[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson[/quote]
Ahh…Wow. I am bamboozled here…
You, uh, understand that everything you just said contradicts nearly every single human’s view on the logic of political philosophy, right?
As far as I know, facists would despise nearly every single thing about the left, remember that whole burning of the reichstag, blame it on the Commies thing? What about the disdain that Nazis and Communists held for each other.
Can you read, or do you just pound keys aimlessly and hope for the best? If you can read, why don’t you? It really is kind of interesting…I suggest you start with this thing called a “dictionary”. I know that was a big word, with four syllables and all. But this may be a hell you have to endure in order to save yourself from your seemingly purely delusional world where liberals are facists, Ann Coulter is Athena, and Headhunter speaks of himself only as, “This Headhunter fellow”.
Liberals aren’t facists, my man. Sorry to say it, but you are the facist.
Do you think the majority of the people in the country are the same way? You may not WANT to believe it, but I dare you to respond to this post stating that no one in this country believes O’Reilly is giving a truthful load of good 'ole right winged news.[/quote]
But this completely irrelevant - the only thing it proves is that some people can’t distinguish the difference in opinion journalism and straight journalism.
That’s all. How in the hell do you think that the existence of some people who can’t figure out the difference is proof?
[quote]Case in point of you, yourself, performing bait and switch with your info while accusing me of it. You wrote before, “[b]1. Your ‘proof’ of institutional journalistic bias at FOXNews because an opinion journalist misquoted Howard Dean, and then your trainwreck defense of it.[b/]”
Now, wait a second, we went from a news show that shows a bias to a news show that shows institutional dishonesty?[/quote]
No, in fairness, though I think you are quibbling and you know what I mean, the original thread was about lying and not necessarily just bias. So I was asking for proof of institutional lying - which was claimed - and not just bias.
So let’s be clear - I was asking for proof of lying or, broadly stated, instititional dishonesty.
Now, go read the thread - what started that line was that someone claimed that FOX News lied in its reporting. I asked for proof. You gave me ‘proof’ of that lying because Sean Hannity misquoted Howard Dean.
You sure about that? This is where you are not fessing up - you were there, you know exactly what was asked and what you said. Go read up on the thread:
Here is my question:
“Show me credible evidence that FOX presents misinformation or manufactured, deceitful stories.”
Here is your response to that question:
"We just went through this in another thread. One prime example is:
ABC Radio and FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity admitted, in a July 27 interview with The Al Franken Show co-host Al Franken, that he had accused former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean…"
This is your ‘proof’ to my question, which asked for evidence of misrepresention or [/i]deceit[/i].
So don’t try and move the goal posts yet again - you were there, you know what you answered. I asked a question regarding institutional dishonesty, and that was your reply - an opinion journalist misquoting Howard Dean.
Quibbling over my use of terms is nothing more than your usual attempts at smoke and mirrors. Don’t have the audacity to say “Oh! Since when did you want to know about deliberate institutional misrepresentation and not about bias??!!” when you were part and parcel of that conversation in the old thread.
Your whole basis for ‘proving’ the question relied on the weakass idea that some folks can’t distinguish between editorializing and straight news, which isn’t proof at all.
First, let me give you credit for actually going and trying to do what is necessary to ‘prove’ your claim of bias. You actually went out and looked at straight news stories to see if there was any evidence. Super.
In truth, I am not especially impressed with the fact that the sentence “Democrats accused Republicans…” is evidence of bias/misrepresentation/whatever. Democrats did accuse Republicans of pulling a vote at the last minute without the chance to have much of a hearing on the issue of pullout. The CNN piece said the same thing. That is a fact - and in truth, I think that is probably what the GOP did (a quick vote on purpose).
Go read lower on the FOX piece, and see Nancy Pelosi’s quote:
“A disgrace,” declared House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame,” added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat."
Sorry, no bias here. Democrats did exactly as the piece reported. And the piece presented what the Dems said. All that was reported was what was said.
[quote]The following statement by McClellan was completely left out of the FOX news report:
from CNN
McClellan said it is “baffling that [Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.”
Why? I sure thought that was some interesting news that CNN reported on but Fox didn’t. To me it shows just how viscous it got in that room and that democrats weren’t the only ones “acting” in there.[/quote]
Oops, Professor X didn’t do his homework again.
CNN doesn’t include any quotes from the Democrats supporting their saying it was a political stunt. Wouldn’t that newsworthy as well?
Moreover, and here is the big kicker, FOX picked this piece up from the Associated Press - and the AP does not work for FOX (and in fact is often accused of having a liberal bias).
So not only is it a weak argument of bias, it isn’t even evidence of FOX’s journalism.
That being said, I think there is evidence of bias, you’re just not very good at presenting it. And second, to my point above, evidence of institutional dishonesty - lying, that is - has still not been demonstrated, and that was where we initially began our little dance.
I never claimed such a thing - I think there is bias all over the place.
Which I do, and in truth, FOX is not one of them.
Go read the thread again. And again.
This is jibberish. Write clearly.
So, if we applied pure logic, would we have gay marriage or not?
In sum, sorry for the confusion on bias. That is a separate question. What I have been discussing here is your presentation of an opinion journalist misquoting Howard Dean as evidence of institutional dishonesty - lying - and how wrong it was. I thought, since you were actually participating in that argument in the other thread, you would know what I was talking about.
I stand corrected - and you still have no basis in the claim that the existence of an editorialist and some of his Lemmings means FOX lies.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson[/quote]
You’re not devious, just completely devoid of a sense of humor. Not the same thing. And speaking as a conservative, not only is equating your political opponents (opponents, not enemies) to fascists disgusting, and representative of everything that is wrong with politics in this country, but you want to talk about big government? Discretionary spending under this administration has grown faster than under anyone since what, LBJ? Or has he been eclipsed already with three more years of Bush to go?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Your whole basis for ‘proving’ the question relied on the weakass idea that some folks can’t distinguish between editorializing and straight news, which isn’t proof at all.[/quote]
It isn’t? Fox News is truly rampant with “news shows”. They are everywhere. At any given time of day, turning to that station, the average consumer pretty much has a 50/50 chance of hearing either “straight news” or a “new show”. Why say this isn’t proof? Isn’t that just your convenient opinion?
[quote]
In truth, I am not especially impressed with the fact that the sentence “Democrats accused Republicans…” is evidence of bias/misrepresentation/whatever. Democrats did accuse Republicans of pulling a vote at the last minute without the chance to have much of a hearing on the issue of pullout. The CNN piece said the same thing. That is a fact - and in truth, I think that is probably what the GOP did (a quick vote on purpose).
Go read lower on the FOX piece, and see Nancy Pelosi’s quote:
“A disgrace,” declared House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame,” added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat."
Sorry, no bias here. Democrats did exactly as the piece reported. And the piece presented what the Dems said. All that was reported was what was said.[/quote]
See if you can follow. In this piece, what is conveniently posted…is mostly what the democrats said. It left the republican squawking out of it for the most part. I already gave my reasons why. I see you slid right over that.
[quote]
Oops, Professor X didn’t do his homework again.
CNN doesn’t include any quotes from the Democrats supporting their saying it was a political stunt. Wouldn’t that newsworthy as well?
Moreover, and here is the big kicker, FOX picked this piece up from the Associated Press - and the AP does not work for FOX (and in fact is often accused of having a liberal bias).
So not only is it a weak argument of bias, it isn’t even evidence of FOX’s journalism. [/quote]
They chose to report on this version and chose to use it as their own contribution to his story. Unless you are about to argue the individual bias of each and every author on staff at each news source, the fact that it comes from Associated Press doesn’t mean much when FOX news reports it directly.
[quote]
That being said, I think there is evidence of bias, you’re just not very good at presenting it.[/quote]
So now there is a bias in news reporting from Fox news? What are you arguing against if this is the case?
[quote]
Because logic would lead the way excluding the need for random discussion if all policies were purely based in logic. There would be nothing to debate but pure logical fact.
This is jibberish. Write clearly.
So, if we applied pure logic, would we have gay marriage or not?[/quote]
That was never my argument. I could care less whether gay marriage is instituted. I told you this twice in the previous thread. You made a comment about not understanding the actions of terrorists and I related that to acting illogically. I then used gay marriage as an example of an argument we are currently involved in that is also based illogically.
Let’s see, I’ve explained that countless times…and you still don’t get it? For the last time, stop trying to paint what I’m saying as being for gay marriage. I know you wish that it what was said, but it isn’t.
[quote]
In sum, sorry for the confusion on bias. That is a separate question. What I have been discussing here is your presentation of an opinion journalist misquoting Howard Dean as evidence of institutional dishonesty - lying - and how wrong it was. I thought, since you were actually participating in that argument in the other thread, you would know what I was talking about.[/quote]
I quoted you. Yes, those were your words that I quoted and the issue was bias. I used one of their random news shows as evidence of a bias on Fox News.
[quote]
I stand corrected - and you still have no basis in the claim that the existence of an editorialist and some of his Lemmings means FOX lies.[/quote]
Again, the only one trying to toss “lying” into the pot is you, especially since I quoted you stating the position I was responding to. Either you posted what I quoted or someone broke into your house and typed for you.
It isn’t? Fox News is truly rampant with “news shows”. They are everywhere. At any given time of day, turning to that station, the average consumer pretty much has a 50/50 chance of hearing either “straight news” or a “new show”. Why say this isn’t proof? Isn’t that just your convenient opinion?[/quote]
My God, am I taking crazy pills?
You have proved two things - that news networks have lots of news analysis shows and some people don’t know the difference.
My original request on the old thread was, again, to show me evidence of lying in reporting.
So in your mind:
Editorialists opining on the news -------------> intentionally misrepresenting facts while reporting the news to advance an agenda
Seriously, Pro X - you’re not that stupid, are you?
Wait - are you?
Well, first of all we know that a FOX employee didn’t write the piece.
But, assuming a FOX employee did, for fun - and read slowly here - why would FOX not report that Bush’s press secretary squawking and referencing Michael Moore when right-wing FOX readers would think that statement was terrific?
Why would FOX deliberately leave out a quote that its audience would love?
Give me a reason why FOX would not want to put that quote by McClellan in there if the network wants to cater to a right-wing audience. What right-winger wouldn’t want to hear McClellan’s quote?
What is their agenda in not adding it?
You have it backwards, Pro X. Painfully so. This has become a sad joke.
So let me get this right - you can’t claim that FOX deliberately wrote the story with a right-wing bias, so you are now claiming that they went searching for an AP piece that gave a version that fit their agenda?
Let’s see what other right-wing networks picked up this particular piece to fit their agenda:
So, - you want to rethink your claim that the AP piece represented a biased choice when all it really represented was a typical network buyup of a wire service piece?
Look at the distinguished list of right-wing rags that chose this AP story. See the point, genius?
I am dumbfounded. I never, ever cared or asked whether or not you wanted gay marriage - I asked you, based on your statements, whether or not gay marriage would be instituted if the policy was dictated solely on logical reasons.
Ok, and I agree - we aren’t using pure logic on the gay marriage debate.
Jesus, Pro X - I never said you advocated gay marriage. I never said you were for it or against it. Are you that stupid?
My question was for you to clarify your statement about the use of logic.
So, if we were to apply a pure, logic-based approach to the issue of gay marriage, would there be gay marriage? You said that if we had a purely logic-driven approach, there’d be no discussion on gay marriage - implying gay marriage would exist as an afterthought if we were all being logical.
Ok, no problem - if you don’t think so, here is your chance to clarify - but it has nothing to do with what side of the debate you are on.
This has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with your personal opinion on gay marriage.
But not on the original thread, “Bush’s Divine Mission”. I gave that part to you, and you conveniently didn’t address it.
Backpedaling and deflecting isn’t gonna work.
Yes, I tossed it into the pot because I clarified what I was criticizing you over - the question I raised in “Bush’s Divine Mission” regarding wanting evidence of lying.
Go read. I reprinted it. And stop pretending that that discussion never happened.
My original request on the old thread was, again, to show me evidence of lying in reporting.[/quote]
Wrong. I showed you YOUR post that I was responding to. YOUR post was about bias and any responses I have given have been about bias. No matter how hard you try, you can’t erase what I quoted from you.
[quote]
But, assuming a FOX employee did, for fun - and read slowly here - why would FOX not report that Bush’s press secretary squawking and referencing Michael Moore when right-wing FOX readers would think that statement was terrific?[/quote]
For the simple reason that the entire piece only shows that democrats were raising most of the concern in that room. Leave the republican squawking out, and you have a great picture of democrats slinging mud while republicans are victims of it. We have already been over that whether FOX employees wrote it directly, they obviously agree with that stance by reporting it as their version of the story.
[quote]
So let me get this right - you can’t claim that FOX deliberately wrote the story with a right-wing bias, so you are now claiming that they went searching for an AP piece that gave a version that fit their agenda?[/quote]
I am claiming bias. I am also claiming that they reported a piece on their site that could be argued as showing that same bias. This is impossible to you? This isn’t about how every other news source reports unless we are talking about them in reference to a bias they may also have. This has centered around Fox News because they are considered by many to biased towards the right.
You refuse to acknowledge their use of News Shows to disperse an opinion. That doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It doesn’t mean that news shows aren’t news. Why do you think those news shows get rating so high? Do you honestly think everyone is just waiting for the regular news to come on? One could very well argue that Blogs and News Shows are becoming the new form of dispersing news in this country. Why would you or anyone else pretend as if this isn’t happening?
[quote]
I am dumbfounded. I never, ever cared or asked whether or not you wanted gay marriage - I asked you, based on your statements, whether or not gay marriage would be instituted if the policy was dictated solely on logical reasons.[/quote]
Why do you care? If that wasn’t my point in any previous statement, what does that have to do with anything? “based on my statements” I gave no opinion either way. To discuss that topic, we would have to go through a list of cost and benefits. Logic would dictate that the actions that created the greatest benefit would be the way we would lean. Period. The Bible would have nothing to do with it or individual bias.
[quote]
Jesus, Pro X - I never said you advocated gay marriage. I never said you were for it or against it. Are you that stupid?[/quote]
If that isn’t your point, then why have you responded over 2 threads now, as if you couldn’t understand the point being made? But I’m the stupid one?
Let’s say, purely for the sake of argument, that 25% of the population does not actually notice the difference between the two.
This means that any tripe spread via infotainment analysis, when presented to that 25% of the population, is in fact news to them. They discuss this “news” with their friends and present it as news and thereby legitimize it.
So, by your own admission, X% (whatever that percent is) are taking non-news items as news… which is precisely what Faux intends. These dipshits then go blog, post, talk and otherwise spread this faux news as if it was news.
Just because the strategy of faux is to prey on the ignorant, which is in fact reprehensible, doesn’t invalidate the fact it is a propaganda outlet, for that X% of dipshits and those that they can influence.
However, yes, you are right, news analysis is not actually the same thing, at least by any rational understanding. I’ll agree with that anyway.
However, what does come across as news, actual news, is a scenario like the following:
Faux infotainment says some slanderous horrendous biased half or less true statement.
Reptile X says “I’ve heard it said that – repeat biased statement hear”. If asked, he can just say he doesn’t know exactly where it came from, but media sources reported/stated or whatever.
Now, news stations, left and right, will show Reptile X’s statement, as news, thereby giving it legitimacy.
It’s sad really.
Anyhow, if this happens in the other direction, that is sad also.
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.[/quote]
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
[/quote]
Even when I don’t set a trap, rely upon Harriss to create his own. Now he attacks someone with a physical disability.
You have evolved out of your liberalism and attained true fascism. You would strike anyone in the throat who happens to be conservative. You attack someone with a disability. I ask you to please seek mental help at once.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
[/quote]
Happily married, 3 kids. Not some fucking loser who has to hunt down women through an online service, then brag about it.
Also, I’m 50. What’s your excuse?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
Even when I don’t set a trap, rely upon Harriss to create his own. Now he attacks someone with a physical disability.
You have evolved out of your liberalism and attained true fascism. You would strike anyone in the throat who happens to be conservative. You attack someone with a disability. I ask you to please seek mental help at once.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
Even when I don’t set a trap, rely upon Harriss to create his own. Now he attacks someone with a physical disability.
You have evolved out of your liberalism and attained true fascism. You would strike anyone in the throat who happens to be conservative. You attack someone with a disability. I ask you to please seek mental help at once.
Annnnnnnnnnd…
TUBE STEAK BOOGIE!
[/quote]
What a loser! Moderator: this guy just throws this random shit out. Can he be banned?
If not, Harriss, never respond to my posts again. You’re not even in the same species as me; I only talk to fellow humans.
What a fucking lowlife!
Headhunter, you are very confused about the difference between right and left, and who is concerned about civil rights in America.
The fact that harris is trying to point that out does not make him a troll. Perhaps settle down a bit and stop trying to blame all the ills of the world on the “other side” and things might seem a bit smoother.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Okay, time to make it simple. No setting traps, I will restrain myself.
Liberals believe that government is the ANSWER. A government program, a new law, is the ANSWER. Even GW Bush is a liberal in this sense. He is creating a larger government. Adolf Hitler, quite a famous socialist, created a large government.
Large, powerful governments attract individuals who crave power over others. Anyone dispute this? No? Good.
Therefore, it follows that these individuals take this powerful government and seek even more power. It happened in Ancient Rome (ever read Gibbon, anyone?) and is happening here. The road to Fascism is created.
I don’t see why any of you dispute this simple argument. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers established the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
Someday, the liberals in this gang will awaken to find themselves in a slave-pit, dug by their own liberal, big-government-philosophy hands, they’ll scream, “But I didn’t know any better!” I further predict that they will NOT be forgiven.
I think your low T levels are starting to affect your fragile, little mind.
Even when I don’t set a trap, rely upon Harriss to create his own. Now he attacks someone with a physical disability.
You have evolved out of your liberalism and attained true fascism. You would strike anyone in the throat who happens to be conservative. You attack someone with a disability. I ask you to please seek mental help at once.
Annnnnnnnnnd…
TUBE STEAK BOOGIE!
What a loser! Moderator: this guy just throws this random shit out. Can he be banned?
If not, Harriss, never respond to my posts again. You’re not even in the same species as me; I only talk to fellow humans.
What a fucking lowlife!
[/quote]
Seriously, calm the hell down. You’re arguing about politics on the internet. Has that registered yet?