“The legislature on Thursday passed the bill banning the sale of assault-style rifles, capping magazines to 10 bullets and requiring fingerprints and a license to buy a handgun, among other provisions.”
in·fringe
High Five MD!!
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Michelle Obama calls herself a busy single mother…
[/quote]
Did you even read the story?
“…or I shouldn’t say single–as a busy mother, sometimes when you’ve got a husband who is president it can feel a little single. But he’s there.”
This kind of partisanship–caring enough about disliking somebody that you’re willing to cut their sentences in half–is pathetic.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Michelle Obama calls herself a busy single mother…
[/quote]
Did you even read the story?
“…or I shouldn’t say single–as a busy mother, sometimes when you’ve got a husband who is president it can feel a little single. But he’s there.”
This kind of partisanship–caring enough about disliking somebody that you’re willing to cut their sentences in half–is pathetic.[/quote]
Michelle might be mistaken about the reason it feels that way. If she was married to an extremely effeminate(at least) trash collector, she would probably feel the same way.
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.[/quote]
Oh ye of little faith, by investing in retirement accounts you have already demonstrated a lack of faith in Ba’al which must be punished.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Michelle Obama calls herself a busy single mother…
[/quote]
Did you even read the story?
“…or I shouldn’t say single–as a busy mother, sometimes when you’ve got a husband who is president it can feel a little single. But he’s there.”
This kind of partisanship–caring enough about disliking somebody that you’re willing to cut their sentences in half–is pathetic.[/quote]
Dude, she referred to herself as single mother. I am sorry if that upsets you, but hey, go blame your hero. I don’t dislike Michelle Obama, I am pointing out this story.
Dude don’t fucking start with me. If you don’t like what I post, or the links I provide, don’t fucking click on them.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Michelle Obama calls herself a busy single mother…
[/quote]
Did you even read the story?
“…or I shouldn’t say single–as a busy mother, sometimes when you’ve got a husband who is president it can feel a little single. But he’s there.”
This kind of partisanship–caring enough about disliking somebody that you’re willing to cut their sentences in half–is pathetic.[/quote]
Dude, she referred to herself as single mother. I am sorry if that upsets you, but hey, go blame your hero. I don’t dislike Michelle Obama, I am pointing out this story. [/quote]
It bothers me when people cut sentences in half to make some kind of meaningless point. Because that’s a stupid thing to do. But you’re right, you have every right in the world.
[quote]
Dude don’t fucking start with me. If you don’t like what I post, or the links I provide, don’t fucking click on them. [/quote]
Ah, shit, I thought this was the place where people discuss politics. My mistake.
^Except that, when you actually come out and lie, like when you said that only 300,000 people in your home state pay taxes, I’ll feel morally obligate to comment.
Other than that, post all the Michelle-Obama-sentence-fragment stories you’d like.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^Except that, when you actually come out and lie, like when you said that only 300,000 people in your home state pay taxes, I’ll feel morally obligate to comment.
Other than that, post all the Michelle-Obama-sentence-fragment stories you’d like.[/quote]
Dude, I posted this from CNN, not Fox or MSNBC. I would call that a pretty reasonable attempt at being non-partisan, since I don’t really see any news agency being non-partisan.
I used to see your comments as insightful at times, but now you being a goddam dick. Don’t blame me because Michelle feels alone, I would make sure to knock the dust off it every once in awhile.
Also, if your girl made a similar comment, would you be this critical about dissecting the exact verbiage, or notice she that she feels alone.
Jesus Christ dude, your life must be as anal retentive as a space shuttle launch.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras
Holy Fucking Shit.
I hope this is a partisian chop job, because if this this true…
Any government offical that thinks he or she can tell me how much I can or cannot save of my own money, to fund the life I want to live, can flat out kiss my ass.
Sick to my stomach right now.[/quote]
I can see why. It seems that someone arbitrarily decided how much money people can have.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^Except that, when you actually come out and lie, like when you said that only 300,000 people in your home state pay taxes, I’ll feel morally obligate to comment.
Other than that, post all the Michelle-Obama-sentence-fragment stories you’d like.[/quote]
Dude, I posted this from CNN, not Fox or MSNBC. I would call that a pretty reasonable attempt at being non-partisan, since I don’t really see any news agency being non-partisan.
I used to see your comments as insightful at times, but now you being a goddam dick. Don’t blame me because Michelle feels alone, I would make sure to knock the dust off it every once in awhile.
Also, if your girl made a similar comment, would you be this critical about dissecting the exact verbiage, or notice she that she feels alone.
Jesus Christ dude, your life must be as anal retentive as a space shuttle launch. [/quote]
Fair enough. Although I think CNN is just as bad as Fox or MSNBC, just in a different way.
Anyway, my point is that this is not a story. It’s not half a story. It’s not a little fragment of a story. It’s just nothing. And we’ve already spent far too much time discussing it, so let’s let it end here.
I will no longer be a dick to you. I will tell you though that I had a similar epiphany about your character when you made something up and then went on the offensive when it was proved to you beyond any doubt whatsoever that what you’d said wasn’t true, had never been true, and will never be true. That is not the conduct of an adult or a man, and I know for a fact that I’m not even close to alone in this assessment. But since that’s in the past, I won’t mention it again and I won’t let the fact that that really pissed me off affect how I conduct myself toward you in the future.
This half story made you clutch your pearls so tight, you are an honorary Kardashian. But blame me for that too right ?
I made up what ?
A statistic was off by some marginal degree ?
.3% of the people pay for 40% of the taxes, but I invented it ? Let’s not talk about how wrong Obama has been, how not even close to the truth he has been, or the lack of intention he might have had about being truthful. Your hero, the President, full blown lies to the low information minions, costing the country Billions, but crucify me for paraphrasing a statement by my accountant. Dear God, I think your Victoria Secret is unraveling in front of us. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and suggest you go dust yourself off, and get your mind right. When you return, try to act like you have been somewhere before.
I think it’s funny that “the party of tolerance,” continually looking down at people, thinking they are better, can be so dismissive about another opinion or point of view. From my observations, most of the states with the largest fiscal troubles, are run by Libs who think they are smarter. You’re not, you’re the last to learn what others already knew. Europe tried it and failed, but hey, nothing to see here.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This half story made you clutch your pearls so tight, you are an honorary Kardashian. But blame me for that too right ?
I made up what ?
A statistic was off by some marginal degree ?
.3% of the people pay for 40% of the taxes, but I invented it ? Let’s not talk about how wrong Obama has been, how not even close to the truth he has been, or the lack of intention he might have had about being truthful. Your hero, the President, full blown lies to the low information minions, costing the country Billions, but crucify me for paraphrasing a statement by my accountant. Dear God, I think your Victoria Secret is unraveling in front of us. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and suggest you go dust yourself off, and get your mind right. When you return, try to act like you have been somewhere before.
I think it’s funny that “the party of tolerance,” continually looking down at people, thinking they are better, can be so dismissive about another opinion or point of view. From my observations, most of the states with the largest fiscal troubles, are run by Libs who think they are smarter. You’re not, you’re the last to learn what others already knew. Europe tried it and failed, but hey, nothing to see here. [/quote]
Max, saying that “only 300,000 people” in California pay “any taxes” is not “off by some marginal degree.” It’s off by literally–I actually mean literally here–millions. Literally millions and millions and millions. I mean, there is literally no way to characterize incorrectness of that staggering magnitude as “off by some marginal degree,” and I have no clue why you think you’d get away with writing it off as such here and now.
But that discussion is over and I shouldn’t have brought it up again. I’m in the middle of a much bigger brawl with somebody who I actually dislike, unlike you, so I’ll just say here that no insults I’ve lodged at you should be taken seriously and I won’t bring up the “300,000” thing again.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Republican Logic:
Thump the consitution for the amendments you like, and totally disregard the ones you don’t
Usually it is the 14th or the 16th…pretty weird they are now wiping their ass with the first…[/quote]
If one knows their history they will understand that some states in the late 18th century did indeed have established state religions (Rhode Island for one) – yes, AFTER the Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment was in place.
Note the words of the First, “Congress shall make no law…”
[/quote]
This is 2013 and the First Amendment has been incorporated. The people who think that they can do this are plainly wrong.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This is 2013 and the First Amendment has been incorporated. The people who think that they can do this are plainly wrong.[/quote]
BTW, I will remember your words distinctly when the Second Amendment debate pops up again. I expect you to nod your head up and down then as vigorously as you did just now when you typed these words about the First.[/quote]
I don’t deny the authority of the Second at the state as well as at the federal level.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Republican Logic:
Thump the consitution for the amendments you like, and totally disregard the ones you don’t
Usually it is the 14th or the 16th…pretty weird they are now wiping their ass with the first…[/quote]
If one knows their history they will understand that some states in the late 18th century did indeed have established state religions (Rhode Island for one) – yes, AFTER the Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment was in place.
Note the words of the First, “Congress shall make no law…”
[/quote]
This is 2013 and the First Amendment has been incorporated. The people who think that they can do this are plainly wrong.[/quote]
This doesn’t change history. It can be 2013 or 3013 or 5013 and still…some states had established state religions in 1792.
Incorporation, as you mentioned, is still a controversial subject and despite the fact that it is generally accepted does not place it outside the arena of debate.[/quote]
Indeed, but history aside, we have arrived at what pretty much everybody–particularly a libertarian–agrees is the “right” course to take.
I do not believe that you support these clowns. It runs counter to every other political viewpoint that you espouse.