ariscus99

Do you have a clue at all about the swiftboating going on today? Perpetrated by the left wing media? You may be the brainwashed one if you don't see what is going on today.

Lying to millions of people? The huff, the kos, media matters, all lied about the bill you posted earlier, millions of people presumably read those sites, so that would mean they lied to millions of people. Getting pushed where? Down the American people's throat. The dem agenda? I'm not sure what it is you tell me. Other then continuing the swiftboating of America, and trying hard to become more socialistic, I'm really not too sure what it is, but you've posted before that you support the democratic agenda. So yeah move on, don't point out the lies, that undermines everything, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...:smile2:

So then my assumption that your alright with the liberal media lying as long as it promotes your agenda is true. In which case your correct you didn't dodge anything, you just don't care if someone is lying to millions of people as long as yours and the dems agenda gets pushed through. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

The real issue is the one you've been dodging all day; HONESTY!

Both show that neither you nor the websites you use as your sources care about the whole truth, only the parts that help your agenda. And in the case of the votes, you think its a coincidence that there were 153 votes against and 9 being dems, and they just left that out saying 153 repubs voted against, no, they new it wasn't true and didn't care. And neither did you.

It's telling that I take away that another story you post is inaccurate and leaves key points out? Yeah I think so to, it's telling that I can see through the BS that the far left tries to show as news. They're continuing the swiftboating of America, and it's sad, and downright dishonest.

Absolutely, however, much of what is construed as lies by them is done so by sites like kos and huff and media matters. But when they do lie, yeah it most definitely outrages me. I don't mind a one sided media venue, thats their right, but they have an obligation to the people of the country to be as honest and forthcoming as possible at all times. Also fox regularly apologizes for their mistakes. Not something you hear from many liberal "news" agencies.

Liberal hypocrisy on the "nuclear option". From ScienceBlogs.com My favorite part is where Biden says on the floor of the Senate that the nuclear option is "the ultimate example of the arrogance of power" and a "fundamental power grab." Harry Reid also says it was only being considered because of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration." Now if the Democrats go through with it, he'll have to be the one pulling the trigger. It will be great fun to watch him try to justify himself. And equally fun to watch the Republicans in the Senate wax eloquent about the arrogance of the Democrats in doing what they wanted to do 5 years ago too.

So by ignoring the rest of the post are you saying your okay with those sites running half truths and lies, as long as it promotes the "real" democratic agenda?

So to prove my point CM, thanks for another post that leaves out some important facts, like Dale Robertson was KICKED OUT of that rally for having that sign. Yeah, those mean racist, kicking out the only guy with N word sign. Thats so mean. Wait, oh, that would be an argument for them not being racist. Strange the huffington post would leave that tidbit out isn't it.

First, the number was wrong, they undoubtedly know that, they are reporters, they get paid to investigate and report. I'm not and I found out the real numbers in about 180 seconds. Second, they try to bash the republicans for voting no, but say nothing as did CM about the dems, until I asked for the second or third time then I get some one liner about how they're that one sect of dems she doesn't like. She likes em all but those 9. Those nine are mean. If you read much from any of the web sites I talked about you'll see they misrepresent information all the time, they take quotes out of context, run wholly untrue stories etc. etc. They are all very very far left, and only report things they think will help the far left agenda. Which is fine, but do so TRUTHFULLY! Thats my problem and thats why they are liars, and hypocrites.

I realize it's a small discrepancy, but the point of it is honesty. You weren't honest when you posted it, tho in your defense you just saw the article on the daily kos and copied and pasted it here, but you did so without any fact checking at all. And everyone knows what a great honest news org the daily kos is. But in addition to your lie, they also lied when they ran the article, as did the huff and media matters and about 4 other liberal blog spots I happened onto in my 3 minute search for the official number of votes for hr 4247. So does that make the libs and dems hypocrites? Or just liars? And which is worse? IMHO I'd say the likes of the "news" orgs I mentioned are most definitely the worst mixture of both liars and hypocrites. And I noticed you've still said nothing about how horrible the dems who voted no are, why's that?

You know what's kind of haunting, I hop on google to get another site to refer you to other then one I already posted to show the correct amount of votes, here's the official count from opencongress.org, but every website that turns up, is liberal blogs and news orgs. like media matters, the huff, and the daily kos and they all LIE about the number and say that 153 republicans vote no against this. When in fact the number is 144 and that there were democrats who voted against it as well and they all leave that little tidbit out. Convenient isn't it.

Aww look another ranting loon who didn't take the time to read:thumbdown:, either the vote count or the bill. Good for you! Just hop on CM's coattails and run with what she says, oh, here's an idea, read the bill. You'll see that maybe, just maybe, there's a little more to it.

Here's a fun little idea for you; get your facts straight before you post them. 153 republicans did not vote no, if you took the time to read the entire story you would see that some of your beloved democrats voted no against this bill. But you wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story would you?

find a version of the ab ripper x video of p90x and use that. In all reality the best piece of equipment for your abs, is the ground. I do ab ripper x and yoga belly 7 of the p90x video's 4 days a week and it makes a huge difference. Just my .02

In recent weeks, we have witnessed liberals in the highest level of government sanctimoniously defend terrorists who kill us while persecuting those who defend us from murderous attacks. In an effort to understand this reversal of good and evil, it has become a cliché to call liberals crazy. But while supremely hypocritical, liberalism is not insane. It is a highly adaptive ego device that enables people to violate commitments, vilify those who are true to their faith, and avoid personal sacrifice while feeling great about themselves. The only defense against hypocrisy is self-knowledge, but the politics, spirituality, and morality of liberalism are well-constructed firmaments of self-delusion. The United States was founded in a Judeo-Christian theocentrism that is informed by scripture and assumes a personal God who hears prayers and grants forgiveness for sin. Theocentrism provides stable laws and settled moral codes. In the mid-twentieth century, an unorganized, reactive spiritual orientation arose -- egocentrism -- which has become the dominant moral framework in our nation. This orientation says there may or may not be a God, so each individual must follow his or her own conscience and ethical values. Theocentrism has been promulgated by traditional religion. Egocentrism has mainly been introduced through mass media, educational power structures, and more recently by reoriented religions. A theocentrist lives out the question, What does God say is best to do? An egocentrist lives out the question, What do I think is best to do? Here is the central difference between theocentrism and egocentrism: Living for God is largely a conscious, intentional process, informed by a written scripture that presupposes the need for repentance. Egocentrism, on the other hand. largely proceeds below the level of conscious awareness through a series of experiments in self-directed living. It presupposes constant change -- and who is there to repent to? The consciousness-unconsciousness dichotomy may be shown by a behavioral exemplar. Theocentrists are always praising and blessing God, saying things like, "Praise the Lord," "so help me, God," and "Insh Allah." But for egocentrists, it's not so clear whom to thank. They don't proclaim "Praise Me!" "Me have Mercy!" or "May it please Myself!" This difference explains the gratitude gap between liberals and conservatives. Thanking God is central to theocentrism. Thanking oneself is more complicated, and that is why self-esteem is all important in egocentrist spirituality. The individual ego is a PR shill. Its job is not to find the truth but to organize life and win every game from the viewpoint of the all-important I. And just as the eye cannot see itself, the ego cannot be honest with itself. It always buys its own pitch. The individual ego is the strongest force in the phenomenal world because of its capacity for self-delusion. Toward that end, there is no form of self-service that the ego cannot transform into a sense of moral superiority. This is why we see a case like Representative Patrick Kennedy, who claims to be Catholic, yet facilitates mortal sin by endorsing "the right to choose." His ego, not Christ or scripture, is in the driver's seat. But the ego is so enthralling that Mr. Kennedy may not even know it. Though hypocritical, his public position is not crazy. In fact, it is functional and advantageous in a world dominated by egocentrism. The spiritual orientation of theocentrism generally provides the moral framework for conservatism, and the spiritual orientation of egocentrism generally provides the moral framework for liberalism. When a theocentrist is hypocritical, it is because he has knowingly violated the tenets of his faith, and this transgressor tends to be secretive because he knows he has broken his own laws. That is the purpose of scriptural codification: it lets you know when you are wrong. And that is why there is no equivalent written code of behavior in egocentrist spirituality. Egocentrism has no written moral law because a written code would in itself violate the process of self-directed experimentation. Because of the way the ego works, the politics of liberalism are bulwarks of hypocrisy and self-deception. But liberals are often not secretive, but just clueless. They tend to be "in-your-face" hypocrites because they are obeying the ego, which tells them that ultimately, they cannot be wrong. This is why liberals speak of tolerance when they really mean approval. Tolerance is based on disapproval. It is a conscious, meditative process of non-interference with something disapproved of. Tolerance is a compromise that the ego cannot make, because the ego is an on-off switch of self-interest. The anti-American statements and policies of the Obama administration are the sacraments of two generations of ascendant egocentrism in our country. The ego is loath to admit, "I don't want to get my behind shot off in some war." No problem. Liberal academia has given us fifty years of indoctrination in the many reasons America is not worth it. And here's some good ego-logic: The reality that "it takes courage to knowingly bring a Down Syndrome child into the world" becomes "Sarah Palin is confused and slutty." Eric Holder calls the American people cowards and then casts self-confessed terrorist murderers as civil rights victims. Khalid Sheik Mohammed becomes the new Rosa Parks. But none of this is crazy. It is adaptive. For example, in the case of Mr. Holder, his deference to admitted terrorists is an ingenious, though probably mostly unconscious, ego-projection of himself as a civil rights hero while he breaks his oath to defend the Constitution from foreign enemies. Liberal hypocrisy is not insanity, it is pretersanity, a powerful tactic of self-absolution and a way to become rich, admired, and powerful while supposedly "fighting for the little guy," or to exhort others to self-sacrifice while doing none of that yourself. The notion, now commonly posited in liberal media, that the Fort Hood terrorist Major Hassan is mentally ill is another unconscious capitulation to egocentrism. It is the worst form of hypocrisy to make excuses for somebody who takes all of the benefits of military service and then murders his defenseless fellow soldiers. Theocentrism and egocentrism are opposite and irreconcilable. One revels in the new moral entitlements, the other sees a mad world portending the end of days. A theocentrist will not give up God, and an egocentrist cannot give up himself. American society is being split in two. It is also a testament to our rule of law and compassionate character that we still hold onto our pluribus unum. How will it all end? Let's use a psychological assessment technique. Complete the following sentence:

In one day, the socialist-democrats did two contradictory things. First, pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg decided to limit the pay of some top execs. Fox News: “The 25th through the 100th top earners at Citigroup, GMAC, American International Group and General Motors also must take more than half their compensation in stock, and at least half must be delayed for three or more years, said Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s Special Master for Executive Compensation.” Second, the dems in congress tried to pass a huge increase in the allowed level of national debt! Fox News: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that Congress needs to raise the limit by at least $1.8 trillion. In response, nearly 50 Republicans in the House have co-sponsored a bill that would make it harder for Congress to raise that ceiling — which is currently set at $12.1 trillion.” So it apparently is bad for the evil corporations to spend, spend, spend and pay big salaries and fly on their evil corporate jets…while at the same time it apparently is good for the great democrat congressmen to spend, spend, spend and earn their big salaries and fly on government corporate jets. Hypocrisy anyone?

One wouldn’t think that the state of Texas would have much trouble supporting gun owners who should be allowed to defend their family or themselves in their own homes, cars or places of business. But until recently, Texas didn’t have a “castle doctrine” law on the books. The concept behind a “castle doctrine” is that a man’s home is his castle and if a bad guy is stupid enough to try and enter a man’s home to do him or his family harm, the man should have the right to blow the intruder into kingdom come (provided the homeowner is licensed to carry). Oddly enough, Texas didn’t have such a law. In fact, the legal expectation was that someone under attack in their own home had a “duty” to retreat before using deadly force. Finally, Lone Star State lawmakers came to their senses and passed legislation that becomes effective September 1st. From now on, there will be no “duty to retreat” and men (and women) can defend themselves. But not every elected official in Texas voted for this legislation. One of the spineless wonders who voted against the Texas law is a Democrat from Houston named Borris Miles. Miles voted vote against House Bill 284, joining a small group of dissenters who amazingly saw fit to deny a Texan the ability to use lawful force against a criminal. Now it completely baffles me how anyone with a lick of sense would try and make the ridiculous case that a person minding their own business in their home would have any “duty to retreat” before fending off a lowlife scum’s attack. Based on what happened this week, Rep. Borris Miles agrees with me. This is rich. While Miles was fixing a leak on the second floor of a home he’s building in the Houston area, he told police he heard a noise downstairs. When he went to investigate, he discovered two men trying to steal copper. What do you suppose this anti-gun, bleeding heart liberal did when he confronted two bad guys trying to steal copper from him? Do you think he retreated? He did not. In fact, I’ll give you a clue as to what Rep. Borris Miles did: “BANG!” That’s right, this hypocritical Democrat pulled out his gun and promptly shot one of the copper burglars. Now as someone who also had a new construction burglarized by copper thieves, I can relate to the anger and frustration a homeowner feels over some meth-head stealing copper while one is trying to build a new house. But the last time I checked, most people -- and certainly few Democrats – wouldn’t consider copper thievery a capital offense. Yet here is a man who evidently felt comfortable voting against giving Texans the right to defend themselves while thumbing his nose at his own vote and blasting away at the bad guys. Do as I say, not as I do, eh? Incidentally, the guy Miles shot is going to live. Perhaps his shot was as shaky as his vote, he hit the thief in the leg. Bearing in mind that the new “Castle Doctrine” law doesn’t take affect until Sept 1st, I wonder if Borris Miles might face criminal charges for shooting a guy in his own house? The only thing more delicious than witnessing yet another Democrat’s rank hypocrisy would be to see a legislator go to jail for breaking a law that he voted to uphold. Why do some of these clowns make it so easy?

I don't presume to know your parents. If they were happy to take government money, then they are the exception of that time period, not the rule. And maybe they got it later when the people began thinking it should be given to them by the government. I'm talking about the people born during the late 1800's and very early 1900's who worked and struggled for everything, and wouldn't except a handout unless they absolutely needed it. Maybe that is another thing you've forgotten because years of teaching the liberal mindset is that, everyone wants it and everyone should get it. That was not the mind set back then. They were grateful; don't get me wrong, but happy to take money from someone else, no, not most. As for me, I work in a SS and medicare exempt field. So I will go on working without it. I know FDR started it. And what I mean by entitlement is that only recent generations feel that it is owed to them. Like I stated earlier, the first generations to get these social handouts were uneasy about it, because they were not used taking anything from anyone. Go find some people born around the turn of the century and ask them, there are still a few around. Some of my closest, most trusted mentors are of the greatest generation, and I make it a point to talk with them as often as possible about as much as possible, so as to keep what they know alive, and hopefully pass it on, as they were; the greatest generation. I know lots of people your age, again, you must be the exception not the rule because most who think they know, don't. I don't claim to know what is going on with the people who are only 10 or 15 years younger than me, because I really don't. The only reason I can claim to know anything of generations older than me is because I've spent a great deal of my life listening to them, and trying my hardest to learn from them. I don't claim to not have benefited from any government program. What I have claimed is that, I have worked hard, and did not except any handouts. I paid my way through college working full time, not taking out student loans. My first home I paid cash for, much like, the people of the greatest generation. I have credit cards and savings, protected by the government, for what that’s worth. They have no money so how are they going to protect mine? I went to public school, but to say public school is free is a fallacy. It's not free to parents and it's not free to teachers, they have enormous out of pocket expenses. School however is one thing I am "liberal" about; I think everyone deserves a "free" k-12 education. And I also think teachers are under-paid and under-appreciated. I do get what you’re saying about government "helping" out, I don't agree with it all. I think they need to back off and keep their hands out of business, and healthcare, and most other things. What our government is here for was set out very clearly by the founding fathers, and gov. today has way overstepped that, because, back to the Pelosi thing, they think they know what's best for us.

Well I definitely feel sorry for you and those around you. If your as unstable IRL as you are online, they better watch out.:thumbdown::thumbdown: here's another word for you to look up, I hyperlinked it so it should be easy homonym

You are grasping and grasping. How are those straws? Here's tool from your urbandictionary reference: A person, typically male(in your case female), who says or does things that cause you to give them a 'what-are-you-even-doing-here' look. The 'what-are-you-even-doing-here' look is classified by a glare in the tool's direction and is usually accompanied by muttering of how big of a tool they are. The tool is usually someone who is unwelcome but no one has the balls to tell them to get lost. The tool is alwasys making comments that are out-of-place, out-of-line or just plain stupid. The tool is always trying too hard to fit in, and because of this, never will. Like I said; get real. This is so pathetic that this is what your trying for here, hijacking a thread you don't even have anything to add too. Get over yourself. My comment was not taken as calling her or you a slut by anyone but yourself, but I guess in true liberal fashion if it offends one no one should say it right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: here's another Tool: someone who is a complete idiot/ one who is used by other people, and usually dosen't even realize it/ someone who can't think for themselves/ an asshat.

Not at all, the way you keep responding, your acting like a tool, or a tool shed. You have some crazy thing made up your mind where you think I was calling someone a slut, which I most assuredly was not, and now your trying to find some other way to pin it to me. So now instead of a name caller I'm a chauvinist. Get real lady.

So your saying your parents were happy to have the government give them money? I doubt that. Almost without exception those people didn't want the money but had little other option. Maybe you've forgotten that. It's only recently become an entitlement. They had a sense of pride that didn't really allow them to take hand outs easily even if they had earned them. I agree the Iraq war was unnecessary, your not gonna guilt me into feeling bad about something I think is wrong. But support my troops. I would never stand in the streets when they returned and call them baby killers and murderers and rapist. You are being hostile, there are more ways to be hostile then just words. The post itself is of a hostile notion. About what giant hypocrites republican's are. My mom would probably think she's connected to our generation too, she has 5 kids all around my age, but I assure you, like her, you are not. I'm not mean spirited, to call me a conservative, would probably anger most conservatives. And everything I got I did earn. I've worked hard for what I have and will continue to do so. Unless you care to enlighten me and tell me who gave me everything I have?

Tool shed: the biggest of all tools.. such a tool that he or she could hold all the tools in the world in one place. This word is so powerful that it can only be placed on one person a week. yo this dude is a giant tool shed this kid is beyond a tool, or a tool box, he is the whole f**king shed. urbandictionary.com Well you chime in with two different inaccurate points your trying to make, so please, take the high road, or the low road. I don't mind. And I didn't recall you posting on post #8 but if I were to quote someone from an earlier post I would surely make sure I was doing so correctly