General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
Obama has more intelligence in his finger nails than Saint Reagan had in his entire body.
I have to laugh at these idiot Repugs screeching about Obama's budget.
For 8 years, the Chimp spent money like he was printing it at the Crawford, TX pig farm (he wasn't -- he was borrowing it from Communist China) and they lined up to fellate him as if oxygen came out of his penis and they were on the surface of Mars.
Now that Obama is investing in the U.S. and the American people (instead of in Iraq), they can't wrap their tiny pea brains around the difference.
Shaw: Excuses like that won't cut it after Obama's first year is over. Then, all the budgets and deficits are entirely those of him and the Congress he works with.
As for the next comment, once I read through the troll screaming, I find "Now that Obama is investing in the U.S. and the American people (instead of in Iraq),"
Money on Iraq was only a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years. Guess what the rest of it was? "Investing in the American people"
And there is no "now" difference. Like the past 8 years, Obama is now spending most of the money on the American people, and a small percentage of it on Iraq.
remember also, an eclipse is but a few minutes then the sun shines again and the moon is no longer seen.
remember also, the moon has no light of its own. its light is dependent upon another body and only reflects off the moon.
remember also that the "halo" seen around the moon is but temporary also, then we see the darkness of the moon.
so, no, i will not miss the eclipse
remember also, the cause of a problem may be attributed to others but it is not the cause we are talking about. we are talking about the solution to the problem. that falls solely upon Obama's shoulders.
the question is not whether someone caused a problem but whether or not the solution applied to solve the problem is the correct one or the best one. that was why Obama was elected, to solve the problems. that is the same for any and all presidents when elected.
blaming the cause for the solution used is illogical and an attempt to mislead therefore dmarks first entry still stands.
The Limbaugh/NAMBLA aficionado totally misrepresents the facts in his/her/its desperate efforts to paint the dumb-fuck GOP in general and the Chimp, specifically, in a positive light.
Keeping troops in Iraq year after year will cost nearly a quarter-trillion dollars or about $800 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. under the Chimp's multi-year budgets.
At the same time, the Chimp's budget requests propose cost curbs on Medicare providers, a cap on subsidy payments to wealthier farmers and a cap to $4,600 in the maximum Pell Grant for low-income college students, as a way to redirect Federal dollars almost entirely to the Iraq war and the military.
The Chimp's proposal, totaling almost $3 trillion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, last fiscal year, includes renewing Bush's tax cuts until closer to 2010, when they are to expire.
A "a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years?" Is this parody? Try 50% of the entire amount swept into the US Treasury in form of income tax revenue. When did "half" become "a small percentage?" Only a revisionist historian would even try to make such a ridiculous claim.
You are the one using the moon as an example of an eclipse, whereas the definition says "a celestial body" and not THE MOON.
Nice try to make Mr. Obama into the moon, but it doesn't work, except for conservatives who don't like him.
"remember also, the cause of a problem may be attributed to others but it is not the cause we are talking about. we are talking about the solution to the problem. that falls solely upon Obama's shoulders.
the question is not whether someone caused a problem but whether or not the solution applied to solve the problem is the correct one or the best one. that was why Obama was elected, to solve the problems. that is the same for any and all presidents when elected.Yes. I remember this quite clearly. When 9/11 happened the Bush administration fell over itself blaming the previous administration for it, and you can find on google George W. Bush administration blaming the Clinton administration as well for the recession GWBush faced.
I'm sure you were out there writing on conservative blogs that this should be avoided and that placing blame won't work.
This isn't a "Bush did it too" excuse--it's pointing out a "do as I say; not as I do" hypocrisy.
Shaw: Bush can only blame Clinton's recession for the first year of his economic problems. Likewise, Obama can only blame Bush for his first year. After that, he has no excuses of any kind to run any budget deficits. It's entirely his game at that point.
And "Part of the reason for the debt, dmarks, is because Reagan's economic policies" does not cut it at all. Even though the first Bush sort of continued them, from 1993 on, we had Clinton's policies and the policies of others.
I'll let Brendon Nyhan who knows a lot more about this stuff than I do [read his c.v.]explain:
"Republican President Reagan more than doubled the US debt.
Between Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush I they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.
Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt again (and the bills are still coming in).
Republican economic policies redistributed the wealth to the wealthiest and away from the middle class for over 30 years. Republican economic policies destroyed "the savings of millions of middle-class Americans."
Republican's right wing economic theories directly led to the destruction of trillions in wealth as well as creating the global financial crisis that put America on the road to a 2nd Great Depression.
The only thing that's currently keeping America out of a 2nd Great Depression is liberal government intervention.
Unless you misquoted him, apparently Brendan Nyhan doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.
And even the first three "facts" are the subject of some contention, depending on where you draw the lines. One of Paul Krugman's cute little tricks to demonize Reagan is to include the last three years of the Carter administration's economy and extend it four years beyond in to Bush 41.
Apparently the Nobel committee doesn't require math competency of its economics laureates, because even I know that Reagan served eight years, not 15.
Oh, and Shaw: Griper and Patrick burned your little Daily Kos kartoon. It's okay, you know, to say, "whoops, guess we didn't think this analogy through."
Shaw: Given what you say, it makes even less sense to want Obama's plans of making the debt problem much much worse. Especially in regards to "Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt again (and the bills are still coming in).", when Obama is set to add as much to the debt in 4 years as the second Bush did in 8.
"Republican economic policies redistributed the wealth to the wealthiest and away from the middle class for over 30 years"
The middle class as well as the wealthy got tax cuts. So it was the ruling class (government) keeping less while the people got to keep more. Less redistribution, actually.
Griper: Krugman has little credibility, and time and again leans toward state control of everything and everyone. Even at the expense of the middle class. I remember his column last year where he savaged candidate Obama for wanting middle-class tax cuts. He strongly favors redistribution from the ruled to the rulers.
Verb [eclipsing, eclipsed] 1. to overshadow or surpass
a. A fall into obscurity or disuse; a decline: "A composer . . . often goes into eclipse after his death and never regains popularity.".b. A disgraceful or humiliating end; a downfall: Revelations of wrongdoing helped bring about the eclipse of the governor's career.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eclipsed
You guys don't know that the word has more than one meaning, do you.
No matter.
We know conservatives look at issues very narrowly, through blinders even, and, therefore, lack vision.
"Likewise, Obama can only blame Bush for his first year. After that, he has no excuses of any kind to run any budget deficits. It's entirely his game at that point."
What a crock. Obama cannot fix 8 years of deficit (5 trillion) spending in one year.
The country cannot fix 30 years (11 trillion) of deficit spending in a 4 year Obama term, nor even an 8 year Obama term.
Republicans are trying every way possible to escape the responsibility of their negligent leadership. The American people are not buying it.
You don't seem to understand that if you pay for something later, it cost more than if you had paid for it at the time.
Republicans can look right at an eclipse happening in front of their eyes, and claim it's not happening.
The old head in the sand (up their *&%#) posture.
dmarks, give up on trying to understand federal economics, you have no clue, as you have proven time and time again.
Next thing, they'll be crediting St. Reagan with single-handedly ending European communism after uttering that mindless remark, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall."
Time said: "What a crock. Obama cannot fix 8 years of deficit (5 trillion) spending in one year."
True. But he can fix each year of the budget he has control of so these budgets do NOT add to the deficit.
But, instead of fixing, anything, he is promising much more deficit spending, at much faster rate than Bush.
"You don't seem to understand that if you pay for something later, it cost more than if you had paid for it at the time."
You are the one who are ignoring this. Instead of trying to fix the problem, he is scheduled to add from $5 to $8 trillion to the debt. And this massive new debt will also have to be paid for sometime.
You don't seem the understand that Obama's promise of a much worse deficit problem is the opposite of fixing it.
"dmarks, give up on trying to understand federal economics, you have no clue, as you have proven time and time again."
You are so wrong on this. And you are proving that you know nothing about it. Perhaps you are confusing debt with deficit again: your unclear argument implies this. Look up the words and try again.
Next, learn arithmetic. And then maybe you won't argue that Obama willfully adding more new debt than Bush did is somehow a good idea.
Christopher: Reagan had a big role. But it was not single-handed. Pope John Paul II had a major role. So did Lech Walesa. So did Gorbachev, too: he made a miscalculation and his attempt to somehow make communism look better managed to severely undermine it instead.
Your the one who does not know the difference between a budget and the debt, thus your claim that Clinton did not have a balanced budget, which every Republican leader acknowledges he did.
The republicans gave tax cuts to corporations ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure.
We have bridges falling down that kill people, schools crumbling, libraries closed, police staff cut, and on, and on, and on.
If you want to live in a crumbling society, fine. Does not surprise me. I do not.
It takes money to keep a great society going. I have to wonder why Republicans are not willing to pay to remain the greatest country on Earth.
Republicans want America to fail, and have said so many times. Their policies have brought us to bankruptcy.
Republicans say they don't want government, they don't want taxes, they don't want regulations. These are the things that keep a great country great.
Republicans got what they wanted and look at the poor shape we are in.
I'm glad you are so happy to live in a crumbling society, now leave and let serious people rebuild what you America haters have destroyed.
My argument is unclear to you because your are an idiot and have no clue what it takes to build a decent society.
I am not the only one who has tried to explain economics to you, your just dense.
Time: Clinton never balanced the budget, as shown by the cold hard fact that the national debt increased every single year he was in office. If there had been an actual balanced budget, the debt would have not gone up that year. If there had been a surplus, the national debt would have gone down.
"The republicans gave tax cuts to corporations ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure."
Do you have any cold hard numbers on this? How much did infrastructure spending go down?
"We have bridges falling down that kill people, schools crumbling, libraries closed, police staff cut, and on, and on, and on."
And at the same time, federal, state, and local spending has been increasing. A lot.
"It takes money to keep a great society going."
So perhaps now you have given up on the bogus idea that Clinton balanced the budget or had any surpluses. You have changed the subject entirely to a straw-man argument.
"I have to wonder why Republicans..."
You then named several points, not one of which has any evidence to back it up.
For example "they don't want taxes"
While all of them are false, this is one of the most blatant lies. Please provide me the name of one Republican candidate or office holder who has proposed "no-taxes". Just ONE?
"...idiot ....dense...."
Careful, troll. You are losing control. Count to 10. Take a deep breath. And do some research. Please.
"I am not the only one who has tried to explain economics to you, your just dense."
Some ignorant people have considered "dense" because I know the fact that if your budget puts out more than it takes in, it is not balanced.
I lose patience with people who are so mean and dumb. You started the name calling, I return in kind.
I don't like you enough to educate you, your parents should have done that. I'm sure they were lacking also.
Educate yourself on your wrong facts. The evidence is in the Republican policies of the last 30 years, or why are we having these problems now?
Every single Republican who signed the "No New Tax Pledge." Remember that one? Of course not. How about the "Contract for America? Pawlenty for 1. You research for the others. It's time you do your own research instead of repeating proven false talking points.
Spending has gone to the corporations Republicans favor, not the needed repairs to our society. It's not a straw man, it's a fact. Something the King of straw man arguments (YOU) should know.
I never claimed we would have a balanced budget, liar. In fact I said we would not because we have to pay to fix the screw ups of the Republicans.
Your just to stupid to have a conversation with, not to mention your lies.
More on the bogus: "Republicans say they don't want government, they don't want taxes"
We know you won't find any examples anywhere of Republicans saying that they don't want government or taxes.
But why not look at the record? I chose as an example Rep. Ron Paul, who is probably the most libertarian/anti-tax person in Congress. Surely if any actual Republican were anti-tax, anti-government, it would be him, right?
But looking in Project Vote Smart, I find no instances of him voting for no taxes, no government.
I did, however, find him voting Yes on HR 1836. This was a bill that set the tax rate brackets at 10%, 15%, 25%, and 33%.
So, here you have the most anti-tax Republican actually voting yes on having income taxes varying from 10% to 33%. Not only do Republicans never even say "no taxes", they don't even vote that way.
Perhaps your wild imaginary generalizations might apply to strict Ayn Rand "Objectivists", but you won't find those in office or active to any consequence in the Republican Party.
And by the way, Ron Paul, this most Libertarian anti-government Republican, voted "to pass a bill that would transfer $8.02 billion from the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund" (HR 6532). So much for your claim that Republicans "ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure".
There are also numerous examples of Ron Paul voting in favor of government regulations. Even just one of those throws your "no regulations" claim out the window.
I use Ron Paul as the "worst" example. Other Republicans of course tend to vote for more taxes, more infrastructure funding than this. If I overlooked someone, and you can find even one Republican leader who has voted for no taxes and no regulations and no spending, let me know.
Next time, perhaps think about what you type, instead of wildly flinging absolutist accusations willy-nilly.
".... you America haters..."
Not only do you make wild accusations similar to those who call Obama a traitor that hates America, you use bashing language similar to what I have seen from that side also.
Time for Trolls: "...mean and dumb... liar.... stupid"
Now that we have that out of the way, let's get to the facts. Or try to, anyway:
"I don't like you enough to educate you, your parents should have done that. I'm sure they were lacking also."
You must not like any of us at all who read this, since you are educating no-one.
"Educate yourself on your wrong facts."
Name one "wrong fact". Did I get Ron Paul's bills wrong?
"The evidence is in the Republican policies of the last 30 years, or why are we having these problems now?"
You easily pick and choose, leaving out the two Democratic presidents and the Congressional Democrats.
"Every single Republican who signed the "No New Tax Pledge." Remember that one?"
So, what is wrong with that? Promising no more unneeded overtaxation at a time when tax rates are already high is not the same as promising no taxes at all.
"How about the "Contract for America?"
What about it? Be specific.
"It's time you do your own research instead of repeating proven false talking points."
I did do my own research. I use 0 "talking points". This is another false accusation. Stick to facts, please.
"Spending has gone to the corporations Republicans favor, not the needed repairs to our society."
Specifics, please. Tell me, for example, how Bush's highway budget of 2008 compared to Clinton's of 1998.
"It's not a straw man, it's a fact."
You don't help yourself with angry retorts. Provide even some evidence.
"I never claimed we would have a balanced budget, liar. In fact I said we would not because we have to pay to fix the screw ups of the Republicans."
Which is a lame excuse for the current President not bothering to balance next year's budget, and promising to have bad budgets for the next few years.
"Your just to stupid to have a conversation with, not to mention your lies."
"Not to mention" is about it. You haven't even mentioned one.
By the way, I don't get into spelling flames. We all make mistakes at times. But it appears you are too uneducated to know how to spell "you're". You repeat this mistake over and over.
(By the way, I missed the Pawlenty example. I found no votes, nothing in his record, where he supported a situation of "no taxes, no government". No where. So try again.")
Talk about straw man, go into a diatribe about Ron Paul?!
You said name one, I did, and then some. A whole pack on record.
As I said you started it-mindless, etc., etc...return in kind.
Liar, I live in Minnesota, he ran on "No New Taxes." When he took office we had a 600 million dollar surplus, now we have a 5 billion dollar debt! You try again dumb shit. Your research skills tell me why you are so uneducated.
"Talk about straw man, go into a diatribe about Ron Paul?!"
I was trying to find an example of any Republican who said/did as you claim all Republicans did. I was being generous, and figured he was the most likely to fit your description. And he did not.
"You said name one, I did, and then some. A whole pack on record."
You named no Republicans who didn't want any taxes. Are you actually changing your argument from Republicans saying "no taxes" to Republicans saying "no new taxes"? There is a huge difference between the two. And, since you were quickly proven wrong on the "no taxes" claim, I can see why you would abandoned that angry argument.
"Liar, I live in Minnesota, he ran on "No New Taxes." When he took office we had a 600 million dollar surplus, now we have a 5 billion dollar debt!"
I don't see the point in bringing this up, unless you plan in the future to support the idea of Pawlenty's Democratic replacement to increase Minnesota's debt to 8 billion. (That is quite similar to your support of Obama independently making decisions to increase the national debt on his own).
The only lie here is in your shifting the goal posts. Now abandoning the claim about Republicans that "they don't want taxes" and changing it to a brand new one where "they don't want new taxes". I will give you some points for backing off your earlier argument.
I won't dispute the claim that many Republicans want "no new taxes". I never did dispute this claim, which is very different from the argument about no taxes at all. So there is no argument, now that you have shifted away from your original unsupported point.
"....dumb shit..."
I hope you pause the wipe the spittle from your monitor at times.
"You ask a question, I answer, then you change the question. Ron Paul?!"
You specifically claimed that Republicans did not want any taxation. This is what you claimed Republicans are like. I asked for examples, and you provided one who favored ample taxation, but did not want to add any new taxes. I did not change the question. However, you changed your original claim.
I brought up Ron Paul to try and find one example of a Republican completely opposed to taxation, government, and regulation. One Republican that would match your description.
"No new taxes means no taxes"
The two are very different. How is this so hard to understand? The difference between a tax percentage of 0% (no taxes) and 33% (good example of existing tax rate with "no new taxes") is profound.
If you think they mean the same, look in your garage. See that old car? That is the result of "no new cars". There's a car there, for sure. Even if there isn't a new one next to it. That is a lot different from having no car at all ("no cars").
"is this the only come back you have to ignore the fact that you were lying?"
What did I lie about? Examples please."Your calling me names goes way back to the first encounter I had with you, return in kind. I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you."
This is most likely unsupported, too. You won't find any example like "I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you." I am also at a disadvantage since, unlike you, I don't keep any sort of grudge list of inconsequential words.
However, congratulations on starting to use the word "your" in a correct fashion.
".....FUCKING STUPID...."
Watch out for flying troll slobber. (Yes, I do use the insult word "troll" for those who lose control in comments).
Getting around the negative karma here, I appreciate that Dmarks is admitting the need for taxes. I appreciate his bringing up Ron Paul. Of course the Republicans trashed Ron during the primaries, but that's no reason they can't use him now as an example of good republicanism.
My problem with republicanism all along is though they call for lower taxes and less spending, we end up with more spending and higher taxes to pay for the borrowing.
Once again, I appreciate the Ron Paul reference. But I think it is quite disingenuos to use Congressman Paul that way when the republican party acts oppisite from what he stands for.
Kind: I was not using Paul as an example of a typical Republican. Since Time claimed that Republicans favor no taxes, I figured I'd try to find the Republican most likely to favor no taxes, and check his voting record.
"My problem with republicanism all along is though they call for lower taxes and less spending"
I see more of the problem in that they call for lower taxes and less spending, and then they end up increasing spending. The overspending (as per the 2nd Bush and Reagan) outstrips the definite economic/tax benefit from lower tax rates.
The lower taxes, lower spending promise might be a real winner if they bothered to try to keep it.
Still, I don't the Democrats offer much of a viable alternative to this with plans to overspend even more than the Republicans.
"to use Congressman Paul that way when the republican party acts oppisite from what he stands for."
This is true in several ways. Especially Paul's antisemitism and other racism.
dmarks and anyone who cares here: the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. The nutjobs are commenting using my name. If anyone doesn't believe me, Shaw can look at her sitemeter (if there's a timestamp) and see where the comments are coming from. I'm not sure how detailed her sitemeter is, but she might be able to verify that the comments under my name are not done while I'm here visiting. She knows where I'm from. So, please take any comments in my name with a grain of salt. They are most likely not me. Although this is me.
Lynne: "the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. "
Actually, I do believe you, and its not the only trick card up their sleeve. I have had this experience:
I left a comment, actually a link to an article, at Jo-Joe Politico who promptly deleted it. Then Jo-Joe added a comment below the deleted one that totally misrepresented what I had said. In fact, it was dishonest and slanderous. "Rigging the comment thread" is what I call it.
So clearly when they say they're open to honest debate and discussion, what they mean is they don't want discussion and they have no idea what honesty is.
Lynne said... "dmarks and anyone who cares here: the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. The nutjobs are commenting using my name"
I have to laugh my ass off over that one Lynne.
Was it NOT you that posted and told a female rightwing blogger to go "FUCK themselves"
Yes it was sweetie, don't them ME that was an impostor.
An American Girl said... My message to LYNNE!...Your disruption this blogs is a typical childish liberal ignorant and stupid tactic. You came here and insulted the blog's author and expected her to put up with your childish nonsense, and when she didn't you cursed her with the most vulgar word in the English language. And yet you have the nerve to continue to come here and to expect her to read your posts or comments. Well she does not seem to be as STUPID and as common a person as you are. If I were you and I'm glad that I'm not, I would impolitely say that I was sorry and see if she would accept your apology. If I were here I wouldn't! I doubt if anyone here bothers to even read your crap so why don't you save the bit of dignity and go somewhere else where they want to ready your filth. You are rude, stupid, and inflammatory all at the same time. And no one wants to read whatever you have to say.
Like Pittbull said, you don't even allow people to comment on your blog, and yet you are indigent when Right is Right deletes your comments. I guess that Free speech does not exist on your blog........ If that isn't typical liberal, then I don't know what is. It seems being so ignorant and stupid comes natural for you, and your sick and stupid comments prove it. Your pettiness and stupidity tactics only prove that Right Is Right is correct in deleting anything that you have to say. April 14, 2009 6:25 AM
How about that you poor little picked on innocent victim.
And you wrote THIS on MY blog..didn't you Miss little innocent!..
Lynne said...
What a bunch of douchebags here. And Christian yet!!!
The Bible is as pro-environment as you can get. Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know his Bible or is injecting her political perspective as more important than what God's Word says.
So what does the Bible say about the environment?
God Created the Heavens and the Earth You would think that if God is going to speak to us, we would listen up to his very first word. What was the very first detail written in God's word? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (New International Version [NIV], Genesis 1:1). The first piece of information we learn about God is that he created the earth we were born onto.
Don't forget the part where God completed his creation and said that it was "very good" (NIV, Genesis 1:31).
God Commands Men and Women to Take Care of the Earth
If God created it, doesn't it follow that he would care for it? And wouldn't he want the people he created to inhabit it to care for it? In fact, in Genesis 1 God said, "let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV], Genesis 1:26).
To have dominion means to be in charge of. Thus, God has put us in charge of caring for his creation: earth, people, animals, plants - all of it.
Don't bother, us terrible libs will save the earth and you can thank us later. April 27, 2009 9:23 AM
April 27, 2009 2:29 PM My Blog said...
Words cannot express how I dispise people like Lynne and of her stand against the welfare of this once great country... Leftists like her and her actions go a long way to showing the intolerance which pervades our media, pervades the leftist agenda. They all stink like spoiled milk. This idiot Lynne runs from blog to blog to spread her vile hatred. I agree with you John that she should go exactly where YOU sent her.. April 27, 2009 2:52 PM
TRUTH 101 said...
I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her.
Thanks for your service to keep us free from tyranny and protest our right to worship as we see fit John. April 27, 2009 7:04 PM
Lynne said...
Actually, I usually just say what I disagree with about the post and move on, but if you call that vile hatred, then whatev. I discussed the bible in my last comment so I guess if that is vile hatred, I misunderstood you guys. I thought I was dealing with Christians here. But clearly it's just a front for all of YOUR hatred. God bless! April 28, 2009 12:51 PM
Matt Rose said...
Lynn, you can say what you want to but I have to tell you that even though you and I are of (I'm ashamed to say) the same political persuasion, your post and comments ARE as vile as they can be.. And for you to say anything about being Christian and then use the gutter language that I've seen you use is a hypocritical as can be. You are a shameful and bitter poster. And if you weren't as cowardly as you are and had your own blog, I'd tell you so there!!! So anyone that blasts you for whatever you say or did is correct in doing so. PERIOD! April 29, 2009 9:24 AM
Matt Rose said...
TRUTH 101 said... " I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her. " ---------------------------------------- Is that a good enough reason to "dig" her?
It only discredits you. April 29, 2009 9:26 AM
Lynne said...
Go to hell April 29, 2009 2:34 PM The Red Head said...
Having a bad day Lynne? April 30, 2009 10:01 AM Lynne said...
Screw you all! Twice over! April 30, 2009 1:19 PM The Red Head said...
Some people are just too stupid to be among us. Lynne is one of them! April 30, 2009 3:37 PM
My Blog said...
TRUTH 101 said... I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her."
That is saying a lot about you Mr. Truth 101 don't it!
I don't know who American Girl is so the fact that she wrote something about me is not important. However, I will concede that since people are posting comments as me, it's clearly pissing people off. My original comment to Right is Right has been deleted and it started out as a rebuttal to the subject she posted that day. Nothing more. It pissed her off and she deleted it. Every time I commented on other blogs, I was blasted. You told me to fuck myself. So it's ok for you to swear and get angry but not others. As long as we're clear here.
Also, to clarify how sane you people are, I quoted the Bible on your site and was yelled at for spewing my hate. So, I'm a little confused. If the Bible is hateful, I'm not sure what you'll accept. I don't think there's any rationality here. But whatev.
And BTW, I just read all of your comment John and no, those are not my comments you quoted. If you have to make stuff up about your adversaries, then you have a problem. Why doesn't this surprise me?
Actually, I usually just say what I disagree with about the post and move on, but if you call that vile hatred, then whatev. I discussed the bible in my last comment so I guess if that is vile hatred, I misunderstood you guys. I thought I was dealing with Christians here. But clearly it's just a front for all of YOUR hatred. God bless! April 28, 2009 12:51 PM
This one IS mine.
Sorry again Shaw. I don't know why I'm letting these people get to me. They crossed the line when they started leaving comments in my name.
LOL, Shaw, she's sorry again. If she recognizes that she's creating problems in her own. Do you think her extreme excusing her own behavior could be a sign of mental illness? Mental disorders effect millions of people in the world and can lead to years of serious depression ...The very first sign is this constant need to feel sorry for their bad deeds. I feel so sorry for her. She does clearly have mental issues
Shaw, thanks for checking. I appreciate the time it must have taken you to do that. I will keep reading but will be silent. You may still hear from "me" anyway if you know what I mean.
"...All that you slight And everyone you fight. All that is now All that is gone All thats to come And everything under the sun is in tune But the sun is eclipsed by the moon."Pink Floyd, "Eclipse". The lyrics might fit the troll wars which have been raging.
Sorry Shaw, I know I said I'd shut up but Dear John, yes I did admit that the comment I posted on your blog with the biblical quote WAS mine. Me & the bible were blasted by you and yours. In fact, that's the one where you invited me to hell.
62 comments:
"To the moon, Alice! To the moon!"
President Obama is projected to eclipse all of Reagan's 8 years of national debt increase in a matter of a a year or two.
Part of the reason for the debt, dmarks, is because Reagan's economic policies, and the ensuing policies of the Bush presidencies didn't work.
Obama has more intelligence in his finger nails than Saint Reagan had in his entire body.
I have to laugh at these idiot Repugs screeching about Obama's budget.
For 8 years, the Chimp spent money like he was printing it at the Crawford, TX pig farm (he wasn't -- he was borrowing it from Communist China) and they lined up to fellate him as if oxygen came out of his penis and they were on the surface of Mars.
Now that Obama is investing in the U.S. and the American people (instead of in Iraq), they can't wrap their tiny pea brains around the difference.
Obama bringing darkness to the Earth.
And it's oh so temporary.
I like it!
Shaw: Excuses like that won't cut it after Obama's first year is over. Then, all the budgets and deficits are entirely those of him and the Congress he works with.
As for the next comment, once I read through the troll screaming, I find "Now that Obama is investing in the U.S. and the American people (instead of in Iraq),"
Money on Iraq was only a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years. Guess what the rest of it was? "Investing in the American people"
And there is no "now" difference. Like the past 8 years, Obama is now spending most of the money on the American people, and a small percentage of it on Iraq.
Patrick,
eclipse definition:
a: the total or partial obscuring of one celestial body by another
remember also, an eclipse is but a few minutes then the sun shines again and the moon is no longer seen.
remember also, the moon has no light of its own. its light is dependent upon another body and only reflects off the moon.
remember also that the "halo" seen around the moon is but temporary also, then we see the darkness of the moon.
so, no, i will not miss the eclipse
remember also, the cause of a problem may be attributed to others but it is not the cause we are talking about. we are talking about the solution to the problem. that falls solely upon Obama's shoulders.
the question is not whether someone caused a problem but whether or not the solution applied to solve the problem is the correct one or the best one. that was why Obama was elected, to solve the problems. that is the same for any and all presidents when elected.
blaming the cause for the solution used is illogical and an attempt to mislead therefore dmarks first entry still stands.
The Limbaugh/NAMBLA aficionado totally misrepresents the facts in his/her/its desperate efforts to paint the dumb-fuck GOP in general and the Chimp, specifically, in a positive light.
Keeping troops in Iraq year after year will cost nearly a quarter-trillion dollars or about $800 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. under the Chimp's multi-year budgets.
At the same time, the Chimp's budget requests propose cost curbs on Medicare providers, a cap on subsidy payments to wealthier farmers and a cap to $4,600 in the maximum Pell Grant for low-income college students, as a way to redirect Federal dollars almost entirely to the Iraq war and the military.
The Chimp's proposal, totaling almost $3 trillion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, last fiscal year, includes renewing Bush's tax cuts until closer to 2010, when they are to expire.
A "a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years?" Is this parody? Try 50% of the entire amount swept into the US Treasury in form of income tax revenue. When did "half" become "a small percentage?" Only a revisionist historian would even try to make such a ridiculous claim.
The Griper,
You are the one using the moon as an example of an eclipse, whereas the definition says "a celestial body" and not THE MOON.
Nice try to make Mr. Obama into the moon, but it doesn't work, except for conservatives who don't like him.
"remember also, the cause of a problem may be attributed to others but it is not the cause we are talking about. we are talking about the solution to the problem. that falls solely upon Obama's shoulders.
the question is not whether someone caused a problem but whether or not the solution applied to solve the problem is the correct one or the best one. that was why Obama was elected, to solve the problems. that is the same for any and all presidents when elected.Yes. I remember this quite clearly. When 9/11 happened the Bush administration fell over itself blaming the previous administration for it, and you can find on google George W. Bush administration blaming the Clinton administration as well for the recession GWBush faced.
I'm sure you were out there writing on conservative blogs that this should be avoided and that placing blame won't work.
This isn't a "Bush did it too" excuse--it's pointing out a "do as I say; not as I do" hypocrisy.
Shaw: Bush can only blame Clinton's recession for the first year of his economic problems. Likewise, Obama can only blame Bush for his first year. After that, he has no excuses of any kind to run any budget deficits. It's entirely his game at that point.
And "Part of the reason for the debt, dmarks, is because Reagan's economic policies" does not cut it at all. Even though the first Bush sort of continued them, from 1993 on, we had Clinton's policies and the policies of others.
I'll let Brendon Nyhan who knows a lot more about this stuff than I do [read his c.v.]explain:
"Republican President Reagan more than doubled the US debt.
Between Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush I they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.
Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt again (and the bills are still coming in).
Republican economic policies redistributed the wealth to the wealthiest and away from the middle class for over 30 years. Republican economic policies destroyed "the savings of millions of middle-class Americans."
Republican's right wing economic theories directly led to the destruction of trillions in wealth as well as creating the global financial crisis that put America on the road to a 2nd Great Depression.
The only thing that's currently keeping America out of a 2nd Great Depression is liberal government intervention.
Those are facts."
Unless you misquoted him, apparently Brendan Nyhan doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.
And even the first three "facts" are the subject of some contention, depending on where you draw the lines. One of Paul Krugman's cute little tricks to demonize Reagan is to include the last three years of the Carter administration's economy and extend it four years beyond in to Bush 41.
Apparently the Nobel committee doesn't require math competency of its economics laureates, because even I know that Reagan served eight years, not 15.
Oh, and Shaw: Griper and Patrick burned your little Daily Kos kartoon. It's okay, you know, to say, "whoops, guess we didn't think this analogy through."
Shaw: Given what you say, it makes even less sense to want Obama's plans of making the debt problem much much worse. Especially in regards to "Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt again (and the bills are still coming in).", when Obama is set to add as much to the debt in 4 years as the second Bush did in 8.
"Republican economic policies redistributed the wealth to the wealthiest and away from the middle class for over 30 years"
The middle class as well as the wealthy got tax cuts. So it was the ruling class (government) keeping less while the people got to keep more. Less redistribution, actually.
Griper: Krugman has little credibility, and time and again leans toward state control of everything and everyone. Even at the expense of the middle class. I remember his column last year where he savaged candidate Obama for wanting middle-class tax cuts. He strongly favors redistribution from the ruled to the rulers.
The Dark Ages were eclipsed by the Renaissance.
eclipse
Verb
[eclipsing, eclipsed]
1. to overshadow or surpass
a. A fall into obscurity or disuse; a decline: "A composer . . . often goes into eclipse after his death and never regains popularity.".b. A disgraceful or humiliating end; a downfall: Revelations of wrongdoing helped bring about the eclipse of the governor's career.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eclipsed
You guys don't know that the word has more than one meaning, do you.
No matter.
We know conservatives look at issues very narrowly, through blinders even, and, therefore, lack vision.
Shaw: You really don't have a sense of humor, do you? :)
"Likewise, Obama can only blame Bush for his first year. After that, he has no excuses of any kind to run any budget deficits. It's entirely his game at that point."
What a crock. Obama cannot fix 8 years of deficit (5 trillion) spending in one year.
The country cannot fix 30 years (11 trillion) of deficit spending in a 4 year Obama term, nor even an 8 year Obama term.
Republicans are trying every way possible to escape the responsibility of their negligent leadership. The American people are not buying it.
You don't seem to understand that if you pay for something later, it cost more than if you had paid for it at the time.
Republicans can look right at an eclipse happening in front of their eyes, and claim it's not happening.
The old head in the sand (up their *&%#) posture.
dmarks, give up on trying to understand federal economics, you have no clue, as you have proven time and time again.
Shaw -
Your GOPer lemmings are a riot.
Next thing, they'll be crediting St. Reagan with single-handedly ending European communism after uttering that mindless remark, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall."
Talk about a bunch of simpletons.
Time said: "What a crock. Obama cannot fix 8 years of deficit (5 trillion) spending in one year."
True. But he can fix each year of the budget he has control of so these budgets do NOT add to the deficit.
But, instead of fixing, anything, he is promising much more deficit spending, at much faster rate than Bush.
"You don't seem to understand that if you pay for something later, it cost more than if you had paid for it at the time."
You are the one who are ignoring this. Instead of trying to fix the problem, he is scheduled to add from $5 to $8 trillion to the debt. And this massive new debt will also have to be paid for sometime.
You don't seem the understand that Obama's promise of a much worse deficit problem is the opposite of fixing it.
"dmarks, give up on trying to understand federal economics, you have no clue, as you have proven time and time again."
You are so wrong on this. And you are proving that you know nothing about it. Perhaps you are confusing debt with deficit again: your unclear argument implies this. Look up the words and try again.
Next, learn arithmetic. And then maybe you won't argue that Obama willfully adding more new debt than Bush did is somehow a good idea.
Christopher: Reagan had a big role. But it was not single-handed. Pope John Paul II had a major role. So did Lech Walesa. So did Gorbachev, too: he made a miscalculation and his attempt to somehow make communism look better managed to severely undermine it instead.
Your the one who does not know the difference between a budget and the debt, thus your claim that Clinton did not have a balanced budget, which every Republican leader acknowledges he did.
The republicans gave tax cuts to corporations ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure.
We have bridges falling down that kill people, schools crumbling, libraries closed, police staff cut, and on, and on, and on.
If you want to live in a crumbling society, fine. Does not surprise me. I do not.
It takes money to keep a great society going. I have to wonder why Republicans are not willing to pay to remain the greatest country on Earth.
Republicans want America to fail, and have said so many times. Their policies have brought us to bankruptcy.
Republicans say they don't want government, they don't want taxes, they don't want regulations. These are the things that keep a great country great.
Republicans got what they wanted and look at the poor shape we are in.
I'm glad you are so happy to live in a crumbling society, now leave and let serious people rebuild what you America haters have destroyed.
My argument is unclear to you because your are an idiot and have no clue what it takes to build a decent society.
I am not the only one who has tried to explain economics to you, your just dense.
Time: Clinton never balanced the budget, as shown by the cold hard fact that the national debt increased every single year he was in office. If there had been an actual balanced budget, the debt would have not gone up that year. If there had been a surplus, the national debt would have gone down.
"The republicans gave tax cuts to corporations ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure."
Do you have any cold hard numbers on this? How much did infrastructure spending go down?
"We have bridges falling down that kill people, schools crumbling, libraries closed, police staff cut, and on, and on, and on."
And at the same time, federal, state, and local spending has been increasing. A lot.
"It takes money to keep a great society going."
So perhaps now you have given up on the bogus idea that Clinton balanced the budget or had any surpluses. You have changed the subject entirely to a straw-man argument.
"I have to wonder why Republicans..."
You then named several points, not one of which has any evidence to back it up.
For example "they don't want taxes"
While all of them are false, this is one of the most blatant lies. Please provide me the name of one Republican candidate or office holder who has proposed "no-taxes". Just ONE?
"...idiot ....dense...."
Careful, troll. You are losing control. Count to 10. Take a deep breath. And do some research. Please.
"I am not the only one who has tried to explain economics to you, your just dense."
Some ignorant people have considered "dense" because I know the fact that if your budget puts out more than it takes in, it is not balanced.
I lose patience with people who are so mean and dumb. You started the name calling, I return in kind.
I don't like you enough to educate you, your parents should have done that. I'm sure they were lacking also.
Educate yourself on your wrong facts. The evidence is in the Republican policies of the last 30 years, or why are we having these problems now?
Every single Republican who signed the "No New Tax Pledge." Remember that one? Of course not. How about the "Contract for America? Pawlenty for 1. You research for the others. It's time you do your own research instead of repeating proven false talking points.
Spending has gone to the corporations Republicans favor, not the needed repairs to our society. It's not a straw man, it's a fact. Something the King of straw man arguments (YOU) should know.
I never claimed we would have a balanced budget, liar. In fact I said we would not because we have to pay to fix the screw ups of the Republicans.
Your just to stupid to have a conversation with, not to mention your lies.
More on the bogus: "Republicans say they don't want government, they don't want taxes"
We know you won't find any examples anywhere of Republicans saying that they don't want government or taxes.
But why not look at the record? I chose as an example Rep. Ron Paul, who is probably the most libertarian/anti-tax person in Congress. Surely if any actual Republican were anti-tax, anti-government, it would be him, right?
But looking in Project Vote Smart, I find no instances of him voting for no taxes, no government.
I did, however, find him voting Yes on HR 1836. This was a bill that set the tax rate brackets at 10%, 15%, 25%, and 33%.
So, here you have the most anti-tax Republican actually voting yes on having income taxes varying from 10% to 33%. Not only do Republicans never even say "no taxes", they don't even vote that way.
Perhaps your wild imaginary generalizations might apply to strict Ayn Rand "Objectivists", but you won't find those in office or active to any consequence in the Republican Party.
And by the way, Ron Paul, this most Libertarian anti-government Republican, voted "to pass a bill that would transfer $8.02 billion from the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund" (HR 6532). So much for your claim that Republicans "ignoring the needed repairs to our infrastructure".
There are also numerous examples of Ron Paul voting in favor of government regulations. Even just one of those throws your "no regulations" claim out the window.
I use Ron Paul as the "worst" example. Other Republicans of course tend to vote for more taxes, more infrastructure funding than this. If I overlooked someone, and you can find even one Republican leader who has voted for no taxes and no regulations and no spending, let me know.
Next time, perhaps think about what you type, instead of wildly flinging absolutist accusations willy-nilly.
".... you America haters..."
Not only do you make wild accusations similar to those who call Obama a traitor that hates America, you use bashing language similar to what I have seen from that side also.
Time for Trolls: "...mean and dumb... liar.... stupid"
Now that we have that out of the way, let's get to the facts. Or try to, anyway:
"I don't like you enough to educate you, your parents should have done that. I'm sure they were lacking also."
You must not like any of us at all who read this, since you are educating no-one.
"Educate yourself on your wrong facts."
Name one "wrong fact". Did I get Ron Paul's bills wrong?
"The evidence is in the Republican policies of the last 30 years, or why are we having these problems now?"
You easily pick and choose, leaving out the two Democratic presidents and the Congressional Democrats.
"Every single Republican who signed the "No New Tax Pledge." Remember that one?"
So, what is wrong with that? Promising no more unneeded overtaxation at a time when tax rates are already high is not the same as promising no taxes at all.
"How about the "Contract for America?"
What about it? Be specific.
"It's time you do your own research instead of repeating proven false talking points."
I did do my own research. I use 0 "talking points". This is another false accusation. Stick to facts, please.
"Spending has gone to the corporations Republicans favor, not the needed repairs to our society."
Specifics, please. Tell me, for example, how Bush's highway budget of 2008 compared to Clinton's of 1998.
"It's not a straw man, it's a fact."
You don't help yourself with angry retorts. Provide even some evidence.
"I never claimed we would have a balanced budget, liar. In fact I said we would not because we have to pay to fix the screw ups of the Republicans."
Which is a lame excuse for the current President not bothering to balance next year's budget, and promising to have bad budgets for the next few years.
"Your just to stupid to have a conversation with, not to mention your lies."
"Not to mention" is about it. You haven't even mentioned one.
By the way, I don't get into spelling flames. We all make mistakes at times. But it appears you are too uneducated to know how to spell "you're". You repeat this mistake over and over.
(By the way, I missed the Pawlenty example. I found no votes, nothing in his record, where he supported a situation of "no taxes, no government". No where. So try again.")
Talk about straw man, go into a diatribe about Ron Paul?!
You said name one, I did, and then some. A whole pack on record.
As I said you started it-mindless, etc., etc...return in kind.
Liar, I live in Minnesota, he ran on "No New Taxes." When he took office we had a 600 million dollar surplus, now we have a 5 billion dollar debt! You try again dumb shit. Your research skills tell me why you are so uneducated.
"Talk about straw man, go into a diatribe about Ron Paul?!"
I was trying to find an example of any Republican who said/did as you claim all Republicans did. I was being generous, and figured he was the most likely to fit your description. And he did not.
"You said name one, I did, and then some. A whole pack on record."
You named no Republicans who didn't want any taxes. Are you actually changing your argument from Republicans saying "no taxes" to Republicans saying "no new taxes"? There is a huge difference between the two. And, since you were quickly proven wrong on the "no taxes" claim, I can see why you would abandoned that angry argument.
"Liar, I live in Minnesota, he ran on "No New Taxes." When he took office we had a 600 million dollar surplus, now we have a 5 billion dollar debt!"
I don't see the point in bringing this up, unless you plan in the future to support the idea of Pawlenty's Democratic replacement to increase Minnesota's debt to 8 billion. (That is quite similar to your support of Obama independently making decisions to increase the national debt on his own).
The only lie here is in your shifting the goal posts. Now abandoning the claim about Republicans that "they don't want taxes" and changing it to a brand new one where "they don't want new taxes". I will give you some points for backing off your earlier argument.
I won't dispute the claim that many Republicans want "no new taxes". I never did dispute this claim, which is very different from the argument about no taxes at all. So there is no argument, now that you have shifted away from your original unsupported point.
"....dumb shit..."
I hope you pause the wipe the spittle from your monitor at times.
By the way, Time, you said "As I said you started it-mindless, etc., etc...return in kind."
Perhaps to justify the insult-flinging? You did not make your point clear.
Anyway, you got this one completely wrong. "Mindless" was a term only used by Christopher here to describe one of Ronald Reagan's remarks.
You probably have no idea what comment or person you are responding to.
You ask a question, I answer, then you change the question. Ron Paul?!
Your calling me names goes way back to the first encounter I had with you, return in kind. I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you.
No new taxes means no taxes, is this the only come back you have to ignore the fact that you were lying?
How FUCKING STUPID are you. To fucking stupid to answer that question.
"You ask a question, I answer, then you change the question. Ron Paul?!"
You specifically claimed that Republicans did not want any taxation. This is what you claimed Republicans are like. I asked for examples, and you provided one who favored ample taxation, but did not want to add any new taxes. I did not change the question. However, you changed your original claim.
I brought up Ron Paul to try and find one example of a Republican completely opposed to taxation, government, and regulation. One Republican that would match your description.
"No new taxes means no taxes"
The two are very different. How is this so hard to understand? The difference between a tax percentage of 0% (no taxes) and 33% (good example of existing tax rate with "no new taxes") is profound.
If you think they mean the same, look in your garage. See that old car? That is the result of "no new cars". There's a car there, for sure. Even if there isn't a new one next to it. That is a lot different from having no car at all ("no cars").
"is this the only come back you have to ignore the fact that you were lying?"
What did I lie about? Examples please."Your calling me names goes way back to the first encounter I had with you, return in kind. I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you."
This is most likely unsupported, too. You won't find any example like "I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you." I am also at a disadvantage since, unlike you, I don't keep any sort of grudge list of inconsequential words.
However, congratulations on starting to use the word "your" in a correct fashion.
".....FUCKING STUPID...."
Watch out for flying troll slobber. (Yes, I do use the insult word "troll" for those who lose control in comments).
Time said:
"How FUCKING STUPID are you. To fucking stupid to answer that question.""I won't take shit from a piece of shit like you."
And they say that Liberals are name callers!
and some budget facts for Christopher:
"A "a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years?" Is this parody?
From http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
"About $800 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through mid-2009"
That is total, and includes some Obama spending to make it even larger.
Federal Spending in 2008: $2.9 trillion (according to several sources).
Same site: "U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008"
12 months of that means $144 billion on Iraq in all of 2008.
That's 5% of the $2,900 billion dollar budget for the year.
5% is a small percentage, and it easily proves my statement:
"Money on Iraq was only a small percentage of the money spent during the Bush years"
This is one year. Do we have any reason to assume that other years are a lot different? Probably not.
Lynne: "Time said: [4##@$#@@!!#@]"
And they say that Liberals are name callers!"
Last time I knew, Time was a liberal.
Getting around the negative karma here, I appreciate that Dmarks is admitting the need for taxes. I appreciate his bringing up Ron Paul. Of course the Republicans trashed Ron during the primaries, but that's no reason they can't use him now as an example of good republicanism.
My problem with republicanism all along is though they call for lower taxes and less spending, we end up with more spending and higher taxes to pay for the borrowing.
Once again, I appreciate the Ron Paul reference. But I think it is quite disingenuos to use Congressman Paul that way when the republican party acts oppisite from what he stands for.
Thank you for allowing me into the conversation.
Kind: I was not using Paul as an example of a typical Republican. Since Time claimed that Republicans favor no taxes, I figured I'd try to find the Republican most likely to favor no taxes, and check his voting record.
"My problem with republicanism all along is though they call for lower taxes and less spending"
I see more of the problem in that they call for lower taxes and less spending, and then they end up increasing spending. The overspending (as per the 2nd Bush and Reagan) outstrips the definite economic/tax benefit from lower tax rates.
The lower taxes, lower spending promise might be a real winner if they bothered to try to keep it.
Still, I don't the Democrats offer much of a viable alternative to this with plans to overspend even more than the Republicans.
"to use Congressman Paul that way when the republican party acts oppisite from what he stands for."
This is true in several ways. Especially Paul's antisemitism and other racism.
Thanks for making a calm comment!
There is merit in much of what you say Dmarks. That I don't respond to you more is a sign of respect for that.
dmarks and anyone who cares here: the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. The nutjobs are commenting using my name. If anyone doesn't believe me, Shaw can look at her sitemeter (if there's a timestamp) and see where the comments are coming from. I'm not sure how detailed her sitemeter is, but she might be able to verify that the comments under my name are not done while I'm here visiting. She knows where I'm from. So, please take any comments in my name with a grain of salt. They are most likely not me. Although this is me.
P.S. They're not just doing it here, they're doing it all over the place, which is very mature of them.
Lynne: "the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. "
Actually, I do believe you, and its not the only trick card up their sleeve. I have had this experience:
I left a comment, actually a link to an article, at Jo-Joe Politico who promptly deleted it. Then Jo-Joe added a comment below the deleted one that totally misrepresented what I had said. In fact, it was dishonest and slanderous. "Rigging the comment thread" is what I call it.
So clearly when they say they're open to honest debate and discussion, what they mean is they don't want discussion and they have no idea what honesty is.
Lynne said...
"dmarks and anyone who cares here: the rightwingers are posting comments as me. I haven't been commenting as me. I've made some anonymous comments but haven't commented under my name in weeks. The nutjobs are commenting using my name"
I have to laugh my ass off over that one Lynne.
Was it NOT you that posted and told a female rightwing blogger to go "FUCK themselves"
Yes it was sweetie, don't them ME that was an impostor.
Uh, no John it wasn't; sorry to disappoint you. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was on YOUR blog that you said that exact same thing to ME.
I found it!
Listen To John said...
Lynne, do me and the rest of the world a BIG favor and go Fuck yourself..
And take your "No Blog" Bullshit with you to Hell
April 27, 2009 2:29 PM
Hello kettle, this is pot: you're black.
And I suppose THIS wasn't you either?
Lynne said... You really are a bitch.
April 17, 2009 9:39 AM
Right Is Right said... Thanks Lynne, know that I'm getting to you really gives me a thrill.
BTW.., I'm keeping this post of yours also, just to show everyone what a kind of a person you really are
Have a nice day sweetie! :)
http://rightisright113.blogspot.com/2009/04/seals-free-captainobama-takes-full.html#comments
And this was written on the same blog..
An American Girl said... My message to LYNNE!...Your disruption this blogs is a typical childish liberal ignorant and stupid tactic.
You came here and insulted the blog's author and expected her to put up with your childish nonsense, and when she didn't you cursed her with the most vulgar word in the English language. And yet you have the nerve to continue to come here and to expect her to read your posts or comments. Well she does not seem to be as STUPID and as common a person as you are. If I were you and I'm glad that I'm not, I would impolitely say that I was sorry and see if she would accept your apology. If I were here I wouldn't! I doubt if anyone here bothers to even read your crap so why don't you save the bit of dignity and go somewhere else where they want to ready your filth. You are rude, stupid, and inflammatory all at the same time. And no one wants to read whatever you have to say.
Like Pittbull said, you don't even allow people to comment on your blog, and yet you are indigent when Right is Right deletes your comments. I guess that Free speech does not exist on your blog........ If that isn't typical liberal, then I don't know what is. It seems being so ignorant and stupid comes natural for you, and your sick and stupid comments prove it.
Your pettiness and stupidity tactics only prove that Right Is Right is correct in deleting anything that you have to say.
April 14, 2009 6:25 AM
How about that you poor little picked on innocent victim.
And you wrote THIS on MY blog..didn't you Miss little innocent!..
Lynne said...
What a bunch of douchebags here. And Christian yet!!!
The Bible is as pro-environment as you can get. Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know his Bible or is injecting her political perspective as more important than what God's Word says.
So what does the Bible say about the environment?
God Created the Heavens and the Earth
You would think that if God is going to speak to us, we would listen up to his very first word. What was the very first detail written in God's word? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (New International Version [NIV], Genesis 1:1). The first piece of information we learn about God is that he created the earth we were born onto.
Don't forget the part where God completed his creation and said that it was "very good" (NIV, Genesis 1:31).
God Commands Men and Women to Take Care of the Earth
If God created it, doesn't it follow that he would care for it? And wouldn't he want the people he created to inhabit it to care for it? In fact, in Genesis 1 God said, "let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV], Genesis 1:26).
To have dominion means to be in charge of. Thus, God has put us in charge of caring for his creation: earth, people, animals, plants - all of it.
Don't bother, us terrible libs will save the earth and you can thank us later.
April 27, 2009 9:23 AM
April 27, 2009 2:29 PM
My Blog said...
Words cannot express how I dispise people like Lynne and of her stand against the welfare of this once great country... Leftists like her and her actions go a long way to showing the intolerance which pervades our media, pervades the leftist agenda.
They all stink like spoiled milk.
This idiot Lynne runs from blog to blog to spread her vile hatred. I agree with you John that she should go exactly where YOU sent her..
April 27, 2009 2:52 PM
TRUTH 101 said...
I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her.
Thanks for your service to keep us free from tyranny and protest our right to worship as we see fit John.
April 27, 2009 7:04 PM
Lynne said...
Actually, I usually just say what I disagree with about the post and move on, but if you call that vile hatred, then whatev. I discussed the bible in my last comment so I guess if that is vile hatred, I misunderstood you guys. I thought I was dealing with Christians here. But clearly it's just a front for all of YOUR hatred. God bless!
April 28, 2009 12:51 PM
Matt Rose said...
Lynn, you can say what you want to but I have to tell you that even though you and I are of
(I'm ashamed to say) the same political persuasion, your post and comments ARE as vile as they can be.. And for you to say anything about being Christian and then use the gutter language that I've seen you use is a hypocritical as can be.
You are a shameful and bitter poster. And if you weren't as cowardly as you are and had your own blog, I'd tell you so there!!!
So anyone that blasts you for whatever you say or did is correct in doing so.
PERIOD!
April 29, 2009 9:24 AM
Matt Rose said...
TRUTH 101 said...
" I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her. "
----------------------------------------
Is that a good enough reason to "dig" her?
It only discredits you.
April 29, 2009 9:26 AM
Lynne said...
Go to hell
April 29, 2009 2:34 PM
The Red Head said...
Having a bad day Lynne?
April 30, 2009 10:01 AM
Lynne said...
Screw you all! Twice over!
April 30, 2009 1:19 PM
The Red Head said...
Some people are just too stupid to be among us.
Lynne is one of them!
April 30, 2009 3:37 PM
My Blog said...
TRUTH 101 said...
I dig this. Lynne espouses some good Christian stuff and the righties still hate her."
That is saying a lot about you Mr. Truth 101 don't it!
I don't know who American Girl is so the fact that she wrote something about me is not important. However, I will concede that since people are posting comments as me, it's clearly pissing people off. My original comment to Right is Right has been deleted and it started out as a rebuttal to the subject she posted that day. Nothing more. It pissed her off and she deleted it. Every time I commented on other blogs, I was blasted. You told me to fuck myself. So it's ok for you to swear and get angry but not others. As long as we're clear here.
Also, to clarify how sane you people are, I quoted the Bible on your site and was yelled at for spewing my hate. So, I'm a little confused. If the Bible is hateful, I'm not sure what you'll accept. I don't think there's any rationality here. But whatev.
And BTW, I just read all of your comment John and no, those are not my comments you quoted. If you have to make stuff up about your adversaries, then you have a problem. Why doesn't this surprise me?
Sorry Shaw.
I stand corrected:
Lynne said...
Actually, I usually just say what I disagree with about the post and move on, but if you call that vile hatred, then whatev. I discussed the bible in my last comment so I guess if that is vile hatred, I misunderstood you guys. I thought I was dealing with Christians here. But clearly it's just a front for all of YOUR hatred. God bless!
April 28, 2009 12:51 PM
This one IS mine.
Sorry again Shaw. I don't know why I'm letting these people get to me. They crossed the line when they started leaving comments in my name.
Lynne, The first sign of recovery is admitting your weaknesses.
I see NO sign of your recovering..
Perhaps you could recommend a good therapist.
Perhaps you'll share with me the name of your therapist.
LOL, Shaw, she's sorry again.
If she recognizes that she's creating problems in her own.
Do you think her extreme excusing her own behavior could be a sign of mental illness?
Mental disorders effect millions of people in the world and can lead to years of serious depression ...The very first sign is this constant need to feel sorry for their bad deeds.
I feel so sorry for her. She does clearly have mental issues
To John,
I've checked my sitemeter.
Lynn is telling the truth.
Whoever is her imposter is a coward and beneath contempt.
PS: Lynn, I never believed you said those things because it was not in character.
The person[s] who are doing this to you are contemptible, dishonest swine.
Shaw, thanks for checking. I appreciate the time it must have taken you to do that. I will keep reading but will be silent. You may still hear from "me" anyway if you know what I mean.
Shaw Kenawe said...
"To John,
I've checked my sitemeter.
Lynn is telling the truth."
Thank you for you reply Shaw, I checked mine against a positive post from Lynn and it matched. On MY blog it WAS her.
"...All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All thats to come
And everything under the sun
is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon."Pink Floyd, "Eclipse". The lyrics might fit the troll wars which have been raging.
Sorry Shaw, I know I said I'd shut up but Dear John, yes I did admit that the comment I posted on your blog with the biblical quote WAS mine. Me & the bible were blasted by you and yours. In fact, that's the one where you invited me to hell.
Lynne: I still dig you and The Bible.
I would dig you even more if you would sign in before posting. That might save you and others some grief.
Excellent discussion Shaw.
Post a Comment