Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   WI Governor Walker top aid under FBI investigation (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43828)

Danzig 09-19-2011 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807751)
LOL - what imaginary posts are you reading? No. I actually listed the House and Senate vote results. Just to show how Chuck's statement "virtually every Democrat in Congress" shouldn't be conceded, because it's simply demonstrably wrong.

How in the world is listing the actual votes (disproving Chuck's claim) "talking about everything except that vote"??? That's a crazy statement.
chuck wrote this:

The "so called" Patriot act was passed by the Senate 98-1. Seems like a whole lot of Democratic Senators were tuned into GOP.tv that day


then he wrote this, re-iterating what i just linked above:

98-1 in favor of the Patriot act.


but yeah, i'm just making it up.
anytime someone posts something you don't want to concede the point on, you start throwing a bunch of other stuff out there, as tho people will somehow forget the point being made because you attempt to muddy the waters...much like dell in the other thread posting a link about solyndra, so you start throwing out some republicans supposedly in on the deal, as tho others being involved removes some of the tarnish from your precious president and his dem cronies.
you can't explain or defend the 98-1 vote, so just throw out other garbage in an attempt to deflect.

Riot 09-19-2011 05:54 PM
Hang on, trying again under my sig:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807763)
chuck wrote this:

The "so called" Patriot act was passed by the Senate 98-1. Seems like a whole lot of Democratic Senators were tuned into GOP.tv that day

then he wrote this, re-iterating what i just linked above:

98-1 in favor of the Patriot act.

but yeah, i'm just making it up.

Yeah, he also wrote the below. So before you accuse me of something I didn't do (in fact, I did the opposite) maybe try reading the entire thread.

Quote:
Chuck wrote:
Try addressing the fact that virtually every Democrat in Congress voted in favor of the single biggest infringement on civil rights in modern US history and an elected Democratic President with majorities in both the House and Senate did absolutely nothing about it.
So, yeah, my posting of the actual vote disproving the above was "muddying the waters" in your view? LOL :D Yeah, putting the facts out there is so "muddying".

Quote:
link about solyndra, so you start throwing out some republicans supposedly in on the deal, as tho others being involved removes some of the tarnish from your precious president and his dem cronies.
"Supposedly?" LOL - yeah, well, I suggest you go check the Solandra thread. The mindless Obama-bashing is getting pretty old. And Obama happens to be your President, too.

Danzig 09-19-2011 10:08 PM
yes, riot, i said muddying because you could say nothing in regards to what chuck mentioned twice--the senate vote....just like doma, it sailed right thru. it doesn't fit with your perception, so you ignore it as tho it didn't happen. can't let anything affect the tint of those rose-colored glasses of yours.

Riot 09-19-2011 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807820)
yes, riot, i said muddying because you could say nothing in regards to what chuck mentioned twice--the senate vote....just like doma, it sailed right thru. it doesn't fit with your perception, so you ignore it as tho it didn't happen. can't let anything affect the tint of those rose-colored glasses of yours.
I didn't address the Senate vote. I addressed his false characterization of "the Congress", and even listed the Senate vote there.

You trying to make it seem like I was referring to the Senate only is beyond absurd. You falsely saying I am "muddying the waters" by posting the actual vote to point out his false characterization of the Congress is absurd. You saying I ignored it is absurd. Talk about "rose-colored glasses"

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807751)
LOL - what imaginary posts are you reading? No. I actually listed the House and Senate vote results. Just to show how Chuck's statement "virtually every Democrat in Congress" shouldn't be conceded, because it's simply demonstrably wrong.

How in the world is listing the actual votes (disproving Chuck's claim) "talking about everything except that vote"??? That's a crazy statement.
49 out of 50 Democratic senators voted yes for the Patriot Act
That would be 98%
145 out of 207 Democratic Representatives voted yes for the Patriot Act
That would be 70%

So please explain to me how I was "demonstrably" wrong? 8 out of 10 Democratic Congressmen voted FOR the Patriot act including 98% of the Senators yet you want to contest my statement? LOL

Riot 09-19-2011 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 807826)
49 out of 50 Democratic senators voted yes for the Patriot Act
That would be 98%
145 out of 207 Democratic Representatives voted yes for the Patriot Act
That would be 70%

So please explain to me how I was "demonstrably" wrong? 8 out of 10 Democratic Congressmen voted FOR the Patriot act including 98% of the Senators yet you want to contest my statement? LOL
Coming from the guy who thinks there's been no attacks on abortion rights or worker rights recently I think it's pretty self explainatory that your attempt to falsely color the Patriot Act as an overwhelming majority of Democratic culpability is laughable.

Oh, and include the renewal of the Patriot Acts' three provisions - who was against that?

And I'll point out that once again, as is your wont, you've avoided discussing the question, and created a false straw man diversion. Can't debate the subject, huh? Here was the comment you were trying to answer by changing the subject to the Patriot Act.

Quote:
I said: "That's right, Tea Party, your rights have been removed, in a very real manner, and you haven't even noticed, being distracted by shiny birth certificates and Muslim Communists dangled before you by GOP-TV"
Do you have anything to address regarding a political faction who purports to "defend liberty and Constitutional rights" while completely ignoring their factual removal? Other than to try and re-write history to make the Patriot Act the result of those darn Democrats?

Danzig 09-19-2011 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807828)
Coming from the guy who thinks there's been no attacks on abortion rights or worker rights recently I think it's pretty self explainatory that your attempt to falsely color the Patriot Act as an overwhelming majority of Democratic culpability is laughable.

Oh, and include the renewal of the Patriot Acts' three provisions - who was against that?

And I'll point out that once again, as is your wont, you've avoided discussing the question, and created a false straw man diversion. Can't debate the subject, huh? Here was the comment you were trying to answer by changing the subject to the Patriot Act.



Do you have anything to address regarding a political faction who purports to "defend liberty and Constitutional rights" while completely ignoring their factual removal? Other than to try and re-write history to make the Patriot Act the result of those darn Democrats?

no, the patriot act was most definitely something passed by both parties. not just one, and certainly not just the other. a disgrace that belongs too all our wonderful leaders. yep, they know what's best for us peons.

Riot 09-19-2011 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807845)
no, the patriot act was most definitely something passed by both parties. not just one, and certainly not just the other. a disgrace that belongs too all our wonderful leaders. yep, they know what's best for us peons.
Tell that to Chuck. He thinks it was a Democratic thing. I was the one that posted the article link about how all branches of government, and all parties, have been corroding our rights. You know, I'm "one of those people".

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807828)
Coming from the guy who thinks there's been no attacks on abortion rights or worker rights recently I think it's pretty self explainatory that your attempt to falsely color the Patriot Act as an overwhelming majority of Democratic culpability is laughable.

Oh, and include the renewal of the Patriot Acts' three provisions - who was against that?

And I'll point out that once again, as is your wont, you've avoided discussing the question, and created a false straw man diversion. Can't debate the subject, huh? Here was the comment you were trying to answer by changing the subject to the Patriot Act.



Do you have anything to address regarding a political faction who purports to "defend liberty and Constitutional rights" while completely ignoring their factual removal? Other than to try and re-write history to make the Patriot Act the result of those darn Democrats?
Do you take stupid pills? I made no references to anything except showing that the Democrats were just as complicit in passing the Patriot act as the GOP. 49 out of 50 Democratic senators said yes. You want to talk about removal od civil liberties and call the Patriot Act a "strawman"? How about this is the first place to start.

Of course then you deflect to the Tea Party which has nothing to do with the Patriot act or those who passed it.

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807845)
no, the patriot act was most definitely something passed by both parties. not just one, and certainly not just the other. a disgrace that belongs too all our wonderful leaders. yep, they know what's best for us peons.
She refuses to admit that the Democrats voted overwhelmingly FOR the Patriot Act. No one ever made any insinuation other than that despite Riot's attempt to twist.

Riot 09-19-2011 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 807854)
Do you take stupid pills?
It's pretty apparent you can't follow a thread. But if trying to insult me as a "mentally deficient radical" makes you feel smart, have at it.

Quote:
I made no references to anything except showing that the Democrats were just as complicit in passing the Patriot act as the GOP. 49 out of 50 Democratic senators said yes. You want to talk about removal od civil liberties and call the Patriot Act a "strawman"? How about this is the first place to start.
Of course then you deflect to the Tea Party which has nothing to do with the Patriot act or those who passed it.
Stupid pills? I was talking about the Tea Party not paying attention to what has happened in this country, and you go off on me about the Patriot Act.

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807848)
Tell that to Chuck. He thinks it was a Democratic thing. I was the one that posted the article link about how all branches of government, and all parties, have been corroding our rights. You know, I'm "one of those people".
You are "one of those people". I pointed out that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act and you attempt to dispute that and now are making false assertions because you don't want to face the truth.

GOP.tv remember?

Riot 09-19-2011 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 807857)
You are "one of those people". I pointed out that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act and you attempt to dispute that and now are making false assertions because you don't want to face the truth.

GOP.tv remember?
I give up. You have no reading comprehension.

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807856)
It's pretty apparent you can't follow a thread. But if trying to insult me as a "mentally deficient radical" makes you feel smart, have at it.



Stupid pills? I was talking about the Tea Party not paying attention to what has happened in this country, and you go off on me about the Patriot Act.
The posts are black and white. Explain how the Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and havent done anything to change it since gaining control which they have since lost? Talking about the erosion of civil liberties and NOT using the patriot act is folly.

Cannon Shell 09-19-2011 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807858)
I give up. You have no reading comprehension.
Actually I understand completely what you are trying to say which is why I post in the political section

Riot 09-19-2011 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 807859)
The posts are black and white. Explain how the Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and havent done anything to change it since gaining control which they have since lost? Talking about the erosion of civil liberties and NOT using the patriot act is folly.
Nobody declined to talk about the Patriot Act. You mentioned it, then went into a paragraph of personal insults. Your posts are black and white. You don't post to talk about politics.

Danzig 09-20-2011 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 807855)
She refuses to admit that the Democrats voted overwhelmingly FOR the Patriot Act. No one ever made any insinuation other than that despite Riot's attempt to twist.
yes, i know.

Danzig 09-20-2011 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807864)
Nobody declined to talk about the Patriot Act. You mentioned it, then went into a paragraph of personal insults. Your posts are black and white. You don't post to talk about politics.
would you consider calling folks jackasses a personal insult?

Riot 09-20-2011 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807896)
would you consider calling folks jackasses a personal insult?
What was that context? Oh, yeah. I said, about the Obama administration, "If anything criminal happened heads should roll".

You ignored that, and said about me, "she didn't say it wasn't bad...she just started naming similar eff ups by others..."

Then I said, "In the rush to attack [me], you jackasses can't even get my stated opinion about this right."

Sometimes calling people jackasses is my response after people- like you - deliberately mischaracterize what I've said and attack me. It's kind of funny you take offense at being called out for it.

Danzig 09-20-2011 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807932)
What was that context? Oh, yeah. I said, about the Obama administration, "If anything criminal happened heads should roll".

You ignored that, and said about me, "she didn't say it wasn't bad...she just started naming similar eff ups by others..."

Then I said, "In the rush to attack [me], you jackasses can't even get my stated opinion about this right."

Sometimes calling people jackasses is my response after people- like you - deliberately mischaracterize what I've said and attack me. It's kind of funny you take offense at being called out for it.
that's just it, i didn't take offense. i just found it ironic that you, who call others out all the time whether they actually said anything offensive or not, turns around and engages in that behavior...again.
i didn't ignore that you said that...but i do know that you then began to deflect the issue onto others as much as possible.
but hey, justify your behavior if you wish. but then don't act like ms. innocent when it gets turned on you when you get condescending as you always do.

dellinger63 09-20-2011 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807752)
If you think I'm a Socialist, you're even more clueless about what the word means than I thought :D
Clueless? :eek:

Quote:
The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system. We are dedicated to the abolition of male supremacy and class society, and to the elimination of all forms of oppression, including those based on race, national origin, age, sexual preferences, and disabling conditions.

The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child care, cultural opportunities, and social services.

These social services include care for the chronically ill, persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served.

Under welfare capitalism, a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor. The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed and their children. In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear. In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.

A socialist society carefully plans its way of life and technology to be a harmonious part of our natural environment. This planning takes place on regional, national, and international levels and covers the production of energy, the use of scarce resources, land-use planning, the prevention of pollution and the preservation of wildlife. The cleanup of the contaminated environment and the creation of a nuclear-free world are among the first tasks of a socialist society.
Your holy grail! What above do you not agree with/believe in?

All of it, a majority, a minority or none will suffice as an answer.

A shrink would charge hundreds for what I have just given to you for free.

BTW Great work lately! Love watching implosions.

Riot 09-20-2011 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 807936)
Clueless? :eek:

Your holy grail! What above do you not agree with/believe in?
This part: you know, the very definition, that comes before all you wrote, above: Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Again: if you think I'm a Socialist, you're even more clueless about what the word means than I thought. A seventh-grade teacher would have made you sit through a history class for what I've just given you for free. Oh, wait - you've supported firing all the evil teachers. That must explain why you couldn't manage to even quote the definition of socialism when required, even using google.

Riot 09-20-2011 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 807934)
that's just it, i didn't take offense. i just found it ironic that you, who call others out all the time whether they actually said anything offensive or not, turns around and engages in that behavior...again.
Glad you so clearly see all the ironies involved :tro: Like the one where you hold me to a standard I've never said I met. Ironic, huh?

dellinger63 09-20-2011 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807967)
This part: you know, the very definition, that comes before all you wrote, above: Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.
It's OK you're not lost unless/until you look up. LMAO

Riot 09-20-2011 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 807975)
It's OK you're not lost unless/until you look up. LMAO
Your laughing your ass off that you don't know the definition of socialism? Or trying to cover up for the fact that you are completely wrong, that in no way do I or have I ever advocated an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively - and you know it.

See, I really don't see why you being stupid and silly and wrongly calling me a socialist, while you clearly don't have a clue what a "socialist" is, requires me to be insulted. LMAO, but it's at your ignorance.

clyde 09-20-2011 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807982)
Your laughing your ass off that you don't know the definition of socialism? Or trying to cover up for the fact that you are completely wrong, that in no way do I or have I ever advocated an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively - and you know it.

See, I really don't see why you being stupid and silly and wrongly calling me a socialist, while you clearly don't have a clue what a "socialist" is, requires me to be insulted. LMAO, but it's at your ignorance.
Rita....go check the metahs.



Do your job.

dellinger63 09-20-2011 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807982)
Your laughing your ass off that you don't know the definition of socialism? Or trying to cover up for the fact that you are completely wrong, that in no way do I or have I ever advocated an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively - and you know it.

See, I really don't see why you being stupid and silly and wrongly calling me a socialist, while you clearly don't have a clue what a "socialist" is, requires me to be insulted. LMAO, but it's at your ignorance.
When you look up you'll realize you've advocated virtually every government intervention into private business, whether it be economic or by regulation control, ever created by this President, no matter how delusional it may be while at the same time dismissing any attempt at privatization of anything government as an assault on the common man.

Which of the many state intrusions into private business by Obama did you object to?

Riot 09-20-2011 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 807991)
When you look up you'll realize you've advocated virtually every government intervention into private business, whether it be economic or by regulation control, ever created by this President
Really? Which ones, specifically? List them for me.

Quote:
Which of the many state intrusions into private business by Obama did you object to?
:D You just said you knew that. I guess you don't know that? So why did you say you did?

LOL - Dell, you are such a loser. You do the above all the time. You make definitive statements about people, then you demand they justify your opinion. You're completely intellectually lazy.

BTW: please point out which "interventions into private business" meet the definition of socialism. Do it for Obama, Bush and Carter. Show us how much you know about socialism, buddy :D

I think you'd better stick to hating Muslims, Dell, rather than demanding that other posters prove to you that they are your uneducated definition of a socialist.

Danzig 09-20-2011 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 807968)
Glad you so clearly see all the ironies involved :tro: Like the one where you hold me to a standard I've never said I met. Ironic, huh?
yeah, all those times you've taken people to task for insults and telling them to keep it clean. you evidently hold others to a higher standard than yourself. good for you.

clyde 09-20-2011 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 808004)
yeah, all those times you've taken people to task for insults and telling them to keep it clean. you evidently hold others to a higher standard than yourself. good for you.

DANNY!!

You vicious beast!

"Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity."

Riot 09-20-2011 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 808004)
yeah, all those times you've taken people to task for insults and telling them to keep it clean. you evidently hold others to a higher standard than yourself. good for you.
Excuse me, I've never pretended I hold to some higher standard. You're the one setting standards around here, and telling me what standards I hold.

Apparently you're mistaken.

clyde 09-20-2011 05:47 PM
Rita:

"Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity."



Stop lying.

Danzig 09-20-2011 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 808013)
Excuse me, I've never pretended I hold to some higher standard. You're the one setting standards around here, and telling me what standards I hold.

Apparently you're mistaken.
not true. in the past you've yelped to the high heavens about name calling while proclaiming your innocence in that regard. i think in the past your justification was something along the lines of 'they started it'. you still call out others for 'insulting' you. but hey, if you've decided now that you're not going to dish it out AND take it, yippee for riot.

Riot 09-20-2011 10:15 PM
Quote:
not true. in the past you've yelped to the high heavens about name calling while proclaiming your innocence in that regard.
but hey, if you've decided now that you're not going to dish it out AND take it, yippee for riot.
LOL - what an absurd statement. No, I don't care to "take it" any more, thanks. So I'll dish whatever the hell I feel like.

clyde 09-21-2011 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 808046)
LOL - what an absurd statement. No, I don't care to "take it" any more, thanks. So I'll dish whatever the hell I feel like.

Rita,you are losing your imeccables and integrity's.

Danny..."yippee Riot" sounds like something out of Mother Mooses Tertiary Crimes.




Stevie,goddamity.....stick Rita in NA along with Tits and Cracklin' Rose.I'm sure you can talk Mr. NA into confining the 3 of them in one thread where they can live in their own image.

Cannon Shell 09-21-2011 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 808046)
LOL - what an absurd statement. No, I don't care to "take it" any more, thanks. So I'll dish whatever the hell I feel like.
What is laughable is when someone posts something that discredits what you have posted, you take that as a personal insult and feel free to use one of three standard Riot responses

1. "Strawman"
2. "Stop twisting what I said"
3. "Stop attacking me/you are a jackass/random personal attack"

Clip-Clop 09-21-2011 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 808106)
What is laughable is when someone posts something that discredits what you have posted, you take that as a personal insult and feel free to use one of three standard Riot responses

1. "Strawman"
2. "Stop twisting what I said"
3. "Stop attacking me/you are a jackass/random personal attack"
4. "Talking points"
It was this one that made me stop debating here altogether.

wiphan 09-21-2011 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 808106)
What is laughable is when someone posts something that discredits what you have posted, you take that as a personal insult and feel free to use one of three standard Riot responses

1. "Strawman"
2. "Stop twisting what I said"
3. "Stop attacking me/you are a jackass/random personal attack"
There NEVER is an admission of guilt or being wrong. This is the #1 cry of the democratic party. When you are wrong dig your heels in further and spin it however you like then blame someone else (i.e. Bush, congress, GOP, etc). Even when Riot was black and white wrong on an issue she could not admit it and tried to continue to spin it.

Riot 09-21-2011 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 808106)
What is laughable is when someone posts something that discredits what you have posted, you take that as a personal insult and feel free to use one of three standard Riot responses
LOL - oh, please. I wish you would post something about politics. You get the "three standard Riot responses" because that's exactly what you do: change the subject, start making personal comments, or outright lie about what was said.

Start with your post #22. You post one sentence about politics, then go right into personal crap. LOL - I dare you to post only about politics without snarky personal attacks. I doubt you can do it. You've never been able to do it to date.

Riot 09-21-2011 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiphan (Post 808125)
There NEVER is an admission of guilt or being wrong. This is the #1 cry of the democratic party. When you are wrong dig your heels in further and spin it however you like then blame someone else (i.e. Bush, congress, GOP, etc). Even when Riot was black and white wrong on an issue she could not admit it and tried to continue to spin it.
Really? Which issue was that? Disagreeing with your politics? That's sort of the #1 cry of conservatives: when the facts show your governor to be a liar, dig in your heels and accuse the other side of "being wrong" and "refusing to admit they are wrong" - LOL

I dare you to talk only about politics here, and stop being nasty, insulting, personal. You can't do it, either.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 PM.
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.