Adios, I mean you were already ignoring me pointing out that you had some basic facts about me wrong. I guess putting me on "ignore" is easier than admitting you were wrong about my lean (has not changed since the day I joined) or the fact that I've never posted a word about Romney at this forum. Ever. Or about whom I will support for POTUS. So yeah, you better take the high moral ground route all brave internet warriors take and put me on "ignore". Which is a laugh for a lot of reasons aside from how weak you look going to that cliched weak as hell internet hack whine.Ahh. Nice try, but I am not taking the bait. Onto the old ignore list you go.
NOTE: In my 15 years on internet forums, I have seen much better people than you attempt to bait me. In fact, your attempts here are pretty weak sauce. If you want to be successful at baiting people on the internet, then you are really going to have to step it up a few notches. Just trying to help you out here so that you don't flop so badly in your future baiting endeavors. Have a nice day...... And adios. LOL.
Adios, I mean you were already ignoring me pointing out that you had some basic facts about me wrong. I guess putting me on "ignore" is easier than admitting you were wrong about my lean (has not changed since the day I joined) or the fact that I've never posted a word about Romney at this forum. Ever. Or about whom I will support for POTUS. So yeah, you better take the high moral ground route all brave internet warriors take and put me on "ignore". Which is a laugh for a lot of reasons aside from how weak you look going to that cliched weak as hell internet hack whine.
Yeah, I think I've got your number down and your "game" succinctly called out. Better call it "baiting you" and "attacking you" and you will just use the ignore feature! The one that we all know does not mean you won't still be reading and seeing every single post I make! The only thing IMO more stupid and useless than the ignore feature are the posers who say they are going to use it. Attah boy danarhea!
Moderator's Warning: |
Oh no no no! :rofl:
Don't tell me you believe that news papers (which few people actually read these days) and mainstream 24/7 news dribble is the ONLY source for such information. :rofl (and heck - lets inclue their online websites while we're at it)
I'm very well informed - and don't engage in either: I do research - lots of it . . .and extensive amount of reading (books, journals, articles) - not affiliated with mainstream anythings. . . I engage in debate and discussion (fascinating stuff others can bring up in a debate).
The path to knowledge doesn't have to be defined by some faux journalists cleaving to a secret ideology defined by their ratings - er - I mean 'audience'
Sometimes I go to foreign news sources - it's surprising sometimes the vast variety of US news you get from places like Reuters and China Daily.
I will say this about some of the vets around DP, virtually everything I was told with regard to the "prankster duo" has been spot on! Thanks for the heads up. Including the fact that one of the two runs to the other for protection whenever his hackery gets noted. You said he would do it, and wallah like magic he did and then as if it never ever ever has happened before, him is here, doing exactly what you said he would. I call it cadet nincompoopery, but no matter what you call it, it is a by the book and obvious as I was told it all would be!:lamo
I'm not familiar with it, I'm a couple of weeks behind on my DVR so imagine I'll see it soon enough. Mahr is a humorous shill for the DNC, as such I would fully expect him to leap, nay throw himself on the Romney controversy even as the source of same backpedals and makes more and more apologies for it. That is how the game is played!Hey Gie.
What did you think about Maher's comment on Ann Romney - "she never got her arse out of the house in the cold etc." - was really what DNC strategist Rosen really was trying to say? As to Ms. Romney's resume maybe she can add trashed by Bill Maher on national TV.
Bill Maher, IMO, should at least try to funny, since his resume says he a comedian, don't you think?
I'm not familiar with it, I'm a couple of weeks behind on my DVR so imagine I'll see it soon enough. Mahr is a humorous shill for the DNC, as such I would fully expect him to leap, nay throw himself on the Romney controversy even as the source of same backpedals and makes more and more apologies for it. That is how the game is played!
That's OK, I don't mind. Just as long as one is forearmed with knowledge going in, and I don't think anyone does not know Maher's political lean and biases. I personally think he is at his weakest when he starts going after the right with his "comedy" as it gets pretty puerile when he is doing so. When he is just being a comedian and not whining about republicans, but being creative and funny, then he is funny. IMO he gets downright stupid when he has to craft his humor to attack the right. I've even seen an interview with him where he pretty much admitted the same, but as it is now a HUGE part of his shtick, he is obligated to do that material, even though he knows he sounds like a bit of a shrill shill doing so.Of course he's a shill for the Libbys. He also gave $1 million to President Obama's campaign now he, along with Ms. Rosen, seem to be the Obama Admin hit squad.
Bill Maher, IMO, should at least try to be funny, since his resume says he a comedian, don't you think?
For someone who supports a candidate who has done more Liberal things than most Democrats have done, you are in no position to question my lean, nor that of anybody else.
Originally Posted by danarhea
This is something I have been agreeing with for some time, but I just found something out....
Romney has been defending his wife's wish to be a stay at home mom.... So far, no problem. But in January, he said this:
Apparently, it is OK for his wife to be a stay at home mom, but not OK for regular Americans. Now, as far as Ann Romney goes, this is not about her, and we shouldn't be jumping all over her for her decisions in life, which are just as valid as decisions made by any other American. But, apparently, Mitt Romney believes that the choice to be a stay at home mom is a privilege that should only be enjoyed by wives of billionaire elitist assholes like himself.
Oh yea, and Mitt wants the government to spend more money too. You sure he ain't really a Democrat billionaire elitist asshole?
Dan, now provide the rest. Hes referring to mothers on public assistance. Your comment is so toolish you can pick it up off the shelf at Ace.
CONTEXT DAMMIT. Even the LA Times did a better job at the context than you did with your comment.
Romney’s remarks were in reference to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which was created in 1996 as a part of welfare reform. Providing block grants to states, which are then intended to be directed to families in need, the number of families assisted by TANF has decreased from 68 for every 100 in poverty in 1996 to 27 for every 100 in 2010, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study. Along with allowing for the government to aide women in returning to the workplace, Romney also proposed a unemployment account set up by individual workers to serve as a form of insurance should they lose their jobs.
The Romney campaign defended the former Massachusetts governor’s remarks, citing the bipartisan nature of 1996’s welfare reforms.
"Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5% in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration's economic policies have been devastating to women and families," Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokesperson said.
Romney’s remarks aren’t far removed from those made by President Bill Clinton, in a statement released August 22, 1996.
“Most important, this Act is tough on work. Not only does it include firm but fair work requirements, it provides $4 billion more in child care than the vetoed bills—so that parents can end their dependency on welfare and go to work—and maintains health and safety standards for day care providers,” Clinton said.
and this "lets move" BS is simply aweful propganda
In addition to letting his mask slip danarhea also attributed positions and statements to me that I've never taken, never held and never posted at DP. When challenged on this, the genius just repeated them. And then he repeated them again. Eventually he decided the ballsy thing to do, the thing to do with the taste for integrity that most appealed to him was to run away. Take his blanket and whine a bit, then run away. But not before he contacted his tag team prank partner and cried that his years old prank was getting noticed. Again. But really, he wants to be taken seriously, that is why he did as you pointed out and then had a tantrum when his flim flam was a no sale and ran away. As you said, he looks exactly like a liberal hack when he pulls this kind of limp wristed hackery.Dan with all due respect you parroted the liberal talking points with absolutely no context and expect not to be questioned on where you stand? Thats pretty weak. See post 20 here is a reminder :
You not only made a crappy argument, you made a crappy liberal talking point argument AND took it out of context to make your point. You look like a liberal hack when you do nonsense like that. It makes it very hard to take you seriously.
It's like every initiative every first lady pushes! How on earth do people get upset about making kids healthier! You'd think that wouldn't be a controversial topic!
Uh huh....if you had not edited my response and read it instead, you might look a little less foolish than you do. Maybe you should go back and take a second run at it? Or is editing out the part of a post that actually answers the question you posed after editing out that part of the post, that answers the question you are rather idiotically asking, your idea of a really snazzy post? Go ahead and link us all up to 20 more pathetic videos that start with hackishly edited material that is easily debunked with a Google search. Then make sure the rest of your pathetic video is clips of paid opinion commentators making comments that are not particularly salacious or comparable to the comments about Mrs. Romney that this thread is about.Uh huh ... and Sean Hannity? And Bill O'Reilly? And about 20 other videos I could pull up if necessary?
Carl Edwards: Resume for consideration for the office of the president of the united states reads as follows; lying, cheating, dirty, filthy pig
Oh and uh huh Adam T, using none too cleverly edited videos (complete with jarring sounds like a needle dragged across a record between "quotes") is usually the territory of pbrauer and the multi fangled "Hazels" and Boo flingers. They will be delighted to learn a Ivy league "character" of your stripe is assisting their cause to rape and pillage common sense and that which is at the outer reaches of internet claims. Guess it goes to demonstrate what folks always said about G. W. Bush and an Ivy League edUmAcation. Mmm hmmm.
I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about. Now you say you can post more of them and you find "them" more convenient to use?As I mentioned above, I could easily post a dozen or more unedited Fox News videos attacking Michelle Obama. It was just more convenient to post a composite video.
For example, one of many Fox broadcasts discussing a nonexistent tape of Michelle using the word "whitey".
I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about.
Not sure why you seem so upset by this. The first video contained many legitimate clips of Fox on-air personalities and their guests attacking Michelle Obama. That was the point. To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right? Because Ann Romney has not been attacked, but Michelle has been attacked repeatedly? Then I posted an unedited clip that you seem to have ignored. Want another one?
How about fat-ass Rush Limbaugh ironically commenting on the first lady's derrier?
Got any film critique on that? How was the sound mixing? levels a little too high?
I don't think the ad hominem really adds anything to your argument -- such as it is -- so I'll just ignore it.
I like how you did not grasp that your 1st posted video was full of everything I pointed out and you don't deny it. Of course you had to ask me to explain it to you, I had to point out for you that your hackishly edited video started by twisting one non Fox employees words into the opposite of her actual position. And of course the rest of it was paid opinion commentators giving their none too salacious opinions on Mrs. Obama that have no connection to this topic and the comments it is about. Now you say you can post more of them and you find "them" more convenient to use?
Yeah that was kinda of the point, which went right over your pointy hat.
So lets take a look at the "source" of your latest video "compilation" which is also the source for such other high minded intellectual material as the following "convenient" video compilations:
"Mentally Disabled Man Forced to Vote for Obama"
"Sarah Palin is a C*NT say Obama supporters"
"Barak Obama and the Jews"
"Racist Guy Supports Obama"
"Barak Obama - Accidental Muslim"
And the list of these oh so intellectual "videos" you keep posting goes on and on, and gets more funny the more you look into just their oh so creative titles.
What next? You gonna step it up to the next level of "convenient" video compilations and just start posting straight from Media Matters? Or you just prefer the journalistic video editing of that infamous bringer of *truth* known to the world as "billemo2" the world renowned author of such sterling works as listed above and of course who can forget his other brilliant forays into intellectual video editing as this too?
I'm absolutely certain that you would probably be happy to keep showing us your idea of great easy to use convenient video compilations from You Tube, by such sterling journalistic sources as billemo2 and which you did not bother to watch or acquaint yourself with the contents of before you posted them. My request would of course be, please oh pretty please keep doing so?
Oh here is one more you missed by this source of your Ivy League material, billemo2!
"Barack Obama Gay Sex Scandal New Evidence"
Yeah I think you should keep showing us at DP what your idea of conveyance is, despite how obvious that already is to anybody with an IQ above oh say what? 70?
She's not running for anything. I assume they have children, and she was a stay-at-home Mommy. Good for her, good for the kids.
Now the only people we'll consider eligible to become President have to be married to people with similar qualifications? Since when?
This nauseating inquiry into Romney's personal life is distracting and annoying. What is Mitt's plan regarding the economy? Anyone know? Or are we just gonna chase shiney things around until November like a bunch of Pavlov's dogs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?