*This Women Didn't Deserve This: Gifford*

[Sallow]

1. I missed no point, I understand what Mrs. Giffords was saying.
2. You put to much into the *cross hairs* comments, its not literal, moron, you are a baffon am I right?
3. Then you start the *monkey shit slinging contest, just STFU!!!
4. Its libturds like you dragging American politics down the shitter.
5. Swallow that swallow boy!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. Not only did you miss the point, you missed the boat..and just about everything else there is to miss.
2. When you make sense..get back to me.
3. You like monkeys now? Man you are an odd one. I only thought you were a flaming queer. But heck..if you are in to Bestiality too..who am I to argue. Just steer clear of NYC, Queer boy.
4. Says, the queer boy from the traitorous secessionist state of Texas.
5. Told ya faggot. I don't go that way. So little Prissy Pants Sir James, maybe you should man up and find another faggot like yourself to "swallow".

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

Lead by example. I'm all for it.

In a meditation disc I often listen to, the woman speaking suggests I do daily affirmations for our government. She suggests that our belief in a negative government produces just that and that if I wanted, I could bless our government with love. If we the people want to, we could believe our government is loving, honest, honorable and truly working for the bettement of all people.

Let me just say that my meditation is a work in progress.

I did watch some clips of the testimonials. The main reason I started my http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/150339-men-who-need-to-grow-a-set.html thread.

1. Dingey.
2. Now back to the real world.
3. Swallow has parting gifts at the door, no worries mates!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. Yes you are.
2. Yes..do join it.
3. No way you get a swallow little faggot. I don't swing that way. But I am sure if you hang out long enough..someone will oblige. No worries queery.

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

1. So why so sensitive about a typo?
2. I think thou protesteth toooooo much!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,
1. Well political enemies used to shoot it out, you know ten pace's and all and turn and shoot, Sarah Palin brought that up, it used to be worse, its better now.
2. Evil people have always murdered people.
3. *Edit*, Having read this, swallow attack post above this,.....why are you attacking the messenger?
4. What are you hiding, son? lol!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. No one should shoot anyone, son. Cowards use guns. Men use fists.
2. And it's much easier if those evil people can buy guns like candy.
3. Generally in my world..one man asking another for a "swallow" generally means they are queer. That's what comes from Texas..Beer, Steers and Queers. So either you are queer..or you are a girl.
4. I don't hide son. Now that you are out of the closet..no need for you to either.

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

1. You're a fag, deal with it, stop fighting it, you know it, we all know it, just stop fighting your real nature,..LOL!!!!
2. Oh and how long have you known you were a fag?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I missed no point, I understand what Mrs. Giffords was saying.
2. You put to much into the *cross hairs* comments, its not literal, moron, you are a baffon am I right?
3. Then you start the *monkey shit slinging contest, just STFU!!!
4. Its libturds like you dragging American politics down the shitter.
5. Swallow that swallow boy!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. Not only did you miss the point, you missed the boat..and just about everything else there is to miss.
2. When you make sense..get back to me.
3. You like monkeys now? Man you are an odd one. I only thought you were a flaming queer. But heck..if you are in to Bestiality too..who am I to argue. Just steer clear of NYC, Queer boy.
4. Says, the queer boy from the traitorous secessionist state of Texas.
5. Told ya faggot. I don't go that way. So little Prissy Pants Sir James, maybe you should man up and find another faggot like yourself to "swallow".

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

1. You really should learn not to reveal so much about how you really feel about men, it shows in the ID you picked, obvisously there are some deep rooted homo feelings hidden with your past Johnny, now run along fag boy, Abikerfag is looking for you.
2. Okay I know this is childish, and all people, and I know Swallow knows I just scorched the planet with my responses tonight, and this is his way to try and force a win, just like the flaming fag he is, with hurling fag insults, when its HE who is indeed the secret fag.
3. Just STFU *SWALLOW*!!!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Ozmar]

edited

Sorry about that,
my other post misquoting you as saying ...... over and over again was deleted.
Judging by all of you genuine quotes, "....." would have been much more informative and saved a bunch of bandwidth......

What a fucking waste of space you have been.

Regards, SirNitofWit.

 

[American Horse]

Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.

I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".

As of now how many words have been written here about a chief federal district judge John Roll, who is dead; a Republican?

 

[Sallow]

1. You really should learn not to reveal so much about how you really feel about men, it shows in the ID you picked, obvisously there are some deep rooted homo feelings hidden with your past Johnny, now run along fag boy, Abikerfag is looking for you.
2. Okay I know this is childish, and all people, and I know Swallow knows I just scorched the planet with my responses tonight, and this is his way to try and force a win, just like the flaming fag he is, with hurling fag insults, when its HE who is indeed the secret fag.
3. Just STFU *SWALLOW*!!!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. Haven't heard you deny your gayness, Sir Jim Jism of the Butt Monkeys.
2. Maybe the reason you don't like Muslims so much is you probably got gang butt raped by them after soliciting a undercover cop for a "swallow" and got tossed into the pokey. Sucks to be you.
3. The only thing you scorched was the dick you sucked just now. Jism breath does that.
Gay prostitute => <= (Gay)chesswarsnow

4. Sorry I had to deny you a swallow of my jis..I don't swing that way. I also have a very nice girlfriend. You know..girls? Or maybe you don't.
5. Your stupidity is only exceeded by your gayness.
6. Butt fucking monkeys isn't good for your health. It might not be a reason for you to stop..but as a public service announcement..I thought I would remind you.
7. When you tell someone to STFU..you should actually be able to make them do it.
8. Stay out of New York. We get enough trash.

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

 

[Sallow]

Sorry bout that,
1. You're a fag, deal with it, stop fighting it, you know it, we all know it, just stop fighting your real nature,..LOL!!!!
2. Oh and how long have you known you were a fag?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry 'bout that.

1. A fag calling me a fag don't make it so. You wanted a swallow..I had to disappoint ya. Not my thing Sir Gayness of Texas.
2. You wishing for me to be a fag don't make it so. Sometimes even if you wish very very hard my little prissy panted princess..you will still be disappointed.
3. Don't be to hard on yourself, gaynesswarsnow, plenty of peeps are as gay as you. Just not as ugly.

Regards,
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.

 

[Talismen]

Nothing can prevent violence altogether, Meister. But screaming hysterically at one another MAY aggravate some deranged person, and has no value.

So we should all walk on tip-toes for the potentially deranged among us?
Please....

I see you're following lock-step into the new narrative that is being spun nearly as we speak. The left is calling for more "civility" after ripping right-of-center people for an entire week. And they are starting to insist that "civility" be defined according to THEIR terms.

...which will land us all back at where we started.
Either we all meet in the middle and start fresh, or this will never get fixed.

Read the bottom portion of my sig-line for a primer on "civil discourse".

 

[Talismen]

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.

No one had a problem when the Democrats used a map of the US and used bulls eyes to "target" Republican districts.....

I guess it's OK when the Dems use the SAME method to make their point.....

What hypocrisy....

Quote-bump of Rozman's post....'cuz it can't be said enough

 

[Talismen]

You know what Gabby didn't deserve.

She didn't deserve to be called a "death panel socialist" when she voted for Health Care.

Maybe, but like it or not, this kind of statement is an opinion.
And it is allowed under the 1st amendment.

The "death panels" (for lack of a better term) are real.
There will be treatments and medicines that will be denied, for whatever reason, by a panel of "authorites", for insurance policies not 'grandfathered in', which will affect patients.

The use of "socialist", in that context, means that someone views government-take over of healthcare to be a "socialist" policy...Which it is. Folks who are in favor of government-run healthcare need to STOP running from this fact. Government-run healthcare IS socialism.

She didn't deserve the threats and vandalism she received after casting that vote.

No, she didn't. I agree with you there.

Gabby was constructed as the enemy of freedom because of her congressional votes.

That's your opinion.

She didn't deserve what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg, Mark Levine, Michael Savage and a million other wingers said about her over and over.

And Sarah Palin, or just about any other right-of-center person in politics right now, who dares to even disagree with obama's policies or the left's many narratives? What do olbermann, O'Donnell, matthews and the rest do to them?

See, this is how our political system functions now a-days.
One side says something. The other side counters. The 1st side re-counters, and so on and so on. Neither side know when to shut up. Neither side knows the meaning of futility.
Everyone is fighting to prove they are right, when in reality, that is something each individual must decide on their own. Yes, politicians will always fight to prove their side is right, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But, BOTH sides need to learn to do it with logic, facts and reasoning, instead of saying things like; our troops at Gitmo are like "nazi's in their gulags", when that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Talismen]

Sorry bout that,

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"

True.

It leaves an "opening".

Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

I'm want to believe she knows the difference, and was merely taking a political pot-shot.
I mean, yes, I feel bad for her, and I'm so very thankful she's doing well, and I've prayed for her...But, she IS a politician, and they DO engage in pot-shots. It's just what they do. And I'd say that if she had an "R" behind her name.

1. I think she was walking the damned line, she didn't relent to the reporters nooks, you hear what you want, she stood her ground, and didn't deserve being hurded like cattle into saying Sarah Palin was gunning for her.

Don't take that tone with me.
Re-read my posts regarding the video clip. I know she was (your words) "walking the damned line"...But, Jarhead brought up a good point relating to the "opening" she left. EVERY politician leaves openings like that. EVERY one of 'em.

2. Watch and listen to it agian Tony!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

And just who is "Tony"?

 

[Big Bad Bob]

There she is laying in the hospital holding onto life, while the liberal media drags her through the mud, using her shooting as a political football, stomping all over her while she clings to life, smashing her face into mud holes as they constantly attack the Republicans over her peril, her life is in the balance, and her party is on the war path using her limp body as a pole to ram the doors at the gates of the Republican Party, smashing her limp head into the Republican Castle, relentlessly hammering her head into the doors



Fortunately it looks like she may be able to tell us what she thinks when she is recovered well enough.


She did ask for a better poltical dialogue before she was shot.

I think she will likely do the same after she recovers well enough.

Will you listen to her?

Let's hope EVERYONE listens to her, and also understands that mere differences DO NOT equal "course dialogue", "hate speech", "incivility" and the like. JFK himself said:

“So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof”

We've somehow, all of us, been brought to a point in time when simple differences of opinion and policy equal absolute intolerance from many on the other side. Granted, I'm all for standing one's ground on that which they hold dear (for me, that would be maintaining things such as our constitutional republic, freedom & liberty). But, we get too bogged down in distasteful rhetoric. One side launches a charge at the other side...Then, if false, the other sides answers the charge and often times is critical of the other side for making such a charge. THAT scenario IS NOT a bad one. What is bad is when, 3 days later, after the charge has either been proven true or false, both sides continue to spew at each other in a heated fashion, and the argument grows out of control. It's kids on a friggin' play ground.

There are, understandably, MANY instances where the charge is so monsterous or the subject-matter so serious, that 'heated' rhetoric CANNOT be avoided. But, we would all do well to take a chill pill and remember that famous line from Will Smith in the first "Men In Black" movie:

"Don't start nothin'...Won't be nothin'".

We are humans. We are born with a natural reactionary and defensive instinct. When we feel threatened, we often times shoot from the hip (no pun intended). It's hard NOT to react. But, if we all claim we want more civility in politics, we'd better start thinking about NOT reacting.

Can I get you a new Soap-Box, yours is getting to look pretty worn out.

 

[Talismen]

There she is laying in the hospital holding onto life, while the liberal media drags her through the mud, using her shooting as a political football, stomping all over her while she clings to life, smashing her face into mud holes as they constantly attack the Republicans over her peril, her life is in the balance, and her party is on the war path using her limp body as a pole to ram the doors at the gates of the Republican Party, smashing her limp head into the Republican Castle, relentlessly hammering her head into the doors



Fortunately it looks like she may be able to tell us what she thinks when she is recovered well enough.


She did ask for a better poltical dialogue before she was shot.

I think she will likely do the same after she recovers well enough.

Will you listen to her?

Let's hope EVERYONE listens to her, and also understands that mere differences DO NOT equal "course dialogue", "hate speech", "incivility" and the like. JFK himself said:

&#8220;So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof&#8221;

We've somehow, all of us, been brought to a point in time when simple differences of opinion and policy equal absolute intolerance from many on the other side. Granted, I'm all for standing one's ground on that which they hold dear (for me, that would be maintaining things such as our constitutional republic, freedom & liberty). But, we get too bogged down in distasteful rhetoric. One side launches a charge at the other side...Then, if false, the other sides answers the charge and often times is critical of the other side for making such a charge. THAT scenario IS NOT a bad one. What is bad is when, 3 days later, after the charge has either been proven true or false, both sides continue to spew at each other in a heated fashion, and the argument grows out of control. It's kids on a friggin' play ground.

There are, understandably, MANY instances where the charge is so monsterous or the subject-matter so serious, that 'heated' rhetoric CANNOT be avoided. But, we would all do well to take a chill pill and remember that famous line from Will Smith in the first "Men In Black" movie:

"Don't start nothin'...Won't be nothin'".

We are humans. We are born with a natural reactionary and defensive instinct. When we feel threatened, we often times shoot from the hip (no pun intended). It's hard NOT to react. But, if we all claim we want more civility in politics, we'd better start thinking about NOT reacting.

Can I get you a new Soap-Box, yours is getting to look pretty worn out.

Although I cannot recall ever reading any of your posts, you'll have to forgive me if I'm unclear on the intent of your comment. Is it a compliment or a slam? I know not.

If I offend you with the content or length of my posts, put me on ignore and save yourself some supposed heartache. If you're trying to compliment me, I thank you, but ask that you forgive me for not immediately discerning your post to be a compliment.

 

[BenNatuf]

Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.

I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".

It's amazingly nice of the left to offer up civility after trashing conservatives by linking them to the shooting... the sincerity of the call for this newfound respect for civility rings a little hollow from those who do not want to suffer the consequences of their own misdeeds.

 

[mdn2000]

You know what Gabby didn't deserve.

She didn't deserve to be called a "death panel socialist" when she voted for Health Care. She didn't deserve the threats and vandalism she received after casting that vote.

Gabby was constructed as the enemy of freedom because of her congressional votes.

She didn't deserve what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg, Mark Levine, Michael Savage and a million other wingers said about her over and over.

[Imagine the following being said in an ever louder scream, over and over] "Socialist. Death Panel. socialist. Death panel. Socialist. Death Panel. socialist. Death panel"

Over and over.

Was Jared Loughner motivated by this terminal anti-government noise machine? Nobody will ever know.

Should Gabby have been called a treasonous, death panel socialist? No.

(over and over and over)

You people are sick.

You had me up to, actually, you are wrong, she deserved all the criticism.

She didn't deserve the threats and vandalism she received after casting that vote

If Gifford received threats and vandalism Gifford is entirely to blame for the shooting. Gifford the Politician, a Congressman, who is sworn to protect, who's first function is the Public safety, I would like to see a thread that looks at Gifford's security.

You make the case that Gifford failed as a politician and the result was tragedy and death.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

Can I get you a new Soap-Box, yours is getting to look pretty worn out.[/QUOTE]

Although I cannot recall ever reading any of your posts, you'll have to forgive me if I'm unclear on the intent of your comment. Is it a compliment or a slam? I know not.

If I offend you with the content or length of my posts, put me on ignore and save yourself some supposed heartache. If you're trying to compliment me, I thank you, but ask that you forgive me for not immediately discerning your post to be a compliment.[/QUOTE]

A Slam..........

 

[MaggieMae]

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.

No one had a problem when the Democrats used a map of the US and used bulls eyes to "target" Republican districts.....

I guess it's OK when the Dems use the SAME method to make their point.....

What hypocrisy....

Mild hypocrisy at best. The term "bull's eye" has been used for eons in different contexts in addition to hitting the mark via a weapon.

Definition
bull's-eye

1. middle of target: the center of a target, which usually carries the highest score
"She hit the bull's eye perfectly."

2. top-scoring shot: a shot that hits the center of a target

3. precise achievement: a precise or highly effective achievement ( informal )

4. thick lens: a small thick lens for intensifying light

5. round window: a small round window, especially a disk of thick glass in a ship's deck for letting in light below deck

INTERJECTION
1. recognizing precise achievement: used to acknowledge and commend a precise or highly effective achievement ( informal )

Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary

///
Definition
cross hairs

1. fine lines: a pair of fine lines or wires that cross at right angles inside a lens or sight, e.g., used in focusing an optical instrument or aiming a rifle

Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary

 

[MaggieMae]

There she is laying in the hospital holding onto life, while the liberal media drags her through the mud, using her shooting as a political football, stomping all over her while she clings to life, smashing her face into mud holes as they constantly attack the Republicans over her peril, her life is in the balance, and her party is on the war path using her limp body as a pole to ram the doors at the gates of the Republican Party, smashing her limp head into the Republican Castle, relentlessly hammering her head into the doors



Fortunately it looks like she may be able to tell us what she thinks when she is recovered well enough.


She did ask for a better poltical dialogue before she was shot.

I think she will likely do the same after she recovers well enough.

Will you listen to her?

Let's hope EVERYONE listens to her, and also understands that mere differences DO NOT equal "course dialogue", "hate speech", "incivility" and the like. JFK himself said:

“So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof”

We've somehow, all of us, been brought to a point in time when simple differences of opinion and policy equal absolute intolerance from many on the other side. Granted, I'm all for standing one's ground on that which they hold dear (for me, that would be maintaining things such as our constitutional republic, freedom & liberty). But, we get too bogged down in distasteful rhetoric. One side launches a charge at the other side...Then, if false, the other sides answers the charge and often times is critical of the other side for making such a charge. THAT scenario IS NOT a bad one. What is bad is when, 3 days later, after the charge has either been proven true or false, both sides continue to spew at each other in a heated fashion, and the argument grows out of control. It's kids on a friggin' play ground.

There are, understandably, MANY instances where the charge is so monsterous or the subject-matter so serious, that 'heated' rhetoric CANNOT be avoided. But, we would all do well to take a chill pill and remember that famous line from Will Smith in the first "Men In Black" movie:

"Don't start nothin'...Won't be nothin'".

We are humans. We are born with a natural reactionary and defensive instinct. When we feel threatened, we often times shoot from the hip (no pun intended). It's hard NOT to react. But, if we all claim we want more civility in politics, we'd better start thinking about NOT reacting.

Can I get you a new Soap-Box, yours is getting to look pretty worn out.

And leave Chesswars alone to rant from his soapbox? Okey-dokey. Ironically, Talisman writes sensibly pointing out that both "sides" have gotten waaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand. Chesswars is only capable of bashing liberals and won't acknowledge conservative actions. His postings are .01% fact and 99.99% fact-free rant.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Never doubt me, as its turned out, *JUDGE JOHN ROLLS* was a *HERO*, he threw his body infront of gun shots to protect Rob Barber, who was standing next to him when the shots fired first rang out, Rob Barber was hit, perhaps first, then *JUDGE JOHN ROLLS* was shot in the back as he covered this innocent man.
2. *NEVER DOUBT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. You see, Judges are a part of *LAW INFORCEMENT* and will naturally protect the innocent.
4. That's what they are trained and commited to do, for the good of the public.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas