Liberals Cry On Cue

[UseCaution]

So every four years there's an election for president. The democrats and republicans are spending lots of of money to get the undecideds to cast a vote for their side. So the group that just reinstalled our dictator. Are liberal communists now. And if these undecided rational reasonable people voted republican, they would be patriotic American masturbating freedom lovers. I love reading history, things change buddy. Push the needle toward the center, you're stuck, on a scratch.

To UseCaution: Yet another liberal invoking the “center” trying show he is politically astute.

Technology changes the physical world. The US Constitution was the first and last time the political world changed in thousands of years. Try to grasp this concept embodied in the Constitution:

Totalitarian government is one extreme. Anarchy is the other extreme. Limited government is the permanent center; it never moves.

Democrats moving the country towards totalitarian government and calling it the center is designed for suckers like you. I’ll make it simple for you. Hussein moved left of the center he inherited. The next Socialist/Communist will move left of Hussein and so on until they arrive at totalitarian government.

You obviously have no idea what constitutes the center in this country. Define your center in precise terms if you want to prove me wrong.

Thanks for the liberal identification slogan. Yes I do, support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion until you bring your imaginary friend in as a role model on the way things should be, free trade mostly if actually equal in some capacity between countries, and private property until a fair court ruling completed and taken by somebody and I can respect all this.

And as for the constitution, it’s a wonderful time dated piece of paper. It needs to be updated. I have my list of updates that should be imposed on the public. But generally I find very few that can fathom the totality of the concept of the constitution. But I am entertained by the endless squabbling over the intent. I don’t find it that complicated. Like the current second amendment is flawed.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4]George Carlin - You have no rights - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E]YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

UseCaution;6723217

Thanks for the liberal identification slogan. Yes I do, support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion until you bring your imaginary friend in as a role model on the way things should be, free trade mostly if actually equal in some capacity between countries, and private property until a fair court ruling completed and taken by somebody and I can respect all this.

To UseCaution: Elections are free. They are not fair when Democrats rig them.

When liberals spout the civil rights mantra they mean entitlements.

A monopoly on the electronic media is what liberals want. Liberalism slowly began losing ground when they lost the Fairness Doctrine. The downhill slide continues on the Internet.

Liberals hate freedom of religion unless that religion happens to be socialism.

The rest of your first paragraph makes no sense.

UseCaution;6723217

And as for the constitution, it’s a wonderful time dated piece of paper. It needs to be updated. I have my list of updates that should be imposed on the public. But generally I find very few that can fathom the totality of the concept of the constitution. But I am entertained by the enlist squabbling over the intent. I don’t find it that complicated. Like the current second amendment is flawed.

To UseCaution: You have to be putting me on. You cannot express your thoughts in a coherent sentence and you honestly believe you can improve the most brilliant political document ever written.

 

[Antares]

Projection twit...YOU are the moron.

this doesn't belong in "congress". you people really need to learn to put your trash in the flame zone where it belongs.

To jillian: Is objecting to the forum the only way you can defend phonies?



Kerry testified before the Senate. Clinton testified before both Houses of CONGRESS.

john boehner crying montage at link:

now run along

To jillian: All you showed is a joke video. The only time I remember Boehner tearing up was when he became Speaker. Those were real tears of joys.

that isn't a joke video. he cries about everything.

i don't particularly care either way. but thought i'd point out what a moron you are.

 

[mamooth]

To UseCaution: Elections are free. They are not fair when Democrats rig them.

If you could show any actual case of Democrats rigging elections (crank conspiracy theories don't count), then your statement would come across less like an attempt to evade. Back in this world, it was Republicans trying to rig the vote through vote suppression last election, and it's Republicans now openly working on plans to rig the next election by gerrymandering the electoral college.

When liberals spout the civil rights mantra they mean entitlements.

You could address what liberals actually say, instead of making up peculiar stories about what liberals really mean. But since you can't address what liberals actually say, you won't.

A monopoly on the electronic media is what liberals want. Liberalism slowly began losing ground when they lost the Fairness Doctrine. The downhill slide continues on the Internet.

The problem with that peculiar theory being that liberals kick conservative ass across the internet. The young are the biggest liberals, the least tuned into the mainstream media, and the biggest internet users (and, contrary to conservative myth, people grow more liberal as they age, not more conservative). It's the conservatives who are hopelessly tethered to a conservative-biased mainstream media which is becoming ever more irrelevant.

Liberals hate freedom of religion unless that religion happens to be socialism.

That's such a crazy statement, it calls your sanity into question.

 

[waltky]

Gee...

... I didn't know Boehner was a lib'ral.

 

[Flanders]

mamooth;6724956

If you could show any actual case of Democrats rigging elections (crank conspiracy theories don't count), then your statement would come across less like an attempt to evade.

To mamooth: First off, elections can be stolen in court à la Al Franken and Al Gore’s failed attempt in 2000. More importantly, the public can holler “We was robbed.” until the cows come home, but fraud is seldom proved because the people in government must do the proving. JFK in 1960 is probably the most famous unproven case of stealing an election.

And let’s not forget that in the early 20th century Democrat party “bosses” and their political machines pioneered techniques still being used today. Democrats still use variations of “Vote early and vote often.” shown in this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=umMknapIzu4]The Great McGinty - Pay the lug / Boilermaker Scenes - YouTube[/ame]​

And let us not forget Hussein. The FACTS in this excerpt make JFK look like a piker:

Obama lost in each and every state where voter ID laws were in place. A poll watcher in Pennsylvania reported that up to 10% of ballots cast reverted to a default of Obama. Voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin had touch screen voting machines that recorded Obama, even after Romney was selected. Republican poll watchers in multiple states were either turned away or not allowed to enter the precincts or thrown out once they had done so. People were openly bragging that they voted twice or more. In North Carolina, workers at a group home coaxed residents into voting for Obama. In Flushing, NY a Korean-American translator directed voters to vote for Democrat candidates. In St. Louis, voters found that someone had already voted with an absentee ballot in their name, forcing the use of provisional ballots. In Ohio, Democrats bussed Somali non-US citizen voters, who could not speak English from state to state, to vote for Obama. In Maine, a busload of black people was transported from rural town to rural town to vote. Only 20% of the overseas military turned in absentee ballots in 2008 and less than half were ever received and counted, and predictions are that it will even be worse in 2012. Requiring voter identification does not suppress the vote, but it does suppress the illegal votes. It is clear that there were multiple cases where people’s votes were not accurately recorded and ineligible people were able to poison the results with ineligible votes.

There are far too many examples of precincts that delivered fraudulent votes in key cities to pack the totals that may have impacted who got the electoral votes in many swing states. This tactic was so pervasive it earned its own name of “spigot cities.” In 59 Philadelphia, PA precincts, Obama recorded 100% of the votes. In Cleveland, OH districts, Obama recorded 100% of the votes. In 100 precincts in Ohio, Obama recorded 99% of the votes. In Broward County, FL precincts, Obama received over 99% of the votes. In one precinct, a rout over 99% is a possibility but hundreds of precincts recording over 99% exceed any possibility of credibility. In St. Lucie County, FL, 141% of eligible voters turned out to vote! (Statistically impossible) In Ohio, Obama won a county by 108% of registered voters. In two counties in Colorado, voting turnout exceeded the voter-age population. It is believed that this systemic voter fraud is protected by the Voting Section of the Justice Department, and that no meaningful investigations will ever take place to understand these voting “anomalies.”

Democrats Stole the Election
David Coughlin
Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Democrats Stole the Election

Nobody in the government with the authority to look into 2012 election fraud will do anything that questions Hussein’s “victory.”

NOTE: Accepting illegal campaign contributions is an extension of election fraud. Nobody did anything about the huge amount of money Hussein received from foreign donors in 2008; so there is not much chance anybody in the government will look into 2012.

mamooth;6724956

Back in this world, it was Republicans trying to rig the vote through vote suppression last election,

To mamooth: Since you are so big on proof WHERE IS YOURS?

mamooth;6724956

and it's Republicans now openly working on plans to rig the next election by gerrymandering the electoral college.

To mamooth: Gerrymandering congressional districts is almost as old as the country. Both parties do it.

Allocating Electoral College votes is the dream of Democrats and Republicans when it is in their favor. Democrats would do away with the Electoral College altogether. If they succeed their usual methods for rigging elections and counting the votes will give them a permanent advantage.

Incidentally, it’s fair to say that open borders is a form of gerrymandering that gives Democrats a huge advantage. It is Democrats who fight every attempt to secure the borders as well as block voter ID legislation. What’s the good of open borders if illegal aliens can’t vote for you.

Just to be clear. There’s no difference between honest elections and rigged elections. In our half-assed democracy the parasite class does equally well in both cases.

When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. Benjamin Franklin

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. Thomas Jefferson

America is very close to parasites attaining T. J.'s 51%.

Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved​

Highlighting election fraud is one of the best ways to discredit democracy. That is show that sharpshooters manipulate parasites in both cases. Bottom line: Strengthening democracy in any way is not something conservatives should work for.

mamooth;6724956

You could address what liberals actually say, instead of making up peculiar stories about what liberals really mean. But since you can't address what liberals actually say, you won't.

To mamooth: One rule says: Don’t listen to what liberals say look at what they do. That rule is good up to a point. Looking at what they’ve done is the only way to decipher what they say.

mamooth;6724956

The problem with that peculiar theory being that liberals kick conservative ass across the internet.

To mamooth: That’s nonsense. You confuse personal attacks with success. I’ve been posting message since the year 2000. In all those years 90% of the responses I got were nothing more than personal attacks. Nine percent of those responses either began or ended with a personal attack. One percent were legitimate disagreements.

mamooth;6724956

The young are the biggest liberals, the least tuned into the mainstream media, and the biggest internet users

To mamooth: The way the MSM fawns all over Hussein is proof that young Americans are watching and believing. The fawning is so bad it cannot be called journalism.

It is conservatives who are sick of the MSM. It is conservatism that brought down the Fairness Doctrine which Democrats are working overtime to reinstate.

mamooth;6724956

(and, contrary to conservative myth, people grow more liberal as they age, not more conservative).

To mamooth: That’s only true of the parasites who spent a lifetime feeding at the public trough. Naturally, the fear of losing Big Brother’s enslaving generosity sets in when a parasite grows older.

mamooth;6724956

It's the conservatives who are hopelessly tethered to a conservative-biased mainstream media which is becoming ever more irrelevant.

To mamooth: Conservatives of all ages abandoned the MSM simply because the liberal bias in the MSM is irrelevant. After decades of denying there was liberal bias media liberals finally admitted there is liberal bias at the same time they continue practicing it.

mamooth;6724956

That's such a crazy statement, it calls your sanity into question.

To mamooth: Liberals attacking religion —— mostly Christianity ——under the guise of separation of church and state is the insanity because Supreme Deity religions cannot compel financial support. Sane Americans would separate the Socialist religion from the public purse because that religion compels tax dollar tithing.

I'm fighting for communism! Thanks for telling me what I believe, I had no idea comrade. /endsarcasm

It seems you've gone way off the far-right Fox News loving deep end my friend. American "liberals" are center-right, just like the Democrats. Find me a real American liberal, and I'll find you a European conservative who's way more liberal than he is.

To Sythan: Liberals will never pick up arms against communism; not even in defense of the nation. They will fight for communism politically as they did in the Vietnam War.

And you should have stopped before citing Europeans. Today’s Europeans will never lift a finger against socialism/communism.

 

[UseCaution]

UseCaution;6723217

Thanks for the liberal identification slogan. Yes I do, support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion until you bring your imaginary friend in as a role model on the way things should be, free trade mostly if actually equal in some capacity between countries, and private property until a fair court ruling completed and taken by somebody and I can respect all this.

To UseCaution: Elections are free. They are not fair when Democrats rig them.

When liberals spout the civil rights mantra they mean entitlements.

A monopoly on the electronic media is what liberals want. Liberalism slowly began losing ground when they lost the Fairness Doctrine. The downhill slide continues on the Internet.

Liberals hate freedom of religion unless that religion happens to be socialism.

The rest of your first paragraph makes no sense.

UseCaution;6723217

And as for the constitution, it’s a wonderful time dated piece of paper. It needs to be updated. I have my list of updates that should be imposed on the public. But generally I find very few that can fathom the totality of the concept of the constitution. But I am entertained by the enlist squabbling over the intent. I don’t find it that complicated. Like the current second amendment is flawed.

To UseCaution: You have to be putting me on. You cannot express your thoughts in a coherent sentence and you honestly believe you can improve the most brilliant political document ever written.

So you lost, get over it. Both parties watch each other. And if either side has an opportunity to prove it was rig'd, they will. I am thankful for the Internet these days to put more lights on it day after day. I'm not a therapist.

“19th century Britain, the phrase "civil rights" most commonly referred to the problem of legal discrimination against Catholics and as

19th century American, the phrase “Civil rights” include the ensuring of peoples physical and mental integrity, life and safety, protection from discrimination on grounds of physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity and individual rights, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, etc. etc…….etc...”


Can you point to the section about “entitlement” in the Civil Rights law?

Yes you floundering clown,” imposed”. When I was young my family taught me a lot of values, and the most important was other people were different. Meaning by sexual orientation, religion, ethnic and so on as the civil rights law has imposed, to your dislike, as to the behavior of a civil society of extreme of differences. As I was young and had not yet been exposed to these documents. I was already living my life pretty much under the total concept of the constitution. I feel my rational parents exposed me to it in their way, and one day hope to get even somehow. I feel the constitution is a vital document to “impose” decency by individuals that cannot understand the above I’ve mentioned.

 

[UseCaution]

To UseCaution: Elections are free. They are not fair when Democrats rig them.

If you could show any actual case of Democrats rigging elections (crank conspiracy theories don't count), then your statement would come across less like an attempt to evade. Back in this world, it was Republicans trying to rig the vote through vote suppression last election, and it's Republicans now openly working on plans to rig the next election by gerrymandering the electoral college.

When liberals spout the civil rights mantra they mean entitlements.

You could address what liberals actually say, instead of making up peculiar stories about what liberals really mean. But since you can't address what liberals actually say, you won't.

A monopoly on the electronic media is what liberals want. Liberalism slowly began losing ground when they lost the Fairness Doctrine. The downhill slide continues on the Internet.

The problem with that peculiar theory being that liberals kick conservative ass across the internet. The young are the biggest liberals, the least tuned into the mainstream media, and the biggest internet users (and, contrary to conservative myth, people grow more liberal as they age, not more conservative). It's the conservatives who are hopelessly tethered to a conservative-biased mainstream media which is becoming ever more irrelevant.

Liberals hate freedom of religion unless that religion happens to be socialism.

That's such a crazy statement, it calls your sanity into question.

 

[Antares]

You really are quite illiterate kid, I hope you didn't pay for that education.

watch the silly cons all scamble together to pretend noncons are not humans.

Umm dudes did you FORGET we are the Bleeding heart liberals?


did you forget its the Dems who are all concerned about people starving or being cold.

YOU guys are the ones who have made an entire party about "sink or swim".


You cant have it both ways you silly gits.



YOUR the ones who want to cut any kind of help for any human other than the most wealthy remember?


YOUR the party who withholds disastor assitance from people with no homes anymore in freezing weather.



Your the ones who sends troops to war without body armor.


Your the who say being raped is no big deal.


Your the ones who think we should not raise taxes even if it means people die.

remember

 

[Capnyc]

This is a funny conversation

 

[Flanders]

Here’s the cue for all Americans to start crying real tears:

“Where do you think this idea comes from?” Kerry asked. “Well I'll tell you, it's pretty simple. As a recovering politician, I can tell you that nothing gets a crowd clapping faster in a lot of places than saying: 'I'm going to Washington to get them to stop spending all that money over there.' ”

“If you're looking for an applause line, it's about as guaranteed an applause line as you can get. But guess what: It does nothing to guarantee our security. It does nothing to guarantee a stronger country. It doesn't guarantee a sounder economy or a more stable job market.”

Kerry slams critics of foreign aid in first major speech as secretary
By Julian Pecquet - 02/20/13 12:03 PM ET

Kerry slams critics of foreign aid in first major speech as secretary - The Hill's Global Affairs

Perhaps somebody should tell Kerry the line gets applause because Americans oppose tax dollar charity going to foreign countries even more than they oppose it at home.

And Ketchup Kerry obviously does not see that America is less safe, less strong, has an economy on the verge of collapsing, and millions fewer jobs after decades of unchecked foreign aid handed to dictators and America’s enemies.

I gotta say the guy’s losing streak is a modern marvel. He’s never been right about anything. Between Kerry and Biden being wrong became a sport unto itself. For decades they’ve been slugging it out for the title.

 

[Flanders]

Wrong again:

Secretary of State John Kerry gave his first major foreign policy speech today. In his address, delivered at the University of Virginia, he discussed tackling climate change.

"We as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and grandchildren: an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate," said Kerry, according to prepared remarks.

Kerry Gives First Foreign Policy Speech … on Climate Change
1:33 PM, Feb 20, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

Kerry Gives First Foreign Policy Speech ? on Climate Change | The Weekly Standard

The thing Kerry despises the most, the US Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is the most sacred trust most Americans keep for their children.

I hate to do this, but I have to give Kerry credit for one thing. He knows a voting bloc when he sees it:

But midway through the climate change section, Kerry paused. "Can we all say thank you and to our signers?" the secretary of state said referencing those who were translating his speech into sign language.

 

[editec]

John Kerry tears up during confirmation hearing | John Kerry sheds tears at confirmation hearing - YouTube​

I doubt John Kerry sprung a leak at his Senate confirmation hearing because of the B.S. in his late father’s book since he appears to agree with it:

The Star-Spangled Mirror is a critique of moralism in America's foreign policy -- and, more than that, it is a critique of America's national character.

Incidentally, Kerry’s father —— ditto former SECRETARY OF STATE Madeleine Albright’s father —— was another European that fled a decaying continent; came to America; landed in the public trough; then proceeded to tell Americans what was best for them:

Richard Kerry's father, a Czech Jew, fled Europe.

XXXXX​

. . . the cosmopolitan Kerry was a true believer in the United Nations and the postwar promise of global government.

And how’s this one been working out:

In the early '50s, Kerry became an enthusiast for NATO and the nascent efforts at creating a unified Europe.

Could this be the real reason Kerry returned from Vietnam and set about betraying his own country:

And, unlike the administration he served, Kerry believed that cooperation and diplomacy, rather than militarism, should resolve these tensions. In The Star-Spangled Mirror, he condemns the United States for "lecturing" European allies about the horrors of communism and accuses it of "bad manners" and "spoiled behavior."

Kerry's World: Father Knows Best
This column from The New Republic was written by Franklin Foer.

Kerry's World: Father Knows Best - CBS News

Bottom line: Americans do not speak Russian today because of SAC bombers and nuclear submarines —— NOT diplomacy. Note that John Kerry opposes a missile defense shield, or perhaps I should say he believes a diplomacy shield will protect this country from COMMUNIST China’s militarism seen in its growing military capabilities.

Minor correction.

Americans speak any language AT ALL, because diplomacy backed up by MAD made it possible for the Soviet and USA to FACE-OFF without ever dropping the puck on the ice.

 

[Flanders]

Minor correction.

Americans speak any language AT ALL, because diplomacy backed up by MAD made it possible for the Soviet and USA to FACE-OFF without ever dropping the puck on the ice.

To editec: The Soviets only came to the table because they couldn’t defeat the US military. All of the talk in the world would not have stopped them from attacking the minute they thought they could win a complete victory —— even if it meant losing a few of their own cities. From the Soviet perspective diplomacy was a stall tactic.

NOTE: The New START Treaty reduced America’s nuclear capabilities while it did not address the combined nuclear arsenal of America’s enemies, nor did New START prevent those enemies from developing delivery systems.

You and the MAD crowd in Washington can risk your own lives but don’t risk mine. Bottom line: The MAD theory is not going to work with suicide bomber mentalities any more than it will work with an enemy that has an edge.