GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/12/of-nasty-campaigns-the-end-of-presidential-election-cycles/trackback/

  1. It’s inarguable that Obama ran a negative campaign, because leftism doesn’t work, which means that after practicing it four years, He had no record of achievement to run on. However:

    Maybe Obama’s negative campaign of 2012 does indeed signify the end of an era.

    …or not. It might signify the beginning of an era: American decline.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - November 12, 2012

  2. What was so negative? By far the most negative thing that was said in the campaign belongs to Mitt Romney with his rant about people that don’t pay income tax. Is there anything that even comes close to topping that?

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 8:59 pm - November 12, 2012

  3. What was so negative? By far the most negative thing that was said in the campaign belongs to Mitt Romney with his rant about people that don’t pay income tax. Is there anything that even comes close to topping that?

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 8:59 pm – November 12, 2012

    Let’s start here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 12, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - November 12, 2012

  4. Well, generations run in 20-30 year cycles….

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — November 12, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - November 12, 2012

  5. I agree with ILC and I would caution that cold statistics divorced from the mood of the country at each election is barely worth considering. Unless there is some sort of astrology at play, toying with numbers can lead to “numerism” (the blind faith in numbers) and lead to “quantasm” which is a lapse in judgment induced by the sight of numbers. It is best to revisit Lewis Carroll when veering in this direction.

    Then there is Levi’s pitiful plaint that there was not much negative in Obama’s campaign, especially nothing to match the Romney “rant” about people who pay no income tax.

    For Levi, just attacking the person and character of the opposition and putting forth no agenda is perfectly positive and useful. For Romney to cite the weight of the welfare costs against the total income of the government is so politically incorrect that it is despicable and mean spirited.

    Levi is a poster boy for the leprosy and cancer that is metastasizing and dragging this economy and great country to its knees. I have long passed the point of having any thought of kindness regarding the hyena characteristics of Levi who is just following the wounded in order to eat the carrion. I would rather lie dying and watch the hyenas fight over my bones than to attempt to raise them above their predilection to confiscate, deplete, drain, squeeze, steal, leech, strong-arm, and be parasitic. There is a certain satisfaction to be derived from watching the moocher look aimlessly and desperately for a host that has deserted him before he can drain the host.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 9:39 pm - November 12, 2012

  6. What was so negative?

    LOL – That’s right! For leftists, the stream of envious, destructive lies is an ordinary day’s work.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2012 @ 9:47 pm - November 12, 2012

  7. Where were the lies, exactly?

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - November 12, 2012

  8. Where? Out of the Obama campaign. Romney is a felon, Romney shipped jobs to China, Romney is a tax cheat, Romney gave someone cancer, Romney is going to end birth control…reducing women to nothing but their lady parts, which is par for those on the left…use them and toss them aside.
    Rules for Radicals. Look it up. Obama and Hillary were his best students.

    Comment by Annie — November 12, 2012 @ 11:22 pm - November 12, 2012

  9. Romney is a felon, Romney shipped jobs to China, Romney is a tax cheat, Romney gave someone cancer, Romney is going to end birth control

    …the Benghazi attack was a mob demonstration and Romney was a vicious fool to call it a terrorist attack, Romney will put blacks back in chains.

    Never mind Obama’s everyday lies of governing for four years: Obama has a plan to solve the deficit, Obamacare will not drive up medical costs, Obamacare will let you keep your doctor, Obamacare doesn’t rob Medicare of 716B dollars, Obamacare isn’t a tax, Bush was a deregulator and that caused the financial crisis, the economy is getting better AND Obama knows how to turn it around if we just give Him more time (note how the lies contradict), the deficit does not matter AND is Bush’s fault, tax cuts caused the financial crisis AND Obama does not want to take them away, Fast and Furious doesn’t matter AND is somehow a Bush program, unemployment will be down to 6% in 2012 if we just pass around enough deficit-fueled pork AND unemployment of 8% is a wonderfully good achievement, Obama is bipartisan, Obama courageously got bin Ladin (when in fact He kept blocking the efforts and His aides had to drag Him to it, plus it was SEALS and an intelligence infra nurtured under Bush that got bin Ladin), Obama has no interest in blaming anyone AND every problem that Obama ever encounters is caused by evil Republicans, on and on and on.

    All those are (1) falsehoods, (2) told intentionally. Levi repeats them gladly, making Levi a liar. Watch him try to tell us they aren’t lies, now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2012 @ 1:19 am - November 13, 2012

  10. So I guess speaking the truth is “negative” campaigning. The truth isn’t always positive, but I can’t imagine ever holding it against a politician for being honest. I want more of it. But, no, this is Bizzarro World now and all that is expected from politicians is to make people feel good by pretending you care about them (or by casting the opponent as the opposite) and by pretending the harsh reality doesn’t exist.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 13, 2012 @ 4:03 am - November 13, 2012

  11. Does anyone else find it funny that a serial liar is asking for examples of lies?

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 13, 2012 @ 9:20 am - November 13, 2012

  12. All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. (…..) Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

    Mein Kampf, p. 134.

    Levi and his ilk use must rely on their talking points to keep the big lie in circulation. They dare not have a thinking thought of their own. The must feed their Bush Derangement Syndrome. They must attack the media that doesn’t promote the big lie. They have to go to the culture that feeds them and supports them. They have a field of straw men to fight from religion to man-made global warming deniers to Rush to traditional marriage advocates to anyone who is too diverse in the “wrong” direction. They are the very first to scream for censorship and banning parents and the church from “poisoning” the minds by opening them to “incorrect” ways of thinkings.

    They are a ship of fascist fools and there are one Hell of a lot of them.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2012 @ 9:36 am - November 13, 2012

  13. Levi what state do you live in?

    As anyone would know who lived in a battleground state that Obama spent the whole summer and election season attacking Romney-and accusing him of all sorts of things-the dumbest of which had to be the “Romney gave a woman cancer and let her die.”

    But if Levi lives in a non battleground state he may have an excuse for not realizing just how negative Obama’s campaign ads were.

    Comment by Just Me — November 13, 2012 @ 9:43 am - November 13, 2012

  14. …the Benghazi attack was a mob demonstration

    Right. In your opinion, Benghazi proves Obama is a liar, but no WMDs in Iraq does not prove that Bush is a liar. Let’s compare.

    Most important is that Bush’s statements about Iraq were in pursuit of a policy objective. Bush’s goals were to invade Iraq and to persuade the American people that invading Iraq was necessary. This is in stark contrast to the situation in Benghazi, where Obama is trying to provide an explanation for an international incident that was completely outside of his control. Generally, people lie in order to get something that they want. Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Obama wants… what, exactly? What goal is Obama reaching for by saying the Benghazi attack was a mob demonstration? How is that useful to him? Lies require planning, and it’s worth it to remember that Bush had years to plan and a purpose for lying. Obama is reacting to a situation that fell in his lap and him lying about it doesn’t really get him anything in the way that lying about WMD did for Bush.

    Another thing to consider is how long each man stuck to his original story. Conservatives have been accusing Obama of taking two weeks to call Benghazi a terrorist attack, and that this is an unforgivable length of time that proves how much of a lying liar the President is. However, Bush spent years talking about all the weapons that Saddam had, making promises all along that they were bound to turn up, or making excuses that Saddam had moved them or hidden them to embarrass the United States. Doesn’t that just about settle it? Obama was changing his hypothesis in response to new evidence during a difficult investigation, while George Bush was doubling down year after year on his story about WMD. Generally, people that tell lies have to continue telling lies in order to not get caught. If Obama wanted to lie about why the attack happened (which doesn’t make sense), why would he be so willing to give up the game? On the other hand, is anyone so stupid that they need to have it explained to them why someone who lied to start a war might feel the need to continue lying?

    And yet, in your opinion, Bush is the honest President and Obama is the lying one. Well ain’t that something? Bush had choice, he had a clear motive, he had time to choreograph it, and he had about 4,000 reasons to keep it going. But he never lied! Obama’s over here releasing pages and pages of State Department documents pertaining to Benghazi, and he’s covering something up. Yeah, you’re quite the skeptic of big government, aren’t you? Government ruins everything and the government lies and distorts, but George Bush never did anything wrong. He can blame the intelligence and Obama can’t. Why? Just because.

    and Romney was a vicious fool to call it a terrorist attack,

    This is something that never happened. Romney was called a vicious fool for getting out of bed at midnight so he could give a speech about how some frightened embassy worker’s Twitter post proved that Obama was on an apology tour. Romney was politicizing a situation where American lives were in danger.

    That you can so easily get hung up on this crap about who called it a terrorist attack and when they called it a terrorist attack is humiliating, by the way. If you don’t feel ashamed, you should!

    Comment by Levi — November 13, 2012 @ 11:04 am - November 13, 2012

  15. Levi what state do you live in?

    As anyone would know who lived in a battleground state that Obama spent the whole summer and election season attacking Romney-and accusing him of all sorts of things-the dumbest of which had to be the “Romney gave a woman cancer and let her die.”

    But if Levi lives in a non battleground state he may have an excuse for not realizing just how negative Obama’s campaign ads were.

    I live in DC, where we got all the Virginia ads. So I guess I have no excuse!

    It seems like a few of you are upset over the Democrats insinuating that Romney’s tenure at Bain’s Capital may have ended up killing some people. But given the nature of the work that Bain Capital did, this is almost certainly true. Bain made its money by laying off workers and extracting huge consulting fees for itself. The thousands of workers who lost their jobs (and remember, Mitt likes firing people) had to deal with the repercussions of those pink slips, and more than a few undoubtedly have died that probably would have kept on living if they kept their jobs. Now it’s true that the wife in the video posted above may have died either way. It’s also true that Romney returned some businesses to profitability and likely saved and created a good number of jobs (and lives), too. But like it or not, he was in the business of firing people, and that business paid him well.

    There’s a role for companies like Bain in the economy, but that’s hardly an industry I would want to see in the background of the President of the United States. You can make a lot of money doing that kind of work, but there’s undeniably a moral hazard when making that money involves firing hundreds of people at a time. People don’t like seeing jobs shipped overseas at the expense of American workers because yes, ultimately that does severe harm to the newly unemployed Americans. Newt Gingrich, who was endorsed for President by the proprietor of this blog during the primaries, made Mitt Romney’s background an issue as often as he could for this reason. I know you guys love businessmen and rich people, but there are businessmen and rich people who have made their money by building and sustaining companies, not buying and gutting and them. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a candidate from the business world to haveonly saved or created jobs, and never had to fire anyone. There are companies like this, where the CEO isn’t paying himself an absurd salary, where the owner is clever and smart enough to understand his or her product and the marketplace, where they surround themselves with good people so the company is never in a position where they’re forced to downsize. Mitt Romney was just happy to be cashing these massive checks.

    Making profit isn’t the only way to judge whether or not someone is a good businessman. If you guys didn’t want to be criticized, you should have nominated somebody with a different past.

    Comment by Levi — November 13, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - November 13, 2012

  16. Where were the lies, exactly?

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 10:41 pm – November 12, 2012

    Well, here’s one, two, three examples of “lies” by what you and your Obama Party shrieked were the standards for determining whether or not something was a lie.

    So of course, when Levi is cornered, he tries to spin this one:

    It seems like a few of you are upset over the Democrats insinuating that Romney’s tenure at Bain’s Capital may have ended up killing some people. But given the nature of the work that Bain Capital did, this is almost certainly true….. The thousands of workers who lost their jobs (and remember, Mitt likes firing people) had to deal with the repercussions of those pink slips, and more than a few undoubtedly have died that probably would have kept on living if they kept their jobs.

    Comment by Levi — November 13, 2012 @ 12:00 pm – November 13, 2012

    But unfortunately for the desperate Levi, all that proves is that he supports murder.

    “It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery,” the report said.

    So Levi and Barack Obama laid off thousands of people, some of whom died afterward; if Levi and Barack Obama had not laid them off, they would still be alive today. Therefore Levi and Barack Obama are murderers.

    And then we have this hilarious rant:

    here are companies like this, where the CEO isn’t paying himself an absurd salary, where the owner is clever and smart enough to understand his or her product and the marketplace, where they surround themselves with good people so the company is never in a position where they’re forced to downsize.

    And then we have Obama’s example of a model businessman, Jon Corzine.

    And then we have Obama supporters at Solyndra, in which case Obama donors got a fat loan, got it restructured to put taxpayers on the hook, got fat salaries, and then got fat bonuses as the company collapsed and laid off workers.

    All of which Levi endorsed and supported.

    So frankly, Levi, all you’ve demonstrated is how you’re an unhinged and insane little freak who can’t really do anything other than scream “SIEG HEIL, OBAMA! DEATH TO REPUBLICANS!” at the top of his lungs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - November 13, 2012

  17. Obama wants… what, exactly?

    Obama wanted to win re-election. Geez Levi, how stupid are you? If Obama had told the truth about Benghazi – that it was, in fact, a terrorist attack and not a mob action – it would have shown al Qaeda on the march and so derailed His “I got bin Ladin!!!!!!11!” campaign.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - November 13, 2012

  18. As to Bush: “BUSHITLER LIED!!!!11!1!(tm)” is, itself, another one of your Big Lies that you, the liar Levi, love to repeat ad nauseum. We’ve been over this a dozen times at least. Major world intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam posed a threat. Bush acted on that intelligence. The intelligence wasn’t perfect, but in the end, Saddam did have some WMD stuff that he wasn’t supposed to have, and the world is a much better place for being rid of him.

    And why on Earth would Bush have *wanted* (your word) to invade Iraq, *apart from* a sincere desire to protect America from the long-term threat of Saddam? Because Rethuglicans are eeeeeeeevil, and Bush sat around cackling as he rubbed his hands?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - November 13, 2012

  19. (continued) Don’t say “for the oil”, because last time I checked, it was $85/barrel and gas was $4.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2012 @ 6:25 pm - November 13, 2012

  20. So once again, we have concrete evidence that Levi is fine with secret prisons, lies and invading foreign countries. It just has to be a dark skinned man who orders it.

    (Again of course, President Bush didn’t lie, but Levi, like his idol Gobbels, keeps repeating the lie hoping people believe it as true.)

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 13, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - November 13, 2012

  21. Obama wanted to win re-election. Geez Levi, how stupid are you? If Obama had told the truth about Benghazi – that it was, in fact, a terrorist attack and not a mob action – it would have shown al Qaeda on the march and so derailed His “I got bin Ladin!!!!!!11!” campaign.

    Okay. So for that to be true, you’d have to believe that Obama was woken up in the middle of the night, told explicitly by his advisers that an ambassador was definitely killed by terrorists, and that his first response was to say “We have to call it a mob demonstration or I might lose the election because people are going to think the terrorists are winning!”

    ???

    How does that??

    I mean…. why would he….

    HOLY SHIT DOES THAT NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. Obama thinks he’s going to save himself some trouble during the election because he called it a mob demonstration instead of a terror attack? Never mind that he did call it a terror attack. And why would he start lying and then stop? Why are they so open about it? Certainly this would be an easy thing to cover up if he wanted to oh my god I have to stop. This is completely inane. Conservatives are desperate to politicize it and that’s all anyone needs to know about it.

    Comment by Levi — November 13, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - November 13, 2012

  22. As to Bush: “BUSHITLER LIED!!!!11!1!(tm)” is, itself, another one of your Big Lies that you, the liar Levi, love to repeat ad nauseum. We’ve been over this a dozen times at least. Major world intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam posed a threat. Bush acted on that intelligence. The intelligence wasn’t perfect, but in the end, Saddam did have some WMD stuff that he wasn’t supposed to have, and the world is a much better place for being rid of him.

    And why on Earth would Bush have *wanted* (your word) to invade Iraq, *apart from* a sincere desire to protect America from the long-term threat of Saddam? Because Rethuglicans are eeeeeeeevil, and Bush sat around cackling as he rubbed his hands?

    Invading Iraq appealed to Bush (and more importantly, the neocons that infested his administration) for a number of reasons. Principally, it was a campaign prop. Landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to give a speech in front of a giant ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner? Oh, you are truly a fool if you don’t think that Bush (and Rove) didn’t want that for their re-election campaign. Iraq allowed Bush to run as a war president, which sounds serious and important and strong. The Democrats that were running against him could be portrayed as against the troops and compromising the war effort and all that. And all of this happened and it worked out perfectly for them.

    Second, it put the media in the Republicans’ back pocket. Now I know, I know, the media is liberal and the media hates George Bush! But just ignore that impulse and listen for a minute. The media loves wars. Wars mean ratings, ratings mean money. News organizations were jockeying for favor with the administration and they were asking for interviews and for embed access and were more than willing to be mouthpieces for the administration’s talking points. You might remember (who am I kidding, no way you would know about this) about the Pentagon’s retired general program that plastered shills for the administration and war all over the media, which was happy to play their part. Covering the war (remember how much coverage the war received) kept the media busy and largely off the administration’s back for their other policies.

    And how about those other policies? Iraq became a catch-all justification for Bush’s various ‘anti-terror’ measures such as the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detainment, etc. Invoking the fact that “We’re at War!” is a handy way to defuse and steamroll criticism for extreme positions such as those above. Bush wanted to invade.

    Finally, can’t ignore, can’t stop it, has to be said, money. Invading Iraq was a way for lots of Republican companies to make lots of money. You can tell that this is the case, since the massive transfer of huge amounts of money to conservative companies was quite literally the only thing that the Bush administration appeared to plan for. There are the personal connections between contract winners and senior Bush administration figures, cost-plus, no-bid contracts (mmm, ain’t those some delicious free market principles), the unwillingness to investigate fraud, the protection of the oil infrastructure at the expense of civilian protection, and on and on. Take Paul Bremer’s decision to allow foreigners to buy state-owned companies for dirt cheap and repatriate all the profits. Get that? How is something like that supposed to help the Iraqis get back on their feet?

    Combine that with the increase in defense spending at home, and you’ve got Bush’s primary motivation. Money. The neocons wanted an economic wild west and Bush gave it to them in Iraq. There were no regulations, there were no inspectors, there there were not taxes, just money. A conservative’s wet dream, and all you had to do was lie the country into a war. Hell, I’ll grant that Bush probably thought there were weapons there, but that doesn’t excuse him lying about it.

    Comment by Levi — November 13, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - November 13, 2012

  23. So Levi’s argument is that Bush lied about Iraq as a campaign prop, despite it taking place nowhere near an election…..but Obama did not lie about Benghazi, despite it taking place practically on top of one.

    The rest is just a demonstration of the unhinged insanity that grips Obama supporters any time the name “Bush” is mentioned. Since they are mentally incapable of criticizing their Barack Obama, who regularly makes them look like hypocritical fools, they project their humiliation and hurt over how easily they were manipulated by the liar Obama and their own racist beliefs onto George W. Bush, blaming him for all of the things for which they cannot hold Obama responsible.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - November 13, 2012

  24. Hell, I’ll grant that Bush probably thought there were weapons there, but that doesn’t excuse him lying about it.

    I need to be clear here – Bush probably thought they would find weapons there. I’m reasonably sure they wouldn’t have set about on this little mis-adventure if they thought they’d never find anything and end up in a place of permanent disgrace in American and world history. They were going for a permanent Republican majority, and there was no room in that plan for not finding weapons. Imagine if they had unearthed a weapons program of any significance. Now, you’d still have their bumbling during the occupation, huge embarrassments like Abu Graihb, the financial crisis would have come regardless, but the big thing that dragged Bush down was his war, and without that he’d undoubtedly be viewed in a better light. I’m sure that’s what they thought happen.

    However, assuming that there are going to be weapons after you invade does not mean you should just make up evidence to justify your invasion. That’s the kind of ends-justify-the-means thinking that is the hallmark of totalitarianism, and look at all the damage it caused when it blew up in his face. As a cherry on top, he’s been making excuses for himself for years now, blaming the bad intelligence for tricking him into thinking something that wasn’t. Of course, even when Bush was laying out his case for war, there were people calling him on his bullshit evidence, so that doesn’t really work. Not only is Bush a liar, but he’s a coward if he’s not willing to take responsibility. Obama’s taken more responsibility for the security failures in Benghazi than Bush (or the Republicans) took for Iraq.

    Comment by Levi — November 14, 2012 @ 12:16 am - November 14, 2012

  25. ILC, there is little to be gained from arguing with a sociopath.

    Comment by V the K — November 14, 2012 @ 12:21 am - November 14, 2012

  26. Actually, V the K, there is a lot to be gained.

    What we see here is the deluded and sick Levi continuing to melt down. As we know, Levi is completely unhinged and divorced from reality; he was humiliated in this thread in which every single one of the lies he’s tried to spin for Obama about Benghazi was debunked, with facts, references, and direct quotes from Obama himself .

    So what is the poor insane child to do? He can’t blame Obama. He can’t hold Obama accountable. So in order to make Obama look good, he projects all of Obama’s proven crimes onto Bush, screaming and crying that Obama is blameless, that everything, everything, EVERYTHING is Bush’s fault.

    And we refuse to let him do it.

    Hence, he screams and cries and wets himself even more, because that’s how he broke his worthless and incompetent parents. Notice how his rant is nothing more than “BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHHHHHHH!” There is no fact, no research, no link, no real logic anywhere in his post; it’s the tantrum of a frustrated and emotionally-helpless toddler who is trying to scream his way into getting what he wants.

    And I say we keep poking him and laughing at him. We can melt the little imbecile’s brain into powder. We can humiliate anyone and anything that dares speak up in the name of Obama or “progressivism” simply by citing him and his rants. We can tire him out until he realizes he’s losing and runs away and sulks, refusing to answer.

    And that is how we break the back of the “progressives”. Yes, it is tiring. But every time they lose, we win.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2012 @ 1:16 am - November 14, 2012

  27. What we see here is the deluded and sick Levi continuing to melt down. As we know, Levi is completely unhinged and divorced from reality; he was humiliated in this thread in which every single one of the lies he’s tried to spin for Obama about Benghazi was debunked, with facts, references, and direct quotes from Obama himself .

    You’re just too stupid. I could use all those links to support my argument, you know that?

    Comment by Levi — November 14, 2012 @ 1:30 am - November 14, 2012

  28. And yet the little fascist cannot provide links to back up what he says.

    Remember: Levi believes invading other countries, overthrowing governments, secret prisons, cover ups and lies are fine if it’s Obama, but he’ll lie about liberating Iraq, actuall environmental improvement, WMD and 9/11 if it’s President Bush.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 14, 2012 @ 8:07 am - November 14, 2012

  29. You’re just too stupid. I could use all those links to support my argument, you know that?

    Translation: If I had a fact based premise and another fact based premise and I didn’t violate the rules of a legitimate syllogism, I could reach an indisputable conclusion.

    You know that?

    Hobo: If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

    You know that?

    And

    You know that?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 14, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - November 14, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.268 Powered by Wordpress