Republicans showing their true colors and true intent

Taichiliberal said:
Circumstances please, because it's a hell of a difference from rolling in and removing local elected officials to enact a ruling in your favor.
Click to expand...

????....what does "removing locally elected officials" have to do with "states changing contracts"?........what issue are we actually debating here.....
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes, because since we both agree Dixie's a "dumbfuck" why should I waste time repeating the information that educated your dopey PMFool ass?
Click to expand...

I think PMP and myself agree, you are a dumbfuck. :fu:
Click to expand...

Such a concensus and a metro card will only get you on the bus, my Dixie Dunce. Too date, neither you or your equally willfully ignorant compadre can logically or factually fault what I posted on #156.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Circumstances please, because it's a hell of a difference from rolling in and removing local elected officials to enact a ruling in your favor
Click to expand...
.


????....what does "removing locally elected officials" have to do with "states changing contracts"?........what issue are we actually debating here.....
Click to expand...

That is actually my point, you Post Modern Fool as YOU seem to confuse the two in the discussion, as the chronology of the posts shows. Being a Post Modern Fool, you seem to think that YOU can introduce anything you want into a discussion and then pretend YOU didn't....more so to the point YOU try to place your Post Modern Failure onto someone else. But as always, despite what comes off your PMP keyboard, the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. (this is where PMP copies on line from my post and tries to pretend that's all I said, or adds on his own lies/insults...or he just repeats his already disproven PMP lies.)
 
Taichiliberal said:
Such a concensus and a metro card will only get you on the bus, my Dixie Dunce. Too date, neither you or your equally willfully ignorant compadre can logically or factually fault what I posted on #156.
Click to expand...


Here is what you posted in #156:

Chicklet quoting another pinhead: Well, my Post Modern Fool, you once again demonstrate your inability to read carefully and comprehensively, as Sen. Conyers (D-Detroit) explains:

... Worse yet, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits any State from impairing a contract, which is exactly what this legislation does.
Click to expand...

It is not an established fact that this legislation does what you claim. It is your opinion, maybe the opinion of the pinhead you quoted, but the court has not ruled on this particular case, they have not heard arguments on either side of this particular case, and to try and claim that this is a settled matter of law, is a flat out dishonest lie and distortion of the facts. You have to first take this to court and get a ruling in your favor, then you can parade around here all you like, making these claims and allegations. Until that happens, let it be known, you are simply lying and misleading people, and having the utter nerve to call others liars in the process.
 
Bfgrn said:
The Dixiecrats may have been Democrats, but it doesn't mean they were liberals. They were conservatives. Some of them became Republicans after the 1964 Civil Rights bill like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
Click to expand...
And some of them stayed Democrats like George Wallace who blocked black children on the schoolhouse steps and Bobby Byrd, grand puma of the KKK or whatever the hell he was...Democrats sure kept him around after he was "hangin' the niggers from the nearest tree limbs".....

Whats your point ?

liberal and Conservative are labels that mean different things at defferent times in history...they a subjective and relative....they mean different things to different people, so cut the shit....
 
Taichiliberal said:
That is actually my point, you Post Modern Fool as YOU seem to confuse the two in the discussion, as the chronology of the posts shows. Being a Post Modern Fool, you seem to think that YOU can introduce anything you want into a discussion and then pretend YOU didn't....more so to the point YOU try to place your Post Modern Failure onto someone else. But as always, despite what comes off your PMP keyboard, the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. (this is where PMP copies on line from my post and tries to pretend that's all I said, or adds on his own lies/insults...or he just repeats his already disproven PMP lies.)
Click to expand...

lol....well....as the chronology of the posts shows, you were the one who introduced "states changing contracts" in post #156......so, as anyone can see, TouchieFailureLiberal ought to try to place his avoidance somewhere else....as I have already shown that his disproven TouchieLies are merely repeats of his earlier failures.......shazzam!
 
christiefan915 said:
We're talking about current events. The fact is that fringe righties want to define and limit some rights according to their social conservative viewpoints.

Liberals are supporting a law that was passed almost 40 years ago. If conservatives don't like that law, work harder to get it repealed. The fly in this ointment is that many conservatives support the law also, otherwise it could have been overturned in previous repub administrations.
Click to expand...

Thats rich....liberals want to RE-DEFINE words whose meanings have been accepted and understood for centuries to force their distorted social agenda on everyone else....
 
Bfgrn said:
So we should have segregation in America? Because the conservative position, particularly in the south was 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever'

We only have to look at gay rights today to see the difference between liberals and conservatives that still exists
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the only folks that promote segregation are the ones that defend organizations like the NAACP, the Black Caucus, black only colleges, black only anything.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
That is actually my point, you Post Modern Fool as YOU seem to confuse the two in the discussion, as the chronology of the posts shows. Being a Post Modern Fool, you seem to think that YOU can introduce anything you want into a discussion and then pretend YOU didn't....more so to the point YOU try to place your Post Modern Failure onto someone else. But as always, despite what comes off your PMP keyboard, the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. (this is where PMP copies on line from my post and tries to pretend that's all I said, or adds on his own lies/insults...or he just repeats his already disproven PMP lies.)
Click to expand...
When you refuse to answer a question,
Just say "I don't have a clue", and be done with it....saves a lot of key strokes...
 
King of 32DDD said:
Also regarding Conservatism and Civil Rights:

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/W._Chapman_Revercomb/1



W. Chapman Revercomb was both a stalwart conservative Republican and a stalwart supporter of civil rights. He voted for the CRA of 1957, which obviously cost him re-election against Robert fucking parasite Byrd in 1958. How do you explain this, Bfgrbdiwfce?
Click to expand...

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. Civil rights has NEVER been a conservative cause. There are no conservative causes that don't include the 3 conservative priorities: ME, MYSELF and I.


"We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference".
President John F. Kennedy
 
Damn Yankee said:
11 voted against it, verses 107 Southern Democrats. That's a ratio of almost 10:1 Democrat/ Republican who voted against civil rights. :whoa:
Click to expand...

Can you be any more disingenuous and dishonest?

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
 
Bfgrn said:
You are confused. The biggest piece of shit our government ever had was J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI Director wasn't ordered, he did the ordering. He had enough dirt on everyone he needed to control.
Click to expand...

WOW! Something I find truthful from you for a change. Go figure.????

I wouldn't say he was the biggest piece of shit our government ever had, but he's got to be up there.

J. Edgar Hoover was as bad of a man as one can be. A true piece of shit.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Such a concensus and a metro card will only get you on the bus, my Dixie Dunce. Too date, neither you or your equally willfully ignorant compadre can logically or factually fault what I posted on #156.
Click to expand...

Here is what you posted in #156:

Originally posted by Taichiliberal: Well, my Post Modern Fool, you once again demonstrate your inability to read carefully and comprehensively, as Sen. Conyers (D-Detroit) explains:

... Worse yet, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits any State from impairing a contract, which is exactly what this legislation does.
Click to expand...

It is not an established fact that this legislation does what you claim. It is your opinion, maybe the opinion of the pinhead you quoted, but the court has not ruled on this particular case, they have not heard arguments on either side of this particular case, and to try and claim that this is a settled matter of law, is a flat out dishonest lie and distortion of the facts. You have to first take this to court and get a ruling in your favor, then you can parade around here all you like, making these claims and allegations. Until that happens, let it be known, you are simply lying and misleading people, and having the utter nerve to call others liars in the process.
Click to expand...

The Dixie Dunce Strikes again. Notice folks, that old Dix makes a claim yet provides NO proof to support his assertions, supposition and conjecture.
The Dixie Dunce could have said, "there's nothing in the bill that suggests this"....but that would entail our willfully ignorant Dixie actually RESEARCHING the subject matter. For those interested in the truth, just google "Michigan HB-4214, as passed by House 3/16/11". If you get the PDF, just do a search for "contract(s)", and you'll see just exactly what Sen. Conyers was talking about when he referred to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution that is being violated by Gov. Snyder's bill.

I often make the mistake and ASSUME that the various neocon parrots and pundits like Dixie, Bravo and PMP actually are up to speed on the subject being discussed, and therefore I shouldn't have to spell everything out.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That is actually my point, you Post Modern Fool as YOU seem to confuse the two in the discussion, as the chronology of the posts shows. Being a Post Modern Fool, you seem to think that YOU can introduce anything you want into a discussion and then pretend YOU didn't....more so to the point YOU try to place your Post Modern Failure onto someone else. But as always, despite what comes off your PMP keyboard, the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. (this is where PMP copies on line from my post and tries to pretend that's all I said, or adds on his own lies/insults...or he just repeats his already disproven PMP lies.)
Click to expand...

lol....well....as the chronology of the posts shows, you were the one who introduced "states changing contracts" in post #156......so, as anyone can see, TouchieFailureLiberal ought to try to place his avoidance somewhere else....as I have already shown that his disproven TouchieLies are merely repeats of his earlier failures.......shazzam!
Click to expand...

On Post #156 this exchange was answered

1. Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.
Post Modern Prophet: oh, that would be "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".....I'm sorry we hadn't covered that for you....


To which I pointed out via Sen. Conyers Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution, which essentially shows WHY the Snyder’s bill that gives his appointees the ability to negate rights and protections delegated by the Constitution.

But rather than just acknowledge this little fact, our Post Modern Fool plays once again displays his dishonest nature by trying to play dumber than he is regarding his reading comprehension (which I don’t think is actually possible).

But I forget that our Post Modern Fool is all headline and no text. Pages 2, 25, 28, and 37 of the Michigan HB-4214 (passed on 3/16/11) demonstrated the powers bestowed by Governor Synder's appointees during a declared financial crisis.....to which Sen. Conyers rightly pointed out it's unconstitutionality. Now let's watch our chuckling PMP clown "shazzam" his way out of his self made foolishness.
 
Taichiliberal said:
On Post #156 this exchange was answered

1. Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.
Post Modern Prophet: oh, that would be "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".....I'm sorry we hadn't covered that for you....


To which I pointed out via Sen. Conyers Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution, which essentially shows WHY the Snyder’s bill that gives his appointees the ability to negate rights and protections delegated by the Constitution.

But rather than just acknowledge this little fact, our Post Modern Fool plays once again displays his dishonest nature by trying to play dumber than he is regarding his reading comprehension (which I don’t think is actually possible).

But I forget that our Post Modern Fool is all headline and no text. Pages 2, 25, 28, and 37 of the Michigan HB-4214 (passed on 3/16/11) demonstrated the powers bestowed by Governor Synder's appointees during a declared financial crisis.....to which Sen. Conyers rightly pointed out it's unconstitutionality. Now let's watch our chuckling PMP clown "shazzam" his way out of his self made foolishness.
Click to expand...

the reason Conyers gave in the quote you provided in post #156 was that the government had no authority to change contracts......when I responded to that claim you complained I was trying to change the subject......when I pointed out you were the one who introduced that subject, you denied it....you've done nothing besides squirm uncomfortably ever since......as ever, I enjoy watching you squirm uncomfortably.....
 
bravo said:
Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
????....what does "removing locally elected officials" have to do with "states changing contracts"?........what issue are we actually debating here.....
Click to expand...

The pinhead doesn't debate, he rants....put him on Ignore....
Click to expand...

And since our intellectually impotent Bravo shoots blanks in a fair, rational discussion based on facts and the logic derived from those facts, our Bravo seeks solace in mentally humping the leg of an equally stupid neocon flunkie for approval. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top