65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 11:48 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Rush is just now playing a tape with Dunn, a whitehouse insider, saying one of her favorite philosophers is Mao Tse Tung. Incredible. This is a Marxist guy responsible for untold suffering and starvation is he not? Is he also your hero, cyclops?


Do you literally spend all your time listening to and repeating Limbaugh? It certainly seems so. And the funny thing is, you then turn around and accuse others of 'getting their marching orders' from some Liberal group. You don't seem to even see the contradiction.

As for the Mao thing, your political leaders have been quoting him approvingly for a long, long time. Somehow, Beck never got around to criticizing them for it.

Quote:
Will Beck denounce conservatives who've cited Mao, Lenin, Viet Cong?
13 hours and 23 minutes ago " 16 Comments

On his Fox News program, Glenn Beck aired a clip of White House communications director Anita Dunn calling Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa two of her "favorite political philosophers" and used those comments to falsely link Dunn to the murder of tens of millions of Chinese under Mao's reign. But numerous conservatives have approvingly cited the tactics of Mao, Vladimir Lenin, and the Viet Cong, stated that they had used those tactics in their political work, or have otherwise highlighted their philosophies -- leading Media Matters for America to question whether or not Beck will denounce them next.
Beck falsely linked Dunn to the atrocities of "her hero" Mao

But Dunn never praised Mao's ideology or atrocities in video Beck aired. In a video of a speech to high school graduates earlier this year, Dunn cited anecdotes about Mao and Mother Teresa to counsel that "[e]verybody has their own path." From the video, which Beck aired on his October 15 Fox News program:

DUNN: A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together, and that answers the "Why not?" question. There's usually not a good reason.

And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.

You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.

And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.

Beck invoked Mao's atrocities while criticizing Dunn. After commenting that Mao "killed 70 million people," Beck falsely claimed those killings were the work of Dunn's "hero."

BECK: Stop. I wanted to make sure that we at least played the -- there's more -- but I wanted to make sure that we didn't take it out of context. We showed you the nice things she said about Mother Teresa, OK?

So, the reason why this phone hasn't run all week is because the most important political philosopher for her is Mao Zedong -- oh, and Mother Teresa. The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th-century leader is her favorite philosopher? How can that man be your favorite anything? He killed 70 million people. That would be like me saying to you, "Oh, you know who my favorite political philosopher is? Adolf Hitler. Have you read Mein Kampf? Just fight your fight, like Hitler did." It's insanity! This is her hero's work! Seventy million dead! (Glenn Beck, 10/15/09)

Goldwater "alter ego" said he "followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung"


Shadegg: "n all ... campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." In his 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," Richard Hofstadter wrote that Stephen C. Shadegg, adviser to Sen. Barry Goldwater during his senatorial and presidential campaigns, approvingly cited Mao and quoted him, saying that he "followed the advice of Mao" while working for Goldwater and in his other campaign work:

In his recent book, How to Win an Election, Stephen C. Shadegg cites a statement attributed to Mao Tse-tung: "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." "I would suggest," writes senator Goldwater in Why Not Victory? "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not. (Harper's Magazine, November 1964)

NYT: Shadegg "regarded as the alter ego of Senator Barry Goldwater." In its obituary of Shadegg, The New York Times described him as "a political campaign manager who was regarded as the alter ego of Senator Barry Goldwater in the Senator's unsuccessful quest for the Presidency in 1964." The Times also reported that Shadegg "for three years wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column that carried Senator Goldwater's byline," "served as Western regional director of the Goldwater forces" during his 1964 presidential campaign, and "was acknowledged as the person closest to the Senator in philosophy and as the craftsman of the Goldwater image as a staunch conservative." (The New York Times, 5/24/1990)

Beck has repeatedly called on Republicans to "get back to the conservative roots of Barry Goldwater." In two editions of his CNN Headline News program during October 2006, Beck called on Republicans to return to the practice of "Barry Goldwater" conservatism.

* Beck: "If the Republicans want to win this or any election, they need to get back to the conservative roots of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. They need to say what they mean and mean what they say. They need to do the right thing. And when I say right, I don't mean like, oops, right, it's the opposite of left. No, I mean right as in the opposite of wrong." (CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 10/26/06, retrieved from the Nexis database)

* Beck: "I also know that both parties need to change soon or else. The Republicans better find their soul and their roots, and Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater conservativism -- conservativism, or they will lose any advantage -- that was easy for me to say -- any advantage they have gained over the years. The Democrats will either shed their label as the party of Hollywood elitists and people who stand next to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for a photo op -- hello, Cindy Sheehan -- or they will destroy themselves, as well." (CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 10/30/06, from Nexis)

Cato article on " 'Leninist' Strategy" for Social Security reform reportedly laid foundation for Bush's proposal

LA Times cited 1983 Cato Journal article as part of "the groundwork" for Bush's push to change Social Security. According to Los Angeles Times staff writer Janet Hook, "[a] generation of free-market conservatives like [Cato Institute president Edward H.] Crane" had been "laying the groundwork for" "Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts." Hook then cited a 1983 Cato Journal article in which Heritage Foundation analysts Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis wrote: "It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. ... But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform." From the LA Times article, "They Invested Years in Private Accounts":

Back in 1997, proponents of overhauling Social Security met with the man who would become their most powerful convert: Texas Gov. George W. Bush, whose presidential ambitions were beginning to gel.

The governor dined with Jose Piñera, architect of Chile's 1981 shift from government pensions to worker-owned retirement accounts, in a meeting that helped bring Bush a big step closer to embracing a similar plan for Social Security in his emerging presidential platform.

"I think he wanted to support the idea but needed to be convinced," said Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, who was at the dinner. "I really think Jose convinced him."

This week, President Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts will be a centerpiece of his State of the Union address and a barnstorming tour of the country. It is a tough sell to an uncertain public, but Bush has a secret weapon: A generation of free-market conservatives like Crane and Piñera has been laying the groundwork for this debate.

"It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible," wrote Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, Heritage Foundation analysts, in a 1983 article in the Cato Journal. "But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."

Now, Bush is drawing on a deep reservoir of resources -- including policy research, ready-to-hire experts and polling on how to discuss the issue -- that conservatives have created over the last 20 years. (Los Angeles Times, 1/30/05)

Heritage analysts' article headlined "Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy." In their Cato Journal article, Butler and Germanis wrote:

As we contemplate basic reform of the Social Security system, we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy. Many critics of the present system believe, as Marx and Lenin did of capitalism, that the system's days are numbered because of its contradictory objectives or attempting to provide both welfare and insurance. All that really needs to be done, they contend, is to point out these inherent flaws to the taxpayers and to show them that Social Security would be vastly improved if it were restructured into a predominantly private system. Convinced by the undeniable facts and logic, individuals supposedly would then rise up and demand that their representatives make the appropriate reforms.

Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation experts frequently appear on Beck's show. According to a Nexis search, Cato and Heritage experts have appeared on Beck's show a total of at least 14 times in the past six months.
GOP strategist Ralph Reed approvingly cited Mao, Viet Cong

Reed reportedly cited Mao approvingly. A 1992 Seattle Times article reported that Republican strategist and former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed said in an "interview with The Phoenix Gazette" that "Mao Tse-Tung said politics is war without bloodshed. Clearly, there are some metaphors that sit nicely with politics." From the article:

Televangelist Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition plans to distribute in Washington state an estimated 500,000 copies of its 1992 Voter Guide - a move one news report describes as part of a long-term plan for conservative Christians to control U.S. politics by the end of the century.

But Ralph Reed Jr., executive director of the Chesapeake, Va.-based coalition, called The Phoenix Gazette story "stupid" and said the Christian Coalition's guide was nonpartisan, laying out where candidates for the White House, Congress and the statehouse stand on issues ranging from abortion and gay rights to educational vouchers and a balanced-budget amendment.

[...]

In a recent phone interview with The Phoenix Gazette, Reed said that the war metaphor is apt.

"Mao Tse-Tung said politics is war without bloodshed," he said. "Clearly, there are some metaphors that sit nicely with politics." (The Seattle Times, 10/25/1992, from Nexis)

Reed called for using Viet Cong-style political tactics. In The Art of Political Warfare, John J. Pitney Jr., a contributing editor to the libertarian journal Reason, wrote that Reed explained the Christian Coalition's strategy of sometimes backing " 'stealth candidates' for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support" by saying, "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. ... It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective." From The Art of Political Warfare:

In the 1950s, GOP activist Stephen Shadegg explicitly followed Mao Zedong's "cell group" model. Just as Mao's cells would lay the basis for guerrilla warfare, so Shadegg's cells would quietly build support for his candidates apart from formal political organizations. "The individuals we enlisted became a secret weapon possessing strength, mobility and real impact," Shadegg wrote. "They were able to infiltrate centers of opposition support, keep us informed of opposition tactics, disseminate information, enlist other supporters and to do all these things completely unnoticed by the opposition. In the early 1990s, local affiliates of the Christian Coalition sometimes backed "stealth candidates" for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support. Ralph Reed, longtime director of the Christian Coalition, once summed up the value of the quiet approach: "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. ... It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective." (The Art of Political Warfare, University of Oklahoma Press, 2000).

Reed has repeatedly appeared on Fox News. According to a search of Nexis for "Ralph Reed," he has appeared on Fox News at least four times in 2009, most recently on the August 17 edition of Hannity.
Bush recommended Mao bio to adviser Karl Rove

Rove: President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography." From Rove's December 26, 2008, Wall Street Journal column:

With only five days left, my lead is insurmountable. The competition can't catch up. And for the third year in a row, I'll triumph. In second place will be the president of the United States. Our contest is not about sports or politics. It's about books.

It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, my goal was to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest.

By coincidence, we were both reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."

We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction's unhappy end). We discussed the books and wrote thank-you notes to some authors.



It's getting increasingly hard for me to believe that you have any original thoughts at all, Okie.

Now. Will you do me the favor of answering the question: in what ways does the government not reward families enough?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 11:49 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I will answer all of your questions when you answer mine, such as did Obama lie when he said his daughter had meningitus?


I already answered that:

A, he did not, and

B, your insistence on pushing this issue is the sign of a mental problem you are experiencing.

Cycloptichorn
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:04 pm
Being Denied the Right to Life

By Ashley LoBuglio

October 15, 2009 - 5:05pm ET


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Innumerable, extremely sick Americans have heard the empty phrases “out of network” and “medically unnecessary,” from avaricious powerhouses that have usurped the lives of our fellow Americans. The current US health care system does not only plague the 47 million currently uninsured but also those with a health insurance plan.

One such example is Dawn Smith, a young woman who suffers from two brain tumors. Dawn has been continuously denied the medical care that doctors say is critical to save her life. Three doctors from three renowned health care systems in the metro Atlanta area informed Dawn that her “only chance for a cure was to see a specialist at Cleveland Clinic or Washington University’s Center for Advanced Medicine.” Yet, her health insurance company, CIGNA, has denied these essential treatments.

Dawn calls the insurance company callous and expresses her feeling of complete “insignificance,” when being repeatedly denied care after she was diagnosed with the brain tumors in 2005 and 2007. Dawn had religiously paid her insurance premiums for six years.

Dawn states in a letter she wrote to H. Edward Hanway, CEO of CIGNA, “Meanwhile, my symptoms worsen. Debilitating electric-shock-type pain racks my body and shoots through my head. I have sudden, painful seizures, sometimes knocking me to the ground. The seizure medications barely help, while their side effects ravage my body.”

Dawn has suffered from severe pain and the foreboding threat of death simply because these profit-driven insurance companies have decided that they don’t feel like forking over the cash to this critically ill patient. What a travesty!

To top it off, earlier this year CIGNA increased her monthly rate from $366.75 to $753.47, more than double the cost! Recently, Smith was also told that the co-pay on her anti-epileptic medicine was increasing from $10 every two-and-a-half months to $1,115. After receiving press attention, the cost was reduced back to where it was.


Dawn’s story is a harrowing representation of the everyday injustices caused by the greed of health insurance companies. Dawn states that during her fight she has met numerous others who have been denied care by their insurance companies and has begun a website (itcouldhappentoanyone.com) as a result.

Moveon.org, a political action committee, has joined Dawn in her fight for justice and demanded action. Consequently, CIGNA has now decided to pay attention to Dawn’s pleas after disregarding her for two years. CIGNA is now agreeing to fund some of Dawn’s necessary medical treatments and tests. Dawn will continue her campaign for health insurance reform by visiting Hanway in Philadelphia today and demanding that this doesn’t happen to her or other “CIGNA insureds” again. She asks people to stand with her in keeping the health insurance companies honest.

Shouldn’t the critically ill be placing all their limited energy towards recovering and not towards constantly struggling to receive necessary medical attention?

There is only one true solution to this question: a public health insurance option. Dawn states that if the public option were available, she could go to the specialists and get the treatments she needs.

Thankfully, some of our Congressional leaders who truly understand the narcissistic nature of these companies, such as Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, are in support of a public option:

The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst. ... Our focus in Congress must be on the inclusion of a public health insurance option in the marketplace to protect families by creating greater competition and driving down costs." -- Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.

It is imperative that the Senate reaches an agreement and decides to pass the public option. If not, more Americans will suffer from unnecessary emotional and physical anguish. Some will even loose their lives.

Take the case of Nataline Sarkysian, a 17-yr old girl with leukemia, for example. CIGNA delayed and denied her a liver transplant until public outcry intervened, however, by that time it was too late to save her.

When children pass away as the result of being denied life-saving treatment, it’s obvious that this entire situation has gone completely out of control!

Even more horrifying, when Nataline’s family went to Philadelphia to confront CIGNA they were taunted and given the middle finger. These people can’t really be THAT heartless. Or can they?

--ourfuture.org
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If you want to try to convince everyone that conservatives admire and follow Mao Tse Tung, forget it, cyclops.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I will answer all of your questions when you answer mine, such as did Obama lie when he said his daughter had meningitus?


I already answered that:

A, he did not, and

B, your insistence on pushing this issue is the sign of a mental problem you are experiencing.

Cycloptichorn

Well, the evidence says you are wrong. When people make false statements, that means they are essentially lying, knowingly or unknowingly. You never produced one iota of evidence to support your ill founded answer. Now if you classify a desire to determine the honesty of one's president as a mental problem, you have a very serious problem. I think before one believes a president, you would want to know if he deserves the believablity. I don't think he does, he has repeatedly misrepresented issues and repeatedly broken campaign promises.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:27 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

If you want to try to convince everyone that conservatives admire and follow Mao Tse Tung, forget it, cyclops.


Because you won't admit it, even if the evidence is there?

Admit it; you got suckered, again, by useless bullshit that your masters in the Conservative Media told you to be upset about. Don't you EVER bother to check facts before coming here to repeat stuff?

McCain spent his whole candidacy quoting Mao, and neither you nor any other Conservative called him out for it -

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/10/take-this-red-book-and-shove-it.html

Quote:
Friday, October 16, 2009
Take This Red Book and Shove It, Wingnuts.


I see the wingnuts are having a collective ragegasm because heretofore unknown White House flack Anita Dunn favorably quoted Mao.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a certain Republican candidate for president who did the same -- three times?

McCain on a blogger conference call:

The WWS: "How you doin' Senator?"

McCain: "You know Michael, in the words of Chairman Mao, it's always darkest before it's totally black...(laughing)

McCain in New Hampshire:

Despite the meltdown of his near-bankrupt campaign, McCain showed no outward signs of despair--not even when one reporter impishly asked him whether we have a better chance of winning in Iraq than he does at winning the nomination. I braced for a flash of McCain's famous temper, but instead he just chuckled. "In the words of Chairman Mao, it's always darkest before it's black," McCain cracked.

McCain on Letterman:

"I think we had some difficulties and righted the ship," McCain told Letterman. "For a while there, I was reminded of the words of Chairman Mao, who said it's always darkest before it's totally black."


Totally busted, man. Totally. Now, can't we move on back to health care, and can you answer my simple question? You did say you would.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:29 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I will answer all of your questions when you answer mine, such as did Obama lie when he said his daughter had meningitus?


I already answered that:

A, he did not, and

B, your insistence on pushing this issue is the sign of a mental problem you are experiencing.

Cycloptichorn

Well, the evidence says you are wrong. When people make false statements, that means they are essentially lying, knowingly or unknowingly. You never produced one iota of evidence to support your ill founded answer.


Yes, I did. I linked to a CBS article debunking it when you first brought it up. So, when you state that I never produced any evidence, does that make you a knowing or unknowing liar?

Quote:
Now if you classify a desire to determine the honesty of one's president as a mental problem, you have a very serious problem. I think before one believes a president, you would want to know if he deserves the believablity. I don't think he does, he has repeatedly misrepresented issues and repeatedly broken campaign promises.


Please. You wouldn't believe anything positive about Obama whatsoever, because you hate and fear him.

I've never heard you denounce Bush as a liar, not once, even though he made false statements many times. In fact, you and others defended him, because you said he 'believed they were true.' You seem to have modified your standard somewhat in the last few years.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't know if you are correct or not about the quoting by McCain or whatever, but regardless, quoting somebody does not make that person an admirer. Where do you get your ability to reason, cyclops, and where do you get the stuff you post here, cut and paste from fellow idealogues, and leftists? Favorite trick of leftists, accuse your opposition of what you yourself do. Read Saul Alinsky.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The CBS article you linked had nothing to refute it, nothing, as far as I could determine. Point out the direct quote if you have it. If you can't, I will be hoping for an apology.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If okie is suffering from a "mental problem," how is it that you continue to answer his questions?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:36 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I don't know if you are correct or not about the quoting by McCain or whatever, but regardless, quoting somebody does not make that person an admirer. Where do you get your ability to reason, cyclops, and where do you get the stuff you post here, cut and paste from fellow idealogues, and leftists? Favorite trick of leftists, accuse your opposition of what you yourself do. Read Saul Alinsky.


I linked to the post that contains the McCain quotes, and inside that post are links to the originals, Okie. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

You get your information straight from Rush Limbaugh and right-wing blogs. You don't even pretend to hide the fact that this is true. So where do you get off accusing others of 'cutting and pasting' from their sources? Do you honestly not believe that there is a contradiction there?

jeez

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:36 pm
Another huge point for you, Mr. cyclops. I do not hate Obama. Now get one thing straight, I do not hate anyone, and I do not hate somebody merely because I think they are wrong and we disagree. One thing I have noticed about liberals, if a person disagrees with them, they accuse you of hating them. And if you don't put your stamp of approval on everything they do or believe, you hate them. What a weird mindset, cyclops. Where do you guys get this mindset? Now hatred for Bush, there were people, even celebrities openly wishing he would die, now thats hatred. That is a huge difference.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:37 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

The CBS article you linked had nothing to refute it, nothing, as far as I could determine. Point out the direct quote if you have it. If you can't, I will be hoping for an apology.


I have nothing to apologize for. I would remind you that, by your standards, you are a liar; I did post something to support my position. You disagree with my evidence, but that doesn't mean that I didn't post evidence to back up my position. Are you a liar, Okie?

You also have refused to answer my question, after promising to do so: In what ways do we not support families, on a Federal level?

Was your promise also a lie?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh some, not all the time, and it may be a surprise to you, I do not always agree with him, nor him me, and I also listen to all kinds of people, including friends and neighbors. It is a free country, last I checked. Get over it, I know this is a hard pill for you to swallow, that not everyone agrees with you.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

The CBS article you linked had nothing to refute it, nothing, as far as I could determine. Point out the direct quote if you have it. If you can't, I will be hoping for an apology.


I have nothing to apologize for. I would remind you that, by your standards, you are a liar; I did post something to support my position. You disagree with my evidence, but that doesn't mean that I didn't post evidence to back up my position. Are you a liar, Okie?

You also have refused to answer my question, after promising to do so: In what ways do we not support families, on a Federal level?

Was your promise also a lie?

Cycloptichorn

Provide your evidence, buddy, and calling me a liar is over the top, provide your evidence, or provide an apology.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:40 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Another huge point for you, Mr. cyclops. I do not hate Obama. Now get one thing straight, I do not hate anyone, and I do not hate somebody merely because I think they are wrong and we disagree.


Sure you do - hate and fear. That is what you constantly display towards Obama. On a daily basis.

Quote:
One thing I have noticed about liberals, if a person disagrees with them, they accuse you of hating them.


Oh, and the term 'Bush-hater' was never thrown around by you and other Conservatives? 'Bush-derangement syndrome?' Man, your memory is like a ******* sieve, you let anything inconvenient in the past just stream on' through.

Quote:
And if you don't put your stamp of approval on everything they do or believe, you hate them. What a weird mindset, cyclops. Where do you guys get this mindset? Now hatred for Bush, there were people, even celebrities openly wishing he would die, now thats hatred. That is a huge difference.


What's the difference? Your side, and not just celebrities but politicians, started out from day one disrespecting the president, calling him a socialist, a fascist, accusing him of wanting to take over the whole country and kill old people. You yourself have said those very things from day one.

Unbelievable, you are truly blind to the similarities between your own actions and those you criticize in others...

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:42 pm
@okie,
I already posted it in the other thread, you read it, you admitted you read it, there's nothing to provide; you've already been provided. Go look it up.

You specifically claimed that I didn't do something that you KNOW I did do; that makes you, by your own definition, a liar. Do you disagree with that?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


Unbelievable, you are truly blind to the similarities between your own actions and those you criticize in others...

Cycloptichorn


Telling words from one who lives them himself.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:43 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


Unbelievable, you are truly blind to the similarities between your own actions and those you criticize in others...

Cycloptichorn


Telling words from one who lives them himself.


Is this meant to be ironic, Comrade? Laughing

If you intend for your criticism to be meaningful, perhaps you could include an example or two. However, because what you really wanted to achieve was more of a hit-and-run dig against me, without actually extending yourself intellectually, we both know that you have no intention of doing this. It's much, much easier just to make snide comments.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is this meant to be ironic, Comrade? Laughing

If you intend for your criticism to be meaningful, perhaps you could include an example or two. However, because what you really wanted to achieve was more of a hit-and-run dig against me, without actually extending yourself intellectually, we both know that you have no intention of doing this. It's much, much easier just to make snide comments.

Cycloptichorn

A little irony is never far from the thoughts of a sane person. It's also good for the soul.

Alas, denial is a powerful human impulse.

How do you presume to know my thoughts and intentions? Do you really believe that any additional intellectual rigor was requiredf?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 06:36:44