An unabashed basher?
That's quite the rhetorical flourish.
Actually it was "unabashed CHRISTIAN-basher"...no rhetoric...just a fact.
sounds like hearsay to me. :rotf: :rotf:
That you don't know the difference between hearsay and documented fact with quotes & cites is to be expected as you have been demonstrating for days now.
Go for it. Cite the sources. All of them. And make damn sure they don't include any informatoin gathered from phone calls, face to face intereviews that weren't recorded...
thx.
The desparate cry of a gutted opponent in his death throws. Now denying all my links, cites and sources as though somehow they just don't exist, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...you'd do well on a leftist website...a carbon copy.
You believe everything you read on the internet?
The desparate cry of a gutted opponent in his death throws. Now denying all my links, cites and sources as though somehow they just don't exist, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...you'd do well on a leftist website...a carbon copy.
An unabashed basher?
That's quite the rhetorical flourish.
Actually it was "unabashed CHRISTIAN-basher"...no rhetoric...just a fact.
That you don't know the difference between hearsay and documented fact with quotes & cites is to be expected as you have been demonstrating for days now.And you don't know when people are yanking your chain just to see you spin in circles.
You believe everything you read on the internet?
Keep your powder dry...
So... you aren't going to cite all those sources?
First, since I've been here I've not seen you bring a single link, source, fact, etc. to the table. You're nothing but the typical board troll jumping in and out of threads blowing gas.
Second, every one of my threads(REAL HARD TO FIND SINCE VIRTUALLY ALL ARE NEW OR VERY RECENT) start with a link or a souce or a cite or some combination thereof. Take your lazy ass to any of my threads and see them for yourself...I'm not going to post them a second time for a loser like you.
Ok, i'm going to break this down for you. MSB was making a comment about your turn of phrase, specifically the use of "bash" in words in close proximity. You then proceeded to fly off the handle, attacking everything in sight.
You sure told me. I bet your mommy is proud.
Take a hike! He was being a smartass and I called him on it. Here is what he said which was (1) not necessary and (2) did nothing to develop the issue of the thread:Mere hearsay.
" An unabashed basher?
That's quite the rhetorical flourish."
That's YOUR BOY being a smartass...deal with it.
Still waiting to see your links & sources? I can't find them.
Mere hearsay.
Or is it Hear mere-say?
*shrugs*
Let's not that we have the same cast of low forehead characters that we see in my other threads ignoring the topic of this thread to attack me. We can rightly assume that these dullards are incapable of addressing the topic so they do what dullards do...stir the pot.
I've reduced them to trolls...
I've made no claims therefore need cite nothing.
So I'll continue to wait for you to cite sources proving your claim... w/o hearsay.
Go to the dictionary site you've been using and look up the word "irony."
I busted your "mandate" claim and your "hearsay" claim. You've been pounding on those to days now...so where in the hell are your links, etc to back up your mouth?
You can't find my threads? They are all new/recent! I'm not going to repost them for you. There's a link in this thread that supports my statement as in all my threads...you cant see it??
I think I'm going to let YOU make YOU my punching bag. I've never see such a piece of sad flesh walk up stick out his chin and say hit me like you do, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...what a mauling, ha,ha,ha,ha,..
I've reduced them to trolls...Actually I commented on your writing style or rather lack thereof.
You've busted nothing. You've just shown that you can't follow logic and don't understand how this will be argued by the left and how SCOTUS could rule. You're more intent on winning than being correct.
At this point, you've made NINE posts in this thread: eight insults and one off-topic rant. This has been your contribution to the issue of this thread. You have argued NOTHING on the issue as usual.No one here likes Obama or his appointees. We were all over Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Jones, Dunn, Susstein, ACORN, Sotomayor, the SEIU et al long before you got here and will be after you've gone...and we're just drooling over the prospect of demonstrating that last part.
Actually I commented on your writing style or rather lack thereof.
No one here likes Obama or his appointees. We were all over Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Jones, Dunn, Susstein, ACORN, Sotomayor, the SEIU et al long before you got here and will be after you've gone...and we're just drooling over the prospect of demonstrating that last part.
Be sure to point this out to your dumbass friend who just posted on your behalf that you were only making nice in trying to point out how close I put the words bashed and unbashed to each other. He stupidly thinks you were being sincere as opposed to being an ass as I pointed out to him.But I was being sincere. I sincerely think your writing style sucks.
When you reduce someone from debating/discussing the issue to whining about writing style that's called a WIN! This happens when your opponent is intellectually out of gas.
I note that you call my bringing of facts, cites and sources and discussing them "preaching." Why are you bashing the unbashed facts I link and source?
This is not about Wright, Ayers et al! It's about a NEW judicial appointee! You can read the title, right?? How about the link with the story?? Need any help reading any of that??Who the **** cares about your idiotic thread? ALL of Obama's nominees/appointees hate America, judicial or otherwise.
I use legitimate recognized sources e.g. Heritage Foundation, The Washington Times, Cato, Wall St Journal, etc as my links show! That is not an example of believing everything I read on the net.
Where are your sources and links?
But I was being sincere. I sincerely think your writing style sucks.
Who the **** cares about your idiotic thread?
As I pointed out before, when you reduce them to whining about writing style you own them.got a link to prove that rule?
Then get out of it, right? Takes a real moron to whine about a thread he posting in but claims he doesn't care about the issue, right?
I don't need any.
I haven't said jackshit to you directly
I have no interest in discussing issues with you.
got a link to prove that rule?
Obviously you ignore my comments elsewhere in this thread dealing with the OP. I guess that demonstrates your weakness of mind.
Yes, I commented on your writing style because I was specifically drawing attention to how your ego is undeserved.
A fire deprived of oxygen surely dies people. So does a DUmmie but.... :rofl:
Yes you do if you attack others for bringing them as you did.
So you didn't say this..."You believe everything you read on the internet?" above???
Is that not YOU saying "jackshit"(your word) to me??? Is that not you being a smartass about my bringing legitimate sources and links to this site???
So you just want to jump into my threads with insults...got it.
You're a gullible little freak.
No one here gives a flying **** at a rolling doughnut about your opinion on anything.
You ****ed up any chance of any meaningful conversation here with your first three posts.
You look so familiar...didn't I know you over at CU? Weren't you a libtard socialist scum in your incarnations over there?
Oh...look...I nailed this clown with his own words and now he has gone off on a tantrum, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...it don't get no funnier than this, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...
No...I'm no socialist. I'm a hardcore conservative! Far more hardcore than what I have seen at this site. I stomp leftists...it's what I do...and I do it with facts which absolutely pissess them off something awful. Ring any bells?
Can you spell?
You're a ******* idiot. Flunk second grade punctuation, did you?
Yeah, you're someone we've seen before, and we didn't like you in that incarnation either.
Your time here will be short, enjoy your trolling.
Still on your rant, I see. Really pissed you off that I rammed your own words down your throat, huh?? Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...temper, temper...did I misssspell anything?
Still on your rant, I see. Really pissed you off that I rammed your own words down your throat, huh?? Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...temper, temper...did I misssspell anything?Yes! :-)
deportliberals -
Are you even halfway aware of the right-wing bias that The Washington Times clearly has?
An op-ed to boot?
More to the point, Hamilton is a whacko, lunatic lib judge.
Never seen right wing bias in the Times...just facts.
'Fuzzy math' could drive health bill cost higher
The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them.
Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as "such sums as may be necessary." That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for "We'll bill you later."
The list of projects ranges from the "No child left unimmunized against influenza" project to 10 programs in the Indian health care system. There are also programs to encourage people to go into nursing and to spur states to restrain medical-malpractice lawsuits.
The tactic is far from new and has been used for years by Republicans and Democrats alike. The health reform examples are just the latest of what has become known as "fuzzy math" - the sort of budgeting that has been drawing extra scrutiny as the economy sputters, federal spending balloons and deficits deepen.
Republican leaders said leaving appropriations for a later date meant lawmakers were voting blind this weekend on health reform in the House. "How can members of Congress cast informed votes on a bill when there is no way to know the true cost to the American taxpayer?" said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.
But Democrats said leaving spending decisions up to future congresses is standard operating procedure under both parties and is the only way to let the appropriations committees weigh priorities. They said authorizing a program doesn't mean it will get money, and they pointed to a host of programs that have never gotten off the ground because Congress has never funded them properly.
"If you're calling these fuzzy math, then every authorization bill is fuzzy math," said a Democratic aide, who requested anonymity. "It's not fuzzy math at all. It's not math. That's the way Congress works. You authorize a program, and the appropriators appropriate for it."
Until Saturday's late-night health vote, much of the criticism for fuzzy calculations has been aimed at the administration's calculation of jobs "saved or created" by the $787 billion stimulus package.
Late last month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to stumble over the math, touting that 1 million jobs have been created so far - but immediately adding that those calculations can't be expected to be "100 percent accurate."
The official tally is 650,000 jobs saved or created by stimulus investment, but Mr. Biden said the indirect effect of the spending means the real number is much higher.
...snip...
Late last month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to stumble over the math...
Okay, let's take an article out of the Washington Times - a professed news article - and let's see if you can see some right-wing bias:
Note that this is a "news article" and not an op-ed.
I'd say that terms like "fuzzy math" are deliberate attempts by the editors to sway the reader negatively away from the Dem-controlled Congress.
Perhaps if you expanded the phrase "Op-Ed" to its full verbage you'd understand the point.
What is it about OPINION-EDITORIAL that confuses you?
Let's note that we have the same cast of low forehead characters that we see in my other threads ignoring the topic of this thread to attack me. We can rightly assume that these dullards are incapable of addressing the topic so they do what dullards do...stir the pot.
Why don't you go outside and play a nice game of Hide And Go **** Yourself? Mmmm'kay?
sounds like hearsay to me. :rotf: :rotf:
I use legitimate recognized sources e.g. Heritage Foundation, The Washington Times, Cato, Wall St Journal, etc as my links show! That is not an example of believing everything I read on the net.
Where are your sources and links?
Another low forehead chimes in and demonstrates that IT is not intellectually capable of addressing the topic of thread or the issue of "bias."
Another low forehead chimes in and demonstrates that IT is not intellectually capable of addressing the topic of thread or the issue of "bias."
Don't need link...your posts prove it just fine.
I've addressed you posts just as I am doing now...read much?
Oh so now we go from writing style to ego...yep, I own you.
Next time your local community college offers remedial reading 01 sign up! First, I don't know what your problem is with Op-eds?? As long as they contain documented sourcable facts that will support the author's opinion IT IS FACT! That's called "research"!!!
For the Times to point out that unbudgeted, unfunded mandates are in this bill and that both republicans and democrats do this is NOT bias! If the Times had spun that point to exclude republicans THEN that would be bias...Times didn't do that. Further, the CBO agrees with the Times on this point.
Regarding the utterly immature moronic "created/saved jobs" nonsense, the Times has an obligation to its readers to take on that issue. There is no such thing as a saved job measure anywhere in the Dept of Labor or Bureau of Labor Stats or jargon. Such terms are white house inventions using fuzzy math and the Times is not being biased to expose this fact.
What is biased is the lying leftist mainstream media refusing to cover/address the above issues properly or spiking the stories all together.
Wanna try again?
Never seen right wing bias in the Times...just facts.
I'm sorry. I made a comment that wasn't relevant and you had to take time out of your incredibly important schedule of arguing like some screaming fairy on the internet in between surfing anime midget furry porn vids to address it. People should be more respectful of your time.
That's because it stopped being about the stupid Op-Ed piece you dragged in here and started to become about what a massive unlikable douche-bag YOU are. You should be happy! It's ALL ABOUT YOU.
Because YOU personally are a wholly and completely unlikable prick. The kind of guy that would get used in prison and not offered a reach-around. A total spasmoidal, spastic, bleeding hemorrhoid of a personality. The kind of person Lassie would piss on before running home and NOT telling Tommy that you fell down the well and need insulin. Someone who OTHER internet assholes look at and shake their heads in awed amazement and pity over how generally idiotic and self important you are. A ******* wanker with a capitol "wank". The Paris Hilton of intelectual endeavors. A total zero.
Jesus Christ on a rocket powered pogo stick, I always wondered what happened to the kid that used to get flung by his atomic wedgied underoos into a dumpster or shunned by the cute girls. Nice to see you found a vocation. Kudos on ya.
:whatever: