OCinBuffalo

I accuse you of never writing a fact-based post, and you respond...with this? Hmmm I wonder, if I accuse you of always paying my bar tab....does that mean you will pay it? John, the moderate Dems, are the ones who watered down your socialist health care dream. The TEA party wasn't really up and going yet when the "public option" was rejected. (and btw, losing elections due to misreading Iraq war weariness as acceptance of the progressive agenda? That is what moderate dems get for listening to far-left loons. The lesson: now and forever, ignore the far-left.) That is why: this is your poop, and it's dinner time! Where's my triangle? Ah there is it. Ding ding ding ding ding! This is ironic in so many ways. Obamacare was designed by business incompetents. Business incompetence is a problem that runs rampant and unchecked throughout the Dimocratic party. That is why it failed. Lawyers, lobbyists, and Rahm Emanuels physician brother, and college professors? ALL INCOMPETENT. They don't know how to create, market and then sell health insurance, and clearly, they don't know schit about my job. This is the Dimocratic party's big problem going forward: They have no talent. Sure they have IT, but, and remember this is me saying this: IT is not the be all and end all. IT is largely: virtual. That's another way of saying: abstract, which, is another way of saying: NOT REAL. Somebody has to work and produce things like energy and food, and yes, even open and close the locks on Lake Michigan, and the people that work, due to Obamacare, aren't going to be Democrats. Hence the Democrats will lack business acumen going forward, as much as they lack it today. Ted Cruz, commander in chief of the shut down, is more popular now, than he has ever been. That's because: he looks "right". The shutdown looks "right". The TEA party demanded action, they got it, and now? They look right. (It doesn't matter if they were right right, they look right. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you on the concept that they made a tactical error, but...in the big politiical picture? It's a wash. And, it gives Ted Cruz permanent TEA party cred.) Smart Ds want to avoid all discussion of Obamacare all together(hence income, immigration, etc.), and bringing up the shutdown is he very last thing they want to do, now, because it reminds people how far the TEA party was willing to go....to protect this country from Dimocrat incompetence. Dumb Ds like yourself, bring up the shutdown...on purpose, unsolicited? John, that's doing it wrong.

Of course the framers couldn't have know about them(as they couldn't have kown about fascists, you idiot) but the Constitution is there to protect us from socialists and Communists as well. Especially since Communism is the leading cause of murder, historically. The TEA party sees fascism no differently than Communism: both are leftist ideas. One imposes socialism and then glorifies the nation, and requires everyone to put aside their individaul well-being, liberty, and interests to serve the nation. (Fascisim) The other imposes socalism, and then falsely glorifies the worker, while actually making thse in charge in to Feudal lords. (Socialism/Communism) Really they both end the same way: Feudalism. Neither has anything to do wth American values. Neither has ever worked anywhere it's been tried. European socialism is falling apart right in front of their smug noses. The TEA party rejects all of this. Liberty is the only value, and if you are for restricting liberty, for the sake of your nationalized whatever....prepare to be tarred and feathered. If people want to freely engage in pooling their resources, the TEA party has no issue with that. However, forcing us into collectivism, is ALWAYS wrong. What the TEA party sees happening in this country: an evil deal between government and corporations, by which yet again, Fedalism will be imposed. Feudalism as in: what will happen to me if I started my own, non-Obamacare, health care delivery system ....without being assigned my fief, and having taken my vow of vassalage to government or health insurance companies, first? Think I will get audited? Think I will get arrested? Think I will get taxed/regulated to death? Think I will get sued/court injuctioned to death? YEP! You really don't get it. Doing nothing at all, can be purposeful: inaction. You will see this defined for you when the Ds start begging the TEA party for help with Obamacare: purposeful inaction. And, given the composition of the TEA party(more educated, more successful, smarter, more generous, more likely to volunteer) when compared to the Democratic party, and given your results since 2006, when we just had to elect a D house, "because there was so much to do"(yet we still don't have, to this day, a coherent energy policy, which was promise #1)? The TEA party is 100% justified in saying they know better than you. Wawrow: most of the people in this thread know better than you, on just about everything. I don't remember the last time you wrote anything, example above, that didn't have some glaring factual error. Therefore, the TEA party knows better than you, for sure. I think if we started going through the list, the TEA party knows better than 98? 97?% of the entire Democratic party. What you and others don't seem to realize: the TEA party is really a mature form of libertarian. The libertarian party is growing my friend, and is accepting all the millenials that have just realized Obama/Democrats are a fraud. Things have changed, yet most "progressives" are resisting the change. It's exactly like: you are still thinking in terms of the cold war, but 9/11 just happened(Obamacare). Your old thinking is preventing you from seeing what is happening today

Well, wawrow, given the Obamacare fiasco, explain to me how asking for moresaying you wanted more...doesn't make you look like a complete idiot. See, you still don't understand: neither the TEA party, nor I need chew on anything, Obamacare is your poop, and you made it all by yourself, and now, you have to eat it all by yourself. But, not before I rub your nose in it first...to punish you for taking a crap on the country where we both have to live every day. Call me whatever you want: you still have to eat your own schit, or, beg the TEA party for mercy, take responsibility for your errors, and ask for help to fix it. Barring alien invasion, those are your only 2 choices. Since the former seems to be the only choice you are capable of making, want me to make a nice bed of rice for you? Some sauteed vegetables on the side? How about I buy you a nice....well, hmmm what pairs with wawrow/Obamacare poop? Cab maybe? Reisling? Perhaps we'll be adventurous and just go with both? Blowhard? Hypocrite? I'm not the one who was running around shouting "We have to pass it to see what's in it", and, I'm not the one running around now either saying "I dont know why it failed" (Nancy Pelosi - House Minority leader). There's your blowhard. Or, "the President made promises he has to keep"....when only a year ago, I was saying "If you like your plan you can keep it" (Senator Mary Landrieu LA) There's your hypocrite. No sir, I'm neither. I've been making the same, fact-based, measured argument about Obamcare for the last 5 years.

How about we have an experiment? I'm going to give you 2 quotes, and any of you tell us which one is more likely to be an election-winning argument today, not 7 years ago. First this: Then this: If you had to win an election, and were confronted with these 2 positions, which one would you be more confident about going out and saying to people? Feel free to show your work as to which one is better, but, you don't have to. Here ends the experiment. See, the Juan's of the world really don't understand how truly F'ed they are on this issue. The CBO comes out with this report, and while on defense(let's be honest, this CBO report puts Ds on the defensive, all BS aside) the Ds start trying to play nuance too? Since 2006, the ENTIRE Democratic party has been running on bumper stickers, not nuance. Their current governing coalition is based on the dumbest/least informed = LIV = young single women, minorities, unskilled union people, handout recipients etc. The people who respond the best to nuance either didn't vote for them, or, did but are so small in # nationally(college professors, trial lawyers, urban IT people) that they don't matter, becaue they get cancelled out electorally with plenty of votes left over. Live by the LIV, die by the LIV. Ask yourself: which argument above will the LIV understand, never mind agree with? Once again, Obamacare "The Liberal Cleaver". That has nice ring to it. I may have to start doing gifs again.

You'll have to excuse me, as I simply can't care about this anymore. Now? The old game is over and done. Yeah, yeah, we could say this and that. So what? You have, for reasons passing understanding, just confirmed twee little 8th grade girl behavior, on PPP of all places. Why would you do that? Once again, overestimation.... You don't have a read on me at all, do you? Good. I've had your # for years. Therefore, why wouldn't I believe you/JA would have a twee little club, as I said: something along those lines was obvious. I mean, I'd have to see it, to really believe it, this is PPP after all, but, in terms of probability, that was likely, never mind possible. What I never expected: that you would admit to this on PPP. And, Yikes. I mean really: is there anything more narcissist than an 8th grade girl, or her behavior? But, that is over. So, again, you'll have to excuse me. So many doors have been opened, and I'm sorry but, I simply can't think that fast. Oh...you don't think...that will stick or go anywhere? This is PPP my friend, and you done F'ed up.

Maybe. But, again, with only knowing the tiny bit that we do, that seems like a lot of moving parts, that all have to work exactly right, for the jury to say not guilty. Any one of those parts fail, especially the missing cylinder, which sounds like BS to me, and the whole thing falls apart. It could be a simple as this: a reasonable man reasons that other cars, not including his, may be in a parking lot doing lots of things, including playing loud music. That's a reasonable expectation for a 7/11 parking lot. Otherwise, once again using English and logic: it's called a driveway. The shooter wasn't at his house. We aren't supposed to walk around assuming we can control parking lots, unless we own them. Therefore, I don't buy the shooter's story. Frankly, I fail to see anything reasonable about demanding the music be turned down at all. This is a friggin 7/11. I've literally driven into all sorts of them with all sorts of cars playing music loudly. I'm there go to the store, not be the arbiter of stereo volume(one thing is certain: we'd all be better off if each of us told the very next self-appointed arbiter of whatever...to F off and mind their own business. Perhaps if someone had done that to the shooter, years ago, this never would have happened.) Also, it's 7/11. The faster I get what I need, the faster I GTFO. Who needs the hassle of arguing about music? Why would anyone go looking for that kind of hassle, unless they had an agenda? You're at a 7/11 of all places, what was he doing, buying the week's groceries, after coming from a wedding? No. We all know what convience store means. The whole point is spending more, so that you spend as little time there as possible. If this guy was doing it right, he's out of there in 30 seconds, far far away from the pernicious "loud music". Thus the shooter's entire premise seems unreasonable to me. It's a lot more likely: the shooter was looking for trouble. Coming from a wedding implies boozed up, and looking for trouble. These points pretty much ensure that it's not a he/she said thing.

My very favorite thing about the CBO? 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents. Hmm we passed this thing....in order to end up 1 million people worse than it was in 2009? If we are generous, and include popluation growth, then, we are 85% of where we were in 2009. Explain what has been solved by this. I have no friggin clue. How do the "uninsured", the special class of people we just have to F everybody else over to help, benefit...by not being insured? Once again, sing it with me now, "I know that law! It is The Liberal Cleaver. The Biter! The law that slashed a thousand necks". Come on progressives, you know you wan to sing it. It's funny: "Bones will be shattered, necks will be wrung! You'll be beaten and battered, from racks you'll be hung! You will die down here and never be found, down in the deep of Obamacare Town"

Jesus, some sort of hysteria must be floating around DC. What's with people telling other people exactly how they are making fun of them, and yet, those people ignoring that, and repeating the same behavior? Perhaps it's a form of DC dysfunction? I mean, surely Obama isn't dumb enough to keep walking into the same troll...yet there he sits, with his new selfie? I just don't get it. Perhaps he thinks he's too good to get made fun of? Perhaps he thinks the joke is on us, and not him? That would be confusing, yet...pretty funny, for us.

You CLEARLY don't understand the TEA party. You can also do whatever you want with that information, but blame me for your lack of understanding/effort. You are talking completely out your ass. What you don't seem to get: every single time you/anyone falsely accuses them of stuff like this? They give the TEA party power. By all means: keep lying about the TEA party. You still haven't learned form the Sarah Palin phenomenon, have you? Fascinating. Ask Martin Basheer how getting himself fired, while putting Palin's name back in the headlines/giving her more power to fundraise, is working out for the Democratic party's interests, or his. Democrat Dopes seem incapable of learning that lesson, so they will probably never learn the TEA party lesson either. Now? It's "The Republicans don't need the TEA party, they'll just stick with crushing Obamacare"? http://www.realclear...tea_121432.html Newsflash: liberal EJ Dionne doesn't understand the TEA party either. Crushing Obamacare IS the TEA party. This "fanaticism"...is somehow the thing that Republicans will avoid, and ride, at the same time? Boy this guy reaallllly doesn't get it. The TEA party is not anti-immigration. The TEA party is anti-EJ Dionne/Obama et al being given the chance to impose yet another massive, failing, Obamacare-type immigration law. (See, I keep trying to explain it. Obamacare: "The Liberal Cleaver", "The Foe Argument Hammer." Sharp, isn't it? Ouch Obamcare will/must/should be used to counter any and all liberal Big Plan nonsense, for the next 30 years.) We don't want "comprehensive" anything from a group of people who don't understand the difference between a massive, enterpise system integration, and a F'ing website. They have no competence, they failed at Obamacare, so why should we trust them to do Big Bang Immigration right? Yeah, that's real "fanaticism" right there. Some might mistake it for: common sense.(Again, "The Liberal Cleaver" cuts and slashes. Even a liberal argument that may have some merit, is now easily smacked down by the Foe Hammer) Now, I've just proved that the above media doesn't understand the TEA party, and is in fact quite full of schit about it. Your choice as to what you do next. The good news: it's EJ Dionne's job to understand the TEA party, he doesn't, so you don't have to feel that bad. But, you do need to think better. One thing you might consider thinking about? Obamacare, "The Liberal Cleaver".

Wow...you really can't help yourself, can you? Yikes. I guess this requires further explanation, seems the right thing to do. You have been duped by the simplest device there is: a mirror. I've merely written your own awful personality here back at you, and some others. But, differently. Customized is the right word. I state that openly, yet here you are making it worse? Unreal. Fascinating actually. The only conundrum I've found: why you never learned anything from your gay marriage fiasco. ALL I did was be you, and then reverse the argument. That's what I've been doing ever since, at certain times/threads. How can you not see that? But, then again, I've been parroting you, haven't I? You, and the others like you, can never see it. Not capable. 8 months? Dude, It's been years, and I've put some decent research into it. I wasn't my usual lazy self with this. I am truly awful at this game some days, just terrible. But too bad for you, not on this. (Example: They say not to use "you" with narcissists. They literally tell you to use "I-language" instead. http://powercommunic...Narcissists.pdf Imagine my amusement, all this time, when largely the targeted posters have have talked about my, albeit overuse, of "I-language". Priceless. ) Anyway, I remain curious: in your world, are posters here really bigots? Are you really here to stop them, me, the rest of the evil people, do you really think you are some sort of arbiter...whatever that means/is going on in your nutty little head? And, Yikes! But, then I think: "come on, is that right"? See? It's a conundrum, because I still have doubts. Now as far as your club? Please...obvious, if not that, something similar. The notion that it takes 8 of you to deal with me, and that you run bets on another site? That any of this is that important to you? IF that's true, nothing pleases me more, because it is so very...weird. Really weird. But, if Tom is part of your club, that kills his "I don't care" thing above. oops. Did you mean to blow Tom in? Well, that's to be expected of narcissists, they overestimate their abilities. IF this is a lie? Not as great, but still awesome. You have to make schit up now, rather than face your own FAIL? Yep, also narcissist behavior. This all ends in rage for you, doesn't it? Also typical, consistent, etc. Let me get ahead of your problem. There's exactly 0 next steps for you here, that don't end with me This game is ending now. It's ending because it's always been my game, not yours. That really makes you narcissist nuts, doesn't it? It's also ending because, I'm quite comfortable with the score. 2. Want to make it 3? Keep talking down to your fellow Bills fans/calling them names they don't deserve, and I assure you I will posterize you again. Sorry, but you're a looney toon, and until you fix that, you're exploitable, consistently. Yes, the bolded has always been what this is about. Your behavior is completely unacceptable, and even though this is PPP, I refuse to put up with it. Some posters screw around call names, etc. Not you. You think you can bully people here, but, as I've shown twice now: you can't. By all means, try for Round 3.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd have to think that most juries would be capable of making the distinction, which is how this is supposed to work. The jury decides, not the media, judge, lawyers, etc. It's our job to let that jury do its. Then live with that. Yeah, it's possible that the jury believes his story/applies the law incorrectly, its just as possible they don't. The GZ case was a clear demonstration of the jury thinking, and applying the law as written, regardless of how some of them may have felt. This is not about feel. This is about think. We'll see, but right now, I don't think "seeing" a gun qualifies for SYG the same way that getting physically attacked does. Just using logic and English, the standing of ground requires ground, and ground that is being threatened. Sitting in your car is not threatening this guy's ground. Getting out of the car, and moving towards him would be. If this guy is moving towards the car, he left his ground, therefore, he has no ground in which to "stand". Seems pretty straightforward to me, but again, it's on the jury to do the right thing.

Boy, that's a tough sell, isn't it? Walking into the same thing, day after day, not realizing that's it's all 100% dependent on the context of the thread, and especially about which posters are in that particular thread? And here we are: after 100s, if not more, posts to the contrary, you say you don't care? Sorry, that's a tough sell. I doubt anyone is buying, least of all me. If this is you not caring, I'd love to see your posting behavior regarding something you do care about. Feel free to apply yourself: you're smart enough to see the pattern, now that it's been explained. Perhaps you can take comfort in this: I learned it from Crayonz, the real Crayonz. I'm just more subtle. I had to be. Copying him directly is bad form, never mind wouldn't work. And to think, this all started as a dare by a poster who is long gone. EDIT; But, I've grown tired of this, so it's over. I have a new thing, which interests me more and should produce more laughs...as always, for me.(Just threw this last "for me", and really that entire sentence, in for old time's sake. Think of it as a gift.) With my gift in hand, you can still produce some more highly entertaining, yet completely unqualified psychological diagnoses. Why is it that those with problems, mental/addiction etc. always choose to project them onto the rest of us? I guess it's some sort of coping mechanism. If that's what this is, I'm fine with it, feel free to project whatever, and cope as you will. No skin off my back. Perhaps I should spend a month posting as a paranoid? That might be fun. What do you say? Should I give PearlHoward a run for his money? But, I've already said too much.

Whatever, here's reality: The TEA party has every intention of preventing people like yourself, from imposing their unpopular views on the rest of us. That's because the TEA party is about liberty, and you are clearly about tryanny. (IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, NSA, Fast and Furious, Global Warming, Fiat currency, Detroit Bondholders Robbery, we can do this list for an hour) You thought you knew better. You've proven: you do not. That's what you should be worried about. The widely held default position of "well, yeah, but the Dems are usually smarter about most domestic stuff"? That's now gone. The left has now completely blown an advantage they've held since Clinton. The TEA party is about live/let live. You are about F'ing with people's choices, when and if you let them have any, because you say you know better. The empirical evidence we now have: you're incompetent. The TEA party doesn't want to impose anything but liberty. And that, by definition, is no imposition at all. Obamacare is the #1 target, because Obamacare has never ever been supported by a majority of Americans. Who is doing the imposing, and who is defending liberty here? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Obamacare has always been correctly framed, by the TEA party, as an imposition. That IS the context in which it's being discussed today(TEA party win). It's also #1 because it's so simple to understand. Even the coalition of the dumb that this President has formed, largely gets it. But, you won't ask this question because: you thought it was hilarious when Obama told people "they can come along, but they have to sit in the back and keep quiet", ddn't you? How hilarious is that looking now, when idiots like yourself wholly own Obamacare, and idiots like me can excoriate you endlessly for fun and profit because of it? No, no John, now you NEED the Rs in both houses to come to your rescue. Think how fun that's going to be if the Rs win the Senate. Every progressive must learn a new trick: begging. That's right, you have to beg the Rs to help you, but really? You will have to beg the TEA party to support you making changes to this abomination of a law. Yeah, that's the way this works now: you have to beg the TEA party. I suggest a whole lot of humility and accountability on your part, and an appeal to their patriotism. However, I doubt you can get past the first part.

That article is the worst piece of political analysis I've ever read. The man routinely loses his own argument, to himself, often in the same paragraph. The WH Chief Economist was rushed out to deal with this immediately today. Why? Again, forget the chatter: observe the behavior. Why would they do that if this is all no big deal? Yeah, yeah, rapid D reponse from Yahoo. That article is absurd: the Middle class ends up with less take home pay? And that's no big deal? Serriously: WTF? Again, conginitive dissonance appears to be a highly infectious disease amongst Ds. Since when is any winning D national strategy not based on saying "middle class" 5000 times? The Democratic party being on record as hurting every single middle class family, and doing it consistently with no plan to stop/curtail that behavior = no big deal....in an article where the author purports to be the voice of reason? Dissonance. "That’s one reason Obamacare is likely to be controversial for years to come." The man says "years to come", as if a long-standing, every American effecting, massive, loser political issue is something to be ignored, because we can just call it "controversial" and that makes it all better? Remind me not to hire this guy to do any abstract thinking, in any capacity. It's as I said: he loses his own argument to himself. It is entertaining to watch him struggle though. Here's reality: the big D donors and big wig Ds(like Hillary) will never allow Obamacare to bury them beyond Obama. As soon a Obama is gone, so is Obamacare. They will simply make the call one day, and that will be the end of it. Or, they are truly nuts/stupid, and in that case? I have not begun to laugh. I mean, hey birdog, you can always nominate Elizabeth Warren. Come on, you know you want to, you know Hillary is about Hillary, and not your idiotic views.

I'm fairly certain the most abused here are those that spend most of their time proving that a mirror, is a mirror.

Then you have been completely duped. As intended. Enjoy that. I know I do.

At some point you have to think that somebody is going to turn rat. The former CIA director conincidentally gets a job at a Clinton front/"reasearch" operation? Coincidence? Looks a lot like he twisted the talking points to protect Hillary, based on the promise of having a safe place to land. I wonder: did this whole thing blindside Obama? Is this what the WH is really trying to cover....not that they lied about anything, but, that they couldn't/didn't control who was lying about what? Was Susan Rice operating on Obama's instructions? Or Hillary's? Consider: how bad does it look for Obama if he isn't running his own outfit, and Hillary decided her political damage control was more important than whateve he had to say/wanted? The more I hear about this, the less outlandish that sounds, the more likely it sounds. The real cover up: Obama was too weak to control Hillary. You'd think with all these R ex-prosectuors in the House that they'd know how to turn up the heat/apply pressure and get somebody to give it up. Perhaps we'll have to wait...and see if the Senate goes over. Then, they would have no excuse not to appoint a special comittee/special prosecutor.

I think it's hilarious how badly the response to what I said, and Tom's lame attempt, has FAILed. I've tried to explain to Tom/JA/GG that this little faggy campaign will only bring them the opposite of what they intend(becaue what I do, is a troll...of them ), but they insist on pushing forward. Oh well, I will just keep doing it, and they apparently will never get it. It's like the emoticon thing. I've said exactly what it is, but they keep running into the wall.

This report is damning. Absolutely F you damning. The usual fools begin denigrating the CBO in 5...4...3... and, yes, the irony is that the very same CBO was "inviolate", when they were being handed cooked books by the Democrats...in a lame effort to prove this thing was deficit neutral. Remember the Medicare/Obamacare "savings" double counting? Well, now we see empirical evidence of the double counting. And, Maryland's entire system is days away from imploding. Oregon is also in big trouble, because it's about to come out that they scammed the Feds. EDIT: Oh, and one last thing. Nothing like a system that can do "insert" but can't do "update" eh, Chef/4mer? Still want to tell me this thing is "working"? Clowns. Your credibility is absolutely gone on this issue. But, keep telling us about F'ing Google.

Bah, I should have gone with that. EDIT: But, remember who we are talking about tho...it's not like he's going to get it either way. I just figured: why not screw with him a little?

The difference between you and me: The facts don't terrify me. Every single fact is capable of changing my views. You can't say the same. It doesn't matter if you won't. You can't. I will prove it below. I am an empiricist, and I've seen enough "big plans" from people who aren't qualified to make "big plans" in my work(16 Fortune 500 major projects so far, and yes, I've seen more good "big plans" than bad ones)...to be doubly skeptical of those, clearly unqualified, who claim they can "make things better" on a national scale, with their "big plans". We are currently living in the "Great Society". How great is it? How's the "war on poverty" going? How abotu the "war on drugs"? The promise/premise was it was going to be so "great", that all our problems would be solved...so...now...why do we need more? Obamacare is the same recycled nonsense. See? I'm an empiricist. If this was work, and the global warming and Obamacare projects were work projects, every manager on this board would cancel them immediately, and route their resources elsewhere. That's called: competence. They'd do it, because not doing it means: termination. But, you can't cancel them. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't or won't. Your ideology demands incompetence and inefficiency, they are embedded. Your ideology is not about getting the answers, or solving the problem: your "political philosophy" is about abritrarily stealing resources/assets from some, and making enough others dependent on you, by giving them just enough to survive, but never enough to thrive, and break their dependence on you. Thus, when you make "big plans", why should anyone be shocked when they produce incompetence and inefficiency? If things are too competent/efficient, you run the risk of the poor/unionized becoming self-reliant, and no longer needing you. You need the poor to stay poor, so you need incompetence and inefficiency...hence your solution to everything is government. I would devote the resources to this, not because I'm afraid of the answer, but precisely because I want the answer, and, I fully recognize, as a competent manager, that this project is most likely to produce the best/most useful scientific results.

Hey dipshit: do you want my full attention? Thusfar I largely ignore you, due to your obvious limitations. You're not really worth my time, because there's a good chance you won't even understand it when I squish you, thus, no lulz. But, if you want my full attention, I'm glad to make you my new toy.

I'm still waiting for a single liberal on this board, since 2005, to properly define the term "neo-con". I have never seen them do it properly. It's yet another blind-spot for them. They don't realize that neo-cons are merely: liberals, who decided other liberals are too weak on national security/world security issues, then left the Ds, and joined the Rs as a result. While that is bad for Ds, and they can be mad at Ds who turn on them, it's not like the regular Rs had anything to do with it. Once again, properly defined: A "neo-con" is a moderate war hawk, yet liberal on everything else, Republican. Plain and simple. The irony is that the word conservative is being used at all. The proper term: interventionist liberal Republican, not conservative. In other words? Joe Lieberman...and yep: Hillary Clinton. You know, they really don't see this coming now(or they try to laugh it off...like the dude that laughs at the joke he doesn't get, because everybody else is), and, it's doubtful they will understand it when it does...so...this post is tantamount to cruelty. If that's what it does now, just wait until the "What difference does it make?" Hillary Chia Pet comes out. Ch-ch-ch-coward! How about: "I blamed it on a video, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt!"?(Give that one a second or 2)...it will never end. Personally, I am not looking forward to any of it, but, I also recognize the need to bury you and Hillary under a sea of "What difference does it make?". That's why I want to see things like the Coward Chia Pet. IF we're going to have to endure this, at least we should try to make some of it funny. Buddy, you are new here, so I'm going to give you the opportunity to learn the easy way: running your mouth about facts being hard to run from, here, is the height of stupidity. Posters of all political persuasions are destroyed on this board daily...by the facts. If you have the guts to stick around here long enough, you will see this happen routinely. And, as we've already seen in this thread: The facts have already been used to run you down.

Again, you don't know your history. Single Payer was killed by the Democrats, not the Republicans. You had the votes to pass whatever you wanted. You couldn't pass single payer in your own caucus. Let's be accurate please. Liberal Massachussets voters(of all people) tried to stop your next retarded plan, and if you were honorable, they did stop it. But, you have no honor, so you broke the rules to get your way. The TEA party formulation is PREDICATED upon the ACA. Predicated, as in: the shady way the ACA was passed, even though Scott Brown was elected by Mass. Liberals to stop it, solidified the TEA party, AND, legitimized their claim that leftist government is out of control, useless, and lawless. Passing of the ACA MADE the TEA party, and forms part of the base upon which they've built their credibility. The 2nd dumbest thing liberals ever did was pass the ACA. The dumbest thing they ever did? How they passed ACA. 0 Bi-partisan support, 0 Republican votes, shady/Christmas Eve horseschit = abuse of power at least, a fascist approach at worst. These things have destroyed liberal's credibility, doubly so now that it is failing....exactly as the government shutting down TEA party told you it would. This gives PERMANENT credibility to the TEA party, and there's no amount of lies that you can tell that will ever damage it. The TEA party has based its entire activity on this permanent cred. And therefore, they've been able to force all arguments to the right. The left has no credibility = global warming, IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, NSA, therefore, they are powerless to prevent the "zero point" from moving to the right. Yap all you want: you will see your error when you realize what we are talking about, and what we aren't, especially when Hillary's stuff comes out. Or, you're simply too dumb to see it, and in that case, prepare to get nothing but scorn at PPP. Actually the TEA party was started by an impromptu comment by an CNBC reporter talking about the TARP. He stumbled into saying what a whole lot of people were thinking. But, yes, what idiot Birdog doesn't realize is the ACA solidified the TEA party's charges that government was out of control. The TEA party's credibility is forever tied to how the ACA got passed. In that sense, the liberals have created their own biggest tormentor, and that tormentor is clearly: winning, while they are Charlie Sheening around.

I just gotta say this: I can't believe this Bruno Mars clown won anything, by blatantly ripping off The Police, right into Earth Wind and Fire, complete with the same exact chord progression into the chorus, and following up with Springstein and topped off by Genesis. Yeah, I've heard the Chili Peppers. So essentialy we had: the late 70s, early 80s, mid 80s, late 80s, early 90s. And, none of it original. Not a single bit. Pathetic. And the last song? Ripping off Bryan Adams. So, par for the course. Jesus. If this is what passes for grammy winners? Things have gotten really bad.