Hehheheheheheheh......


The stimulus must be working already, Pelosi is off to Europe for 8 days!!! YAHOOIE!!!!

"oh, the democrats are for the little guy..."

I can see them now.... "okay, we gave the unemployed a few more weeks, and the welfare and food stamps people get a bit more too... (yeah thats all stimulus, not) we have done our jobs, lets all pat ourselves on the back, and reward our great efforts with a nice trip to Europe!"

Yup, them dems... all about the little guy....

Czuch:A great way to start out change we can believe in. 

Artful Dodger: Thats the change.... its funny how they think Socialism or communism is somehow "change"?

Czuch:And in the history of socialism and communism, they've always oppressed the people, kept them in collective poverty, and eventually they have fallen. 

OTOH, there is no system like the free enterprise / capitalist sys where the little guy can become a millionaire and the average joe can achieve financial freedom.  The Dems want socialism because that's the way to control the masses.  Promise them steak, feed them cake.

Artful Dodger: Why do dems even want to control the masses in the first place?

I think it is a power issue.... they claim to be for the people and the little guy, but the reality is, everything they do is about giving them, the politicians, more power and more influence and more money, hardly what you would expect, or is it?

Czuch:notice how many didn't pay their taxes and received no penalty?  I think we need to investigate Obama's tax records.

Artful Dodger: Why do you keep asking these questions????

You already know the answers.... when the shoe was on the other foot, we were in here day and night, trying to defend and explain... the silence today from those same whining liberals is almost deafening!!!

Czuch:  I'm not asking questions.  I'm making statements in the form of a question. 

Artful Dodger:

Czuch: i think you and all republic. you sure whach hardball and keith olbermann! to see your mind espend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ustica tnp: I have seen keith olberman, many times, he is a dolt, an ex jock reporter, and his political opinions are just that, his opinions..... I happen to disagree with him almost 100% of the time.


Explain to me how socialism is a "new" direction for this country? I guess it does count as change, but a change for the worse for sure.

ustica tnp: HUH?????

Bernice: OOPS....I forgot to bring my pom poms........

Czuch: i think the president of the republic .rush limbaaaaa and bill O`reilly give you a brain wash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i love chris matthews!!

Bernice:

Rushed through and Congress didn't read final draft. Sure, that's what happened. Giveaway? You bet. Do we have representation in Congress? Surely not.

Yet, you guys are still in the Matrix. For example, same way with the Patriot Act, a far more damaging bill to our Constitution and the "freedom" you all seem to think the Repugs support. Draft was hot off the press, no one had time to read it.

And since when did the Repugs not take your money? They rob from the poor and give to the rich. I don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.

Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.

The Usurper:  don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.

Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.

And here I thought you said you were above throwing insults?  Guess not.  I'll bet you get a pass tho.  So much for:  "........my (your) attempt to keep this debate civil. In my (your)
opinion, it is too important to be approached in any other way."

Approached any other way except in some cases you mean. 

Artful Dodger: Your first quote: "in brains under the influence of Fox News," is strictly accurate and not ad hominem insult.

Your second quote, "you boys trained like pet puppies", is ad hominem and you are correct. I'll have to watch myself. :o)

"I have no compassion for the poor!"

What do you think of this?

The Usurper: tch tch.....did I see a "nasty" or two from you.....thought you were above that

Artful Dodger: OOPS......didn't read your posts first LOL.....we both picked up on the same things LOLOL

The Usurper:  You're wrong.  They are both insulting and ad hominem.  Whenever you argue "to the man" that's an ad hominem.  Saying one's brain is under the influence of Fox is another way of saying one doesn't think for  him or herself.  You didn't address the issues,  addressed the person. 

And perhaps you can explain to everyone here how the first insult is "strictly accurate."  How can you possibly know?  To whom are you addressing this insult (since you seem to be generalizing it to all repubs)?  You can't have your cake and eat it too Greg.  Ad hominem is to the man.  That is what you did in both cases.  Man up.

Bernice:  I'll bet we don't hear from those that took me to task for my posts.  Wanna bet? 

ustica tnp: Does Cris Mathews give you tingles up your leg?

The Usurper:  I never listen to his program and I won't be baited into responding to a statement that's out of context.  Context is everything. 

Artful Dodger:

Bernice: I think I'll give a lesson on ad hominem since I seem to be the resident expert on it.  ;)

"I'm sick of...this so-called compassion for the poor. I don't have compassion for the poor."

What do you think?

Vikings: I can't stand Chris Matthews. But I don't many Chris Matthews fans posting on here regularly, mostly Republicans who, I am assuming (yes, it is an assumption...am I wrong?) watch Fox News.

Artful Dodger: It sounds like a pretty general statement to me...a settled opinion.

The Usurper: It sounds like a statement taken completely out of context, just as Obama took a quote of him explaining the Mexican governments policy on immigration and made an out of context ad making is sound like that was him saying it about mexicans. I'm sure that if you were to print (or even better actually listen) to the whole paragraph, you would find that he's proving that republicans have more compassion for the poor than the dems

"Yes, I am part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released Internal Revenue Service figures, about 50 percent of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow 1-percenters and I covered for them. But for some it is still not enough.

President Obama and a Democratic Congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter their circumstances. That means people who drink gin all day will get some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefers 24/7 all will get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks."

And...

"[Y]ou would be taking money away from other people to give them money because they didn't pay tax in the first place.

And that's the redistribution of income that many working Americans don't like the Democrats for."

Do you agree with him?

The Usurper: absolutely

The Usurper: boy if you are that rich why don't you support Fencer and pay for a membership??



or are you one of the ones with your hand out......a dope smoker or perhaps a highschool dropout ROFLMBO

Bernice: I really enjoy reading your posts but you really ought to work on your reading comprehension. :o)

Oh my, it's an ad hominem freeforall! 

Since we've established that people don't want to go this route, then...........

Vikings: Another O'Reilly quote:

"It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country (USA), you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period."

Is that what poverty is, irresponsibility and laziness?

The Usurper: In many cases, yes.

Artful Dodger: Bernice DOES need to work on her reading comprehension. This isn't the first post where she has missed the point or gotten confused over who said what, etc. Perhaps it is deliberate. But perhaps not. If not, maybe my post is too harsh, even if true. For that, I apologize.

Artful Dodger: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements, such as Rush Limbaugh's.

I am not discussing 9/11 (so far), so I am a little looser on the reins & misbehaving a little, perhaps. (Only a little).

But as to 9/11...stay tuned. :o)

The Usurper: my comprehension and understanding is/has/was a lot more successful than your KM & TNP....

I didn't miss the point at all.........the post was denigrating the unter mensch, and I assumed you were one of them because you didnt have a PAID membership.

He said ***my fellow 1 percenters and I***

Bernice: I am one of the poor ones, if that is what you mean.

But when you said, "if you that rich...", it sounded to me like you confused O'Reilly's statement with mine. Just as you evidently conflated Artful Dodger's post on the Holocaust with something I said (which I didn't).

What does "unter mensch" mean?

The Usurper: I don't see your point

"You know one of my favorite quotes on poverty comes from Benjamin Franklin. I love this quote: "We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty." I love that!"

The problem, Franklin didn't say that. He DID say:

"But poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue: 'tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright."

And...

"The Poor have little, Beggars none; the Rich too much, enough not one."

And...

"The church the state, and the poor, are 3 daughters which we should maintain, but not portion off."

Should we maintain the poor, as Franklin suggests? Or should we kick them out of poverty, as Beck recommends?

Artful Dodger: The point is that O'Reilly defines poverty as laziness & irresponsibility, whereas your position is softer...that poverty is a result of laziness & irresponsibility only "in many cases".

The Usurper: "You can succeed if you get educated and work hard, period"
and just what part of that statement do you not agree with?

The Usurper: there is no way I would confuse (conflate) you with AD...

"unter mensch" = the under priveledged, it is German (I think) and is the lower classes...the poor, the unwashed etc etc....you get my meaning

Vikings: you can also succeed if you are uneducated and work hard. You do NOT need a brilliant mind to succeed....


Can somebody please clarify success?

Bernice: Just like Rush Limbaugh