Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The day my shit is proven to be a lie will be the day that Fox news and everyone who watches that Rupert Murdoch farce of a news channel joins the holy ghost floating on a cloud, flies off to paradise and lives forever. It ain't a gonna' fuckin' happen.
Why do the most hateful people have pictures of puppies in their avatar?
If calling it to your attention that Rupert Murdoch, one of the most arrogant, self rightous, right wing billionaire assholes in the world owns Fox news points out my hatred.....go for i
Wow.
So, what's your opinion of George Soros and the left wing outlets he has his tentacles in? Please, don't hold back.
Since I seriously doubt you watch fox I can only wonder what your source for all this anyway the only person who predicted a Romney blowout was the one person you did not mention Dick Morris Rove never predicated a blowout and O"Reilly never made a predication. Another day another fail.The last three weeks before the election Fox News reported poll results favoring Romney. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller et al plus Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly that Romney would win. Karl Rove predicted the opposite of the results giving Romney 332 electoral votes and Limbaugh said it wouldn't even be close.
CNN comments when they were reporting polls said it was either close or favoring Obama depending upon how six or eight swing states voted. The rest is history.
The egotistical right wing starts out thinking everything about them is good and right and everything about anything or anyone who opposes them is bad and wrong and the worse thing is that they can't even admit they got beat. Not once have they ever admitted somebody else was right or that they were wrong....about anything. If they don't change a lot of things...including that attitude they are history as a political party. That part is not just my opinion it's the bold faced truth.
Wow, liberals are so tolerant!
Why SHOULD they be? The truth has a liberal bias, and that is what it is. In the face of everything that is in the face of the opposition of truth, WHY should the truth mewl? THAT is one of my biggest bitches ABOUT the left - they try too hard for consensus when they already have a majority.
Ya know what? Leftists policies help YOU, if you are, indeed, helped by rightist policies, by seeing that everything you operate on, and from, and over, stands firm. That cracks, and YOU fall.
Those of us already on the ground floor already know how to cope. We've been doing it for more than a minute and pointing out the cracks to those who didn't want to listen, SIMPLY because we have enough of our own to care for, and we have no patience for having to tie your shoes too.
Que Es Veritas?
I ask this in a benign manner.
If truth can shift through the method of equivocation, than what is the truth?
If a man cheats on his wife with a prostitute a liberal hates the man, and they should. To a liberal, the wife is the victim.
If a man cheats on his wife with a man (Jim Mcgreevey) they heralds him as a brave man who was forced underground by an ill society.
The fact of the matter is that the act of cheating is the issue and not with whom the person cheated. Excusing one act that is similar to another is not truth nor perspective, it is a flat out denial of the real issue. It is a rejection of the truth.
I am a conservative who can careless about gay marriage, if they want to, fine with me. I am not bothered by homosexuality in general; to each his own. But, and this comes from a man who is himself very flawed, the truth is that a moral failing is a moral failing.
In my example you either accept a man cheated or you do not, but you do not excuse one and condemn the other.
I suggest you consider what is true rather than accepting what you believe as the truth rather than your view.
You ask why liberals should be tolerant. I say to you that tolerance of difference in appearance is the easy way out. It probably makes you feel good. But the true test of tolerance is for a person to listen to another who has different views. Your distinctions are those of nature, but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing.
The last three weeks before the election Fox News reported poll results favoring Romney. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller et al plus Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly that Romney would win. Karl Rove predicted the opposite of the results giving Romney 332 electoral votes and Limbaugh said it wouldn't even be close.
CNN comments when they were reporting polls said it was either close or favoring Obama depending upon how six or eight swing states voted. The rest is history.
The egotistical right wing starts out thinking everything about them is good and right and everything about anything or anyone who opposes them is bad and wrong and the worse thing is that they can't even admit they got beat. Not once have they ever admitted somebody else was right or that they were wrong....about anything. If they don't change a lot of things...including that attitude they are history as a political party. That part is not just my opinion it's the bold faced truth.
Mass delusion is a phenomenon which is observable throughout history and accounts for some of the most monumental events and movements in human history, typically those of a religious nature, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, et al. What this proves is the human mind is extremely receptive to repetitive suggestion (brainwash) and the effect is amplified in proportion to the size of an affected group, e.g., the rise of the Third Reich. (And the popularity of Ronald Reagan as President.)The last three weeks before the election Fox News reported poll results favoring Romney. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller et al plus Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly that Romney would win. Karl Rove predicted the opposite of the results giving Romney 332 electoral votes and Limbaugh said it wouldn't even be close.
CNN comments when they were reporting polls said it was either close or favoring Obama depending upon how six or eight swing states voted. The rest is history.
The egotistical right wing starts out thinking everything about them is good and right and everything about anything or anyone who opposes them is bad and wrong and the worse thing is that they can't even admit they got beat. Not once have they ever admitted somebody else was right or that they were wrong....about anything. If they don't change a lot of things...including that attitude they are history as a political party. That part is not just my opinion it's the bold faced truth.
Why SHOULD they be? The truth has a liberal bias, and that is what it is. In the face of everything that is in the face of the opposition of truth, WHY should the truth mewl? THAT is one of my biggest bitches ABOUT the left - they try too hard for consensus when they already have a majority.
Ya know what? Leftists policies help YOU, if you are, indeed, helped by rightist policies, by seeing that everything you operate on, and from, and over, stands firm. That cracks, and YOU fall.
Those of us already on the ground floor already know how to cope. We've been doing it for more than a minute and pointing out the cracks to those who didn't want to listen, SIMPLY because we have enough of our own to care for, and we have no patience for having to tie your shoes too.
Que Es Veritas?
I ask this in a benign manner.
If truth can shift through the method of equivocation, than what is the truth?
If a man cheats on his wife with a prostitute a liberal hates the man, and they should. To a liberal, the wife is the victim.
If a man cheats on his wife with a man (Jim Mcgreevey) they heralds him as a brave man who was forced underground by an ill society.
The fact of the matter is that the act of cheating is the issue and not with whom the person cheated. Excusing one act that is similar to another is not truth nor perspective, it is a flat out denial of the real issue. It is a rejection of the truth.
I am a conservative who can careless about gay marriage, if they want to, fine with me. I am not bothered by homosexuality in general; to each his own. But, and this comes from a man who is himself very flawed, the truth is that a moral failing is a moral failing.
In my example you either accept a man cheated or you do not, but you do not excuse one and condemn the other.
I suggest you consider what is true rather than accepting what you believe as the truth rather than your view.
You ask why liberals should be tolerant. I say to you that tolerance of difference in appearance is the easy way out. It probably makes you feel good. But the true test of tolerance is for a person to listen to another who has different views. Your distinctions are those of nature, but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing.
WHAT THE FUCK did ANY of that have to do with what you responded to?
Why do the most hateful people have pictures of puppies in their avatar?
If calling it to your attention that Rupert Murdoch, one of the most arrogant, self rightous, right wing billionaire assholes in the world owns Fox news points out my hatred.....go for i
Wow.
So, what's your opinion of George Soros and the left wing outlets he has his tentacles in? Please, don't hold back.
last I heard he was a financier with his holdings invested mostly in the stock market. At least he doesn't own a news network and pay anchors millions of dollars to go 24/7 for the right wing. Murdoch isn't even honest. He has been involved in hacking people's personal phone conversations and no telling what else. "Fair and Balanced" ROTFLMAO!!!
It is the RW hypocrisy that drives me up the wall. All pro-life but no Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade means Pay to Pollute. If your company is at their free pollution quota you need to buy more pollution permits or trade for them. Companies under the cap can benefit by selling or trading pollution permits. But Republicants say no,.....everyone gets to poison free 24/7/365.
Every living thing needs clean water and clean air. You cannot possibly be pro-life for the already born if you are anti-Cap and Trade.
Do NOT demand that liberals tolerate this literal shyte!!
Regards from Rosie
Que Es Veritas?
I ask this in a benign manner.
If truth can shift through the method of equivocation, than what is the truth?
If a man cheats on his wife with a prostitute a liberal hates the man, and they should. To a liberal, the wife is the victim.
If a man cheats on his wife with a man (Jim Mcgreevey) they heralds him as a brave man who was forced underground by an ill society.
The fact of the matter is that the act of cheating is the issue and not with whom the person cheated. Excusing one act that is similar to another is not “truth” nor perspective, it is a flat out denial of the real issue. It is a rejection of the truth.
I am a conservative who can careless about gay marriage, if they want to, fine with me. I am not bothered by homosexuality in general; to each his own. But, and this comes from a man who is himself very flawed, the truth is that a moral failing is a moral failing.
In my example you either accept a man cheated or you do not, but you do not excuse one and condemn the other.
I suggest you consider what is true rather than accepting what you believe as the truth rather than your view.
You ask why liberals should be tolerant. I say to you that tolerance of difference in appearance is the easy way out. It probably makes you feel good. But the true test of tolerance is for a person to listen to another who has different views. Your distinctions are those of nature, but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing.
WHAT THE FUCK did ANY of that have to do with what you responded to?
It does not surprise me at all that you missed it. When you take what you believe as the truth, there is no need to listen to what somebody else has to say.
My advice would be to reread what you wrote and understand what part of it I was addressing.
I also have to ask; why it is that both of the liberals on this thread I have exchanged with have both resorted to swearing in their responses to me?
I have to be honest, I am not so sure the question you just asked makes any sense at all.
You claimed to be the bearer of truth and I questioned what it is you feel the truth actually is. It was really not that confusing at all.
WHAT THE FUCK did ANY of that have to do with what you responded to?
It does not surprise me at all that you missed it. When you take what you believe as the truth, there is no need to listen to what somebody else has to say.
My advice would be to reread what you wrote and understand what part of it I was addressing.
I also have to ask; why it is that both of the liberals on this thread I have exchanged with have both resorted to swearing in their responses to me?
I have to be honest, I am not so sure the question you just asked makes any sense at all.
You claimed to be the bearer of truth and I questioned what it is you feel the truth actually is. It was really not that confusing at all.
My apologies for the profanity. I get impatient as I grow tired, and that word salad you offered in order to "[question] what it is feel the truth actually is" bore no relation to the conversation I was responding to. Perhaps if you could resist the regurgitation of your thesaurus, people would be more likely to follow your meandering train of, um, thought.
Your second question is predicated upon a lie, because the truth cannot be "[shifted] through the method of equivocation," only one's perception of what the truth is, and in that shift, the perception is actually opinion.
The apple is red is a fact. (if the apple is red)
The apple tastes good is opinion. Red is a pretty color is opinion.
In your example, the man cheated is (maybe?) a fact (if the man did, indeed cheat).
My feelings about that is an opinion, and IN my opinion, it's none of my damned business unless one of two considerations are present. 1) If he cheated on me, or 2) If I were considering starting a relationship with him.
Finally,"but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing."
While it is my opinion that it is important to understand why or how people come to the conclusions they do, I still stick with my original opinion that the truth, actual facts, have no reason to mewl in response to fiction, especially if that fiction is itself made in an effort to deceive.
My apologies for the profanity. I get impatient as I grow tired, and that word salad you offered in order to "[question] what it is feel the truth actually is" bore no relation to the conversation I was responding to. Perhaps if you could resist the regurgitation of your thesaurus, people would be more likely to follow your meandering train of, um, thought.
Your second question is predicated upon a lie, because the truth cannot be "[shifted] through the method of equivocation," only one's perception of what the truth is, and in that shift, the perception is actually opinion.
The apple is red is a fact. (if the apple is red)
The apple tastes good is opinion. Red is a pretty color is opinion.
In your example, the man cheated is (maybe?) a fact (if the man did, indeed cheat).
My feelings about that is an opinion, and IN my opinion, it's none of my damned business unless one of two considerations are present. 1) If he cheated on me, or 2) If I were considering starting a relationship with him.
Finally,"but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing."
While it is my opinion that it is important to understand why or how people come to the conclusions they do, I still stick with my original opinion that the truth, actual facts, have no reason to mewl in response to fiction, especially if that fiction is itself made in an effort to deceive.
My apologies for the profanity. I get impatient as I grow tired, and that word salad you offered in order to "[question] what it is feel the truth actually is" bore no relation to the conversation I was responding to. Perhaps if you could resist the regurgitation of your thesaurus, people would be more likely to follow your meandering train of, um, thought.
Your second question is predicated upon a lie, because the truth cannot be "[shifted] through the method of equivocation," only one's perception of what the truth is, and in that shift, the perception is actually opinion.
The apple is red is a fact. (if the apple is red)
The apple tastes good is opinion. Red is a pretty color is opinion.
In your example, the man cheated is (maybe?) a fact (if the man did, indeed cheat).
My feelings about that is an opinion, and IN my opinion, it's none of my damned business unless one of two considerations are present. 1) If he cheated on me, or 2) If I were considering starting a relationship with him.
Finally,"but I ask what is your threshold for those that are a product of those who provided the nurturing."
While it is my opinion that it is important to understand why or how people come to the conclusions they do, I still stick with my original opinion that the truth, actual facts, have no reason to mewl in response to fiction, especially if that fiction is itself made in an effort to deceive.
I want you to understand that the following response is considered and not written to be condescending even if it may come across as condescending:
First, I accept your apologies. I had to point out the ridiculous use of profanity by you and another because I cannot have a discussion with somebody if they are unable to resist using language purposefully. In a conversation with someone I can abide swearing because it is impossible to put words back into one’s mouth. But it should occur to anybody as they are typing something out that it can be deleted before sending it.
Now, as to my “word salad”, and my “regurgitation of {my} thesaurus…” I can only say everything I wrote made perfect sense and that I do not have a thesaurus here at my desk (I am at work, not at school). I was addressing the idea that you believe you are grounded by if not tied to the truth. Much of what I have seen in your few posts after claiming to own the truth was a series of opinions including the opinion that you are the truth and the way.
I could point out numerous things that the left clings to that are in no way grounded to “truth”.
Take abortion. For 30 years I have heard democrat politicians express to the public that this guy (usually a republican running for office) is going to end your right to have an abortion. This is absurd and sadly a tool to rope in the dopes. For twenty of the 30 years between 1980 and 2010, the president has been a republican. In those 30 years abortions have not become harder to come by nor more expensive. Public funding for abortion has increased (even if they call it something else) and more states have passed more accepting laws regarding abortion. So you have to ask yourself what it is that you believe. Ask yourself what the truth really is.
Now we can argue that much of this is opinion, but the fact is that everything I said regarding the past 30 years and abortion is true.
Take gay rights. In the past twenty years since they have really arisen as issues of the political realm, there has only been one president to sign laws which limited gay rights. Those two laws were "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act". Both of those bills were signed by Bill Clinton, and yet many believe that it is republican presidents that look to deny gays certain freedoms.
Again, all I ask you to do is step back from this idea that you are the truth and that you’ve no need to hear what the other side is saying.
Now you used the phrase, “…effort to deceive.” Can you at least acknowledge that maybe you have embraced a few strawmen along the way?
The last three weeks before the election Fox News reported poll results favoring Romney. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller et al plus Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly that Romney would win. Karl Rove predicted the opposite of the results giving Romney 332 electoral votes and Limbaugh said it wouldn't even be close.
CNN comments when they were reporting polls said it was either close or favoring Obama depending upon how six or eight swing states voted. The rest is history.
The egotistical right wing starts out thinking everything about them is good and right and everything about anything or anyone who opposes them is bad and wrong and the worse thing is that they can't even admit they got beat. Not once have they ever admitted somebody else was right or that they were wrong....about anything. If they don't change a lot of things...including that attitude they are history as a political party. That part is not just my opinion it's the bold faced truth.
The last three weeks before the election Fox News reported poll results favoring Romney. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller et al plus Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly that Romney would win. Karl Rove predicted the opposite of the results giving Romney 332 electoral votes and Limbaugh said it wouldn't even be close.
CNN comments when they were reporting polls said it was either close or favoring Obama depending upon how six or eight swing states voted. The rest is history.
The egotistical right wing starts out thinking everything about them is good and right and everything about anything or anyone who opposes them is bad and wrong and the worse thing is that they can't even admit they got beat. Not once have they ever admitted somebody else was right or that they were wrong....about anything. If they don't change a lot of things...including that attitude they are history as a political party. That part is not just my opinion it's the bold faced truth.
Guess you've been watching a different fox than I have. I've seen many admitting they were wrong and who owed who dinners.
