dispute everything on the forum without ever saying anything.
He's obviously got some personal issues.
This is more bs. I simply posted figures that showed dems were not less educated.Tyrone, no one knows what the fuck you're disputing anymore because you dispute everything on the forum without ever saying anything.
I gave you your fucking critique on your numbers. Read it again if you've forgotten. You made excuses about google failing you instead of addressing the fact that your data doesn't mean shit to the argument at hand.
Forgive me if I don't consider the NYT a credible source of unbiased news. I hardly think I'm alone. And neither is Palin in doing what every politician does when they take office. They fill jobs with those who helped them get there and those who share their views. Of course it's only news to the Times when a republican in need of smearing is the subject.
I certainly didn't read anything that suggested Alaska fell into a state of unrecoverable turmoil as a result of her appointments. Or that there were even any complaints about the jobs those people she appointed were doing. Other than of course *GASP* she knew them growing up!!! In fact, the 80% approval rating would seem to indicate that those who were affected most by these decisions are happy with them, even if the New York Times isn't.
The rest of the article is the same recycled non-stories that every anti-Palin publication has been trying to push since she took the stage at the convention and scared the shit out of Obama's flock.
I didn't give google as an exuse..that is you. I gave you data..you suggesed that i posted only what was supportive...to which, if YOU can recall I stated was the only data i found. It wasn't pro or con...it was only what was found.
Nor did i post it with the express intent of saying who was better educated and therefore smarter. I never said anything to that at all. Infact, i pointed out that Partial's statement was elilist.
You choose to invalidate it on YOUR criteria. I simply asked you to find a source that agreed with your viewpoint..that the polling data wasnt' valid.
Bias: Have you read anything from me saying the NYT isn't biased. Everyone is biased..including yourself and the conservative sources that conservs use.
Your construct that they are smearing..well, i read it and dont' see it. I see a listing of the facts. Just as you don't see Fox smearing when i and others do.
However, simply attacking the story because it is from the NYT is laughable. You would ride me all day long if i simply did that to your sources.
Pot calling kettle black.Tyrone, no one knows what the fuck you're disputing anymore because you dispute everything on the forum without ever saying anything.
He's obviously got some personal issues.
Mccain is full of shit is what I have against him. NOW he is all for lower capital gains taxes, but when bush pushed them thru he voted against the cut calling it "a tax cut for the wealthiest americans".
He talks a good game about fiscal responsibility and wants to reign in about 18 billion in earmarks, but he voted for a new social program in medicare D. He also didn't even get involved with SS reform.
He is totally on board with cap and trade which basically will protect large existing companies while making start up costs of competitors unattainable.
He cosponsored campaign finance laws that crush free speech and protect incumbants.
He is all for giving citizenship to people who are here illegally and straining our overstrained social programs. People who broke the law as their first act on american soil.
As for sarah palin....talk to me about here when mccain actually DOES die, she would be a fine president. Yes, there is a difference between obama and mccain, but when we had guys running like tancredo, thompson, romney, even rudy....we put mr. across the aisle on the ticket. Sorry, I don't think he would be even an average president. Remember "I don't know much about economics". I'm not waiting 8 years for palin when I can get gingrich or jindall in 4.
edit: PS....remember our discussion 3 months ago about the economy being fine?? Unemployment is up to 5.8% and last night we had the biggest bankruptcy in US history. Banks are failing and credit markets are a fucking mess. GDP is pretty much stagnant....who coulda seen this coming?? Yea, GW did some good things, but some real shit happened while we were fighting terrorism. I'd like a president who might actually be able to do both.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
And this is what it always comes down to for you. No one can defeat you in your head.
As far as the article goes, a reasonable person need only look at the source and the title to understand what it's intentions are. The content of the article is weak, and to be honest, reads a lot like one of your arguments: A whole lot of talk without a point - well not a point that you would be forced to defend in any meaningful way. Just a title meant to enrage those who are already looking to be enraged. More intellectually dishonest crap thrown at the wall in the hope that the smell will linger.
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote