Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania in 2010?

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are the facts:
You are lying when you accuse me of using multiple names. I don't do that.
I respond to name-calling with name-calling and attacks with attacks. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have started it. It's a little late to be crying about the game you chose to play.
You define yourself by me. Your name is formed from my name. Without me, you have no identity here.
You do nothing here but attack me. You do not debate issues. You do not advocate for what you believe in. You are nothing but a mindless attack dog.
These are the facts. All the rest is just hot air and your vivid imagination.

ACTUALLY you whine like a tiny baby. LMAO!

You want a debate, HOW IS OBAMA GOING TO PAY FOR HIS TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET???

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Here are the facts:
You are lying when you accuse me of using multiple names. I don't do that.
I respond to name-calling with name-calling and attacks with attacks. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have started it. It's a little late to be crying about the game you chose to play.
You define yourself by me. Your name is formed from my name. Without me, you have no identity here.
You do nothing here but attack me. You do not debate issues. You do not advocate for what you believe in. You are nothing but a mindless attack dog.
These are the facts. All the rest is just hot air and your vivid imagination.

Oh but you do lie and you do call people names when they haven't even said a word to you.

The thread on "Obama economy better or worse", some one said something along the line that it doesn't take a genius to see things are worse. The next post you call the guy an imbecile. He NEVER called you a name, he wasn't even talking to you, yet you call him a name. So you see, you lie too!

Roger wrote:

<quoted text>
Dan the Man says-------->You NEVER debate the issues, do you? ALL you do is make personal attacks on me. Hell, you've even named yourself after a personal attack on me.
Talk about having no life - you're using me to define yourself.
You have no identity here except as someone who attacks ME. I'm your reason for existence. You do nothing here - nothing at all - unless it involves me.
Wow. You give the term "loser" a new definition. What a pathetic wretch of a creature you are. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such an arrogant little prick.
Dan the Man condemns a poster for not debating the issues and making personal attacks against him. Yet he turns around and does the exact same thing he is accusing the poster of doing.
I looked up the definition of Dan the Man and here is what I found.
1. A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
2. A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.
3. Someone who complains about something but finds themselves doing exactly the same thing.
4. A person who fails to practice what they preach.

BINGO! Great definition of a liberal and DTM.

Roger wrote:

Everyone should watch his video.
Judge Napolitano: How to Be Fired In Less than Five Minutes

with arrest, you know this was decided behind closed doors.

He is exposing things the media/government does not want people to think about.

They only want you to think Republican or Democrat, nothing else.

Roger wrote:

Everyone should watch his video.
Judge Napolitano: How to Be Fired In Less than Five Minutes
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread808...

Good clip, he is 100% correct.

Drones like DTM get stuck inside the left/right box, and cannot think outside of it.

I guess DTM will be signing up for an Obama 'Truth Team', even though he calls everyone else 'truthers'.

It is a damn shame to witness such mind controlled weasels spewing their ignorance and not even understanding why. The weak minded are so easily controlled.

The bankers are winning - they control EVERYTHING

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

http://americanfreepress.net/...

Educate yourself:

See how much the politicians care about you !

Click on the link to see the real truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

TaxNoMore wrote:

<quoted text>
**********
You seem sick.
**********
31 OCTOBER 2008
Peggy Joseph:
Obama will pay my gas and mortgage
Typical ghetto rat pulls her kid out of school to attend an Obama rally, and then gets her 4 minutes of fame by exclaiming,
"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car.
I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

One person, with no political pull, saying something silly supports your point about all Democrats?

I'm guessing that posting absurd statements from GOP -leaders- would carry no weight whatsoever as they "misspoke" or were taken out of context? And the only "facts" you think are true are only those that give credence to your argument?

TaxNoMore wrote:

<quoted text>
**********
Perhaps you don't know the definition of the term "back-pedal."
Let me help:
back-ped·al
verb
to retreat from or reverse one's previous stand on any matter
**********
Obama is "back-pedaling."
POLITICO Breaking News
----------
In an abrupt shift, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that religious employers will not be mandated to offer free contraceptive coverage for workers, according to senior administration officials.
The president will instead demand that insurance companies, rather than religious-affiliated institutions, take the lead in enrolling employees for the birth control benefit and covering the cost.
Catholic advocates had argued that placing the requirement on employers would abridge free speech rights.
Obama is scheduled to deliver a statement at 12:15 p.m. in the White House briefing room.
Obama is "back-pedaling." his azz at warp speed.
The Marxist half-breed looks like a streak of shit with ears.

Have you ever considered that an idea what put forth just to see what the reaction would be? "Testing the waters" before diving in?

Of course not. Because in your mind, you only follow the orders given to you. You've been told that Democrats are the enemy, Iran is the enemy, the next town over is the enemy. And tomorrow you'll be delighted that the chocolate rations have been increased to 20 grams.

TaxNoMore wrote:

<quoted text>
**********
Increased tax revenue in Michigan is responsible for the unexpected surplus.
And the increased tax revenue in Michigan is directly related to recovery in the auto industry in Michigan.
And the recovery of the auto industry in Michigan is directly related to President Obama's investment in GM and Chrysler.
**********
Ex-auto czar:
Auto bailout will cost taxpayers $14 billion
Comments
By Greg Gardner, USA TODAY and the Detroit Free Press
American taxpayers will lose about $14 billion on the $82 billion investment to restructure General Motors, Chrysler and Ally Financial, former auto czar Steven Rattner told the Detroit Economic Club.
"It's unambiguous that it was a success," said Rattner, acknowledging his inherent bias because he led the effort.
..........
Obama is "back-pedaling." his azz at warp speed.
The Marxist half-breed looks like a streak of shit with ears.

And if GM went into bankruptcy proceedings, thousands laid off, with the "trickle down" effect of supporting businesses to those now unemployed, how much would that have cost?

I'll give you a hint... quite a few government "bailouts" are very low interest loans so that very large business can meet the operating expenses in the short term. If the business turns itself around, those loans get repaid.

In a way that you can understand it, it's similar those payday loans you take out to cover your beer costs until the next paycheck. Except the government bailout only happens every once in a while with very low interest and get paid back because the business finds a way to be profitable.

You, on the other hand, find yourself 3 paychecks in debt and growing because a)beer is a right and b) you don't need that fancy public school mathematics learning like calculating interest. It wasn't good enough for your Grandpa so why should you learn that ivory tower elitist nonsense?

Roger wrote:

Andrew Breitbart: We're Going To Vet Obama This Time.
Conservative commentator and activist Andrew Breitbart excites the crowd at CPAC.
Breitbart warns he has videos of President Obama when he was in college.

Did he make James O'Keefe (Pimp Supreme of Acorn "Sting" Fame) dress up in vaudeville blackface ("historical re-enactment." totally not racist as it's "educational.") as a condition of his bail out?(as in making bail, not a loan).

Romney Chicken Hawks wrote:

My husband served in the Army in Vietnam, as did his only brother; while his father served in the Army in Europe during WW II. MY father served in the Navy during the Korean War. What troubles us about Romney is that not only did HE manage to get several deferments, but his Dad didn't serve in WW II, when HE was of age, either -- moreover NONE of Romney's FIVE healthy sons have served in the military. That's O-for-7 for the Romneys.
We don't generally think this necessarily a defining thing (we don't normally get on our high-horse about it); but Romney (and for that matter MOST Republican politicians) always seem to at infer that they are somehow more patriotic, and love this country more than Democrats. It's hogwash. This is the reason why the term "Chickenhawk" was coined..!!!!!!!!

If this is a major point for you, then you will go with Ron Paul.

And in 2016, Biden gets your vote (his son is Major in the ANG JAG corps and served in Iraq). ;)

George wrote:

<quoted text>
Surely your term "Chickenhawk" more appropriately applies to the current military Commander in Chief.
President Obama never served in the military, did he. And his Vice-Presidential choice, Joe Biden, never served while enjoying five deferments from service during the 1960s.
You might be comforted in knowing that the third in line to lead our nation, Republican John Boehner, signed up for the Navy but was honorably discharged after eight weeks of training because of a bad back. Unlike Obama and Biden, Boehner at least tried to serve.
The current leadership is no standard bearer for military service. Your comments seem politically rather than patriotically inspired.

And I seem to recall, John Kerry's service in Vietnam was brought into question.

And Bob Dole's was downplayed.

As was George H.W. Bush (the senior).

As was McCain's when he ran against G.W. Bush.

And Reagan had better military creds than Carter.

I prefer my CINC to have some military experience, mainly so they know just how F'd up it is to be in the military.

I'm actually quite impressed by Obama's use of the military. Where it's has been needed, he issued the orders. And I'm more impressed at his use of Spec Ops to hit a specific target than to just send a mass of cannon-fodder <cough>Iraq<cough> .

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, we've been over this.
You can call someone a chicken for going out of his way to avoid military service, but adding the "hawk" part makes the term mean that he not only avoided service, but that's he's simultaneously an overt cheerleader for war.
Obama didn't serve, but he doesn't cheerlead war. Therefore the term doesn't apply to him.

Ya know, I wonder how eager this country would be for war if the President and Congress said "go." And then in one week, a popular vote is made - those who vote "war" get their draft orders printed out when they cast the ballot. It doesn't matter how old or what gender you are. Vote yes, and you serve.

You may not be fit to fight on the front line, but you can fill in for the admin paperwork position (at E-1 pay) and free up a combat capable draftee or volunteer.

Roger wrote:

When Dan the Man posted about conseratives having
lower IQ's than liberals I did some research and I came across this article about races and IQ's. I was shocked to see that Africans had an average IQ of 70. I was always under the belief that an IQ of 60 you were mentally challenged. This sure explains a lot to me about one poster on here.
But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

This is very interesting. If you go to countries where the lower I.Q. lives, you will find a complete mess from top to bottom. The same is true if you go into the inner cities where these people live, there is garbage strewn around, their houses are not maintained, they are violent people and you will find more crime where these people are.

I will be called a racist for saying this, I don't care because what I have said is true. I call what I see.

DTM will go beserk when he reads this(so what else is new). DTM is black and very thinned skinned and will take it as an attack on him. Doesn't matter that it's true.

You know I just thought of something. DTM gets extremely angry at the drop of a hat. He loses his cool and becomes verbally abusive. One has to wonder if he gets physically abusive when he is with people that he disagrees with? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. Fits with the lower I.Q. of the black African. Which seems to reinforce that DTM is black.

very interesting wrote:

<quoted text>This is very interesting. If you go to countries where the lower I.Q. lives, you will find a complete mess from top to bottom. The same is true if you go into the inner cities where these people live, there is garbage strewn around, their houses are not maintained, they are violent people and you will find more crime where these people are.
I will be called a racist for saying this, I don't care because what I have said is true. I call what I see.
DTM will go beserk when he reads this(so what else is new). DTM is black and very thinned skinned and will take it as an attack on him. Doesn't matter that it's true.
You know I just thought of something. DTM gets extremely angry at the drop of a hat. He loses his cool and becomes verbally abusive. One has to wonder if he gets physically abusive when he is with people that he disagrees with? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. Fits with the lower I.Q. of the black African. Which seems to reinforce that DTM is black.

And I bet you have a really good explanation for some of the rural places I've seen that were basically landfills on their private property.

You may want to take a look at the Broken Window Theory that Bill Bratton used in New York City.

Here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_t...

And as for some of the urban areas, I already know why the streets are littered after Friday and Saturday nights... People know the Community Service court sentence recipients are coming through the next day to clean up their messes. It's about as close as they'll get to maid service. Some weeks, they are the community service job creators, the next week they are the maid.

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
It's easy enough bright boy.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Now, you want to tell if Democrats had a voting majority in the S Senate n 2007 & 308?
Come on Roger, Speak up.

Right...Democrats beat the Republicans and took control of Congress in Jan. 2007 (after the Nov. 2006 Election). That's when Nancy Pelosi(D)was SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (Democrat Majority) and Harry Reid (D) MAJORITY leader of the Senate. What don't you get? They're the obstructionalists. They don't have control of the House now (Thank You God), and job bills passed by the REPUBLICAN controlled House are not even being brought up for vote by the Harry Reid (D) controlled Senate.

Obama budget defies GOP demands on taxes, spending

Declaring that he was seeking "an economy that is built to last," President Obama unveiled an election-year budget blueprint Monday that would spend more on roads, college aid, renewable energy and incentives for American manufacturing while hiking taxes on millionaires and the oil and gas industry.

Obama's $3.8 trillion budget - the biggest in American history - mirrored the Democratic incumbent's populist economic message of recent months. To pay for what he calls "investments" in America's future, the president would force the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and certain businesses to ante up $1.5 trillion in additional taxes over the next decade.

Defying Republican demands to reduce federal spending, Obama instead embraced the liberal economic theory that a new round of government spending would stimulate the nascent economic recovery.

"We can't just cut our way into growth," Obama said. "We can cut back on the things that we don't need, but we also have to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share for the things that we do need."

Republicans responded with a combination of disgust and dismay to Obama's spending proposal for fiscal year 2013, which starts Oct 1. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dismissed the president's proposal as "a campaign document." The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, dubbed the budget "debt on arrival," a wry variation on "dead on arrival."

"The president has needlessly killed many trees and wasted many bureaucrat hours on a political document aimed at his re-election instead of the betterment of the country," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the top House Republican on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

One prominent nonpartisan budget-watcher, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, lamented that the White House budget was "not bold enough or specific enough" in dealing with rapidly growing entitlement spending.

"The president's budget fails to lay out a substantive path to restore fiscal sanity," concluded Walker, who is now CEO of the Comeback America Initiative, an antideficit advocacy group.

From environmentalists to consumer groups, Democratic constituencies fared well in the president's budget. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would get a 50 percent increase to help it implement financial reforms, and the Securities and Exchange Commission would get a boost of more than 20 percent. The administration proposed a 60 percent hike in pipeline safety spending following the deadly 2010 gas line explosion in San Bruno and the crude oil leak into the Yellowstone River in Montana last year.

Among the losers in the Obama budget belt-tightening were the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA and the Agriculture Department, which saw slight spending reductions to comply with the spending caps contained in last year's bipartisan debt-limit compromise.

Despite the cuts, the Obama spending plan falls far short of balancing the federal budget. After four consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits, the White House projects that its latest plan would reduce the red ink to $901 billion in 2013.

In the end, Obama's budget was driven more by political realities than fiscal concerns. With the presidential election less than nine months away, the incumbent sought big spending increases on popular initiatives. He requested $476 billion for transportation projects including roads, bridges and high-speed rail. He sought an $850 million increase in grants for high-performing schools under his "Race to the Top" initiative. And he wants to pump $8 billion into a fund to train community college students for high-growth industries.

To offset the spending increases, the administration proposed to raise taxes on all families earning more than $250,000 and requiring....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>

And as for some of the urban areas, I already know why the streets are littered after Friday and Saturday nights... People know the Community Service court sentence recipients are coming through the next day to clean up their messes.

Typical liberal garbage, create a mess and let someone else pick it up. How about being responsible, and not acting like a slob in the first place!

greymouser wrote:

<quoted text>
And I bet you have a really good explanation for some of the rural places I've seen that were basically landfills on their private property.
You may want to take a look at the Broken Window Theory that Bill Bratton used in New York City.
Here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_t...
And as for some of the urban areas, I already know why the streets are littered after Friday and Saturday nights... People know the Community Service court sentence recipients are coming through the next day to clean up their messes. It's about as close as they'll get to maid service. Some weeks, they are the community service job creators, the next week they are the maid.

your reply doesn't make much sense. First of all I'm not talking about the streets littered from Sat and Fri nights. That in itself is strange. It sounds like you're making excuses. What does that have to do with trashing everything in sight, living in filth, and being violent?

And as far as rural areas, again what does that have to do with low I.Q.s? I think everyone knows that rural areas are much safer, and cleaner than an inner city and these 3rd world countries that are inhabited by lower I.Q.s.