Iamon lyme: How anyone in good conscience can condone such barbaric acts and then in the same breath complain about war. Evil. And the liberals defend it.

Iamon lyme: Yeah, the liberals are still trying to kill her yelling, "You're supposed to be dead! You're giving abortion a bad name! Die you little K*$)#Y@#O!!!!"

Iamon lyme: JUles approves of killing the unborn AND allowing for babies just born to be left to die. It's in his DNA.

Iamon lyme: Propaganda board? I thought liberals loved propaganda!

Top 5 Reasons: http://youtu.be/eILPwSOtXxI via @youtube

rod03801: This should help explain things a bit more clearly:

rod03801: Several commentators made the same observation. When Biden was in trouble on a particular topic, she moved to another topic. Biden interrupted Ryan over 80 times. Ryan interrupted barely a handful. Biden smirked, rolled his eyes (like some middle school girl) and was mocking. And Biden had plenty of gaffes too.

mckinley: I'm sure your views are fair and balanced.

mckinley: You must be ok with partial birth abortion. Biden is. And you must be ok with allowing a baby to die after a failed abortion attempt. Obama voted against a law that would require doctors and nurses to care for any human baby "born alive" after a failed abortion attempt. Instead, Obama favors leaving the newborn alone unattended to die. Maybe Obama missed the part in sex ed class where AFTER a woman gives birth she is no longer pregnant. So ALL ARGUMENTS for abortion are moot. The woman is NOT pregnant and the newborn is alive. And yet Obama favors allowing medical personnel to neglect the newborn and just let it die. Many times it takes hours and hours for the newborn to die. Sanctioned murder by President Obama. And partial birth abortion is where the doctor preforms a breach birth, leaves the head inside the birth canal, cuts a slit in the back of the skull, inserts a tube and suctions out the brain. All this while the unborn child is ALIVE and kicking (literally). Only barbaric fools support those that sanction such horrible acts. You apparently are one of them.

mckinley: You haven't been reading the reviews. Even David Gregory was highly critical of Biden.

Iamon lyme: Last night, Joe Biden was a three-letter word: J-E-R-K

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/last-night-joe-biden-was-a-three-letter-word-j-e-r-k/#ixzz295tjC800

Iamon lyme: Ryan was a gentleman and Biden was an ass.

Iamon lyme: It may come as a surprise but I'm thinking of becoming a liberal. I'm tired of thinking for myself.

Iamon lyme: They are the part of racism and the party of war AND the party of "blame the other guy."

Iamon lyme: or effective bug spray

And fart more. It will release the pressure.

Iamon lyme: lay off the caffeine at night!

Iamon lyme: Of course you are right. As per his usual, Jules twists and lies about what's being said. That's the only way he can "win" an argument in his alleged mind. And thanks for pointing out his double standard. He ignores questions he doesn't want to answer but complains if he's ignored. I only ignore him when he's boring - which is most of the time. .

Iamon lyme: Well said. Wiki is good as far as it goes - which isn't very far.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

you're boring me again

So respectable is this religion of peace: October 10, 2012
Malala Yousafzai Survives Surgery Taliban Vow to Finish Her

BBC:

Surgeons have removed a bullet from the head of a 14-year-old girl, a day after she was shot by Taliban gunmen in north-western Pakistan's Swat Valley.

Malala Yousafzai, a campaigner for girls' rights, is reported to be in a stable condition after the operation.

The attack sparked outrage among many Pakistanis, who gathered in several cities for anti-Taliban protests and held prayers for the girl's recovery.

The militants said they targeted her because she "promoted secularism".

A spokesman for the Islamist militant group, Ehsanullah Ehsan, told BBC Urdu on Tuesday that Miss Yousafzai would not be spared if she survived.

AD - 1 (V) - 0

Now Jules, any further disagreement on the matter will be ignored. I've have proven I am right and you are out to lunch on this one. Deal with it and move on.

Wiki is a socially edited database source for information. As socially edited database, some, if not much, of what's written is suspect. As a main source for information, people ought to look elsewhere.

Here's a great article that supports my thesis: "Wikipedia is gaining an increasingly bad reputation in schools all over the world. Teachers will argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source with credibility to be cited in a formal essay or term paper. Teachers believe that due to the multitude of anonymous updates, there is not enough reliable information to base ideas upon. Even if Wikipedia can detect obvious errors such as in the Einstein page case (mentioned earlier), there is no way that it can monitor every single error. "

"In my opinion, Wikipedia is acceptable to a certain extent. I do not believe that it is a “scholarly” source of information in context. There are many sources on the Internet with much more reliable information."

http://itgsonline.com/?p=224

And this rather sums it all up nicely: http://library.williams.edu/citing/wikipedia.php

mckinley: Apparently, depending on the day of the week, you can't read any better than Jules. I said wiki is unreliable. I've explained why and I'm right. Jules wants to hold on to wiki as a source because he uses it so much to prove his biased points. That's what cherry pickers do.

Look up Christ myth theory from Wikipedia. You can read how many believe that Jesus wasn't even a historical figure or at least it can't be proven historically (no documented evidence).

Wiki is not a scholarly source. You need to deal with that at your next appointment.

Jules, must you be constantly schooled? Wiki may have some things right. It's just as a main source they aren't reliable. Everyone (except you apparently) knows that. Get current.

Iamon lyme:

Iamon lyme:what you do is get a bunch of Romney bumper stickers. Then put them on your neighbors cars etc., and watch the fun. 

Iamon lyme:I've heard that same line. The "he lies" line is always followed by, "What did he lie about exactly?" Followed by silence and then, "Everything!"   So convincing.  

October 09, 2012

Obama Supporters Becoming More Unhinged As Romney Popularity Surges

Obama supporters have taken to Twitter to boast about "civil unrest" in light of new polls showing Romney with a commanding lead. Among their most proud moments:

• Tweetdowns* (verbal beatdowns aimed at dissenting voices, usually reserved for celebrities who tweet support for Romney)
  
  
• Threatening riots if Romney wins
  
  
• TWAT-ing* conservative users (A variant of SWAT-ing
  - Faking retweets to make it appear the original tweeter made a death
  threat against the President and then sending retweet to @SecretService)
  
  
• Poo Attacks

Unhinged, violent, immature, and disgusting. All rolled up into Obama supporters.

Iamon lyme: I've read a wiki page or two when I needed some quick info. It's a place to start but I always check several other sources too. If it's a political site, I try to avoid it if it's clear that it's presenting a one sided view (like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos). I laugh at my liberal friends who quote those publications to me. I pull out Rush Limbaugh and ask them if they'd accept hims as a source. They say no. Then why I ask, would I accept those other two outfits from them? No answer. Then there's the clowns that quote Rachel Maddow (Rachael MadCow). She's another "reliable" source for biased left-wing propaganda. ;)

Iamon lyme: There are so many reliable sources that one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source.

(V): Well you use wiki which is unreliable. I use scholarly sources. You, like so many of your ilk, don't know what you are talking about. You frame your narrative to fit your bias. Looks like you're the one that needs to deal with it.

It's a clear fact of history that the democratic party is the party of historical racism in this country and ALSO is the party that continues to use race baiting to further their agenda. That's a fact that can't be denied except by those that choose to believe a lie.

I frankly couldn't care less what your "opinions" are. They are meaningless. You cherry pick only those sources that suit your bias. It's your pattern. Then you twist all things to suit your narrative. Meanwhile, those of us that matter, see right though your nonsense.

(V): the so called southern strategy narrative is bits of truth combined with huge portions of myth. If you read Trende's work on this you'd see a far more accurate and scholarly view. Wiki is not scholarly and is prone to bias. So if you're going to quote wiki as your main source, you're out of luck. Your choir will like it though.

(V): Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:

Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.

Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.

Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.

Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.

Lest someone try to rewrite history, the Democratic party of today is the same as the Democratic party of yesterday. The party of racism.

Iamon lyme:

Would liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads, abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group? Then why do they support censorship in response to terrorists?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/shut_up_or_die_the_muslim_protesters_explained.html#ixzz28R3qo3aE

I need to take a time out while my town is on fire! Seriously. 30 acres now and spreading.

I need to go play my dobro.

Bwild: I was surprised at how repetitive Obama was. Like he had no new ideas! Next time will be different so Mitt better be on his toes. Obama may employ a mini tele-prompter.

Iamon lyme: I'll bet Romney was fully ready for that question. Good thing obama didn't use it. I'll bet Mitt would have crushed him with it.

BTW, the man who wrote, "DEMOCRATIC N word!" is a black man - a friend on Facebook. If quoting that title as HE WROTE IT is racist, take it up with him. And if you have a problem with the LBJ quote (and you should) good for you! That is if you are offended that HE, the PRESIDENT of the US said it. It should tell you something of the Democratic part at that time in our history. It should tell you that the Democratic party sought the black vote even while they thought of blacks as Negros and (that other word!). The Democratic party has NOT helped blacks. They have a different purpose. Keep blacks dependent on them so that they, the blacks, will keep the liberals in power. Then every once in a while, throw them a bone to keep them happy. If you can't see that maybe it's because you are the one that is racist. Or you're just plain stupid.

OTOH, if you just want to have a problem with ME because I quoted someone else verbatim, bite me. If that's your issue, I couldn't care less what you think.

Where do these intellectual midgets come from?

Silvery Moon: Take a chill pill Sliver. There is no racist posts here by me. So that must make you one of those intellectually deficient liberals. Well that explains it.

I've explained my position on the matter. If you want to lie about what's said, that's on you. But don't expect me to give a rip. I don't.

Iamon lyme: intellectual dishonesty runs rampant with the liberals on here. Case in point is the obvious willingness to exploit racism demonstrated in their feigned disgust of my use of the N word. They don't really find disgust in the use of that word. They simply want to use the use of that word as a hammer - but only for political reasons. If the use of the word really mattered, they'd focus on the source. I've quoted LBJ before (un edited) and I always get the same phony response. Such is the racism on the left. They are willing to exploit race to gain politically.

Not ONE of these idiots have ever responded to those that authored the words. That it's the democratic party that originated the word, oppressed blacks, lynched them, segregated them, and when it was politically expedient, fooled them into voting for their party (through pandering and promises of "Hey, let us white guys take care of you! Vote for us and we'll give you money.") That's the democratic party. Blacks have voted democratic for years and what have they to show for it? Not much.