The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Phony Moderate]

Both the defense of McCarthy and citing that as the "main reason" to never vote for the Democrats are mind-boggingly stupid.

Lay off him; I wouldn't vote for the Republicans because of the Spanish-American War.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If you guys weren't so new, you'd know I was serious. But Grumps should have known!

I'm not sure who you're talking to but I hope it's not me. I was here when you were pissing your Huggies. If I thought you were joking I would have put it in the Goldmine obviously.

In fairness to Simi, he had no clue you were here in another life.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No, religion is not going away.  It is a fact, not a theory, but a fact that cannot be changed that God will come back to the earth someday soon and set the record straight and dispel the scientific "facts" that don't line up with the Bible.  The Bible does not need to line up with Science, rather Science needs to line up with the Bible.

[k-onmmunist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fixed it for you.

What he did makes sense.

only if you're a severely conservative hack

[memphis]

No, religion is not going away.  It is a fact, not a theory, but a fa
ct that cannot be changed that God will come back to the earth someday soon and set the record straight and dispel the scientific "facts" that don't line up with the Bible.  The Bible does not need to line up with Science, rather Science needs to line up with the Bible.

Looks like we have a winner. Time to close the thread.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is just bad.

"African American Friday"

"Black= African American"

"Black=profits"

therefore

"African-American=profits"

Don't make puns for usernames if you want to avoid commentary.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

[Paul Kemp]

Classic Naso just throwing stuff out there without any factual basis...

It is most gratifying to see all you Dem hacks and your perpetual fascination, nay, your absolute obsession, with Mitt Romney, following his every move.

Perhaps someday you will find some other object of your affection to stalk, but for the time being you are certainly getting your essential Romney fix.

Clearly, you and the nation cannot get enough of this great man.

Keep up the great work you Romney obsessives you.

I agree. I also love the gloating among Democrats that the country has "embraced" their beliefs. I'll let y'all in on a little secret...of the Obama voters I know...most all of them are adamantly opposed to gay marriages, raising taxes on the wealthy, and one of them talks poorly of African Americans and dependency. Yet every one of those people voted for Obama. Just because they voted for him doesn't believe they have adopted into the "Obama Euphoria" culture at all.

Trust me. I made the same mistake in late 2004/early 2005 thinking "Our side won, it's a mandate" when in reality it was a tiny, weak formed coalition that toppled down in 2006 and 2008. You can't act like: I lost 10 million voters, won only 40% of white Americans, and minorities and have an overwhelming mandate. Dems have to be cautious.

It is most gratifying to see all you Dem hacks and your perpetual fascination, nay, your absolute obsession, with Mitt Romney, following his every move.

Perhaps someday you will find some other object of your affection to stalk, but for the time being you are certainly getting your essential Romney fix.

Clearly, you and the nation cannot get enough of this great man.

Keep up the great work you Romney obsessives you.

I'll let y'all in on a little secret...of the Obama voters I know...most all of them are adamantly opposed to gay marriages, raising taxes on the wealthy, and one of them talks poorly of African Americans and dependency.

people you know =/= 64 million democratic voters.

You're missing my point. Liberals are acting as though pretty much every person who voted for Obama voted for dependency, civil rights, gay rights, ect. In actuality, many Obama voters simply didn't like Mitt Romney, and had their been a better GOP candidate, they'd be President-elect right now.

[Simfan34]

That looks similar to what we had at our office pre-Thanksgiving potluck earlier this week (my workplace is predominately African-American).  

The household is predominantly African, so I don't know what you mean.

He means american blacks and africans put out similar spreads.

Looks awesome btw

No, we don't.

[Paul Kemp]

I'm confused.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I don't think we can help them. These are people who can't even get themselves a job, who rallied en masse behind Obama to the point of possibly stealing the election through voter fraud, who are frankly dysfunctional. What help can be given that might fix them?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

So...have you converted to reason or are you supporting McCarthy by mocking our "the past is over" argument?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

I oppose Democrats for more reasons than just their history of racism and support for slavery and segregation.  There are plenty of other reasons I will not vote for them, including their support for abortion and gay marriage, as well as their support for job-killing economic policies that raise taxes on the rich in the name of "fairness" but ultimately hurt everybody by hindering businesses and discouraging growth.

[Donerail]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

I oppose Democrats for more reasons than just their history of racism and support for slavery and segregation.  There are plenty of other reasons I will not vote for them, including their support for abortion and gay marriage, as well as their support for job-killing economic policies that raise taxes on the rich in the name of "fairness" but ultimately hurt everybody by hindering businesses and discouraging growth.

Then why don't you talk about that, which makes (some) sense, rather than slavery?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

Because the Democrats who did those things are dead now.  That was a long time ago.   (Sound familiar?)

Are you saying that democrats actually were communists at some point in time?

Poor fool.

No, I'm just using your response when I expose the Democrat's history of racism,

And I'm just saying that it is completely absurd to judge the parties by what they did in 1860 or even in 1933 as opposed to what they are doing NOW. It's one thing if you oppose the Democrats because of their CURRENT positions on the issues, but to oppose them based on things that happened 80-150 years ago (things which anyone with any knowledge of history and current events can see has absolutely no bearing on that party's position today) is nothing short of idiotic.

I oppose Democrats for more reasons than just their history of racism and support for slavery and segregation.  There are plenty of other reasons I will not vote for them, including their support for abortion and gay marriage, as well as their support for job-killing economic policies that raise taxes on the rich in the name of "fairness" but ultimately hurt everybody by hindering businesses and discouraging growth.

Then why don't you talk about that, which makes (some) sense, rather than slavery?

I quite agree with SJoyceFla. Like I said, it's okay if you oppose Democrats on ideological grounds for the issues and agendas they pursue today, even though we disagree. But it is absolutely ridiculous to oppose them because of the politics of 150 years ago, when it's blatantly obvious that those politics do not apply in this day and age.

[Kitteh]

Guess which movie he's talking about:

Massive Horrbile Movie for me, if you hadn't guessed that already.  Much too scary for children, and it loses even more points for CGI animation. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Guess which movie he's talking about:

Massive Horrbile Movie for me, if you hadn't guessed that already.  Much too scary for children, and it loses even more points for CGI animation. 

Came there to post that.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

This was worth a quadruple post?!

If you believe that non mass transit is cheap, I have a $6.3 billion half of a bay bridge to sell you.

They built the Golden Gate Bridge for $1.2 billion of today's dollars.

THAT'S it?!? Your 'triumphant riposte'?

Laughable. Your reputation for inherent dishonesty goes unbesmearched.

I am sorry that you don't know what's in your own best interest.

My 'own best interests'? Seriously, what the f%$k are you talking about? I honestly have no clue.

You've now added 'incomprehensible' to 'dishonest' among your list of discriptive adjectives.

I presumed that you were a productive citizen. I stand corrected. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

And Republicans are even worse with defense spending. Pick your poison, I guess. And it doesn't sound like my chumps (here in WA) are nearly as bad. But we're having trouble with the new 520 bridge, so maybe I shouldn't speak so soon. Though we don't know who is at fault yet, and it's looking more like a company cutting corners to save money than unions at this point.

That would be a nice theory that is disproven by your chumps current level of defense spending.

New infrastructure helps the economy by merely existing.

This is why the OP is falsely premised. Government-funded mass transit almost never turns a profit and usually operates at a substantial loss per passenger, but heavy subsidies are justified because of the substantial positive externalities associated with these services. It's something that an unmanaged market that doesn't account for public benefits is totally unequipped to provide.

This does not logically lead to heavily overpaying for such product in order to transfer money to your union friends.

Here are a few where I feel out of the mainstream:

1. Opposing abortion without exception for rape or incest (it exploits women by suggesting that men can sexually abuse them without any non-legal consequences.)
2. Ban gay marriage but allow civil unions with equal benefits (as well as possibly some sort of union for polygamy, etc.)
3. Keep the minimum wage the same (no increases or decreases--I believe in a fair and decent wage, but if it's too high it hurts growth and can lead to job losses)
4. Removing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from government control, but establishing an emergency fund to protect them in a crisis

I'm sure I could think of others, but this is a partial list.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The individual/employee should pay for their unemployment, social, medical and workers comp. insurances so to legitimately collect said benefits.

College's pay off (sued for) the national debt; the elected chairs of leadership are college'd certified to be edukated.

We, the USA are a constitutional republic, not, a democracy!

Gay marrage is a myth of nature.

Life, liberty and the pursuit for happiness will return the Obama Ideals' to the depths of hell, its birth place.

The last one is truly a gem.

[Zanas]

So many things are wrong in this one :

With the New Democracy-PASOK-Democratic Left coalition at 167 seats, down from 179 following the June elections (ND-PASOK with only 151 seats on their own), there is a growing possibility that Greece will be undergoing a brand new round of elections very shortly. Give me your predictions as to who will be top dog in the 300-member body!

Remember: Top vote-getting party receives a 50-seat bonus and any party receiving less than 3% of the vote cannot be awarded seats in Parliament.

My prediction:

SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left): 27% (134 seats)
ND (New Democracy): 20% (63 seats)
XA (Golden Dawn): 15% (42 seats)
ANEL (Independent Greeks): 8% (24 seats)
KKE (Communist Party): 7.5% (22 seats)
PASOK (Socialist Party): 5% (15 seats)
DIMAR (Democratic Left: 2.5% (DNQ)


Ultimate Prediction: After making a number of significant concessions, Alexis Tsipras and SYRIZA come to an agreement with Aleka Papariga the Communists to form an anti-bailout left-wing government, after about a week of negotiations and uncertainty (ultimately, Papariga iss swayed by polling information showing Golden Dawn in the 18-22% range should another election end up being held). After receiving wind of the agreement, Nikolaos Michaloliakos of Golden Dawn decides to utilize the resources available to him at the behest of the police forces to engineer a shocking and decisive coup d'etat.

As news of the coup spreads almost instantaneously, global markets descend into panic, prompting several exchanges including the NYSE to indefinitely suspend trading. NATO convenes an emergency session at which they conditionally expel Greece. The EU follows soon afterward, expelling Greece from the body as well as the political and financial Eurozone. Given Michaloliakos' chilling statements regarding his desire to "take back Istanbul," war with Turkey would appear inevitable. And, given Turkey's status as a NATO member, a new World War could be in the making.

Now that you have my take, what do you guys think would happen?

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Posted in a thread about a concession speech in 2016:

What's the context here? Did this really happen or is this a hypothetical?