PDA

View Full Version : Elections Who is pulling PinocchiObama's strings?


Programmer
08-03-2008, 06:00 PM
Who of the democrats brain trust is pulling the strings that makes him dance for the news media?

StcChief
08-03-2008, 07:28 PM
the media pulls them one softball question after another

Messier
08-03-2008, 09:12 PM
Who could it be?

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Who of the democrats brain trust is pulling the strings that makes him dance for the news media?
You came to ChiefsPlanet.

You checked out the DC forum.

You clicked "New Thread."

And you typed this.

...Not the most efficient use of your time, Programmer.

Messier
08-03-2008, 09:16 PM
You came to ChiefsPlanet.

You checked out the DC forum.

You clicked "New Thread."

And you typed this.

...Not the most efficient use of your time, Programmer.

No, no let's get to the bottom of this. Who is pulling Obama's strings and making him dance?

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:17 PM
No, no let's get to the bottom of this. Who is pulling Obama's strings and making him dance?
I'll let Programmer handle that mystery.

banyon
08-03-2008, 09:18 PM
McCain Bil Oil: $881,450 Since Offshore Flip Flop

http://www.drudge.com/news/110655/mccain-bil-oil-881450-since-offshore-flip

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has made his complete reversal on offshore drilling a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, insisting that expanding offshore drilling into protected areas would lead to more oil supply on the market within a matter of months-- regardless of the Energy Information Agencys projection that oil would not reach the market for nearly a decade and would not have a significant impact-- on oil prices.


Though more drilling wont help Americans save money at the gas pump, it has certainly helped McCain win massive campaign donations from Big Oil. A new report by Campaign Money Watch shows that contributions to McCain from Big Oil skyrocketed directly following his June speech in Houston, when he pledged his support of offshore drilling before an audience oil executives. The report notes:


In Texas alone, June oil and gas-connected donations to McCains Victory 08 Fund, his hybrid fundraising venture with the RNC and state committees, reached $1,214,100.


Of that total, $881,450, or 73 percent, came after June 15. McCain announced his position in favor of offshore drilling on June 16.


The report notes that these enormous contributions represent a seven-fold increase in donations, compared to McCains 2000 campaign:


McCain has no plan to prevent oil companies from absorbing the profits off expanded drilling opportunities just like they have reaped record profits on the back of unprecedented oil prices. Last Sunday, when George Stephanopoulos asked how he would make sure oil companies passed the savings to consumers, McCain suggested weakly he could shame-- them into helping consumers:

markk
08-03-2008, 09:20 PM
what should scare everyone is at least 2 years of Pelosi and Reid pulling his strings once he were in the white house.

we have already seen that he's not willing to stand up to his past promises on FISA and on drilling, and his positions on Iraq changing with the wind. why would we think he would stand up to the ultra, ultra left wing agenda that Pelosi and Reid would ram through as puppetmasters?

not that i think he would really object, mind you, but even if he tried to live up to who he's saying he is now, in general eleciton mode, they aren't going to let him. he doesn't seem to be someone who stands up for what he believes in or is willing to stick to his guns against pressure from others.

banyon
08-03-2008, 09:21 PM
what should scare everyone is at least 2 years of Pelosi and Reid pulling his strings once he were in the white house.

we have already seen that he's not willing to stand up to his past promises on FISA and on drilling, and his positions on Iraq changing with the wind. why would we think he would stand up to the ultra, ultra left wing agenda that Pelosi and Reid would ram through as puppetmasters?

not that i think he would really object, mind you, but even if he tried to live up to who he's saying he is now, in general eleciton mode, they aren't going to let him. he doesn't seem to be someone who stands up for what he believes in or is willing to stick to his guns against pressure from others.



Do you think Pelosi wanted Obama or Hillary to win?

markk
08-03-2008, 09:23 PM
Do you think Pelosi wanted Obama or Hillary to win?

I don't understand why that matters, but I'm not sure who she was really for

VAChief
08-03-2008, 09:24 PM
what should scare everyone is at least 2 years of Pelosi and Reid pulling his strings once he were in the white house.



We survived 8 years of Cheney and Rove, I think despite whoever wins there will be enough opposition to counter the extremes.

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:25 PM
what should scare everyone is at least 2 years of Pelosi and Reid pulling his strings once he were in the white house.

we have already seen that he's not willing to stand up to his past promises on FISA and on drilling, and his positions on Iraq changing with the wind. why would we think he would stand up to the ultra, ultra left wing agenda that Pelosi and Reid would ram through as puppetmasters?

not that i think he would really object, mind you, but even if he tried to live up to who he's saying he is now, in general eleciton mode, they aren't going to let him. he doesn't seem to be someone who stands up for what he believes in or is willing to stick to his guns against pressure from others.
You understand, markk (and Programmer as well), that you now have espoused three contradictory opinions of Obama this election season.

You've said:

1. Obama is a committed ultra liberal socialist pimp of anything Marxist.

2. Obama is a political expedient flip-flopper, ever changing his whims to the latest polls.

and now

3. Obama is a powerless puppet, dancing by the strings of those more powerful than he.

You can't just swing at every ball pitched to you because it's there, markk. He can't be all three of these things. You have to understand what your argument against him is.

But you don't know what it is. You're just swinging blindly.

And that's why your party is going to get crushed in November.

chiefforlife
08-03-2008, 09:26 PM
Who of the democrats brain trust is pulling the strings that makes him dance for the news media?

Was this the topic on Hannity tonight? Do you need to finish watching the show to form an opinion and post again?

banyon
08-03-2008, 09:33 PM
I don't understand why that matters, but I'm not sure who she was really for

Well if she was as powerful and all pervasive as you suggest, wouldn't she have been able to get her candidate nominated?

HolmeZz
08-03-2008, 09:36 PM
we have already seen that he's not willing to stand up to his past promises on FISA and on drilling

I think you have supplanted Jake as the stupidest poster on this board.

Are you aware that the guy you're voting for flip-flopped on drilling AND supports FISA? Or are you oblivious to that?

redbrian
08-03-2008, 09:46 PM
It the same folks that have been pulling all the modern president strings…..it’s the Tri Literal Commission and of course the Masons………but I can not tell you more about the Masons as, well I have said too much already………..wait…is that a helicopter I hear…

markk
08-03-2008, 09:58 PM
I think you have supplanted Jake as the stupidest poster on this board.

Are you aware that the guy you're voting for flip-flopped on drilling AND supports FISA? Or are you oblivious to that?

we weren't talking about mccain, and i'm not certain i'll vote for him.

however, mccain wasn't the topic here, it's about how obama doesn't seem to have much nerve in the face of adversity. to me he appears to either be easily manipulated, politically, or one who really doesn't care what he needs to do in official capacities to get elected

HolmeZz
08-03-2008, 10:02 PM
however, mccain wasn't the topic here, it's about how obama doesn't seem to have much nerve in the face of adversity. to me he appears to either be easily manipulated, politically, or one who really doesn't care what he needs to do in official capacities to get elected

So you're saying he's like the guy you're going to end up voting for.

That is certainly going to be a tough tag for Obama to shake.

irishjayhawk
08-03-2008, 10:05 PM
we weren't talking about mccain, and i'm not certain i'll vote for him.

however, mccain wasn't the topic here, it's about how obama doesn't seem to have much nerve in the face of adversity. to me he appears to either be easily manipulated, politically, or one who really doesn't care what he needs to do in official capacities to get elected

So you don't see the connections between the topic and McCain?

Have you paid attention at all?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2008, 10:06 PM
Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski’s unconvincing antiwar posturing


By Larry Chin





(Online Journal) -- Neoliberal elite Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the leading architects of the "war on terrorism” across the Middle East and the Eurasian subcontinent (and whose book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives laid the groundwork for 9/11) has adopted a politically expedient wolf-in-sheep’s clothing role.

His much-publicized criticisms of Bush-Cheney’s “mismanagement” of Iraq (whose latest piece, The Smart Way Out, serves as a primer on the current neoliberal war policy) has garnered raves from those who are misguided or ignorant enough to believe that Brzezinski is, in any way, “antiwar.”

The key passage in the new Brzezinski piece leaves no illusions that that neoliberal position maintains the existing "anti-terrorism" pretext for endless war: "The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists."

What Brzezinski seeks is to simply reverse the Bush-Cheney “blunder,” and return to the geostrategic position achieved shortly after 9/11: " . . . a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement."

“Regional economic development” is Brzezinski’s code for “oil.”

Brzezinski is currently a national security/foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama.

He would undoubtedly play a major role for Hillary Clinton, should she become the Democratic Party nominee. Note also that Brzezinski was the foreign policy adviser for John McCain's presidential campaign in 1999-2000.

Brzezinski should not be trusted any more than his old friend Henry Kissinger, who not surprisingly lurks behind McCain.

The “war on terrorism” -- including the occupation of Iraq -- continues unabated.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=5838

Ultra Peanut
08-03-2008, 11:44 PM
it's about how obama doesn't seem to have much nerve in the face of adversity. to me he appears to either be easily manipulated, politically, or one who really doesn't care what he needs to do in official capacities to get electedhahahahahahahahaha what

Obama is the guy who led a campaign that not only dismantled the biggest Democratic political machine in decades, but did so in an incredibly organized, disciplined fashion with incredibly large amounts of net/grassroots support. He's the guy who, upon securing the nomination, has set the tone and the standards (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/obama-edict-requires-dnc-to-return-100000/) for the Democratic party for the next five-ten years.

But yeah, sticking to his guns in the face of people telling him that he should pick the Inevitable One as his VP was totally spineless of him.

Everything you're saying about Obama applies so much more to McCain that you've got to be kidding. On second thought, no, you're right. A virtual unknown who's managed to take the reigns of his party must have almost exactly as little nerve as the "Maverick" who's now letting his once-hated enemies run his campaign while not even being allowed to dictate his own platform. Exactly.

VAChief
08-04-2008, 05:21 AM
hahahahahahahahaha what

Obama is the guy who led a campaign that not only dismantled the biggest Democratic political machine in decades, but did so in an incredibly organized, disciplined fashion with incredibly large amounts of net/grassroots support. He's the guy who, upon securing the nomination, has set the tone and the standards (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/obama-edict-requires-dnc-to-return-100000/) for the Democratic party for the next five-ten years.

But yeah, sticking to his guns in the face of people telling him that he should pick the Inevitable One as his VP was totally spineless of him.

Everything you're saying about Obama applies so much more to McCain that you've got to be kidding. On second thought, no, you're right. A virtual unknown who's managed to take the reigns of his party must have almost exactly as little nerve as the "Maverick" who's now letting his once-hated enemies run his campaign while not even being allowed to dictate his own platform. Exactly.

:bravo::bravo:

Programmer
08-04-2008, 05:58 AM
Was this the topic on Hannity tonight? Do you need to finish watching the show to form an opinion and post again?

Just to give you an answer you can digest for a while, I have never watched Hannity. You wouldn't believe where the PinocchiObama moniker came from, but you have problems believing the truth anyway.

I really enjoy the face that a select few will only attack my comment rather than to find what the real answer is. Obama is not running the race without the controls placed on him by those in control of the DNC.

Some may not understand the point of this thread, but without saying it the intention was to point out that both candidates are driven by policies and directives outside of their personal beliefs.

I have commented regarding both candidates not being the person we need as president. I fully expected the arguments against McCain from the left as well as the comments about Obama. Moreso I expected those that cannot see past the name Programmer. It's a shame, we do need to know who is driving the presidency regardless of who it may be. Soros? Rove? Another influential political figure? We can't go into the election blindly thinking that McCain and Obama are their own men.

Sully
08-04-2008, 08:44 AM
I really enjoy the face that a select few will only attack my comment rather than to find what the real answer is. Obama is not running the race without the controls placed on him by those in control of the DNC.


I believe you are incorrect. But I look forward to discussing it further once you explain the evidence that leads you to believe it is so.

Frankie
08-04-2008, 11:49 AM
You came to ChiefsPlanet.

You checked out the DC forum.

You clicked "New Thread."

And you typed this.

...Not the most efficient use of your time, Programmer.

So true. My sentiment exactly.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Some may not understand the point of this thread, but without saying it the intention was to point out that both candidates are driven by policies and directives outside of their personal beliefs.
How was one supposed to get anything about McCain out of your initial post?

Programmer
08-04-2008, 12:08 PM
How was one supposed to get anything about McCain out of your initial post?

McCain doesn't have a name that matches up with any cartoon characters as well as Obama. If you inferred anything else that's fine with me. I do not endorse either candidate, but it is fun pointing out character inconsistancies with Obama, he is an easy target.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 12:08 PM
So true. My sentiment exactly.

I'd be impressed by your comment if you were anything but a racist.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 12:09 PM
I believe you are incorrect. But I look forward to discussing it further once you explain the evidence that leads you to believe it is so.

Hold your breath for that evidence from me. If you can't see the problems he makes for himself you are hooked on the DNC koolaid.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 12:20 PM
McCain doesn't have a name that matches up with any cartoon characters as well as Obama. If you inferred anything else that's fine with me. I do not endorse either candidate, but it is fun pointing out character inconsistancies with Obama, he is an easy target.
You know, instead of making a dismissive remark here, I want to ask you the question I asked markk earlier and failed to get a reply.

I've heard many contradictory attacks on Obama's character this election cycle, often from the same people. Markk is one of these people, you are another.

You've said:

1. Obama is a committed ultra liberal socialist pimp of anything Marxist.

2. Obama is a politically expedient flip-flopper, ever changing his whims to the latest polls.

and now

3. Obama is a powerless puppet, dancing by the strings of those more powerful than he.

You have to understand that these are mutually exclusive takes on Obama. These can't all be true because they disqualify each other.

I'm wondering which of these you believe.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 12:22 PM
You know, instead of making a dismissive remark here, I want to ask you the question I asked markk earlier and failed to get a reply.

I've heard many contradictory attacks on Obama's character this election cycle, often from the same people. Markk is one of these people, you are another.

You've said:

1. Obama is a committed ultra liberal socialist pimp of anything Marxist.

2. Obama is a politically expedient flip-flopper, ever changing his whims to the latest polls.

and now

3. Obama is a powerless puppet, dancing by the strings of those more powerful than he.

You have to understand that these are mutually exclusive takes on Obama. These can't all be true because they disqualify each other.

I'm wondering which of these you believe.

Considering I've never said anything near #1 and #2, you see if your deductive reasoning can find the answer for you.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Considering I've never said anything near #1 and #2, you see if your deductive reasoning can find the answer for you.
So you don't think Obama is a politically-expedient flip flopper?

Nor do you think that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist?

Programmer
08-04-2008, 12:40 PM
So you don't think Obama is a politically-expedient flip flopper?

Nor do you think that Obama is an ultra-liberal socialist?

All politicians fit the first comment.

I don't care if Obama is a communist, socialist, or any other ist. If he were to be defined in within the definition of either comment it would be due to those pulling the strings. He is not his own man. Neither of the candidates are. If you believe they are both in this alone, without any outside influence you are pretty far off the mark.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 12:46 PM
All politicians fit the first comment.

I don't care if Obama is a communist, socialist, or any other ist. If he were to be defined in within the definition of either comment it would be due to those pulling the strings. He is not his own man. Neither of the candidates are. If you believe they are both in this alone, without any outside influence you are pretty far off the mark.
Well I don't agree with you, but I actually think that's a fair take.

I don't know what "in this alone" means, really. I don't expect McCain to know everything under the sun, so I do hope that he has a team of advisors that can help coach him through a lot of policy regarding his weaker areas, whatever they may be.

But I think the case for flat-out puppetry can be made a lot stronger for McCain than it can be for Obama. But that conversation's for naught anyway at this point, as you really haven't argued anything substantial in this thread.

Sully
08-04-2008, 01:47 PM
Hold your breath for that evidence from me. If you can't see the problems he makes for himself you are hooked on the DNC koolaid.

I know you are anti-evidence. I just get a kick out of pointing it out.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 02:31 PM
I know you are anti-evidence. I just get a kick out of pointing it out.

You can't see because you don't want to. To the normal thinking world it's obvious. Proof is right in front of you every day of the week and you want someone to point it out to you.

I'm not anti-evidence, I just don't see the need to cut and paste, at one time I thought you were aware enough to not be fooled by Obama.

Maybe I was wrong.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 02:32 PM
Well I don't agree with you, but I actually think that's a fair take.

I don't know what "in this alone" means, really. I don't expect McCain to know everything under the sun, so I do hope that he has a team of advisors that can help coach him through a lot of policy regarding his weaker areas, whatever they may be.

But I think the case for flat-out puppetry can be made a lot stronger for McCain than it can be for Obama. But that conversation's for naught anyway at this point, as you really haven't argued anything substantial in this thread.

You can't see that Obama is being 100% controlled by the string pullers in the DNC? Your blinders must be of a better grade than the rest of the world. Enjoy your koolaid.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 02:32 PM
You understand you haven't posted a single argument for your case.

You've just stated your conclusion and expect us to agree.

I'm not saying it's a faulty opinion. I'm just saying give us something!

Sully
08-04-2008, 02:33 PM
You can't see because you don't want to. To the normal thinking world it's obvious. Proof is right in front of you every day of the week and you want someone to point it out to you.

I'm not anti-evidence, I just don't see the need to cut and paste, at one time I thought you were aware enough to not be fooled by Obama.

Maybe I was wrong.

I see my evidence.
I asked for yours, so we could have a discussion about it.
Being as how have always been anti-evidence, I didn't expect much, but hoped to be pleasantly surprised. It doesn't have to be cut and paste, you can actually type out your evidence. (Be sure, though, that it's factual).
You lived up to my expectations.

noa
08-04-2008, 02:33 PM
You understand you haven't posted a single argument for your case.

You've just stated your conclusion and expect us to agree.

I'm not saying it's a faulty opinion. I'm just saying give us something!

If you can't see it, I can't help you. You fail at life and your brain is small and you can't understand things because you are stupid. It is obvious, and you still drink the koolaid so you choose not to see it.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 02:36 PM
If you can't see it, I can't help you. You fail at life and your brain is small and you can't understand things because you are stupid. It is obvious, and you still drink the koolaid so you choose not to see it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Have we discovered who Programmer is a puppet of?

Bowser
08-04-2008, 03:28 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Have we discovered who Programmer is a puppet of?

Patteeu and Donger.

Sully
08-04-2008, 03:29 PM
If you can't see it, I can't help you. You fail at life and your brain is small and you can't understand things because you are stupid. It is obvious, and you still drink the koolaid so you choose not to see it.

That is spooky good.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 04:33 PM
I see my evidence.
I asked for yours, so we could have a discussion about it.
Being as how have always been anti-evidence, I didn't expect much, but hoped to be pleasantly surprised. It doesn't have to be cut and paste, you can actually type out your evidence. (Be sure, though, that it's factual).
You lived up to my expectations.

Why would I want to have a discussion with you? You don't believe facts when they are presented, why would I waste my time putting up more things for you to cry about?

The evidence that you want is in every unscripted speech that Obama makes. The fact that you don't see the inconsistency of his candidacy only proves the point that you are part of the sheep being herded by the DNC.

You are going to vote for Obama regardless of what his positions are and what damage they could to to the country.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 04:35 PM
You understand you haven't posted a single argument for your case.

You've just stated your conclusion and expect us to agree.

I'm not saying it's a faulty opinion. I'm just saying give us something!

In my time. I'm enjoying seeing Sully whine about my lack of points to back up my case.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 04:36 PM
In my time. I'm enjoying seeing Sully whine about my lack of points to back up my case.
Well, I mean, Sully has a point.

You've made no argument for your case. You've stated no evidence.

You've just said "this is so" and ... that was it. There's been nothing else.

Sully
08-04-2008, 04:40 PM
Why would I want to have a discussion with you? You don't believe facts when they are presented, why would I waste my time putting up more things for you to cry about?

The evidence that you want is in every unscripted speech that Obama makes. The fact that you don't see the inconsistency of his candidacy only proves the point that you are part of the sheep being herded by the DNC.

You are going to vote for Obama regardless of what his positions are and what damage they could to to the country.

Can you please link to me when you have ever presented FACTS to support your assertions in a conversation with me. Of the 3 or 4 arguments I've had with you, if my memory serves, you have refused to bring FACTS to the table each time, even though I practically begged.

ALso, just to keep score... twice today I have tried to engage you in civil discussion. I've fully wanted to have an above board discussion in this thread, and the Christianity one. I have asked nicely for your stance and backing for that. Both times you have responded with insults, and refused to even try to engage me or others without calling names or throwing a tantrum.
I just wanted to point that out, so you can take part in a little (a lot) of personal responsibility next time you want to whine that the only reason people don't like you is because you are a conservative.
Thanks for helping with that, and I'd still enjoy having eithr conversation, if you'd bother yourself to come to each with truth and facts.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 04:48 PM
Can you please link to me when you have ever presented FACTS to support your assertions in a conversation with me. Of the 3 or 4 arguments I've had with you, if my memory serves, you have refused to bring FACTS to the table each time, even though I practically begged.

ALso, just to keep score... twice today I have tried to engage you in civil discussion. I've fully wanted to have an above board discussion in this thread, and the Christianity one. I have asked nicely for your stance and backing for that. Both times you have responded with insults, and refused to even try to engage me or others without calling names or throwing a tantrum.
I just wanted to point that out, so you can take part in a little (a lot) of personal responsibility next time you want to whine that the only reason people don't like you is because you are a conservative.
Thanks for helping with that, and I'd still enjoy having eithr conversation, if you'd bother yourself to come to each with truth and facts.


Truth and facts are not your forte.

There is more truth to what I've said, but I don't feel the need to provide you with evidence. As for threads I've provided link to information to back my point, they are there, but based on your anti-everything point of view there is no need for me to help you. Keep spinning.

Direckshun
08-04-2008, 04:54 PM
Truth and facts are not your forte.

There is more truth to what I've said, but I don't feel the need to provide you with evidence. As for threads I've provided link to information to back my point, they are there, but based on your anti-everything point of view there is no need for me to help you. Keep spinning.
Who's been your favorite President in your lifetime, Programmer?

What are a couple of your political icons of the 20th century, and why?

I'm not here to attack. I promise I won't criticize your answers. I'd just genuinely like to know where you're coming from.

You do a fine job of stating the things you are against. I'd like to know what you generally support.

Sully
08-04-2008, 04:54 PM
Truth and facts are not your forte.

There is more truth to what I've said, but I don't feel the need to provide you with evidence. As for threads I've provided link to information to back my point, they are there, but based on your anti-everything point of view there is no need for me to help you. Keep spinning.

You are lying, again, Tom.

You have refused, in any instance, to even try to have an above board, adult discussion about anything you have brought up. I wish you'd try, I think it would be nice. But in all cases, thus far, you have refused and melted down when even asked.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 07:02 PM
You are lying, again, Tom.

You have refused, in any instance, to even try to have an above board, adult discussion about anything you have brought up. I wish you'd try, I think it would be nice. But in all cases, thus far, you have refused and melted down when even asked.

You call me a liar because I won't dig up facts for you? That's cheap.

I'm not melting down, but you sure seem to have your panties in a knot.

You would no more welcome regular conversation with me as any one of the dirty dozen. It's just not in your heart.

chiefforlife
08-04-2008, 07:13 PM
I almost didnt post in this thread because I knew it would go no where. Now I wish I hadnt, as that is where it went.

When you make a thread, it is to discuss it with others. If you just want to make a statement with no backing, evidence or discussion, why dont you just make a bumper sticker...:shake:

Sully
08-04-2008, 08:00 PM
You call me a liar because I won't dig up facts for you? That's cheap.

I'm not melting down, but you sure seem to have your panties in a knot.

You would no more welcome regular conversation with me as any one of the dirty dozen. It's just not in your heart.

FIrst off... you are lying. You said you have provided facts before in a discussion with me. That has never happened. Therefore, you are lying, again.

Please don't assume to know what's in my heart. I have spent today trying my hardest to have a decent conversation with you, including nicely asking questions, and asking for your opinion. You continue to refuse. In addition, you can't respond to me without personally attacking me. Prior to today, when I have said I would pray for you, you have told me I was a Satanist. My panties aren't in a bunch, I am simply working hard to give you every opportunity to rise above the reasons you end up where you end up on here. I've done it politely, and civilly. If you continue to refuse, which is your prerogative, then please don't EVER come on here again crying that no one likes you because of your political beliefs.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 08:49 PM
FIrst off... you are lying. You said you have provided facts before in a discussion with me. That has never happened. Therefore, you are lying, again.

Please don't assume to know what's in my heart. I have spent today trying my hardest to have a decent conversation with you, including nicely asking questions, and asking for your opinion. You continue to refuse. In addition, you can't respond to me without personally attacking me. Prior to today, when I have said I would pray for you, you have told me I was a Satanist. My panties aren't in a bunch, I am simply working hard to give you every opportunity to rise above the reasons you end up where you end up on here. I've done it politely, and civilly. If you continue to refuse, which is your prerogative, then please don't EVER come on here again crying that no one likes you because of your political beliefs.

In conversations you have been involved in I have posted links to back my posts. The fact that you are too lazy to search for them is not my problem. Find them if you wish, continue in your fantasy world if you wish not to.

Show me where I called you a satanist. You are big on proving your posts, I'll wait for your proof.

You are working hard to hold conversations with me? You claim you are not resorting to personal attacks? Just what is it when you respond in the manner that you have? Friendly discussion about how much of a shit you feel I am?

Sully
08-04-2008, 09:00 PM
In conversations you have been involved in I have posted links to back my posts. The fact that you are too lazy to search for them is not my problem. Find them if you wish, continue in your fantasy world if you wish not to.

Show me where I called you a satanist. You are big on proving your posts, I'll wait for your proof.

You are working hard to hold conversations with me? You claim you are not resorting to personal attacks? Just what is it when you respond in the manner that you have? Friendly discussion about how much of a shit you feel I am?

One time in a conversation you provided links.
When I thoughtfully and thoroughly went through them and proved they had absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about, you first tried to pretend they did, and then pretended you only posted them as a joke. After that, you melted down.

In this following quote, you claim you think I pray to Beelzebubba [sic].
You assume that I think you are a Christian.

If anyone would say that what you is show is Christianity I think they may be serving a false God.

For what it's worth I think you pray to beelzebubba, or you are beelzebubba.

Finally, I have not personally attacked you in today's efforts to have an adult conversation. I have reminded you of your lies in the past, and several of your common shortcomings in these "conversations," but I have done so in an effort to show you that I am hoping you move past that.
But, sadly, you are still reduced to lies and personal insults. In addition, your very regular act of throwing shit against the wall without the smallest amount of thought or honest discussion has shone through.
I'll wait for you to prove me wrong. i'll wait for you to grow up. But... I won't hold my breath.

BTW, I still do pray fo you.

Programmer
08-04-2008, 09:08 PM
One time in a conversation you provided links.
When I thoughtfully and thoroughly went through them and proved they had absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about, you first tried to pretend they did, and then pretended you only posted them as a joke. After that, you melted down.

In this following quote, you claim you think I pray to Beelzebubba [sic].

BTW, I still do pray fo you.



So tell me, who is beelzebubba? I'm pretty sure he isn't satan. I work with a guy with that nickname. Would you feel better if I said you prayed to Jimmy?

For the record, I do not know you, nor your belief. I reject your prayers. For all I know you are praying for me to die in a horrible manner. As I said, I don't know who you pray to and based on your comments on this thread I can't say that you worship the same God I do. Keep your prayers or share them with someone else.

If I am wrong I will be responsible for that decision. If not you will be responsible for your actions. Besides, I have plenty of prayers for me from those I trust to have my best interests at heart. You do not from all I can see here.

Saggysack
08-05-2008, 05:46 AM
McCain doesn't have a name that matches up with any cartoon characters as well as Obama. If you inferred anything else that's fine with me. I do not endorse either candidate, but it is fun pointing out character inconsistancies with Obama, he is an easy target.

Well, we know one thing is for certain, we can't call him Ace.

Programmer
08-05-2008, 08:22 AM
Well, we know one thing is for certain, we can't call him Ace.

Of course we can. He's responsible for taking down 5 planes. Just ask around. Isn't destroying 5 planes what makes an Ace?:eek:

Saggysack
08-05-2008, 08:48 AM
Of course we can. He's responsible for taking down 5 planes. Just ask around. Isn't destroying 5 planes what makes an Ace?:eek:

Maybe if he becomes president, he can try to destroy enemy planes instead of our own for once. IMO Captain Bailout would suit him better.

Programmer
08-05-2008, 09:35 AM
Maybe if he becomes president, he can try to destroy enemy planes instead of our own for once. IMO Captain Bailout would suit him better.

You are aware that the 5 crashed planes is pretty much false aren't you?

!. Flight school while learning to land crashed. The plane flew again. Also it was common for students to crack up in those days. They didn't have the sophisticated simulators we have now.

2. Flew into powerlines. Did not crash. Plane was capable of flying after repair.

3. While flying had a mechanical failure in the aircraft. Tried standard methods of recovery. Ditched plane. Option go down and die.

4. While sitting in a plane preparing to be launched for a mission over Vietnam his plane was hit by a zuni rocket that had been set off when a huffer was parked too close to the missile and caused it to fire off. He escaped by jumping to the flight deck. That was the worst shipboard conflagaration in the Navy's history to that date.

5. Shot down while on a mission over Vietnam. People may be amazed by this, but in war planes get shot down.

So his responsibility of crashing planes was #1 but the plane was not destroyed and #2 and the plane was not destroyed. The other three were outside his control. #1 and #2 were when he was in flight training as was #3.

Direckshun
08-05-2008, 10:08 AM
Who's been your favorite President in your lifetime, Programmer?

What are a couple of your political icons of the 20th century, and why?

I'm not here to attack. I promise I won't criticize your answers. I'd just genuinely like to know where you're coming from.

You do a fine job of stating the things you are against. I'd like to know what you generally support.
I'm just curious, man.

markk
08-05-2008, 10:12 AM
You are aware that the 5 crashed planes is pretty much false aren't you?

!. Flight school while learning to land crashed. The plane flew again. Also it was common for students to crack up in those days. They didn't have the sophisticated simulators we have now.

2. Flew into powerlines. Did not crash. Plane was capable of flying after repair.

3. While flying had a mechanical failure in the aircraft. Tried standard methods of recovery. Ditched plane. Option go down and die.

4. While sitting in a plane preparing to be launched for a mission over Vietnam his plane was hit by a zuni rocket that had been set off when a huffer was parked too close to the missile and caused it to fire off. He escaped by jumping to the flight deck. That was the worst shipboard conflagaration in the Navy's history to that date.

5. Shot down while on a mission over Vietnam. People may be amazed by this, but in war planes get shot down.

So his responsibility of crashing planes was #1 but the plane was not destroyed and #2 and the plane was not destroyed. The other three were outside his control. #1 and #2 were when he was in flight training as was #3.

to me it's despicable for people to forward this 'crashed 5 planes' business.