JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It really wasn't intended to be nasty. Are the big nasty liberals picking on you? Why not just shoot them? I wouldn't do that because even though I don't agree with you, I'll defend your right to disagree even if you call me names until you turn blue. Unfortunately my "side" owns more guns than yours' so i can't say what they might do to you and others if this sh-- continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I wouldn't do that because even though I don't agree with you, I'll defend your right to disagree even if you call me names until you turn blue. Unfortunately my "side" owns more guns than yours' so i can't say what they might do to you and others if this sh-- continues. Oh, I see. I will defend your right to free speech but if you keep up this free speech my friends will shoot you. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Oh, I see. I will defend your right to free speech but if you keep up this free speech my friends will shoot you. Got it. I did say it was unfortunate. I'm just saying you might want to keep that second amendment intact. I don't think my friends at the NRA will cave in so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I did say it was unfortunate. I'm just saying you might want to keep that second amendment intact. I don't think my friends at the NRA will cave in so easily. Actually, considering that the vast majority of NRA members are simple decent Americans that know how to use a weapon, I fully expect one of them to shoot you relatively soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Actually, considering that the vast majority of NRA members are simple decent Americans that know how to use a weapon, I fully expect one of them to shoot you relatively soon. When I consider America's gloomy future, that might not be the worse alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 When I consider America's gloomy future, that might not be the worse alternative. Awesome! The Obama magic and reaching across party lines has already begun to work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Awesome! The Obama magic and reaching across party lines has already begun to work! I thought you might like that. Nothing makes a liberal's day brighter than a dead conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Awesome! The Obama magic and reaching across party lines has already begun to work! Getting those on the other side of the aisle to shoot each other? Well, then we could pry their guns from their cold dead fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 The funny thing is that most so-called liberals don't really care if you own a gun, as long as your not completely psychopathic or retarded. Life is short, so whatever the fukk makes you happy. Gun nuts get off on the idea that everyone wants to take their guns away. It feeds the whole isolationist, us-against-the-world, big-brother-is-watching-you mentality that they thrive on. Statistics are for losers! Buy as many as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I thought you might like that. Nothing makes a liberal's day brighter than a dead conservative. Just a few will do. Thank you for your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The funny thing is that most so-called liberals don't really care if you own a gun, as long as your not completely psychopathic or retarded. Life is short, so whatever the fukk makes you happy. Gun nuts get off on the idea that everyone wants to take their guns away. It feeds the whole isolationist, us-against-the-world, big-brother-is-watching-you mentality that they thrive on. Statistics are for losers! Buy as many as you can. Stop it. Liberals care about EVERYTHING people do. Thats why they seek to legislate and regulate the sh-- out of EVERYTHING. By your DEFINITION, big government and strong regulation/oversite is your MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The funny thing is that most so-called liberals don't really care if you own a gun, as long as your not completely psychopathic or retarded. Life is short, so whatever the fukk makes you happy. Gun nuts get off on the idea that everyone wants to take their guns away. It feeds the whole isolationist, us-against-the-world, big-brother-is-watching-you mentality that they thrive on. Statistics are for losers! Buy as many as you can. Certainly you don't believe what you post or are you really that ignorant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Rush is the smartest guy on radio today? I laughed so hard I cried. I'd like to know by what criteria he is judged the smartest. Is it his drop out status? His failed DJ status? Hell, he even sucked when he worked for the KC Royals. And I heard that straight from the mouth of the guy that wanted him fired when that guy left the Royals to come to COMSAT years ago. Oh, I know what makes Rush so smart. It's his ability to read five or six daily papers and then spew opinions on what he reads. He's a friggin' genius by that standard. Anyone with half a command of the language can do the same thing. The only thing I'll give him credit for is finding a niche as a talk show host and being picked up and syndicated. That has more to do with being in the right place at the right time with the right audience than being smart. It's ignorant to equate success with intelligence at times. He simply took advantage of an opportunity. Good for him. I gave Rush the six month test he asked for back in 1990. I tried to find reasons to listen to him after that. But all he convinced me of was that he was a class A blowhard who had a penchant for telling 15 million disaffected people exactly what they wanted to hear. He would have done well working for Goebbels. But as far as being informative I didn't learn anything from him. Seems we read the same papers. So he never told me anything I didn't already find out before his show started each day. Smartest guy on radio? Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Rush is the smartest guy on radio today? I laughed so hard I cried. I'd like to know by what criteria he is judged the smartest. Is it his drop out status? His failed DJ status? Hell, he even sucked when he worked for the KC Royals. And I heard that straight from the mouth of the guy that wanted him fired when that guy left the Royals to come to COMSAT years ago. Oh, I know what makes Rush so smart. It's his ability to read five or six daily papers and then spew opinions on what he reads. He's a friggin' genius by that standard. Anyone with half a command of the language can do the same thing. The only thing I'll give him credit for is finding a niche as a talk show host and being picked up and syndicated. That has more to do with being in the right place at the right time with the right audience than being smart. It's ignorant to equate success with intelligence at times. He simply took advantage of an opportunity. Good for him. I gave Rush the six month test he asked for back in 1990. I tried to find reasons to listen to him after that. But all he convinced me of was that he was a class A blowhard who had a penchant for telling 15 million disaffected people exactly what they wanted to hear. He would have done well working for Goebbels. But as far as being informative I didn't learn anything from him. Seems we read the same papers. So he never told me anything I didn't already find out before his show started each day. Smartest guy on radio? Not even close. So you must think Stuart Smiley is smarter. The ratings proved that, didn't they? I know he is more cunning....I'll give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I must confess I finally listened to the Rush interview with Hannity (on youtube). Funny stuff. Rush has clearly become a caricature of himself. Normally, I don't listen to any talk radio, especially political talk, so perhaps I'm missing a lot. The problem with Rush that he and so many people that like him don't seem to get is that his views and rants have become so marginalized that they're essentially pointless. Yes, he and I'm sure others will point to his shows ratings (I assume they're really good?) as proof of how influential his views are. But, what's forgotten is that those 10million(?) listeners are not only just a small portion of the people that vote, but they're also probably 99% comprised of people that would vote Republican regardless of who was running. So, yes, his radio show is probably great for ratings and advertising money and pays him a nice salary. But, as far as influencing anyone? I just can't imagine any "moderate" or "on the fence" voter listening to that and being swayed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but man that was some of the best comedy I've heard in a while. I really liked how he said Bush intentionally sacrificed his public approval ratings to do what was right. Just as a slight aside: why do they give Bush credit for preventing terrorist attacks in America since there have been none since 2001; but Clinton doesn't get credit for preventing additional terrorist attacks in America after the 1993 WTC bombing? Entertaining stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I must confess I finally listened to the Rush interview with Hannity (on youtube). Funny stuff. Rush has clearly become a caricature of himself. Normally, I don't listen to any talk radio, especially political talk, so perhaps I'm missing a lot. The problem with Rush that he and so many people that like him don't seem to get is that his views and rants have become so marginalized that they're essentially pointless. Yes, he and I'm sure others will point to his shows ratings (I assume they're really good?) as proof of how influential his views are. But, what's forgotten is that those 10million(?) listeners are not only just a small portion of the people that vote, but they're also probably 99% comprised of people that would vote Republican regardless of who was running. So, yes, his radio show is probably great for ratings and advertising money and pays him a nice salary. But, as far as influencing anyone? I just can't imagine any "moderate" or "on the fence" voter listening to that and being swayed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but man that was some of the best comedy I've heard in a while. I really liked how he said Bush intentionally sacrificed his public approval ratings to do what was right. Just as a slight aside: why do they give Bush credit for preventing terrorist attacks in America since there have been none since 2001; but Clinton doesn't get credit for preventing additional terrorist attacks in America after the 1993 WTC bombing? Entertaining stuff. Because the fanatics bombed the USS Cole in Yemen. Although certainly not on our homeland, it still wasn't good. You can't give Clinton any credit for homeland security. His personal foibles was a distraction to this country while Osama was diligently planning the WTC sabotage. Also, he further restricted our military intelligence by reducing manpower in the FBI and CIA and we don't have to talk about the aspirin factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Because the fanatics bombed the USS Cole in Yemen. Although certainly not on our homeland, it still wasn't good. You can't give Clinton any credit for homeland security. His personal foibles was a distraction to this country while Osama was diligently planning the WTC sabotage. Also, he further restricted our military intelligence by reducing manpower in the FBI and CIA and we don't have to talk about the aspirin factory. But haven't there been numerous terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11? Do those not count? Furthermore, there have been thousands of Americans killed in Iraq an Afganistan. Perhaps not due to a "traditional" terrorist atack, but those American men and women are still gone. Isn't it possible that AQ is perfectly happy killing Americans there as well as here? That's not how I remember it, but I suppose that doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 But haven't there been numerous terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11? Do those not count? Furthermore, there have been thousands of Americans killed in Iraq an Afganistan. Perhaps not due to a "traditional" terrorist atack, but those American men and women are still gone. Isn't it possible that AQ is perfectly happy killing Americans there as well as here? That's not how I remember it, but I suppose that doesn't really matter. You can't compare Clinton with Bush for protecting America. If you want to say Clinton was better for the economy, then fine. If you want to say the charismatic charm of Clinton wasn't as divisive, fine. But Bush decided to take the offensive; took measures to protect the people of America by using the powers of the president in its most broadest sense...even though a lot of their ungrateful asses didn't deserve it. The Iraq war is another matter of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You can't compare Clinton with Bush for protecting America. If you want to say Clinton was better for the economy, then fine. If you want to say the charismatic charm of Clinton wasn't as divisive, fine. But Bush decided to take the offensive; took measures to protect the people of America by using the powers of the president in its most broadest sense...even though a lot of their ungrateful asses didn't deserve it. The Iraq war is another matter of debate. I'm merely pointing out the fact that people have suggested that Bush took all these measures to protect the people and it was worth it because we've not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Yet, no one gives Clinton credit for there not being any terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 through the end of his Presidency. If lack of attacks can be used to justify Bush's efforts to protect Americans, why can't the lack of attacks be used to justify Clinton's efforts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Limbaugh drops his guard and reveals what all conservatives want. They want America to fail. They do not love America. They don't care about its citizens. All they want is power. All they want is riches. I'll bet Limbaugh wishes terrorists attack us again too. What a fat drug-addled piece of garbage he is. Hannity and O'Reilly too. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts