AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@DontTreadOnMe,

I believe in giving anybody a second chance; McCain was my choice back in 2000, but when he ran in 2008, his personality changed 190 degrees.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Debra Law wrote:

The mindless minions line up to protect the big money interests from the consequences of their tortious conduct.

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
The mindless minions line up to protect the big money interests from the consequences of their tort{u}ous conduct.

Whey did you alter my statement? The word "tortious" is correct:

Main Entry: tor·tious
Pronunciation:\ˈtȯr-shəs\
Function:adjective
Date:1544
: implying or involving tort

ican711nm wrote:

No Debra, those you call "the mindless minions" are not mindless, but they are minions.

Quote:
Main Entry: 1min·ion
...
3 : one highly esteemed and favored
...

You really think you're held in high esteem? They're laughing at you. They're ecstatic to have a large pool of brain-washable morons, incapable of thinking for themselves, who lick their ****-covered boots and carry their water. You're the Igor to their Dr. Frankenstein. Here you are:

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:P5tJKdWVj-MtxM::api.ning.com/files/i*nP0U8h6tkydWEBXO6srISFXgbt6UCymSfZalfrJ7PKkZwWWOyZQc6iEVCP6MNhCamtVN8alXCv6omPajCDYqyLsM4XFjhF/igor.jpg

ican711nm wrote:

Unlike others, the minions recognize that tort reform to reduce unwarranted civil suits, not only helps the "big money interests," it also helps those who pay the "big money interests" for their products and services. The prices of those products and services provided the minions by "big money interests" include the cost of unwarranted civil suits. Obviously, reducing those unwarranted civil suits reduces the prices the minions have to pay for those products and services.

The rules of civil procedure already weed out frivolous lawsuits. But you're happy to have countless numbers of people maimed and killed, without holding the tortious bastards responsible, just so you can save a fictitious penny? The "big money interests" are going to charge whatever the market will bear regardless of your efforts to insulate them from liability.

If you poison your neighbor's water, you go to jail. If a profit-hungry company poisons the water supply for an entire community with carcinogens, it's okay with you that thousands of people will get cancer and endure incredible suffering and untimely deaths so long as that company is rewarded and continues to fill its vaults with huge sacks of money.

If your children are victims of a explosive inferno caused by a defective product, and some burn to death in screaming agony while others are maimed and scarred and doomed to suffer for the rest of their lives, then that's okay with you so long as the bastards who could have prevented the inferno make **** loads of money. If you sue the bastards, your previous efforts to make it difficult for you to state a claim, to establish liability, and to cap damages might net your kids $1.99 for their pain and suffering. Good for you. Pat yourself on the back. Minion.

2 Replies

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/jelielsdistrurbance/malkin.jpg

Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Whey did you alter my statement? The word "tortious" is correct

I think tort{u}ous more appropriate, considering that the prevailing tort{i}ous conduct by lawyers in their fraudulent class action suits are torturing our economy.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

You really think you're held in high esteem?

I surely do! I'm held in high esteem by many of those I hold in high esteem.

Sorry, Debra, I don't hold you in high esteem, not because you don't hold me in high esteem, but because too many of your opinions appear to me to be unsupported by reality.

Here's one of your many opinions that appear to me to be unsupported by reality.: "They're laughing at you. They're ecstatic to have a large pool of brain-washable morons, incapable of thinking for themselves, who lick their ****-covered boots and carry their water. You're the Igor to their Dr. Frankenstein."

Torts to recover real damage caused by actual careless or willfull people are easily justified. Torts without just cause to obtain high incomes for fraudulent lawyers are not justified.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

Anyone who writes a statement like that has many loose nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, thumb tacks, cotter pins, knives, and broken glass accumulating in their noggin ... Oh yes, and they are not to be taken seriously!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
You really think you're held in high esteem?

I surely do! I'm held in high esteem by many of those I hold in high esteem.

Sorry, Debra, I don't hold you in high esteem, not because you don't hold me in high esteem, but because too many of your opinions appear to me to be unsupported by reality.

Here's one of your many opinions that appear to me to be unsupported by reality.: "They're laughing at you. They're ecstatic to have a large pool of brain-washable morons, incapable of thinking for themselves, who lick their ****-covered boots and carry their water. You're the Igor to their Dr. Frankenstein."

Torts to recover real damage caused by actual careless or willfull people are easily justified. Torts without just cause to obtain high incomes for fraudulent lawyers are not justified.

Conservatives were up in arms and ready to tar and feather the female vendor who sold anti-Obama merchandise to the Obama haters because she herself was not an Obama hater. Foxfyre denounced her endeavor to make a profit as an "unethical business practice." And yet, you conservative folks embrace unethical business practices when you seek to shield big money interests from liability for their wrongdoing.

You claim to be the protectors of the constitution, yet you actively seek to deprive people of their rights secured by the constitution to petition the courts for redress of grievances and to trial by jury. You want the courthouse doors slammed shut because you willingly and blindly drink the corporate kool-ade. "Corporations seeking to evade responsibility for negligence have spent billions of dollars misinforming the public about the civil justice system."

See The Righteous Cause of Justice

It appears that their misinformation campaign was successful where you're concerned because you're not willing to think for yourself. You slurp up their false talking points and repeat them like a good little minion.

Ican = Igor.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm, a/k/a Igor wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

Anyone who writes a statement like that has many loose nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, thumb tacks, cotter pins, knives, and broken glass accumulating in their noggin ... Oh yes, and they are not to be taken seriously!

It's not surprising that you would take my words and use them because you're trained to take the talking points of your greed-mongering puppeteers and vomit them out repeatedly. Igor doesn't have an original thought.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

Anyone who writes a statement like that has many loose nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, thumb tacks, cotter pins, knives, and broken glass accumulating in their noggin ... Oh yes, and they are not to be taken seriously!

Correct. Also, since I can't remember the last time Debra competently or accurately or honestly represented the words or stated opinion of anybody on A2K that he doesn't like, why would his opinion of Michelle Malkin be considered to be represented accurately?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

and she accuses anybody else of kabuki ?? please.

and excuse me, but what the hell makes her such a big authority ? what has she ever done besides write radical right wing broadsides?

degree in Poli-Sci? no. degree in Philosophy? no. a degree in Economics? nope. a law degree,...maybe? uh-uhh.. English. that's all. after switching from a major in music halfway through.

oh, wait. her husband used to work for Rand. that must be it!

kabuki ? shuhhhh... funny coming from one who's got nothing but smoke and mirrors.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

I can accept that you didn't like the way she said it, but what did Michelle say in that interview that you don't think she could back up? That she didn't back up in her book for instance? Do you not fault Matt Lauer for pushing her, almost demanding that she say it? Was his tone and demeanor less offensive than hers?

Do you appreciate those who deal in vague innuendo better? Those who engage in double speak instead of coming right out and saying what they mean?

Do you or do you not appreciate those who come right out and saying what you are thinking especially if you might think twice before saying it?

Have you ever appreciated anybody who did that when they said something you didn't agree with?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Michelle Malkin: Purveyor of Hate Speech

Anyone who takes this woman seriously has many loose screws rattling around in the noggin.

Anyone who writes a statement like that has many loose nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, thumb tacks, cotter pins, knives, and broken glass accumulating in their noggin ... Oh yes, and they are not to be taken seriously!

Correct. Also, since I can't remember the last time Debra competently or accurately or honestly represented the words or stated opinion of anybody on A2K that he doesn't like, why would his opinion of Michelle Malkin be considered to be represented accurately?

Foxfyre, a/k/a/ Igor II, is another right-wing mindless minion, never expressing an original thought, who merely repeats the talking points of her greed-mongering puppeteers. Thus, it is not surprising that Igor II is promoting the buggy-eyed rantings of a right-wing extremist and despicable purveyor of hate, Michelle Malkin.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre, a/k/a/ Igor II, is another right-wing mindless minion, never expressing an original thought, who merely repeats the talking points of her greed-mongering puppeteers. Thus, it is not surprising that Igor II is promoting the buggy-eyed rantings of a right-wing extremist and despicable purveyor of hate, Michelle Malkin.

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Your silly hysterical post is duly noted!

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

being completely honest, i am absolutely perturbed with you these days. i've always tried to deal with you in good faith. now i come to find that you've had a hidden agenda about healthcare the whole time. that has really been bothering me for several days. seriously disappointed.

and i am all done putting up with the ultra right wing crap tossers that have passed for good conservative points of view. malkin is one of them.

forget matt lauer. it ain't about tone, it's about content. and malkin, like hannity, limbaugh, coulter and the rest of the "i hate liberals! i hate liberals!" crowd, is just another empty and fatuous opportunist.

and don't try to play tit for tat and start going off about michael moore. he's just as bad as his counterparts.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

being completely honest, i am absolutely perturbed with you these days. i've always tried to deal with you in good faith. now i come to find that you've had a hidden agenda about healthcare the whole time. that has really been bothering me for several days. seriously disappointed.

and i am all done putting up with the ultra right wing crap tossers that have passed for good conservative points of view. malkin is one of them.

forget matt lauer. it ain't about tone, it's about content. and malkin, like hannity, limbaugh, coulter and the rest of the "i hate liberals! i hate liberals!" crowd, is just another empty and fatuous opportunist.

and don't try to play tit for tat and start going off about michael moore. he's just as bad as his counterparts.

What hidden agenda do I have about healthcare? I thought I have been 100% up front about that. And how does that factor into a discussion about Michelle Malkin?

And is it unkind to ask you to support your reasons for speaking unkindly of somebody? I didn't ask you to love her. Or agree with her. I just asked for an example from the interview being discussed and explanation for why she is wrong. Bad. Hateful. Or saying something she can't back up.

I didn't bring up Michael Moore. You did. I wasn't even thinking Michael Moore. But I think it is a legitimate question to ask if Matt Lauer irritated you in that interview as much as Michelle obviously did. (For the record, I thought both handled it very well and he didn't irritate me in the least either.)

I am having this same discussion with folks on three different boards too. And the difference in dynamics here on A2K is fascinating when compared to how those other discussions are going.

It is surely true that each 'community' develops its own character and personality.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm, a/k/a Igor wrote:

Your silly hysterical post is duly noted!

noted? You're borrowing from Igor II's over-used repertoire. Someday, you might surprise me with something original. I won't count on it, but it would be refreshing for a change.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

ican-Igor known as the copy/paste king of a2k doesn't even know what's being discussed most of the time, and he thinks his observation about others has any meaning. The only thing hysterical around here is you, ican! You're full of laughs.

0 Replies

I just put a new book on my wish list and I am pretty sure I will be able to recommend it to all serious history buffs, most particularly MAC history buffs: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers

From the promo:

--The Founders were conservatives by today's standards -- for gun rights, limited government, and religion in public life

--George Washington fervently believed that God Himself saved the Revolution

--Thomas Jefferson would have vetoed all federal domestic programs of the last one hundred years

--John Adams considered virtue, morality, and religion to the bulwarks of a free republic

--Alexander Hamilton did not believe in direct taxation or a large government debt

--John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia, predicted the problems of modern state capitalism and central banking

--The Founders believed in states' rights -- including the right to secede from the Union

Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and finer bookstore everywhere:

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/39440000/39442855.JPG

Tom Brokow called the WWII generation "The Greatest Generation". This author says the WWII generation came in second. He thinks the generation of our Founders were the 'greatest generation'.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

This book series with a conservative/libertarian viewpoint - "The Politically Incorrect Guide to ..." - is published by Regnery Publishing since some time about various topics which might interest you.

1 Reply

The GOP continues its self-destructive behavior. Now it's the birthers.

Obama birth controversy puts GOP in risky position
birthers: Political ammo or reason for being labeled kook?

08/02/09 12:05 am

An Internet controversy that raged during the presidential campaign has resurfaced in recent weeks, posing more of a threat to Republicans than the intended target, President Barack Obama.

The “birther” movement, as it’s called, claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but Kenya or Indonesia and therefore is not eligible to be president. The birth certificate that has been released and authenticated by numerous Hawaii state officials is a fraud, they say, and isn’t the original anyway.

But after months in relative obscurity, the birthers have muscled their way onto the national stage.

Eleven Republican legislators have endorsed a bill that would require future presidential candidates to submit birth certificates to prove their citizenship.

more:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/831328.html

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know