2012 Presidential Election

[SoCal]

The previous post is:




as opposed to Barry lying about terrorist attacks on his watch.

Please.



Meantime, our fearless leader makes time to appear on "The view," where he described himself as "eye candy." Not a serious man.....not a real president.

[KyleEl]

Rush Limbaugh said Obama lied about the terrorist attacks.

And he just had to keep playing audio of the people getting their Obamaphones. And once (or possibly more) he played audio of people getting their money. The woman was asked where it came from and she said from Obama. Where did Obama get it? She didn't know. Maybe his stash.

It's the Chinese.

And just in case the point doesn't get across about who [Rush says] supports Obama, the voices on the recordings were black.

I can't pick up anything else on the radio coming home from the beach, so I listen to Rush more than I do any other day of the year.

[Mistermoonlight]

You know that most people think Rush Limbaugh is a self-aggrandizing idiot, right?

This election comes down to something very simple: are you person who cares mostly about self-- or are you someone who cares about others? That's it in a nutshell.



wtfu2012.com

[SoCal]

No, that's not what elections are about.

You're talking about feelings. Feelings do not direct governments. Feelings can bring down governments but when governments try to direct a nation based on something as nebulous as feelings, whose feelings matter? Or do we all have to have the same feelings as you? That smacks of totalitarianism. A word I think fits the democrat party nicely.

Democrats: We LOVE diversity as long as it looks like us.

And if the best the "dims" can come up with is a foul-mouthed Hollywood millionaire, they're in worse shape than I thought.

And I'll put Rush up against Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and
Ed "I know Nothing!" Schultz ANY day.

[Mistermoonlight]

In a choice between those who deem most science and truth that they cannot recognize because of party constrictions 'a theory' not even knowing the true definition of the term, or caring, including climate change, and also believe the world to be 3000 years old, who do not believe that women have a choice in bringing a child into this world, even in cases in rape or incest, and proclaim themselves as social darwinists, I'm gonna say either the glass is half empty or half full, and it really depends on what you think of your fellow man more than anything.

It's very simple. It's between those who are self-centered and those who have a working conscience.

I could say a lot worse, but I won't.
'

[SoCal]

Ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots. You "could say worse but you won't." How profound.


Another interesting finding of the report was the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” philanthropists.

The report found that the eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity voted for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008, while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.

“Liberals give less,” said Brooks.

“Liberals are the least likely to help the poor,” agreed Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “That’s the inescapable conclusion of this new study.”

It’s not the first time a study of charitable giving has noted the political difference.

In their 2010 study “Religious Attitudes and Charitable Donations,” authors Robert Eger of Florida State University and Bruce McDonald of Indiana University found the same. They cited two reasons that individuals who self-identified as “religiously conservative” were more likely to make religious charitable contributions than those who identified themselves as “religiously liberal.”

“First, self-identified conservatives are … more likely to be involved within religious institutions, activities and commitments, such as regular church participation and stable family structures, each of which lends itself to increased volunteerism and donations,” concluded the report. “Second, self-identified religiously liberal individuals are less likely involved in religious institutions and thus less likely to donate to religious organizations.”





Read more: www.ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-people-donate-more-to-church-and-charity/#ixzz27ocFdz4t

[spoonieluv247]

how is Mitt even a nominee? is America REALLY going to elect a CULT MEMBER leader of the Free World?

I approve of his reliance on SORCERY and his BLACK CATS to interrogate terrorists.......

But moving the White House to Salem, Mass? that's just INSANE!!!

[AntiArbitrator]

[SoCal]

Sept 28, 2012 23:09:06 GMT -5 spoonieluv247 said:

how is Mitt even a nominee? is America REALLY going to elect a CULT MEMBER leader of the Free World?

I approve of his reliance on SORCERY and his BLACK CATS to interrogate terrorists.......

But moving the White House to Salem, Mass? that's just INSANE!!!

Please don't make me bring out the Rev. Wright audios........

[Mistermoonlight]

"If you can't feed one hundred people, then feed just one."
--Mother Teresa

[SoCal]

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
¯ James Madison

[KyleEl]

Sept 28, 2012 16:26:49 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

You know that most people think Rush Limbaugh is a self-aggrandizing idiot, right?

I was referring to the show's entertainment value. It wasn't really telling the truth that day.

I keep seeing the Obama commercial that has audio of Romney dismissing the 47 percent. Those people in the audio on Rush's show may very well be like Romney described, but I think he put his foot in his mouth because those are a very small minority.

Most of those 47 percent do want to take responsibility and are not depending on handouts--or at least they dont want to for long.

[KyleEl]

Sept 28, 2012 19:50:55 GMT -5 SoCal said:

The report found that the eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity voted for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008, while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.

“Liberals give less,” said Brooks.

“Liberals are the least likely to help the poor,” agreed Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “That’s the inescapable conclusion of this new study.”

I've been hearing that liberals don't give as much to charity as conservatives. They want to spend the government's money. I think if they have it they should spend their own. Then maybe we wouldn't need the government as much.

[Aeryn]

Sept 28, 2012 19:00:11 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

It's very simple. It's between those who are self-centered and those who have a working conscience.

I could say a lot worse, but I won't.

[/b][/color]
[/quote]


MisterMoonlight
Administrator
Crystal the Monkey Fan Club
member is offline

I'll be waiting for you in heaven . . . with a gun.

Joined: Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,704
Karma: 71 Re: Sam Fans Are The Biggest Whiners On Earth
« Reply #84 on Apr 23, 2012, 6:07pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...as mods and admins, we don't fight, in Fight Club or anywhere else. That's because our mission is larger....we never take sides. We just stay out of the fray as much as possible and take bets among each other as to the winners."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you really couldn't say alot worse if you still stand by these words.

[Mistermoonlight]

Oct 1, 2012 13:38:00 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Sept 28, 2012 16:26:49 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

You know that most people think Rush Limbaugh is a self-aggrandizing idiot, right?

I was referring to the show's entertainment value. It wasn't really telling the truth that day.

I keep seeing the Obama commercial that has audio of Romney dismissing the 47 percent. Those people in the audio on Rush's show may very well be like Romney described, but I think he put his foot in his mouth because those are a very small minority.

Most of those 47 percent do want to take responsibility and are not depending on handouts--or at least they dont want to for long.

I agree with everything you said, Kyle. And while I do think that some of that goes on, I also think it's ludicrous to think that it's anything near 100 million people.

I also think that it's an important point you make about the entertainment value of talk radio. Having spent a lifetime in radio I know that everyone from Howard Stern to Rush Limbough is, to some degree, portraying a character they have created.

You'd be surprised how much of it is acting. And the real importance of selling it is finding a way to, at least for the moment, believe in what you are saying. You'd be surprised at the difference it makes when you're doing a commercial, for example. You can say the words the copywriter gives you, but if you don't feel them when you say them, it falls flat. Exactly the same as a singer doing a ballad.

I grew up in a great era of radio, when being funny and entertaining was the goal. These days there's a whole group of folks out there who, instead of using comedy, simply employ attitude. It's not the same.

There's a whole group out there who've found a niche that works (in radio parlance that means found an audience that agrees and listens to them) and calls for nothing more than just being a jerk. Some people want to hear that. And in radio, if you've got an audience, that's all that counts.

I'm old-school. I'll still take someone who makes me laugh any day over someone who simply tries to push my buttons. And I'll always support someone who inspires me to be a better person, not a smaller one.

I believe that we create best together as a people. Whether it's trying to wipe out poverty, hunger, and crime or encouraging our institutions of higher learning and making education a priority, or exploring the cosmos.

It used to be that Republicans and Democrats worked together. Now there is no such thing as that. There are folks who put politics above ideas, and will not agree to anything if the opposition is for it. It's become a football game, and nothing is more important than winning.

That's not the sane way for any people to govern themselves, in my opinion. We're better than that. We deserve better. and we can do it.

[SoCal]

I won't even call him "president." He's a complete asshole. What the f--k did he say at the U.N.? Is there anyone left in the world he hasn't appologized to? Except the American people, that is. Crap on a cracker.

[Mistermoonlight]

Oct 1, 2012 16:43:46 GMT -5 Aeryn said:

Sept 28, 2012 19:00:11 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

It's very simple. It's between those who are self-centered and those who have a working conscience.

I could say a lot worse, but I won't.

[/b][/color]
[/quote]


MisterMoonlight
Administrator
Crystal the Monkey Fan Club
member is offline

I'll be waiting for you in heaven . . . with a gun.

Joined: Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,704
Karma: 71 Re: Sam Fans Are The Biggest Whiners On Earth
« Reply #84 on Apr 23, 2012, 6:07pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...as mods and admins, we don't fight, in Fight Club or anywhere else. That's because our mission is larger....we never take sides. We just stay out of the fray as much as possible and take bets among each other as to the winners."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you really couldn't say alot worse if you still stand by these words.



[/quote]

Thank you for that, my friend, you are 100% right. I still hold to those ideals, but need to be reminded of them from time to time.

[Mistermoonlight]

Oct 1, 2012 17:54:11 GMT -5 SoCal said:

I won't even call him "president." He's a complete asshole. What the f--k did he say at the U.N.? Is there anyone left in the world he hasn't appologized to? Except the American people, that is. Crap on a cracker.

That's pretty much the way I felt about George W. Bush. Or Nixon. So, I understand.

[SoCal]

Whoopie-f**king-doo. Neither of them are currently in office. This sleaze ball is.

Does he understand the term "freedom of speech?"

Apparently not. And that makes him a dangerous f**ker.

[Mistermoonlight]

You could probably dig up the corpse of Richard Nixon; he might stand a better chance of being elected.

[SoCal]

I'm certainly not a Nixon defender. He did some stupid stuff. But I never heard him or Bush speak out against one of our most cherished freedoms...freedom of speech.

You no doubt noticed that twice, when Obama spoke at a Catholic institution, he asked (and to their great shame the instiututions went along with his request) to have one of the great Catholic symbols of our faith, the crucifix, covered by a drape. All because he didn't want to offend muslims. But he has no problem offending all Americans by his moronic speech at the U.N. where he spoke out against our right of freedom of speech.

He's a dangerous bastard. A f**king dangerous bastard.



Don't be an asshole by trying to link me to Nixon. That just makes you look pathetic.

[Mistermoonlight]

Nixon was a Republican. The connection is not between you and him, but rather between him, his party, and the American people.

And it would be a lot easier if Republicans didn't continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Today, Republican candidate Todd Aiken, who claimed that in 'legitimate rape' women's bodies had ways of taking care of the situation, so that abortion was not necessary, said that it was ok for employers to pay women less than men.

At this point, heading into the election, Democrats don't have to do much more than watch the show, as Republicans tear their own party apart. The sad thing is that anyone within the Republican party who espouses moderate views is now denigrated as being a 'RINO' or 'Republican in Name Only' rather than respected.

That's why you've got so many crazies getting face time, and why it seems more like a reality TV show rather than a political party.

[SoCal]

Puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. Democrats have their fair share of loonies.

Anyone seen Jesse Jackson, Jr. lately? How many of the younger Kennedy set have beat up on some woman lately? Has Howard Dean stopped screaming? Guess old Bobby Byrd and his Grand Dragon sheet set from the KKK is buried with him. Joe Biden gotten his foot out of his mouth yet? Ha Bill Clinton gotten any blow jobs lately?

The only reason you hear about republican crazies is because the press is firmly in the democRATS back pocket. Andrea Mitchell won't play a recording of Barry Obama talking about how he believes in "redistribution," because she says it hadn't been authenticated. Yeah, the bitch who sleeps with Alan Greenspan is "fair and balanced."

Joe Biden must have chocolate toes....because he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Mistermoonlight]

I remember the moment well when not only Jesse Jackson Sr., but Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, and Magic Johnson all cried during President Obama's inauguration, as did I.



It was a seminal moment in American history.

I remember further back, though, when Jackson stood proudly next to his brother, Dr. Martin Luther King..



But my favorite memory is this--Jesse Jackson Sr. introducing Isaac Hayes at Wattstax:



I tell ya what. Instead of an election, let's just have Samuel L. Jackson take on Arnold Shchwarzenagger, what do you think?





I think we all know what a debacle it's going to be when Ryan goes up against Vice President Biden in the VP debates. Release the Biden!



That's gonna be just downright fun.

[Mistermoonlight]

Oct 1, 2012 13:42:00 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Sept 28, 2012 19:50:55 GMT -5 SoCal said:

The report found that the eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity voted for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008, while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.

“Liberals give less,” said Brooks.

“Liberals are the least likely to help the poor,” agreed Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “That’s the inescapable conclusion of this new study.”

I've been hearing that liberals don't give as much to charity as conservatives. They want to spend the government's money. I think if they have it they should spend their own. Then maybe we wouldn't eed the government as much.

Oh, you mean things like space travel to the moon, our interstate highway infrastructure, the Center for Disease Control, The Food and Drug Administration, the National Transportation and Saftey Board, the National Institute for Health, our wildlife sanctuaries, the Small Business Administration, The FBI, Pell grants for students, the CIA,and armies?

A system in which corporzations (who are people now) are the final abitrors in all things pubic? We've seen how well that works in American history.

Government is a horrible idea. How have we lived so long with it?

[Aeryn]

Oct 1, 2012 22:17:44 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Oct 1, 2012 13:42:00 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

I've been hearing that liberals don't give as much to charity as conservatives. They want to spend the government's money. I think if they have it they should spend their own. Then maybe we wouldn't eed the government as much.

Oh, you mean things like space travel to the moon, our interstate highway infrastructure, the Center for Disease Control, The Food and Drug Administration, the National Transportation and Saftey Board, the National Institute for Health, our wildlife sanctuaries, the Small Business Administration, The FBI,Pell grants for students, the CIA,and armies?

Yeah, government is a horrible dea. How have we lived so long with that?

What does "dea" mean?

[SoCal]

Oct 1, 2012 22:17:44 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Oct 1, 2012 13:42:00 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Oh, you mean things like space travel to the moon, our interstate highway infrastructure, the Center for Disease Control, The Food and Drug Administration, the National Transportation and Saftey Board, the National Institute for Health, our wildlife sanctuaries, the Small Business Administration, The FBI, Pell grants for students, the CIA,and armies?

A system in which corporzations (who are people now) are the final abitrors in all things pubic? We've seen how well that works in American history.

Government is a horrible idea. How have we lived so long with it?

I never said government was a horrible idea. It's the horrible person now in charge of our government that is horrible. And the horrible people who support him are horrible.

The government was designed by the founders to have very limited powers. The current regime seems to believe it isn't subject to those delineated powers.

I guess you like czars (not confimed by the Senate); an attorney general who doesn't prosecute law breakers but sues states for trying to defend their borders; a treasury secretary who doesn't pay his taxes because he "doesn't understand how to use TurboTax," and a so-called president who bypasses congressional authority to allow a class of illegal aliens amnesty.

You were all wet with excitement to say that Barry saved GM. Isn't that a corporation? I guess only some corporations (which are populated with people - they're called employees) are okay in your flawed logic.


by Mike Flynn 2 Oct 2012, 6:54 AM PDT 39

For Obama and the left, the law is merely a suggestion for what they can do. Can't get something through Congress? Simply issue an executive order. Can't get an appointment through the Senate? Simply "declare" the Senate in recess and appoint away. Act now and let the judges sort it out later.
For the past several weeks, several defense contractors made it clear they would have to send out layoff notices to thousands of workers due to automatic budget cuts set to take affect in January. The cuts are triggered by the debt ceiling "deal" hatched last year. The layoff notices are required under federal law.

Understandably, the Obama Administration was panicked by this. The notices would hit in the last month of his reelection campaign and have a huge impact in the critical swing state of Virginia, home to hoards of defense contractors. What to do? Simple. Ignore the law.

Yesterday, Lockheed Martin, a massive contractor, announced it had reached a "deal" with the White House and would not send out the legally required layoff notices. The Obama Administration had "interpreted" the law and found it would be "inappropriate" to send out the layoff notices.

More amazingly, the White House promised to pay any fines or penalties that might be leveled against the company for violating federal law. Read that again.

Yes, the White House just told companies to violate federal law and that, if they get in trouble for it, the government will cover their fines.

Let's remember, this federal law requiring the lay-off notices, the WARN Act, was passed in 1988 by a veto-proof Democrat Congress. It went into affect without President Reagan's signature. It was an urgent matter for Democrats, until, apparently, they didn't like the consequences of it.

Nothing must interfere with Obama's reelection. Not even federal law.

[Mistermoonlight]

Actually, I was replying to Kyle's last sentence in the post.

Everybody looking forward to the debates tomorrow night? It's gonna be fun in here for that.

[SoCal]

Awwww.....your boy blew it............BIG TIME.

Not surprising since he's just not used to people expecting him to answer questions or defend stupid answers.

Like the cartoons used to say...."What a maroon."

[Mistermoonlight]

From what I've seen on the internet, FaceBook, and Twitter, here's the guy who won the debate: