Chicago Thugs and Global Warming

[Wry Catcher]

Once again my post brings out the mindless lib!

Every time your response is not to the post, but to the poster, I know that I'm on the right track.

Not one error in an extensive post which reveals both the motive for the global warming scam and the connectons necessary to pull it off...

and you find references to the poster dispositive.

Now, help me with this, so that I can address you correctly: are you a fool, or merely a lock-step apologist for the libs?

Well, shill or lemming?

Neither. I simply wonder what motivates you? Why do you hate Obama? Hate Democrats? Hate liberals?
In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side, something in their past affected their thinking. Your posts reflect a self righteous, arrogant, captious and humorless person.

Now, Wry-Bread, you used to be so perceptive...

"...what motivates you?"

It's right up there under name! "Fighting Thugs and Libs"

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

But let me give a judgement right back: I have never hidden my perspective, and always support same with passages from readings, complete with footnote-pages.

You on the other hand, stoop to personal attack and invective without comparable support of your perspective...and you regularly imagine that you are either interested in or know about my actual life. Neither are true, of course, but the fantasy serves you instead of an actual argument. Transparent.

That being said, this post of yours is more coherent than yesterday's.

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object.


And, I'll cop to 'arrogant,' but certainly not to 'humorless.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object. IN MY Experience means just that, IN MY EXPERIENCE the self righteous usuall have a dark side. It is not a premise, it is an opinion based on observation. Can I prove it? Of course not.
Nor can I prove you're a racist, ideologue, insane or an agent for the dark side. But, by observation, it is my opinion that you hate Obama, hate liberals and hate Democrats. Maybe you don't, maybe you simply need attention and your constant efforts to draw attention to yourself provide evidence that this might be true. That said, I do suspect something - a major event - affected your reasoning (maybe it's me, spending over 30 years working with criminal offenders does provide one with a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others).

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ah, it was puzzling until you explained your misconceptions.

I found the blog more than passing interesting...and therefore offered it on the board.
a. it is not my blog
b. the provenance is found in the link, which, it seems, you either did not see, or did not read.
c. at your advancing age, the specs must need updating, as there are quotation marks at the start of the blog and at the end.
d. I reorganized it so that it would be easier to read, and only included the parts that would have import.
e. the style of my post is beyond your input.

So, it seems after criticism of me, you will now attempt criticism of the form...
clearly you are unable to find fault with the substance.

and that is why you dance around challenging posters to find fault with YOUR post, sure.

i repeat, you can fool yourself, but that's about it.

you can now abandon this thread and go "write" "your" next "well researched" post and then dance around as if you have finally accomplished something for real.

STILL can't find any weaknesses?

Hint: look for spelling, grammar...

Or just do what you do best: lie on your back and kick your feet, go ahead...ball your little fists.

Poor baby...this has been such a trying couple of days.

this is the real person: the plagiarizing wannabe "pundit" with not an ounce of decency and humility, always deflecting by attacking. always failing.

keep up the shitty work.

i eagerly await your next copy&paste that you try to sell as your own brain child.

 

[Luissa]

"1. A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt in 2007-2008. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged.

2. ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to “eco-litmus” tests.


3. Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. In 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists. This JOYCE FOUNDATION completely funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange where so-called “Environmental Carbon Credits” are traded.

4. ShoreBank.has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX).In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.


a. One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton.
b. Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner.

c. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
d. Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

e. The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.
f. When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

g. Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
h. Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

i. Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.


5. Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM). Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs

6. Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies."
OBAMA —- The Changeling The Story Behind The Story

Personally, I would rather bail out a small bank, rather than someone like AIG.

 

[PoliticalChic]

and that is why you dance around challenging posters to find fault with YOUR post, sure.

i repeat, you can fool yourself, but that's about it.

you can now abandon this thread and go "write" "your" next "well researched" post and then dance around as if you have finally accomplished something for real.

STILL can't find any weaknesses?

Hint: look for spelling, grammar...

Or just do what you do best: lie on your back and kick your feet, go ahead...ball your little fists.

Poor baby...this has been such a trying couple of days.

this is the real person: the plagiarizing wannabe "pundit" with not an ounce of decency and humility, always deflecting by attacking. always failing.

keep up the shitty work.

i eagerly await your next copy&paste that you try to sell as your own brain child.

Oh, no...you have been reduced to the last bastion of the miscreant , prevarication.

"...plagiarizing wannabe "pundit"..."

Now, you know very well, and can check same, that I use quotation marks fore and aft, and a link a the bottom to the original blog....


Defeat makes folks like you resort to the most ignoble behavior...

so you are revealed.

My work here is done.

 

[L.K.Eder]

STILL can't find any weaknesses?

Hint: look for spelling, grammar...

Or just do what you do best: lie on your back and kick your feet, go ahead...ball your little fists.

Poor baby...this has been such a trying couple of days.

this is the real person: the plagiarizing wannabe "pundit" with not an ounce of decency and humility, always deflecting by attacking. always failing.

keep up the shitty work.

i eagerly await your next copy&paste that you try to sell as your own brain child.

Oh, no...you have been reduced to the last bastion of the miscreant , prevarication.

"...plagiarizing wannabe "pundit"..."

Now, you know very well, and can check same, that I use quotation marks fore and aft, and a link a the bottom to the original blog....


Defeat makes folks like you resort to the most ignoble behavior...

so you are revealed.

My work here is done.

yes, now go copy and paste the next blog.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. So let's dispense with the cap and trade. No carbon credits. Simply an order that says that almost all use of fossil fuels will end by 2021. Now that would actually address the problem.

You Conservatives have denied the science for 22 years now, ever since Dr. Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988. You use the same tactics, and even the same people that were used to deny the ill effects of tobacco.

No matter what we do now, because of the inertia in the climate system, we will see at least 30 to 50 years additional warming. Warming that is already leading to feedbacks putting more GHGs into the atmosphere from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates.

When the inevitable consequences arrive, there will be people like myself saying very unnice things to people like PC.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither. I simply wonder what motivates you? Why do you hate Obama? Hate Democrats? Hate liberals?
In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side, something in their past affected their thinking. Your posts reflect a self righteous, arrogant, captious and humorless person.

Now, Wry-Bread, you used to be so perceptive...

"...what motivates you?"

It's right up there under name! "Fighting Thugs and Libs"

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

But let me give a judgement right back: I have never hidden my perspective, and always support same with passages from readings, complete with footnote-pages.

You on the other hand, stoop to personal attack and invective without comparable support of your perspective...and you regularly imagine that you are either interested in or know about my actual life. Neither are true, of course, but the fantasy serves you instead of an actual argument. Transparent.

That being said, this post of yours is more coherent than yesterday's.

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object.


And, I'll cop to 'arrogant,' but certainly not to 'humorless.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object. IN MY Experience means just that, IN MY EXPERIENCE the self righteous usuall have a dark side. It is not a premise, it is an opinion based on observation. Can I prove it? Of course not.
Nor can I prove you're a racist, ideologue, insane or an agent for the dark side. But, by observation, it is my opinion that you hate Obama, hate liberals and hate Democrats. Maybe you don't, maybe you simply need attention and your constant efforts to draw attention to yourself provide evidence that this might be true. That said, I do suspect something - a major event - affected your reasoning (maybe it's me, spending over 30 years working with criminal offenders does provide one with a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others).

Oops... I missed this post..

Now, see, I'm glad I read this, as it obviates that 'humorless' thing: I got a big kick out of the phrase: "...a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others..."

Why use the term 'suspicion'? I tell all that I believe liberals, progressives are wrong in thinging and in behavior and not good for the future of the country.
Then I post indicia of same.
Get it?

For most normal folks, "a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others" usually doesn't mean fantasizing about, maligning, denegrating those that one doesn't agree with.

Of course, the old saying "one can only judge others by oneself," might suggest that you have misplaced the nasty things that you say...sort of like a boomarang.

By my lights, if one disagrees, it behooves same to offer counter arguments. In short, you might appear more intelligent if you spent your time defending your position rather than attacking your opponent.
You might try that when you get really bored.


Now, write soon!

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK. So let's dispense with the cap and trade. No carbon credits. Simply an order that says that almost all use of fossil fuels will end by 2021. Now that would actually address the problem.

You Conservatives have denied the science for 22 years now, ever since Dr. Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988. You use the same tactics, and even the same people that were used to deny the ill effects of tobacco.

No matter what we do now, because of the inertia in the climate system, we will see at least 30 to 50 years additional warming. Warming that is already leading to feedbacks putting more GHGs into the atmosphere from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates.

When the inevitable consequences arrive, there will be people like myself saying very unnice things to people like PC.

Rocky! Where ya been? "Back to the Past' Convention?

Ok, enough small talk: first, there is no problem, merely the normal ebb and flow of natural cycles.

Second, there is no problem, merely the normal ebb and flow of natural cycles.

Third, well...you know.

Now, if said problem really existed, shouldn't you greeniacs propose bigger cars and higher home temperatures, you know...to use up that nasty fossil fuel so we can get on to horses and nice cool caves?

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good, PC. A bit of mindless derision. You and Crusader, a pair to draw to.

Now, from your very political point of view, Conservative politics demands that the rapid warming that we are seeing have nothing at all to do with GHGs. Even if all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger, that has no validity in your alternative reality.

Before this decade is out, this is going to be the major topic at all levels. One more major crop failure, and even the rich nations will see problems in feeding all their citizens. We are already seeing that kind of problem here, because of the semi-oligarchy that our nation has become.

 

[edthecynic]

Is there a point to this post?

Secret message? Need a code ring to fathom it?

C'mon, you can be more articulate..

The message is you must be a woman without a man.

July 22, 2008
RUSH: when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south.

Now, MedsInAMinute, is this some sort of proposal?

Why, I never expected.....

Meds, it's either Rush or Me!

So you admit your MessiahRushie is right and you need a man to make you less stupid.

November 6, 2008
RUSH: Snerdley, do you remember we had a survey not long ago about unmarried women, women that are not in a relationship are stupider than women who are in a relationship?* Remember that?*

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, Wry-Bread, you used to be so perceptive...

"...what motivates you?"

It's right up there under name! "Fighting Thugs and Libs"

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

But let me give a judgement right back: I have never hidden my perspective, and always support same with passages from readings, complete with footnote-pages.

You on the other hand, stoop to personal attack and invective without comparable support of your perspective...and you regularly imagine that you are either interested in or know about my actual life. Neither are true, of course, but the fantasy serves you instead of an actual argument. Transparent.

That being said, this post of yours is more coherent than yesterday's.

"In my experience the self righteous usually have a dark side,..."
Tsk, tsk...quite the self serving statement, and often known as 'begging the question.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object.


And, I'll cop to 'arrogant,' but certainly not to 'humorless.'

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object. IN MY Experience means just that, IN MY EXPERIENCE the self righteous usuall have a dark side. It is not a premise, it is an opinion based on observation. Can I prove it? Of course not.
Nor can I prove you're a racist, ideologue, insane or an agent for the dark side. But, by observation, it is my opinion that you hate Obama, hate liberals and hate Democrats. Maybe you don't, maybe you simply need attention and your constant efforts to draw attention to yourself provide evidence that this might be true. That said, I do suspect something - a major event - affected your reasoning (maybe it's me, spending over 30 years working with criminal offenders does provide one with a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others).

Oops... I missed this post..

Now, see, I'm glad I read this, as it obviates that 'humorless' thing: I got a big kick out of the phrase: "...a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others..."

Why use the term 'suspicion'? I tell all that I believe liberals, progressives are wrong in thinging and in behavior and not good for the future of the country.
Then I post indicia of same.
Get it?

For most normal folks, "a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others" usually doesn't mean fantasizing about, maligning, denegrating those that one doesn't agree with.

Of course, the old saying "one can only judge others by oneself," might suggest that you have misplaced the nasty things that you say...sort of like a boomarang.

By my lights, if one disagrees, it behooves same to offer counter arguments. In short, you might appear more intelligent if you spent your time defending your position rather than attacking your opponent.
You might try that when you get really bored.


Now, write soon!

hmmm, you attack me for attacking you because you attack Obama, liberals, Democrats based on opinion ("indicia", pleassssse - I suppose that counts as a sense of humor). My healthy suspicion is based on years, decades actually, of interviews of suspects, victims and witnesses, each may or may not have had an agenda.
Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes', the theme is always the same and the end never varies. To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response. Much like GWB you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. Much like those suspects I interviewed for oh so many years who deny they've put their hand in the cookie jar even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The message is you must be a woman without a man.

July 22, 2008
RUSH: when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south.

Now, MedsInAMinute, is this some sort of proposal?

Why, I never expected.....

Meds, it's either Rush or Me!

So you admit your MessiahRushie is right and you need a man to make you less stupid.

November 6, 2008
RUSH: Snerdley, do you remember we had a survey not long ago about unmarried women, women that are not in a relationship are stupider than women who are in a relationship?* Remember that?*

You, and only you....(sigh)...

are you taken? I mean beside Rushie?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Very good, PC. A bit of mindless derision. You and Crusader, a pair to draw to.

Now, from your very political point of view, Conservative politics demands that the rapid warming that we are seeing have nothing at all to do with GHGs. Even if all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger, that has no validity in your alternative reality.

Before this decade is out, this is going to be the major topic at all levels. One more major crop failure, and even the rich nations will see problems in feeding all their citizens. We are already seeing that kind of problem here, because of the semi-oligarchy that our nation has become.

"...a pair to draw to."
I like that: a card player.
What's your fav, Old Maid? Go Fish? Oh, no....not War?

Rocky, if one could disuade you from this foolishness..the global warming scam..you might have to go back to juggling chain saws.
This is so much safer, no?

OK, Riddle me this: has the earth ever been warmer prior to the Industrial Revolution?
Does the CO2 level aways lead and correspond to global temperature?
Does the OP tie together the Chicago Thugs and the monetary basis for the global warming scam?

One more, and this will clinch it for me:The answer to this last question will determine whether you are crazy or insane. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?

 

[daveman]

OK. So let's dispense with the cap and trade. No carbon credits. Simply an order that says that almost all use of fossil fuels will end by 2021. Now that would actually address the problem.

That would be astoundingly stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You missed the point in your never ending effort to be eager to object. IN MY Experience means just that, IN MY EXPERIENCE the self righteous usuall have a dark side. It is not a premise, it is an opinion based on observation. Can I prove it? Of course not.
Nor can I prove you're a racist, ideologue, insane or an agent for the dark side. But, by observation, it is my opinion that you hate Obama, hate liberals and hate Democrats. Maybe you don't, maybe you simply need attention and your constant efforts to draw attention to yourself provide evidence that this might be true. That said, I do suspect something - a major event - affected your reasoning (maybe it's me, spending over 30 years working with criminal offenders does provide one with a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others).

Oops... I missed this post..

Now, see, I'm glad I read this, as it obviates that 'humorless' thing: I got a big kick out of the phrase: "...a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others..."

Why use the term 'suspicion'? I tell all that I believe liberals, progressives are wrong in thinging and in behavior and not good for the future of the country.
Then I post indicia of same.
Get it?

For most normal folks, "a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others" usually doesn't mean fantasizing about, maligning, denegrating those that one doesn't agree with.

Of course, the old saying "one can only judge others by oneself," might suggest that you have misplaced the nasty things that you say...sort of like a boomarang.

By my lights, if one disagrees, it behooves same to offer counter arguments. In short, you might appear more intelligent if you spent your time defending your position rather than attacking your opponent.
You might try that when you get really bored.


Now, write soon!

hmmm, you attack me for attacking you because you attack Obama, liberals, Democrats based on opinion ("indicia", pleassssse - I suppose that counts as a sense of humor). My healthy suspicion is based on years, decades actually, of interviews of suspects, victims and witnesses, each may or may not have had an agenda.
Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes', the theme is always the same and the end never varies. To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response. Much like GWB you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. Much like those suspects I interviewed for oh so many years who deny they've put their hand in the cookie jar even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence.

1. "...interviews of suspects..."
I'm a suspect? OK, buddy, read me my rights!

2. "...may or may not have had an agenda..."
Aren't you paying attention: I told you my agenda- fighting thugs and libs!
See how the OP follows from that?

3. "Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes'..."
Let me count the ways...they might appeal to you. They are clever, insightful, well documented, direct, educational, and might just re-direct you onto a more fruitful and efficacious path in life.
Oh, yes...and well written. And humorous if you look in the right places.

BTW, I notice that you do, read them, pretty regularly. Caught ya'.

4. "To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response."
(sigh)...probably true... but that is because I'm glib, arrogant and self righteous.
Still, your using that as an excuse to not answer my posts, which clearly antagonize you, is kind of weak.
By now, you must know that personal attacks merely encourage me.
On the other hand, I do like battle with a well equipped opponent, but you probably don't want to give me that satisfaction...
It's your call.

5. "...you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. "
First, the protocol is for YOU to examine my agenda and find the weaknesses....otherwise I'd just be arguing with myself. But I have given hints to weaker opponents and even posted counter evidence for them to use.
And second, I have not only admitted errors, but often given reps to opponents when they find me doing so...but, of course, I'd rather not advertise those errors.

6. "...even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence."
Yikes...you have pics of me!
(Ya think I could get a wallet size...?)

Tata.
Ball's in your court, Inspector Javert.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Oops... I missed this post..

Now, see, I'm glad I read this, as it obviates that 'humorless' thing: I got a big kick out of the phrase: "...a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others..."

Why use the term 'suspicion'? I tell all that I believe liberals, progressives are wrong in thinging and in behavior and not good for the future of the country.
Then I post indicia of same.
Get it?

For most normal folks, "a healthy suspicion of the motivation of others" usually doesn't mean fantasizing about, maligning, denegrating those that one doesn't agree with.

Of course, the old saying "one can only judge others by oneself," might suggest that you have misplaced the nasty things that you say...sort of like a boomarang.

By my lights, if one disagrees, it behooves same to offer counter arguments. In short, you might appear more intelligent if you spent your time defending your position rather than attacking your opponent.
You might try that when you get really bored.


Now, write soon!

hmmm, you attack me for attacking you because you attack Obama, liberals, Democrats based on opinion ("indicia", pleassssse - I suppose that counts as a sense of humor). My healthy suspicion is based on years, decades actually, of interviews of suspects, victims and witnesses, each may or may not have had an agenda.
Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes', the theme is always the same and the end never varies. To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response. Much like GWB you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. Much like those suspects I interviewed for oh so many years who deny they've put their hand in the cookie jar even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence.

1. "...interviews of suspects..."
I'm a suspect? OK, buddy, read me my rights!

2. "...may or may not have had an agenda..."
Aren't you paying attention: I told you my agenda- fighting thugs and libs!
See how the OP follows from that?

3. "Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes'..."
Let me count the ways...they might appeal to you. They are clever, insightful, well documented, direct, educational, and might just re-direct you onto a more fruitful and efficacious path in life.
Oh, yes...and well written. And humorous if you look in the right places.

BTW, I notice that you do, read them, pretty regularly. Caught ya'.

4. "To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response."
(sigh)...probably true... but that is because I'm glib, arrogant and self righteous.
Still, your using that as an excuse to not answer my posts, which clearly antagonize you, is kind of weak.
By now, you must know that personal attacks merely encourage me.
On the other hand, I do like battle with a well equipped opponent, but you probably don't want to give me that satisfaction...
It's your call.

5. "...you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. "
First, the protocol is for YOU to examine my agenda and find the weaknesses....otherwise I'd just be arguing with myself. But I have given hints to weaker opponents and even posted counter evidence for them to use.
And second, I have not only admitted errors, but often given reps to opponents when they find me doing so...but, of course, I'd rather not advertise those errors.

6. "...even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence."
Yikes...you have pics of me!
(Ya think I could get a wallet size...?)

Tata.
Ball's in your court, Inspector Javert.

there you go again, claiming authorship to your "tomes". it is easy to spot what is written by yourself. it is stuff like "disuade", "denegrate", "boomarang", "violence has it's place on the left".

you are a squirrel collecting acorns thinking it is an oak tree.

or even better, you are one of those fat green flies on a horse apple thinking you are the horse.

you are not.

you remain the fly, the reaction to you is "eek", disgust, and a sudden hand waving.

 

[PoliticalChic]

hmmm, you attack me for attacking you because you attack Obama, liberals, Democrats based on opinion ("indicia", pleassssse - I suppose that counts as a sense of humor). My healthy suspicion is based on years, decades actually, of interviews of suspects, victims and witnesses, each may or may not have had an agenda.
Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes', the theme is always the same and the end never varies. To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response. Much like GWB you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. Much like those suspects I interviewed for oh so many years who deny they've put their hand in the cookie jar even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence.

1. "...interviews of suspects..."
I'm a suspect? OK, buddy, read me my rights!

2. "...may or may not have had an agenda..."
Aren't you paying attention: I told you my agenda- fighting thugs and libs!
See how the OP follows from that?

3. "Why would I bother to read one of your 'tomes'..."
Let me count the ways...they might appeal to you. They are clever, insightful, well documented, direct, educational, and might just re-direct you onto a more fruitful and efficacious path in life.
Oh, yes...and well written. And humorous if you look in the right places.

BTW, I notice that you do, read them, pretty regularly. Caught ya'.

4. "To debate or present an argument to you (from my experience in reading your work) only results in a glib, arrogant and self righteous response."
(sigh)...probably true... but that is because I'm glib, arrogant and self righteous.
Still, your using that as an excuse to not answer my posts, which clearly antagonize you, is kind of weak.
By now, you must know that personal attacks merely encourage me.
On the other hand, I do like battle with a well equipped opponent, but you probably don't want to give me that satisfaction...
It's your call.

5. "...you will never examine your own agenda or admit anything you've done is wrong. "
First, the protocol is for YOU to examine my agenda and find the weaknesses....otherwise I'd just be arguing with myself. But I have given hints to weaker opponents and even posted counter evidence for them to use.
And second, I have not only admitted errors, but often given reps to opponents when they find me doing so...but, of course, I'd rather not advertise those errors.

6. "...even AFTER being confronted with photographic evidence."
Yikes...you have pics of me!
(Ya think I could get a wallet size...?)

Tata.
Ball's in your court, Inspector Javert.

there you go again, claiming authorship to your "tomes". it is easy to spot what is written by yourself. it is stuff like "disuade", "denegrate", "boomarang", "violence has it's place on the left".

you are a squirrel collecting acorns thinking it is an oak tree.

or even better, you are one of those fat green flies on a horse apple thinking you are the horse.

you are not.

you remain the fly, the reaction to you is "eek", disgust, and a sudden hand waving.

Well, now, aren't you the people-person. Who died and made you Fox News?

It's astounding how guys like you will scratch their head and try to come up with the most insulting phrases...just because you've been thoroughly trounced by the OP.

Can't handle it= lash out.

Your post falls under the general heading of "The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming."

That means the post generated the desire on your part to attack it, or destroy the concept that the left wing administration that you would like to support based on principle, on good intentions, on taking the high road in pollitics ...has conned you, fooled you, treated you like the proverbial mushroom, and you feel like an idiot!

So what do you do when an OP such as the one in this thread nails it, leaves you no room to agree with it and retain self respect?

You string together some screwy insults aimed to assuage your injured sensibilities...and hope that this re-direction of your anger will make you feel better about how very wrong you have been.

Won't work.

It is entirely human.
Entirely predictable.

Here you are, intelligent enough to post coherent, often reasonable posts, and posts becomes the vehicle for your anger, your hurt, your sense of loss.

You invested so much in this administration, one which you believed to be in perfect correspondence to your views, resonant with your desires…

You believed. You had faith. You identified. You thought you were smart enough to make the right choice...

Does that make you a fool?

Actually, no. But thinking that you can hide the hurt by criticizing the messenger, yeah, that makes you a fool.

And faced with the choice of saying “I hoped, but I was wrong: I made a mistake,” you, instead, choose the low road and blame others.

Perhaps this experience is what you deserved.

 

[Big Fitz]

Good job PC, keep getting out what got exposed for the first time 4 months ago by... wait for it....

GLENN BECK! (watches the libs scatter like roaches with the lights turned on)

Yes, Crime Inc. is now the executive branch of government, pushing green racketeering to new heights of corruption that Boss Tweed could only marvel at and cheer.

These are the people who must be prosecuted and made examples of by our law and justice for what they are doing is not only illegal but intrinsically evil.

Makes you wish you could hit capital punishment over a certain dollar value. Lotta people in this mess who would definitely deserve it if/when proven

 

[westwall]

OK. So let's dispense with the cap and trade. No carbon credits. Simply an order that says that almost all use of fossil fuels will end by 2021. Now that would actually address the problem.

That would be astoundingly stupid.

Astoundingly stupid and humerous at the same time. What would you care to bet that the liberals would pretty much starve to death and the cons would do pretty good overall.
Every conservative I know can hunt, fish, farm, actually do manual labor etc.

The libs on the other hand are pretty much incapable of life without a lot of help. They can't or won't hunt, can't or won't defend themselves, can't farm on a large scale (they make some damn nice flower gardens though so maybe they have some hope there) don't know how to fix a window, build a cabinet, use tools etc.

I think that within 6 months of an old fraud utopia the libs would be near extinct. I say lets do it!

 

[Big Fitz]

Personally, I would rather bail out a small bank, rather than someone like AIG.

If you bailed out neither to begin with, we wouldn't be in this mess.