Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

[The Rabbi]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I would say it is more likely the only time you went to a university the entire time was spent in a men's room stall. For those of us who did, we recall those years as times of excitement and idealism. Then we entered the real world and grew up. You remained in the stall.

so much resentment of anyone who is educated. perhaps if you were, you'd be more satisfied with your life.

now go ahead and pretend i'm not a lawyer... that always makes for a good trash-mouthed response from you.

I don't have to pretend.

 

[TooTall]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

nothing wrong with giving to charity. as you note, most rightwing charitable giving, however, is to churches. I don't think that I've ever suggested that type of giving is a bad thing or shouldn't be encouraged. but it clearly isn't enough, especially during times of economic hardship. and rightwing giving doesn't correlate with actual need, but with whom the religious right approves of.

me? I think planned parenthood is important because i'd rather women had good healthcare than concern myself with the small percentage of their work that is related to abortion. the right thinks nothing of shutting down women's healthcare.

me? I think programs that provide food to hungry children are important. I don't believe in cutting taxes for the top 1% like the right, which then turns around and makes the claim we can't "afford" to feed the hungry and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. there isn't the slightest concern about the effects of poverty on a) education; b) health; and c) the ability to obtain work and/or training.

I think there is a difference between intentional ignorance, which IS a mark of the extreme right, and being stupid.

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

nothing wrong with giving to charity. as you note, most rightwing charitable giving, however, is to churches. I don't think that I've ever suggested that type of giving is a bad thing or shouldn't be encouraged. but it clearly isn't enough, especially during times of economic hardship. and rightwing giving doesn't correlate with actual need, but with whom the religious right approves of.

me? I think planned parenthood is important because i'd rather women had good healthcare than concern myself with the small percentage of their work that is related to abortion. the right thinks nothing of shutting down women's healthcare.

me? I think programs that provide food to hungry children are important. I don't believe in cutting taxes for the top 1% like the right, which then turns around and makes the claim we can't "afford" to feed the hungry and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. there isn't the slightest concern about the effects of poverty on a) education; b) health; and c) the ability to obtain work and/or training.

I think there is a difference between intentional ignorance, which IS a mark of the extreme right, and being stupid.

If a portion of the taxes that go to the bloated bureaucracy that is the government program for food stamps were given to Churches and several other charitable entities that are managed and operated by volunteers, no child would go to bed hungry. It is easy for a crack mom to cash in her children's food stamps to buy crack, not so easy to sell groceries given to her to feed her kid(s).

I think Planned Parenthood is fine as long as the government does not give them one penny of taxpayers money.

The only tax cut the top 1% got was when Bush cut taxes for every single taxpayer in the United States. I have seen nothing that says the right intends to cut them again.

I consider those on the left who want the government to manage everything in everyone's life the intentionally ignorant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

nothing wrong with giving to charity. as you note, most rightwing charitable giving, however, is to churches. I don't think that I've ever suggested that type of giving is a bad thing or shouldn't be encouraged. but it clearly isn't enough, especially during times of economic hardship. and rightwing giving doesn't correlate with actual need, but with whom the religious right approves of.

me? I think planned parenthood is important because i'd rather women had good healthcare than concern myself with the small percentage of their work that is related to abortion. the right thinks nothing of shutting down women's healthcare.

me? I think programs that provide food to hungry children are important. I don't believe in cutting taxes for the top 1% like the right, which then turns around and makes the claim we can't "afford" to feed the hungry and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. there isn't the slightest concern about the effects of poverty on a) education; b) health; and c) the ability to obtain work and/or training.

I think there is a difference between intentional ignorance, which IS a mark of the extreme right, and being stupid.

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

nothing wrong with giving to charity. as you note, most rightwing charitable giving, however, is to churches. I don't think that I've ever suggested that type of giving is a bad thing or shouldn't be encouraged. but it clearly isn't enough, especially during times of economic hardship. and rightwing giving doesn't correlate with actual need, but with whom the religious right approves of.

me? I think planned parenthood is important because i'd rather women had good healthcare than concern myself with the small percentage of their work that is related to abortion. the right thinks nothing of shutting down women's healthcare.

me? I think programs that provide food to hungry children are important. I don't believe in cutting taxes for the top 1% like the right, which then turns around and makes the claim we can't "afford" to feed the hungry and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. there isn't the slightest concern about the effects of poverty on a) education; b) health; and c) the ability to obtain work and/or training.

I think there is a difference between intentional ignorance, which IS a mark of the extreme right, and being stupid.

If a portion of the taxes that go to the bloated bureaucracy that is the government program for food stamps were given to Churches and several other charitable entities that are managed and operated by volunteers, no child would go to bed hungry. It is easy for a crack mom to cash in her children's food stamps to buy crack, not so easy to sell groceries given to her to feed her kid(s).

I think Planned Parenthood is fine as long as the government does not give them one penny of taxpayers money.

The only tax cut the top 1% got was when Bush cut taxes for every single taxpayer in the United States. I have seen nothing that says the right intends to cut them again.

I consider those on the left who want the government to manage everything in everyone's life the intentionally ignorant.

What is the role of Government, in YOUR opinion?

 

[The Rabbi]

We can make an educated guess that those who responded to my question never attended a university. As for university students lacking any real world experience, that is one more pile of bullshit by a lying POS.

Q. Why do college students, in general, vote for Democrats and liberal causes.

A. College students are curious, smart, educated and see the world as it is, and ask themselves why and why not.

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

 

[Wry Catcher]

I agree with your questions and answers. that said, I also think, often, students can be a bit sheltered. I know my father, growing up poor, was much more street savvy than I ever was. that has benefitted him personally and professionally. but he was also smart enough to put that together with an education and he started college in his 30's.... while working full time and raising a family. (when college didn't cost $60,000 a year).

on the other hand, if being a bit sheltered and more book smart about certain things makes students more compassionate and more decent and more caring about society as a whole, i'd say that's a good thing, as is the exposure to diverse groups of people in school.

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

 

[The Rabbi]

IMO, Giving to charity is a major indicator of being more compassionate, more decent and more caring about those in society who are less fortunate.

Here are some excerpts from an article that I have linked. It doesn’t mention college education, but the liberals claim to fame on this board is cons are stupid and libs are smart.

"In an effort to determine how accurate that perception is, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur C. Brooks made a comprehensive study of how charitable giving correlates to political orientation, and he published his findings in the 2006 bookWho Really Cares. All the evidence, says the author, suggests that conservatives are in fact more generous than liberals. There is one important caveat, however: There is a strong correlation between religious faith and charity. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will give to charity.

For example, the “redder” a particular state is (i.e., the more its voters support Republican candidates in elections), the likelier its residents are to be charitable. According to Brooks, fully 24 of the 25 most generous states were red ones (only Maryland was a charitably minded blue, or Democrat-supporting, state). Residents of the five states that cast more than 60 percent of their ballots for President Bush in 2004 gave 3.5 percent of their incomes to charity, nearly twice as much per person as residents of the five states (including the District of Columbia) where Democrat John Kerry received 60 percent of the vote or better. This, says Brooks, occurred even though residents of the deep-blue pro-Kerry states earned, on average, 38 percent more per household than their red-state counterparts."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the most part, most of the cons who post here incessantly are stupid - or do you believe Randall Flagg, Stephanie, CrusaderFrank, Rabbi, Mudwhistle Warrior and the gun lovers, gay haters and crazy christians (lower case 'c' since most are not Christian in their attitudes toward others) are smart?

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

I do, you don't. At least you left the sexual comments out, maybe my earlier comment hit home. If so, that's the first step. Now, seek counseling.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are one of the libs who think cons are stupid. Thanks for admitting it. How very christian of you.

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

I do, you don't. At least you left the sexual comments out, maybe my earlier comment hit home. If so, that's the first step. Now, seek counseling.

You do exactly what I said you do and fail to see the irony.

When you can make a decent argument based on fact come back and debate me.

 

[TooTall]

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

I do, you don't. At least you left the sexual comments out, maybe my earlier comment hit home. If so, that's the first step. Now, seek counseling.

You do exactly what I said you do and fail to see the irony.

When you can make a decent argument based on fact come back and debate me.

BINGO!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not all cons are stupid. Real conservatives are not, cons (that is, the New Right) are stupid, some willfully ignorant, others by a circumstance of birth. The opinions they hold are far from critically examined, thus I conclude simple minds hold simple solutions to complex problems. Each of those I pointed out above fit that mold.

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

I do, you don't. At least you left the sexual comments out, maybe my earlier comment hit home. If so, that's the first step. Now, seek counseling.

You do exactly what I said you do and fail to see the irony.

When you can make a decent argument based on fact come back and debate me.

One fact is your obsession with sexual activities, why are you so fucked up? Who or what made you into the hateful arrogant POS you've become?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ironic post is ironic.
You are unable to hold a reasonable conversation on any topic and when confronted with contrary evidence your response is "you're an idiot."

That's not true. Of course, you're a liar and stupid and have never posted a reasonable comment so you might believe ,,, nah, you're a liar and the only things you post are echoes of New Right Propaganda and/or personal attacks. But don't feel bad, you're not the only retarded parrot to post incessantly.

LOL!
See.

I do, you don't. At least you left the sexual comments out, maybe my earlier comment hit home. If so, that's the first step. Now, seek counseling.

You do exactly what I said you do and fail to see the irony.

When you can make a decent argument based on fact come back and debate me.

One fact is your obsession with sexual activities, why are you so fucked up? Who or what made you into the hateful arrogant POS you've become?

More of the same.
When you have something you can back up and can share with the class we'll let you back into the discussion.

 

[Synthaholic]

What the **** do tyou expect. Most newspapers are owned by publishing companies that have a left wing editorial bias.
Why don't you do some research to see when the last time either of these dailies endorsed a GOP candidate for House or Senate
Mc Clatchy owns the major daily here. The editorial board endorsed the Democrat candidate for governor here in NC even though that person had only a slim chance of victory.

Corporations are Liberal?

I swear, you get dumber by the day. I know I said that to you the other day, and today you prove me correct again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do you think (excuse the expression, why do you believe) higher education students vote for Democrats? Think real hard now.

Because that's what is reasonably expected of children and fools. Ya see... you folks lack the means to reason soundly.

 

[Ava]

The latest:

Fox News Poll 1-point margin in Iowa Kansas and North Carolina Senate races Fox News

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The polls were conducted Oct. 28-30, 2014, by telephone (landline and cell phone) with live interviewers among a random sample of likely voters in Iowa (911), Kansas (907), North Carolina (909) and Ohio (803). Results based on the full sample in each state have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

 

[orogenicman]

Has she said whether she voted for Obama or not in 2008 and 2012?

It does not matter. The fact that she hasn't said only means that she respects the privacy of the voting booth, unlike the Republicans.

You don't really believe that bullshit excuse do you?

I believe that she isn't under any more obligation to reveal her election choices any more than you are.

I believe you are correct. However, what do you think her reason is for not doing so? Just asking.

Her reasons are irrelevant. If she doesn't want to reveal her vote, she doesn't have to. End of story.

 

[The Rabbi]

Has she said whether she voted for Obama or not in 2008 and 2012?

It does not matter. The fact that she hasn't said only means that she respects the privacy of the voting booth, unlike the Republicans.

You don't really believe that bullshit excuse do you?

I believe that she isn't under any more obligation to reveal her election choices any more than you are.

I believe you are correct. However, what do you think her reason is for not doing so? Just asking.

Her reasons are irrelevant. If she doesn't want to reveal her vote, she doesn't have to. End of story.

Your'e right, she doesnt have to.
She can lose the election because she has no credibility by pretending she didnt vote for Obama both times.but is too chickenshit to say so.

 

[orogenicman]

It does not matter. The fact that she hasn't said only means that she respects the privacy of the voting booth, unlike the Republicans.

You don't really believe that bullshit excuse do you?

I believe that she isn't under any more obligation to reveal her election choices any more than you are.

I believe you are correct. However, what do you think her reason is for not doing so? Just asking.

Her reasons are irrelevant. If she doesn't want to reveal her vote, she doesn't have to. End of story.

Your'e right, she doesnt have to.
She can lose the election because she has no credibility by pretending she didnt vote for Obama both times.but is too chickenshit to say so.

I am also right that her reasons are irrelevant. If she loses her election, it will not be because she refused to allow her rights to be trampled.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't really believe that bullshit excuse do you?

I believe that she isn't under any more obligation to reveal her election choices any more than you are.

I believe you are correct. However, what do you think her reason is for not doing so? Just asking.

Her reasons are irrelevant. If she doesn't want to reveal her vote, she doesn't have to. End of story.

Your'e right, she doesnt have to.
She can lose the election because she has no credibility by pretending she didnt vote for Obama both times.but is too chickenshit to say so.

I am also right that her reasons are irrelevant. If she loses her election, it will not be because she refused to allow her rights to be trampled.

True. It will be because voters don't trust someone who pisses on their shoes and then tells them its raining.

 

[TooTall]

You don't really believe that bullshit excuse do you?

I believe that she isn't under any more obligation to reveal her election choices any more than you are.

I believe you are correct. However, what do you think her reason is for not doing so? Just asking.

Her reasons are irrelevant. If she doesn't want to reveal her vote, she doesn't have to. End of story.

Your'e right, she doesnt have to.
She can lose the election because she has no credibility by pretending she didnt vote for Obama both times.but is too chickenshit to say so.

I am also right that her reasons are irrelevant. If she loses her election, it will not be because she refused to allow her rights to be trampled.

Then again, she may be ashamed to say who she voted for.