Islamic honor killing in Texas: “Santa” who murdered family on Christmas morning was Muslim who didn’t like his daughter dating a non-Muslim

Islamic honor killing in Texas: “Santa” who murdered family on Christmas morning was Muslim who didn’t like his daughter dating a non-Muslim Sharia Santa, more proof Islam is the religion of peace. Evidently the only peace they hand out is the everlasting kind.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (177)

  • There is nothing to add. If you cannot understand or want to understand my positions on abortion, Cain, Clinton, or your compulsive need to defend the indefensible, then we have come to the end of the road on this thread.
    **********************
    Great! ;)

  • Try as you might to deny, I believe that you are among the crowd who did defend Clinton (the language in your post about the tax payer dime above demonstrates that - since when does a lib give a damn about tax payer money? ;)) and rallied behind Hillary, who put up with global humiliation by staying with him for political expediency, who defends the mother's choice to kill her baby, and who refuses to acknowledge that radical Islam is a threat to the West and that Muslim women are denied basic rights as a matter of cultural norm. In other words, you, as a liberal, pick the wrong victims in virtually every scenario.

    As a dim (redundant, I realize :)) progressive, you reflexively demagogue the right and you project your inadequacies as a debater onto the rest of the board with your stock cliches and phrases and calling posters liars when you are caught lying routinely. You ask for citations and yet you rarely provide anything valid and you rarely if ever support your own positions with anything but opinion. You cannot even manage the thread format or keep people's posts straight. In short, you are a waste of time. :D

    There is nothing to add. If you cannot understand or want to understand my positions on abortion, Cain, Clinton, or your compulsive need to defend the indefensible, then we have come to the end of the road on this thread.

  • "Further, Sidekick, I know you are not a psychiatrist or a lawyer but I respect your ability to research a topic and draw a reasonable conclusion. I know it is easier to do now with search engines it is just I do not have the wherewithall to do it myself."

    *************************
    My boy, one of your problems is that, like many far righters, you have a tendency to oversimplify complex topics. Also like many far righters, your self-esteem has been pumped up to the point that you have an exaggerated opinion of your own intelligence and knowledge.

    I'm sorry, Kick, but all the googling in the world won't take the place of the years of study and clinical experience that go into creating a psychiatrist or psychologist. Even if it could, it's impossible to diagnose someone you've never met or examined. I wish I had a dime for every ER patient I've seen who's tried to self-diagnose at home, armed with the internet. Most of the time they, like you, are merely making wild guesses, without having much of an idea of the full clinical picture.....because they've never seen it, and don't have any background in pathophysiology or physiological assessment.

    Let's face it: if googling alone were capable of turning someone into a medical or legal expert, we could close all the medical and law schools, and just tell everyone to stay home all day playing around on the computer, as you appear to be doing.

    ****************************

    Finally, Olivia, only liberal females would defend Clinton’s behavior. What is it with female progressives?

    ****************************
    Show me where I "defended" Clinton's behavior. As I recall, I believe I told you it was stupid and irresponsible for him to screw around on the job----particularly when so many Republicans were chomping at the bit to find some excuse to discredit him on the taxpayers' dime. ;)

    You, on the other hand, are defending Cain's sexual irregularities right and left, by pretending to deny they exist. Again, a very common right wing tenet: when backed into a corner, try lying your way out of it.

    *****************************

    They kill their kids

    ****************************
    And your evidence that ONLY political liberals have abortions is.......?

    ****************************

    defend adulterers,

    ****************************

    See the note above, Kick. In no way do I "defend" Clinton's messing around with an intern on the job. I've stated very clearly, twice, that I think it was stupid and irresponsible of him. But I'm still waiting for you even to acknowledge Cain's shenanigans, much less criticize them. ;)
    ****************************

    and support a religion that denies women basic human rights.

    ***************************
    I don't "support" Islam, Kick---I support freedom of religion in the U.S. Obviously, if an individual who happens to be Muslim is breaking the law, I think he should be subject to the customary penalty of breaking such a law. When you see me defending Muslims, it's invariably because some bigoted loon like yourself is attacking the whole religion, based on the behavior of a lunatic fringe. ;)

    **************************

    If No wonder you’re such a mess, I would not want to have to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize all of that.

    *************************

    Why not? You just went through the mental gymnastics of lying about it. :D

  • Of course there is no proof that Cain sexually harassed anyone and Clinton was impeached for lying about sexually harassing a young intern.
    ******************
    You don't have the vaguest idea what constitutes sexual harassment, do you, Mr. Lawyer Wannabe? You've just proved that AGAIN, with the above statement.

    (HINT: It's not sexual harassment if the other person is willing. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, PERIOD. If Herman Cain had been under oath when questioned about those two sexual harassment suits, then he, too, would have been lying under oath---because he kept changing his story, as more evidence came to light. But, hey, that's okay, because Rush and Billo absolved him of any wrongdoing, right?) ;)

    Get back to me after you've read a basic explanation of what does and doesn't constitute sexual harassment. Because, obviously, you don't know the first thing about it, or the laws concerning it.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

    • You don’t have the vaguest idea what constitutes sexual harassment, do you, Mr. Lawyer Wannabe? You’ve just proved that AGAIN, with the above statement.

      You could think that but you would be wrong.

      (HINT: It’s not sexual harassment if the other person is willing.

      You just proved you DON”T know what sexual harassment is, dumbass.

      http://dwd.wi.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/publication_erd_7334_pweb1.htm

      4. Important Facts about Harassment
      • Sexual harassment often occurs when there is a disparity of power, not just when men and women women together.
      • A person who consents to a supervisor’s sexual advances might still be a victim of sexual harassment.
      • A member of one sex can sexually harass a member of the same sex even if there is no romantic motive for the harassment.
      • “Horseplay” can constitute sexual harassment if the actions are explicitly sexual in nature.
      • Offenders can be supervisors, co-workers, or non-employees such as vendors, customers, or suppliers.
      • The victim does not have to be directly involved. A third person can be offended by harassing behavior among willing participants.
      • Harassment does not have to be reported or complained about by the victim to be defined as harassment.
      • An employer can set stricter limits on harassment in the workplace (such as prohibiting all harassment) than may be specified under fair employment laws.
      • Unless severe, a single incident or a few isolated incidents of offensive behavior will not likely rise to the level of harassment.
      • A single incident of unwanted touching of a person’s intimate body areas is sufficiently offensive to be defined as sexual harassment. It may also constitute a criminal offense under state “sexual assault” laws.
      • Abusive, hostile, or rude treatment of one sex (as opposed to mistreatment of all employees) may still constitute harassment, despite the absence of overt sexual behavior.

      http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm#types

      However, the difference between invitation and harassment is the use of power. Harassment is not a form of courtship and it is not meant to appeal to women. It is designed to coerce women, not to attract them. When the recipient of sexual harassment has no choice in the encounter, or has reason to fear the repercussions if she declines, the interaction has moved out of the realm of invitation and courtship into the arena of intimidation and aggression.

      Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, PERIOD.

      What was the lie about, genius? Being a prog female you defend him. Laughable.

      If Herman Cain had been under oath when questioned about those two sexual harassment suits, then he, too, would have been lying under oath—because he kept changing his story, as more evidence came to light.

      We will never know, will we?

      But, hey, that’s okay, because Rush and Billo absolved him of any wrongdoing, right?)

      Why do you do that? You have been told that bringing in third parties is a strong signal that you are a weak debater *news flash there*. You are a lying worthless debater.

      • You just proved you DON”T know what sexual harassment is, dumbass.
        *******************
        Actually, I do. I'm just refusing to accept your opinion, based purely on wishful thinking, that the Lewinsky scandal had anything to do with sexual harassment. Lewinsky herself stated clearly that she was a willing participant (and she hardly comes across as timid or browbeaten). And your Republican heroes, who spent tens of million of OUR tax dollars on a political ploy, did NOT charge Clinton with sexual harassment.

        Once again, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. But, hey, if you have evidence that sexual harassment DID take place, I think you should have come forth with it at the time it was being investigated. ;)
        *****************************************
        Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, PERIOD.
        ******************************************
        What was the lie about, genius? Being a prog female you defend him. Laughable.
        ******************************************
        The lie was about whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, Kick. Didn't you now that? It was in all the papers, even those in France, where I was living at the time. Did anyone (like, say, your wife) explain to you that sex between two consenting adults isn't the same thing as sexual harassment? ;)

        As I've already stated, I don't defend Clinton's behavior. I don't defend such behavior in Democrats, or in your Republican heroes like Gingrich and Cain. ******************************************
        If Herman Cain had been under oath when questioned about those two sexual harassment suits, then he, too, would have been lying under oath—because he kept changing his story, as more evidence came to light.
        ********************************************
        We will never know, will we?
        ********************************************
        Oh, we know, my boy. At least, those of us who dare to speak up about it do. You, of course, would rather follow the example of your right wing media heroes, and swallow what they tell you, rather than pay attention to what's right in front of your eyes.

        It amuses me that you, who flatter yourself that you're a fiscally responsible person, assume that a (gasp!) PRIVATE BUSINESS RELATED ORGANIZATION like the National Restaurant Association would shell out eighty thousand dollars, just to keep two female employees quiet, if they didn't have evidence that Cain had done anything wrong.

        But, then again, you're a far righter, and far righters are just as skilled at lying to themselves as they are at lying ABOUT their political opponents.

        By the way: whenever a participant on a discussion board starts calling his opponent "dumbass," I consider it to be an admission of defeat on his part. (aka Olivia's law). ;)

        If I were you, I'd cut my losses and find something else to bitch about for a while. You've already spent how much time, trying to convince me that the sky is pink and 2 + 2 = 5? ;)

  • Boy, you hate to come up short on every thread! That was a lot of nonsense when saying the following would have been fine: “Yeah, Sidekick, I see the distinctions in your positions. I was just unable to grasp that there is more than one facet to your position on abortion
    **************
    Nonsense, Kick. If your position consisted of saying "I personally oppose abortion for moral reasons, but am willing to respect a person's right to choose, provided she has the abortion in a pro-choice state," we wouldn't be having this argument at all. Instead, we'd be arguing about states' rights----the fact that I think it's appropriate for the federal government to guarantee a RIGHT to safe and legal abortion across the board, and that you think it's a matter for each state to decide. Because, even though you try to pretend otherwise, I don't like abortion, either. I've stated many times that I don't like abortion, that I never had one and don't think I ever would have (you never know for sure, unless you've been there).

    But that's not what happened, is it? Instead, you as much as accused me of personally "slaughtering babies," and attacked the procedure itself (and me). Again, what you DID is widely at variance with what you now claim. And what does that mean? It means that what you DO (calling abortion "murder" of "babies" and attacking me for being pro-choice) is the truth, and that what you now CLAIM (that your main concern is that it should be left up to each state) is a pile of fecal matter.

    So what's it going to be, Kick? Do you think abortion is tantamount to "murdering babies," or merely a controversial issue that should be left to the discretion of each state? You can't have it both ways. ;)

    That's the problem with letting emotions dictate political positions: sooner or later, the inconsistencies in logic are bound to show through.

    • So what’s it going to be, Kick? Do you think abortion is tantamount to “murdering babies,” or merely a controversial issue that should be left to the discretion of each state? You can’t have it both ways."
      *****************
      It is both. Why are so limited in your thinking? You are too linear and not intellectually adroit enough to grasp multiple sides of an argument. I see that a lot with progressives.
      ***************
      So, once again, you're saying that, if the abortion question is left up to states and 30 states choose to remain pro-choice, you support the LEGAL (not necessarily moral) right of women to go to one of those states and terminate a pregnancy?

      Then either you're admitting that abortion isn't the same as murder, or you're saying that each state has the right to decide whether or not murder should be illegal.

      Sorry, Kick. Your argument has just jumped the shark. Not that your histrionics, faux accusations and lapses in logic were great to begin with. If they had been, there would have been no need for the board "me toos" to jump in and defend you, by flinging all those childish insults at your opponent. ;)

      • Olivia: So, once again, you’re saying that, if the abortion question is left up to states and 30 states choose to remain pro-choice, you support the LEGAL (not necessarily moral) right of women to go to one of those states and terminate a pregnancy?

        Olivia, I am going to try this one more time. Why? I must be a masochist. This “discussion” began when you, in a post, to drb wrote this:

        “No lie or distortion there, Derb. He disputed my comment that women are the most qualified to govern their own uteruses, and he advocated passing a federal law preventing legal abortion.”

        I never made a comment about any federal law and added that abortion on demand should have been a state’s right issue. Which is true, it should have been. Then I added this in a later post:

        “No BS here, my girl. You just do not have the mental agility to manage two thoughts simultaneously. You are correct in that I am anti-abortion (elective abortion for convenience). That said, I am also firmly against the SCOTUS decision because it overstepped its constitutional authority. Period, Especially since if anyone ELSE kills the baby (I refer to the Scott Peterson example) it is a homicide. Perhaps in another place and time (absent Roe v Wade), a state law legalizing abortion on demand would not hold up to judicial review since it is premeditated murder if the fetus had the right not to be killed for convenience. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way.”

        You see mine is a two-pronged rationale for why I am opposed to not only abortion on demand but to the actual ruling in itself. Like I said, you are unable to manage two thoughts simultaneously.

        Olivia: Then either you’re admitting that abortion isn’t the same as murder, or you’re saying that each state has the right to decide whether or not murder should be illegal.

        Under the 10th Amendment, a state would have been free to decide how it wanted to treat elective abortion. Roe v Wade took that away using a distorted view of the 14th Amendment. Hypothetical – let’s say Illinois decides to permit abortion on demand absent Roe v Wade. That situation would have absolutely no bearing on my personal opinion of abortion but it would be legal from a purely constitutional point of view provided another decision about granting protection to the unborn is not in force . Again, I view it as murder. Others may not – even a majority of voters in Illinois using my hypothetical. Again how would that change my personal views? It doesn’t but you fail to see that.

        Olivia: Sorry, Kick. Your argument has just jumped the shark. Not that your histrionics, faux accusations and lapses in logic were great to begin with. If they had been, there would have been no need for the board “me toos” to jump in and defend you, by flinging all those childish insults at your opponent

        I am certain that my argument makes sense to thinking people. I do not recall any histrionics. No-one is defending me, they are ridiculing you. You are not an opponent. Do not flatter yourself. You are a liar. I have wasted my time with you since you have willfully, IMO, failed to comprehend simple concepts.

    • "So what’s it going to be, Kick? Do you think abortion is tantamount to “murdering babies,” or merely a controversial issue that should be left to the discretion of each state? You can’t have it both ways."

      That you disagree with my position means nothing to me. That you fail to understand it does not surprise me. It is both. I was VERY clear in my explanation. Why are you so limited in your thinking? You are too linear and not intellectually adroit enough to grasp multiple sides of an argument. I see that a lot with progressives.

  • or someone else cause you can not defend what today’s liberals are doing, so you have to attack conservatives.
    *************************
    I most certainly can defend what today's liberals are doing, my boy---oops, sorry, that pet name makes you cry. So what should I call you? You called me a "piece of dog crap"---would you like me to do the same? Or would you rather have me call you "dear sweet moron," as you call me later on in your diatribe? I just can't decide. I do so want to conform to cultural expectations here. ;)

    Anyway, Obama was left a terrible mess, and you know it, though you don't want to admit it. We ALL knew that it would take decades before this deep recession was ended, and that it was further complicated by a dragged-out war on credit, and a deteriorating infrastructure, thanks to the Bush adminstration slashing allocations. (Think New Orleans, and their unreliable levees, that Bush had been warned couldn't withstand a major hurricane.) So it's a bit fatuous of you to expect Obama to magically fix the mess within one term, especially without spending a great deal, and in the face of Republican stonewalling.
    ************************
    Remember it was YOUR party that was responsible for segregation, perhaps you like to go back to those days when I have to use a “colored only water fountain”.
    ************************
    Ancient history, as any American (especially a black person) knows. In fact, it was a Democratic led administration that pushed the Civil Rights legislation through (with the full cooperation of northern Republicans, although southern Republicans were just as opposed to it as southern Democrats). And let's not forget that the GOP presidential nominee, later on that year, was Barry Goldwater, who vigorously opposed the Civil Rights Act.

    Let's not forget, either, that racist southerners left the Democratic party in droves, eventually being welcomed into the GOP, where they remain to this day.

    I think it's too funny for words that you claim to be black, yet parrot that drivel about most black Americans being too stupid or easily led to make wise political decisions. Because, in spite of your preaching, most black Americans continue to vote Democratic. Gosh, it couldn't possibly be because they know what they're doing, could it? @@

    It's also rather odd to think of a black person assuming that any discussion about poverty in America equals a discussion about black Americans. Such glib generalizations, in my experience, are much more typical of WHITE right wingers---the ones who like to think that the nation would be in fine shape if it weren't for all them black welfare queens popping out babies, and all them worthless black criminals refusing to get a job.
    ******************************
    What I don’t give a rats ass about is a persons color. I care about the content of their character, and you asshat have NONE.
    ********************************
    Translation: "I regularly stereotype people's character based on their race, religion or political orientation, so I'm going to fling another gratuitous insult at you, and call you another childish name."
    ********************************
    You lack of self worth and lack of confidence in yourself leads you to want to bring everyone else to your level.
    **********************************
    "And, just for good measure, I'll pretend to find you emotionally unstable, even though I'm the one who's angrily flinging insults."
    *********************************
    The people who are here and the majority of Bloggers on conservative sites are HONORABLE, INTELLIGENT AND HONEST, You lack all three.
    ******************************
    "And just one more stereotype---a positive one this time, since I'm describing a group I belong to----and three more insults for you. Are you angry and defensive yet?"
    ******************************
    People make this country great, independent thinkers who won’t shy away from a fight, People like me who love the United States, the Flag and all the good this country represents.
    *******************************
    "Now I'll boast about my patriotism, even though I spend most of my time bitching about at least half of the American people, and expressing disdain of my president. But, hey, as long as I make a fetish out of the flag, that sort of makes up for my inconsistencies there, right?"
    ********************************
    You and your liberal buddies are jealous, you can’t stand when someone is happy or making money, you want to take it away so they are as unhappy as you because your life is a waste.
    *******************************
    Nonsense, my boy---you're parroting another silly stereotype. While there are some unhappy and poor liberals (as there are unhappy and poor conservatives), I'm not one of them. I have a good job, enough money for my needs plus some left over, and I'm quite productive. You know, you're not likely to win any political arguments simply by flinging gratuitous insults and accusations at your opponents. (Nor by whining and crying about being called "my boy," while doing far more vulgar name calling yourself.) The idea is to use logic and facts, not to lie and throw childish tantrums. ;)
    *****************************
    I don’t even know why I am responding to you anymore since it obvious you have serious issues.
    ******************************
    Translation: "Just one more bogus accusation about your mental health, okay?"
    *****************************
    Common sense would tell you not to use a term like that, but you were hopping to set someone off and you did. ME.
    *****************************
    Well, then, I'd suggest that you develop a thicker hide. Especially if you plan to keep on doing a lot of name calling and flinging of insults. Nobody likes a crybaby, you know, much less a crybaby with double standards. ;)
    *****************************
    And because of stupid people like you, America’s problems won’t be solved quickly because you will throw out the victim/race/children/poor cards because you have no solutions.
    ******************************
    You know, the term "throw (or play) the race card" is a bogus concept. The term was devised to intimidate those who bring up the unpleasant issue of bigotry, when their opponents are uncomfortable discussing it.

    Well, I'm sorry, my boy (I use that term because you're decidedly immature in your attitude here----not because I'm putting down black men. As I've already stated, I don't for one minute believe that you're black, or at least that you identify with the black community), but, as long as posters here spew ugly stereotypes about Muslims, black Americans, liberals, women, homosexuals, Arabs, the poor, or whatever the favorite hate target du jour might be, I'm going to call them on it.
    ********************
    I am also half white just like that moron In the White house that you love so much, but that is the only thing we have in common. Are you gonna call me a house N-gro now? How about Uncle Tom?
    ***********************
    I never use those terms. In fact, if you notice, I seldom call other posters names at all. Certainly far less often than you do, or than some of your buddies here do. I don't need to resort to that sort of thing. ;)
    ************************
    Obama is a unskilled, twit
    ***********************
    He's an experience lawyer and law professor, specializing in constitutional and civil rights law, with senatorial experience. Come on, Silent-----you might hate his guts a la Limbaugh, but you don't make your case against him very well by repeating silly lies about his qualifications.
    *************************
    who can not make a decision unless the peoples committee tells him to.
    ************************
    Isn't it funny the way the far right bitches that he can't make decisions one day, and the next day they're accusing him of being an arrogant dictator? I do wish you guys would get together and stick with a consistent story. This flip flopping of your excuses to hate him makes me dizzy. :D
    ****************************
    If I wanted to live in a socialist country or communist country I would move there. You like it so much why don’t you move, then you want have to put up with conservatives.
    ******************************
    But I don't mind putting up with people whose political views differ from my own. That doesn't mean I won't challenge them on it.

    As for you accusation that Obama is trying to turn this nation into "a socialist country or communist country"----what specific policies has he pushed, that exist only in socialist or communist countries? How has YOUR life changed for the worse, as a direct result of this administration's policies?

    (And, no, I don't want "gonna' style answers, like "We're gonna go bankrupt!" "There's gonna be no social security left for me!" "There aren't gonna be any jobs left if we don't bribe rich CEOs to create some!" Those are scare tactics, not realities. Let's stick with how your life is worse under Obama.)
    ****************************
    Now dear sweet moron, you can spin this anyway you want, but your blatant racism is splattered all over this site tonight. better put on some coffee and get the gang together to see how you can explain your way out of this…
    *****************************
    I don't need any coffee or gangs, my boy. This diatribe of yours is virtually identical to about 50 others that I've seen aimed at me on this site----same talking points, same buzzwords, same projection, same stale old antiliberal stereotypes---even the same personal insults. I could answer them in my sleep. :>D
    ****************************
    Oh and you never did answer my question..Are you a Muslim? You defend them constantly, and if you are why not admit it, are you ashamed of it? Try and be honest about it. That levels the field for everyone. I don’t think you have the courage to admit what you are or why you are the way you are.
    ********************
    Actually, I did answer it, although I have no idea why it should make a difference to you what religion I am. Intelligent debaters focus on the logic of the argument, not details about the person who's making it. No, I am not a Muslim and never have been one.
    ***********************
    Spin away Olivia. Oh and just a note, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you might have figured that one of us would be a minority (if you want to consider me that) and your slams would cause something of a problem… But your not that smart.
    *********************
    Actually, I am. I'm smart enough to know that I haven't "slammed" any minorities, and that you're just trying very hard to make it appear as if I had.

    Do you know that this entire diatribe of yours was composed 100% of accusations, name calling and nasty little stereotypes (plus a smattering of self-congratulatory "I'm a great patriot with a sterling work ethic" drivel)? Not one fact or bit of logic refuting anything I've said on this thread about the case in question----just personal attacks, insults aimed at liberals, and attempts at self-aggrandizement.

    (And you think answering this same old formulaic drivel is likely to be a challenge to me? That's funny.) :D

    • "Intelligent debaters focus on the logic of the argument, not details about the person who’s making it."

      Well how about that? Isn't THAT special!

      Are these words familiar to you?

      "Rush himself is a caricature, Andre. He’s made statements that were more outrageous than “I force my mother to eat cat food,” and gotten rewarded handsomely for it."

      or this one?

      "It could be that Ms. Schroeder’s expression reflected her distaste for Rush, rather than her belief in anything he was saying. In case you didn’t know it, a lot of Americans (including some right wingers) think he’s a jerk—and a compulsive liar, to boot. Prescription drug addicts often are."

      So ...

      Does this mean that you

      a. are calling yourself an unintelligent debater,
      b. have intelligence that kicks in and out periodically
      c. sometimes decide to use intelligent debate, and other times choose not to
      d. simply say whatever is most convenient.

      • Does this mean that you

        a. are calling yourself an unintelligent debater,
        b. have intelligence that kicks in and out periodically
        c. sometimes decide to use intelligent debate, and other times choose not to
        d. simply say whatever is most convenient.
        ***********************
        None of the above, my boy. As far as I know, Rush doesn't post on this board, so my comments weren't made in reference to any argument of his. I'm arguing with YOU and your buddies here, not Rush. Did you forget that little detail? ;)

        • As far as I know, Rush doesn’t post on this board, so my comments weren’t made in reference to any argument of his. I’m arguing with YOU and your buddies here, not Rush. Did you forget that little detail?

          Translation:
          "I have nothing to say, so I'll make believe you are talking about Rush, and I'll make fun of him to divert attention from my own ineptitude."

        • Okay, honey. You're right

          Actually, ripping a person who is not even making the argument, who is not even the subject of the argument, is an even lower form of debate.

        • Still using the my boy slur........Please buy Dr. Kevorkian's book, it is a self help guide for you and ends with you lying face down in rug while assuming room temperature. The best part is you get to do it to yourself....that would be karma.

  • I love this, you are such a self righteous piece of dog crap. You know everything and all right wingers are racists.
    *********************
    No, I never said that. There are many things that I don't know, and not every right winger is a racist (or even a bigot). Just those who perpetuate ugly stereotypes about selected minority groups.
    *********************
    Then you run into me. Never played the race card in my life till tonight and I only played it because of your constant slur of “my boy”.
    *********************
    Nonsense. You were looking for some means of attacking me, and pounced on that term as an excuse, and you know it. Let's face it: when you go around calling people pieces of dog crap, it's a little inconsistent for you to raising a big stink about being called "my boy." You know as well as I do that I don't use the term as a racial slur.
    **********************
    You know I have never in five decades been called boy or my boy.
    **********************
    I've never been called "my bitch," either, as Poopajoe likes to do, but you don't see me whining and crying about it. Poopajoe might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least he's not a crybaby. ;)
    **********************
    Been a conservative all my life cause I understand what liberals do to hold down the “boy” by giving him no chance to escape from the bullshit cycle of poverty or crime. I said it the other night, liberals have done to blacks what Jefferson Davis could not do, keep them in slavery. No hand up, just a hand out, and you constantly pat them on the head and tell them good boy like a dog.
    ***********************
    That's pure BS, and you know it. In fact, I spend quite a bit of time debunking ugly racially charged stereotypes spewed by your buddies here. And let's face it: if you actually were a member of a minority group (yeah, right), you'd know that liberals are NOT all (and only) about giving handouts. I've repeatedly pushed for improving OPPORTUNITIES for the poor---and not just poor black Americans, but ALL poor Americans.

    A person can't get ahead if there are no jobs within commuting distance.

    A person can't get ahead if s/he's walking around with untreated medical disorders due to lack of affordable health care.

    A person can't get ahead if s/he's functionally illiterate.

    A person can't get ahead if s/he's an abuse victim, or living in a dangerous neighborhood that makes him/her afraid to leave the house.

    A person can't get ahead if s/he's malnourished. (And, contrary to popular right wing opinion, it's possible to be malnourished without being visibly underweight.)

    A person can't get ahead if s/he's despised and marginalized by large segments of the population, who've bought into the ugly notion that poverty equals laziness.

    Now, suppose you tell me all about what the conservatives are doing to ensure that the poor in this country have the tools needed to pull themselves out of poverty. And try to come up with something more original than that bogus trickle down theory. We've been enduring trickle-down economics for the better part of the last 30 years, and so far all it's done is make the rich much richer, while causing more and more struggling Americans to slide down into permanent poverty.

    Go on----tell me. What, other than parroting ugly stereotypes, and sitting on their rumps demanding that the poor pull themselves up by the bootstraps, are conservatives doing to ensure that the poor have a fighting chance to better their lot in life?
    ***********************

    There are racists all over this country, but you are among the worst constantly telling conservatives they are stupid and racists.
    **********************
    No, not "constantly." If you look through any of these threads on which I've been posting, you'll find that there are far more personal insults aimed at me than I aim at others. Oh, but those are just fine with you, aren't they? :D
    As for your argument that I call conservatives racists: I haven't done that on this thread (where the more generic term "bigot" is a better fit). When I use the terms "bigot" OR "racist," it's generally in reference to someone who's repeating ugly stereotypes about a minority group of a particular race or ethnicity or religion or gender or sexual orientation. If you don't want me to use either term in reference to you, there's a simple solution: reject the ugly stereotypes.

    (And, by the way: taking exception to someone's bigoted remarks doesn't make me a racist. I realize that projection is a favorite practice of the right wing propaganda machine, but I'll challenge it every single time I see you try to use it. I'm funny that way.) ;)
    ***********************************
    Please explain to me, just how you have helped me? Never got a damn thing without working for it including a college education and a great job.
    *************************************
    If you went to a public college or university, my tax dollars subsidized your education.
    If you came from a poor background, my tax dollars helped keep you safe and healthy.
    If you have a "great job," my liberal support helped ensure that you have safe working conditions, a manageable workload, reasonable work hours and good benefits. Those didn't just magically materialize because employers suddenly started wanting to be nice guys. They happened because a lot of liberals fought hard for workers' rights and fair hiring practices.
    If you're healthy, it's because liberals like me made sure that you had access to affordable, ongoing health care, and got all your immunizations as necessary. Our support of "socialist practices" like public health agencies made sure that you weren't carried off by a disease epidemic, as was so common a century ago.
    ***********************
    I see people like you who know better than everyone else, you the type that thinks your helping when what you are doing to screwing people so bad there is no chance to escape the system YOU have trapped them in.
    ************************
    Come on, now, Silent, be honest. I'm not for one minute buying your claim to be a member of a minority group, and do you know why? Because, so far, all you've done is parrot right wing rhetoric. Not one speck of extra insight, as might be expected from someone who conquered extra obstacles to prosperity-----just the same old ugly stereotypes, claiming that providing any sort of assistance to the poor makes them lazy. Which is just the opposite of the currently popular notion that big giveaways to the wealthy will make THEM more energetic and productive. :D
    ***********************
    You constantly badger the people here with your stupid twisting comments, you never answer questions
    *************************
    Wrong. I answer questions quite readily, Silent. But you must realize that, when there are 20 or 30 of you all ganging up on me at once, there's just no way to get to all of your questions and challenges----not even if I were to quit my job and spend all my time here. ;)
    *********************
    and you always drag out Rush
    ********************
    ....because most of what you far righters say here is virtually identical (trendy buzzwords and all) to recent remarks from his radio show. It never ceases to amuse me the way several of you will suddenly start using the very same brand new buzzword or talking point. I'll go look it up in the latest transcripts on Rush's website--- and, with very few exceptions, there it is---same wording and all. It's really quite comical. *************************
    or Bush
    *************************
    That's because you far righters (and, by a fantastic coincidence, also Rush Limbaugh) tend to hold Obama responsible for messes created by the Bush administration. Yes, I know he's in charge now, but that doesn't magically absolve Bush from the disasters he created. You can't fix a complex problem without identifying its causes and contributing factors----and that means looking at Bush's bad policies, even when you guys lack the guts to do so. ;)

    This post is getting too long, so I'll address the rest of your diatribe in a second one.

    • I’ve never been called “my bitch,” either

      I find that very difficult to believe.

      Poopajoe might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer

      Maybe not, but still sharp enough to cut you to ribbons.

    • "I’ve never been called “my bitch,”"

      She's probably never been called My Dear, or Sweet, either.

      • This post is getting too long
        ***************
        As do all of your posts.
        ****************
        Blame Not-So-Silent for that, Poopajoe. He's the one who posted a tome here, and demanded that I respond to it.

        • Which you did *elsewhere*, I note. Why were you unable to click on reply? Too confusing? New to the blogging scene? Slow on the uptake? Enquiring minds want to know.

          • Which you did *elsewhere*, I note. Why were you unable to click on reply? Too confusing? New to the blogging scene? Slow on the uptake? Enquiring minds want to know.
            ***************
            As I've already stated a few dozen times here, when there is no "Reply to this specific comment" link after the post, or anywhere within that particular exchange, I respond wherever I can----usually in the Leave A Comment box at the bottom of the page.

            What are you bellyaching about, anyway? This whole thread is just a disorganized jumble of far righters spewing Islamophobic drivel. Since they're all repeating the same old stuff, does it really make much difference where my responses are posted? :D

          • How would you *know* what is and what is not drivel, when you are not able to comprehend the phrase "REPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC COMMENT"?

            The rules for when you can and cannot reply to a specific comment are few and simple. The hierarchy of comments is also simple. Any fool could figure it out, which leaves you scratching your multiple chins over the complexity of clicking on that link, typing your gormless reply, entering the CAPTCHA, and clicking on "Submit".

            I'll supply the answer you are unwilling to type. You *chose* to not reply directly, because you'd rather shouty shouty shouty in a dark corner when you've been pwned beyond all belief, exposed for the intellectual lightweight that you are.

            You're not qualified to judge anyone here as to content or organization, given that you have not and will not master the simple task of replying to posts. Assuming that you actually managed to pass through nursing school, a possibility that I find increasingly remote, you have the capability of learning -- you lack the desire. Intellectually speaking, your mind is as dead as a box of hammers.

          • and you were happy to comply.
            ****************
            And you think it's unacceptable for me to refute a very long post full of misinformation and lapses in logic because.......?

            To anyone who has a problem with the length of my posts: it takes more than a bumper sticker slogan or two to discuss complex ideas. I use as many words as I need to to get a point across.

            If that troubles you, remember that no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read them. In fact, thanks to those who are anxious to "hide" my posts, most of the time you don't even see them, unless you choose to click on the link.

            Feel better now?

          • Why do you always read more into a post than is actually there?
            //////////////////
            And you think it’s unacceptable for me to refute a very long post full of misinformation and lapses in logic because…….?
            ***************
            Where did I say any of that?
            ////////////////////

            To anyone who has a problem with the length of my posts: it takes more than a bumper sticker slogan or two to discuss complex ideas. I use as many words as I need to to get a point across.

            If that troubles you, remember that no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read them. In fact, thanks to those who are anxious to “hide” my posts, most of the time you don’t even see them, unless you choose to click on the link.
            ***************

            I suppose that is why I DID NOT read your tomb. I read Poppa's pithy post and your complaint about NSS "demanding a reply.

            You said:
            "Blame Not-So-Silent for that, Poppajoe. He’s the one who posted a tome here, and demanded that I respond to it."

            NSS "demanded" you reply...really, are you so weak that you must give in to "demands". Only a fool is not in command of him/herself. This is why you are so easily played, dear. He "demanded"...you complied.
            ////////////////

            Feel better now?
            **************
            What is there for me to feel better about? Why do you think I was feeling bad about anything?

          • Wow, if I can demand over the internet, I am going to demand the winning numbers for the Kalifornia lottery right now...:)

          • No, I'm just dyslexic...my brain substitutes a similar looking word for another all the time. So I was thinking tome but typed tomb. I'm not perfect, just perfectly flawed. ;)

        • Too Long; Didn't (Don't) Read.

          A fair warning that an Oblivious post is particularly wordy while being without actually saying anything (as usual) to those curious enough to click on the post to read.

  • We're just curious if she's one of what Dear Leader Lenin called a "useful idiot," if she is some kind of paid shil, or if she is personally invested in the legacy of Mohammed, PBUH.*
    *******************
    Oh, yes, I'd forgotten that you righties always assume that political ideals are motivated purely by self-interest. That might be true with you far righters, but it isn't true of most of us liberals. I challenge Islamophobic bigotry because it's the right thing to do, not because I feel personally threatened by it.

    In other words, no, I'm not Muslim.
    ******************
    BTW, last time I looked, Mohammedanism was a religion, not a race, and a good number of Mohammedans now advocating violent jihad against Western Civilization are themselves of white western descent - so it is absurd, ludicrous (cf. Roget's Thesaurus for further descriptions) to describe opposition to (or even to have reservations about) Mohammedanism as "racism."
    *****************
    I didn't call it racism. I called it bigotry.

    • So I see you are still here, Got your KKK robe on? What other folks are you going to refer to tonight?

      I love this, you are such a self righteous piece of dog crap. You know everything and all right wingers are racists. Then you run into me. Never played the race card in my life till tonight and I only played it because of your constant slur of "my boy". You know I have never in five decades been called boy or my boy. Been a conservative all my life cause I understand what liberals do to hold down the "boy" by giving him no chance to escape from the bullshit cycle of poverty or crime. I said it the other night, liberals have done to blacks what Jefferson Davis could not do, keep them in slavery. No hand up, just a hand out, and you constantly pat them on the head and tell them good boy like a dog.

      There are racists all over this country, but you are among the worst constantly telling conservatives they are stupid and racists. Please explain to me, just how you have helped me? Never got a damn thing without working for it including a college education and a great job. I see people like you who know better than everyone else, you the type that thinks your helping when what you are doing to screwing people so bad there is no chance to escape the system YOU have trapped them in.

      You constantly badger the people here with your stupid twisting comments, you never answer questions and you always drag out Rush, or Bush or someone else cause you can not defend what today's liberals are doing, so you have to attack conservatives.

      Remember it was YOUR party that was responsible for segregation, perhaps you like to go back to those days when I have to use a "colored only water fountain".

      What I don't give a rats ass about is a persons color. I care about the content of their character, and you asshat have NONE.

      You lack of self worth and lack of confidence in yourself leads you to want to bring everyone else to your level.

      The people who are here and the majority of Bloggers on conservative sites are HONORABLE, INTELLIGENT AND HONEST, You lack all three.

      People make this country great, independent thinkers who won't shy away from a fight, People like me who love the United States, the Flag and all the good this country represents. You and your liberal buddies are jealous, you can't stand when someone is happy or making money, you want to take it away so they are as unhappy as you because your life is a waste.

      I don't even know why I am responding to you anymore since it obvious you have serious issues. Common sense would tell you not to use a term like that, but you were hopping to set someone off and you did. ME. And because of stupid people like you, America's problems won't be solved quickly because you will throw out the victim/race/children/poor cards because you have no solutions.

      I am also half white just like that moron In the White house that you love so much, but that is the only thing we have in common. Are you gonna call me a house N-gro now? How about Uncle Tom? Obama is a unskilled, twit who can not make a decision unless the peoples committee tells him to. If I wanted to live in a socialist country or communist country I would move there. You like it so much why don't you move, then you want have to put up with conservatives.

      Now dear sweet moron, you can spin this anyway you want, but your blatant racism is splattered all over this site tonight. better put on some coffee and get the gang together to see how you can explain your way out of this...

      Oh and you never did answer my question..Are you a Muslim? You defend them constantly, and if you are why not admit it, are you ashamed of it? Try and be honest about it. That levels the field for everyone. I don't think you have the courage to admit what you are or why you are the way you are.

      Spin away Olivia. Oh and just a note, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you might have figured that one of us would be a minority (if you want to consider me that) and your slams would cause something of a problem... But your not that smart.

  • We're just curious if she's one of what Dear Leader Lenin called a "useful idiot," if she is some kind of paid shil, or if she is personally invested in the legacy of Mohammed, PBUH.*

    BTW, last time I looked, Mohammedanism was a religion, not a race, and a good number of Mohammedans now advocating violent jihad against Western Civilization are themselves of white western descent - so it is absurd, ludicrous (cf. Roget's Thesaurus for further descriptions) to describe opposition to (or even to have reservations about) Mohammedanism as "racism."

    For that matter, considering that the huge majority of Roman Catholics in the world are in South America, of Spanish and Indian heritage, and "sub-Saharan" African, I suggest that speaking disparagingly of the Church of Rome is racist!

    And if Livvy is a turban-knocker, she's obviously a bad one. They'd have her head off in Saudi for being able to read and write (well, maybe not with =her= abilities), having a job, where she almost certainly has unprotected and unescorted contact with men - and men who are no doubt in extreme states of undress at that! I bet she even has a car and drives!

    * Piss Be Upon Him

      • Smart car. So she alleges. Still enough of a vehicle to get you flogged for driving while female.
        *****************
        I don't live in Saudi Arabia, Kick, and have no plans to move there, with or without a Smartcar. So what's your point? You, yourself, have made it clear that you don't think women are smart enough, or moral enough, to make wise decisions about their uteruses without the help of politicians. So I would think that a nation that punishes strongminded women would be right up your alley. ;)

        • Smart car. So she alleges. Still enough of a vehicle to get you flogged for driving while female.
          *****************
          I don’t live in Saudi Arabia, Kick, and have no plans to move there, with or without a Smartcar. So what’s your point? You, yourself, have made it clear that you don’t think women are smart enough, or moral enough, to make wise decisions about their uteruses without the help of politicians. So I would think that a nation that punishes strongminded women would be right up alley.

          Where in my post did I mention you moving to Saudi Arabia? PD wondered what kind of car you drove, I recall you claimed to own a Smart car. I ended that thought with a period. Then, I began a new sentence, which you miserably failed to comprehend. I was pointing out the Smart car's ridiculous size by asserting that it was still adequate to get a female punished for driving one in the Kingdom. Because you are both dim and self absorbed you tried to make it about you and drag the abortion issue into it. That too was an utter failure since you had to lie, mischaracterize, and generalize my position on that worn out thread.

          • Where in my post did I mention you moving to Saudi Arabia? PD wondered what kind of car you drove, I recall you claimed to own a Smart car. I ended that thought with a period. Then, I began a new sentence, which you miserably failed to comprehend. I was pointing out the Smart car’s ridiculous size by asserting that it was still adequate to get a female punished for driving one in the Kingdom. Because you are both dim and self absorbed you tried to make it about you
            ****************
            But it WAS about me, Kick. Otherwise, why would you be indulging in fantasies about women being punished for driving a Smartcar in Saudi Arabia? :D

          • I thought you were whining about this post being too long..Took ya a day or so to come back didn't it? Just like a meth head who picks on his scabs, you just can't leave it alone even though you have hat your ass handed to you multiple times....

          • Amazing! You think you know my mind better than I do.  Please cut and paste my post where I fantasized about women being punished for anything much less driving.  You do know that is a corporal offense for woman to drive in the Kingdom?  Why do you lie when it is so easy to call you on it?

             http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/27/saudi-woman-sentenced-to-10-lashes-for-driving/

            This particular incident resulted with the punishment being commuted due to external pressure.  The crime and punishment are on the books nonetheless. 

          • Please cut and paste my post where I fantasized about women being punished for anything much less driving.

            That would be her fantasizing about being punished. Not only is she stupid and on drugs, but a closet masochist!

          • Amazing! You think you know my mind better than I do. Please cut and paste my post where I fantasized about women being punished for anything much less driving. You do know that is a corporal offense for woman to drive in the Kingdom? Why do you lie when it is so easy to call you on it?
            **************
            None of the above is relevant to my post, Kick, since I wasn't talking about Saudi laws. You're getting in a lather again over nothing.

            Still, if you want to discuss your article instead of your Smartcar fantasies: the article stated quite clearly that this is the first time a Saudi woman has received corporal punishment for driving. It also said that it's a religious edict, not any law "on the books"----that prohibits women from driving there. Not that that makes a difference to the point being made---but it does suggest that you're not QUITE as knowledgeable about Saudi---pardon me, "Kingdom"----law as you're trying to sound.

          • This contradicts.....

            FTA:
            Today a Saudi woman was convicted and sentenced to 10 lashes for defying the kingdom’s ban on women driving. Activist Samar Badawi said a Saudi court found Shaima Ghassaniya guilty of driving without the government’s permission.

            This...
             It also said that it’s a religious edict, not any law “on the books”—-that prohibits women from driving there. Not that that makes a difference to the point being made.

            The ban is law in that it is illegal for a woman to go by car without a driver and/or a male relative behind the wheel.  Further a woman may not get a government permit to drive.  Semantics but the result is it is not possible for a woman to legally drive.

            Whatever, Olivia.  Still not the real point is it?  My original reference to Saudi had nothing to do with you and I'm still waiting for the c&p of my fantasy. Either produce it or admit that you lied again.   

          • Oooohhhhh she is having smart car fantasies.....This ought to be good....I thought she just got hot for Rush..I guess she is multi-talented...

        • You, yourself, have made it clear that you don’t think women are smart enough, or moral enough, to make wise decisions about their uteruses without the help of politicians. So I would think that a nation that punishes strongminded women would be right up your alley.

          Why do you feel the need to lie and/or distort what Kick has said? Weak, dear, very weak.

          • You, yourself, have made it clear that you don’t think women are smart enough, or moral enough, to make wise decisions about their uteruses without the help of politicians. So I would think that a nation that punishes strongminded women would be right up your alley.

            Why do you feel the need to lie and/or distort what Kick has said? Weak, dear, very weak.
            *****************
            No lie or distortion there, Derb. He disputed my comment that women are the most qualified to govern their own uteruses, and he advocated passing a federal law preventing legal abortion.

            No matter how you try to slice, dice and spin it, he's saying that women are either too stupid or immoral or easily led to manage their reproductive systems wisely, without the State intervening.....unless they happen to echo HIS rigidly antichoice beliefs.

          • before i go further with this i need a list of all the names i've thus far tried.

            that, or we risk seeing some names repeated while I compile a .doc to record my guesses.

          • Olivia: No lie or distortion there, Derb. He disputed my comment that women are the most qualified to govern their own uteruses, and he advocated passing a federal law preventing legal abortion.

            Actually, I said it should be a states right issue. I do dispute your assertion that women are in the best position when, clearly, many woman are not capable of making good choices. I think we have exhausted this topic for a while though. I have nothing to add to my position except to tell you here what I actually said, You could not tell the truth if your life depended on it. If you think I am wrong here, then I suggest that you scurry over to the other thread and cut and paste that comment where I said a federal law should be passed preventing legal abortion. Good luck with that since you can not even keep posters straight on the thread we are on now.

            I think I am now waiting for two cut and pastes of my supposed posts and a link regarding Herman Cain. C'mon, dolt, back up your posts honestly.

          • Olivia: No lie or distortion there, Derb. He disputed my comment that women are the most qualified to govern their own uteruses, and he advocated passing a federal law preventing legal abortion.
            ***************************

            Actually, I said it should be a states right issue.
            ***************************
            Oh, I see. So, despite all your tirades about abortion killing babies, the "killing" itself isn't what you object to----you just don't want the federal government to have any say on the issue? And it's okay with you if the women of your state go get their abortions in a neighboring, pro-choice state, if your own state has outlawed legal abortion?

            Cut the BS, my boy. You're as rigidly anti-choice as anyone I've run across in a long time. There's no way you'd support pro-choice legislation of ANY kind, in your state or any other.
            ****************************
            I do dispute your assertion that women are in the best position when, clearly, many woman are not capable of making good choices.
            ****************************
            There are also a great many men who aren't capable of making good choices, Kick. As well as many politicians. Yet you think they, who don't even have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, are more capable than the woman herself of making appropriate decisions concerning her reproductive system?

            You're so funny when you try to backpedal. :D
            ****************************
            I think I am now waiting for two cut and pastes of my supposed posts and a link regarding Herman Cain. C’mon, dolt, back up your posts honestly.
            **********************
            Nothing doing, pal. It's YOUR turn to back up some of YOUR claims, specifically the ones made earlier, that Clinton is a "predator" and a "sociopath."

            Best get digging.

          • Olivia: No lie or distortion there, Derb. He disputed my comment that women are the most qualified to govern their own uteruses, and he advocated passing a federal law preventing legal abortion.
            ***************************
            Actually, I said it should be a states right issue.
            ***************************
            Oh, I see. So, despite all your tirades about abortion killing babies, the “killing” itself isn’t what you object to—-you just don’t want the federal government to have any say on the issue? And it’s okay with you if the women of your state go get their abortions in a neighboring, pro-choice state, if your own state has outlawed legal abortion?
            Cut the BS, my boy. You’re as rigidly anti-choice as anyone I’ve run across in a long time. There’s no way you’d support pro-choice legislation of ANY kind, in your state or any other.
            ****************************
            No BS here, my girl. You just do not have the mental agility to manage two thoughts simultaneously. You are correct in that I am anti-abortion (elective abortion for convenience). That said, I am also firmly against the SCOTUS decision because it overstepped its constitutional authority. Period, Especially since if anyone ELSE kills the baby (I refer to the Scott Peterson example) it is a homicide. Perhaps in another place and time (absent Roe v Wade), a state law legalizing abortion on demand would not hold up to judicial review since it is premeditated murder if the fetus had the right not to be killed for convenience. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way.

            I do dispute your assertion that women are in the best position when, clearly, many woman are not capable of making good choices.
            ****************************
            There are also a great many men who aren’t capable of making good choices, Kick. As well as many politicians. Yet you think they, who don’t even have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, are more capable than the woman herself of making appropriate decisions concerning her reproductive system?

            Men do not routinely kill their unborn children that is something certain women do. Again, you have no argument so you deflect. You do not have the base of knowledge about most women who abort....so again I chalk up that worn out talking point to left wing gobbledygook.

            You’re so funny when you try to backpedal.

            Backpedal? I’m sure you can point out where I have back peddled.

            ****************************
            I think I am now waiting for two cut and pastes of my supposed posts and a link regarding Herman Cain. C’mon, dolt, back up your posts honestly.
            **********************
            Nothing doing, pal. It’s YOUR turn to back up some of YOUR claims, specifically the ones made earlier, that Clinton is a “predator” and a “sociopath.”

            Olivia, again, you lose and lose badly. You back up nothing that you allege because you are a hopeless liar. Clinton was impeached for screwing the help and then lying about it, you boob. Not only is that self-destructive behavior and sexual predation, it is sociopathic behavior. He preyed on how many women that we know about?

            http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/antisocial_sociopath_psychopath.html

            Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person's conscience. They either don't have one, it's full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad. The term "sociopath" is frequently used by psychologists and sociologists alike in referring to persons whose unsocialized character is due primarily to parental failures (usually fatherlessness) rather than inherent features of temperament. However, this may only describe the "common sociopath", as there are at least four (4) different subtypes -- common, alienated, aggressive, and dyssocial. Commons are characterized mostly by their lack of conscience; the alienated by their inability to love or be loved; aggressives by a consistent sadistic streak; and dyssocials by an ability to abide by gang rules, as long as those rules are the wrong rules. Some common sociopathic traits include:
            Egocentricity; Callousness; Impulsivity; Conscience defect; Exaggerated sexuality; Excessive boasting; Risk taking; Inability to resist temptation; Antagonistic, deprecating attitude toward the opposite sex; Lack of interest in bonding with a mate

            http://withoutempathy.blogspot.com/

            http://www.w3f.com/patriots/insane.html

            FTA:
            "President Bill Clinton is mentally ill, and he will get worse before he
            gets better is the conclusion of a clinical psychologist who has studied
            him and written a book on the subject." Dr. Paul Fick, clinical
            psychologist and author of the book "The Dysfunctional President,"
            is in an "I told you so" position now that Clinton has admitted his
            sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Previously criticized for his
            diagnosis of the president, Fick is now being deluged with calls from
            talk show hosts for interviews.

            Fick says Clinton is a pathological liar and addicted to sex. He lies
            about everything, not just sex, and he is so compulsive that he is
            always thinking about sex -- a distraction preventing Clinton from
            doing his job, says the author."

            http://www.amazon.com/Dysfunctional-President-Understanding-Compulsions-Clinton/dp/0806520027

            I don’t know about your sexual predilections, Olivia, but the other descriptor applies to you. Your posts suggest that you are a pathological liar. You will write anything to try to advance your weak ideologically rigid arguments and you have a complete and utter inability to admit when you have been defeated here. The fact that you must lie and mischaracterize what I and others say here more than supports my claims that you lie without any conscious.

            Best get digging.

            That took about 30 seconds. Why don’t you show me that proof about Herman Cain and those posts you alleged I wrote? It won't happen because those are three examples of you lying in a vain attempt to advance your weak arguments.

          • Olivia, again, you lose and lose badly. You back up nothing that you allege because you are a hopeless liar. Clinton was impeached for screwing the help and then lying about it, you boob. Not only is that self-destructive behavior and sexual predation, it is sociopathic behavior.
            ******************
            Why, no, it isn't. First, Lewinsky wasn't a servant, but an intern. Second, she readily admitted that she was a willing participant. And, third, lying about one's private sexual encounters is pretty normal human behavior, even if it's illegal to do so under oath.

            One of your problems, Kick, is that you badly want to sound like an expert in every field: obstetrics, law, philosophy and now psychiatry. But the fact is that, even if you were a licensed psychiatrist (which you're very obviously not), it's impossible to evaluate and/or diagnose someone you've never met, just by reading magazine articles and right wing blog entries about him, and googling up Psychology 101 level information.
            ************************
            He preyed on how many women that we know about?
            ************************
            Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment; the case was thrown out of court. Gennifer Flowers claimed to have had a longterm affair with him, which isn't the same thing as being "preyed" on. Tens of millions of the taxpayers' dollars were spent trying to prove a pattern of sexual harassment; if Clinton were indeed the "predator" that you claim, they should have been able to come up with many more examples.

            By the way, both Flowers and Lewinsky profited handsomely from their exposés; whereas part of the terms of the settlements in both Cain's harassment cases were that the women keep their mouths shut. (Which they've apparently done.)

            Keep spinning, my boy. Sooner or later, you're going to discover that you can't keep on propping up your hero Cain, and at the same time condemning Clinton, without making yourself look like an inconsistent fool. Kind of like you did with your melodramatic rants against "killing babies"....and then claiming that your position was all about states' rights. :D

            Off to work now. You, of course, have plenty of time to keep on arguing with your "but but but Clinton" non-sequiturs. ;)

          • The neighborhood canines all were yelping and running wild until I put the third thumb on this smear of shit. They calmed down and went sniffing for more c. diff emanations like only oblovia can muster.

          • Boy, you hate to come up short on every thread! That was a lot of nonsense when saying the following would have been fine: "Yeah, Sidekick, I see the distinctions in your positions. I was just unable to grasp that there is more than one facet to your position on abortion, I know Cain isn't your hero, I brought up both he and Clinton because I was losing the original argument again (whatever it was since I changed the subject several times - I do that when I lose debates).

            Of course there is no proof that Cain sexually harassed anyone and Clinton was impeached for lying about sexually harassing a young intern.

            Further, Sidekick, I know you are not a psychiatrist or a lawyer but I respect your ability to research a topic and draw a reasonable conclusion. I know it is easier to do now with search engines it is just I do not have the wherewithall to do it myself. I'm not intellectually curious, I am a buffoon who would rather lie and talk out her ass than be honest in my posts."

            Finally, Olivia, only liberal females would defend Clinton's behavior. What is it with female progressives? They kill their kids, defend adulterers, and support a religion that denies women basic human rights. No wonder you're such a mess, I would not want to have to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize all of that.

          • You should have been a farmer cause you are "out-standing in your field"...A field of what I don't know.

            If anyone is spinning here it is you again. You drift father off topic than a weather balloon in a hurricane...Like I said, Bat Shit Crazy....

          • Meanwhile, Oblivia again accuses someone of doing exactly what she does which is trying to sound like an expert in every field, not to mention cheap mind reading tricks called translation.

          • Olivia:"melodramatic rants against 'killing babies'"

            No, we wouldn't want to get "melodramatic" about ending an infants' life, would we? Only someone with a conscience as coarse as yours could put a smiley face at the end of a sentence about killing infants. And sadly enough, you have no idea how coarse your conscience is. The human heart of the infant starts beating 18 to 21 days after conception. The earliest a surgical abortion can be performed is 28 days after conception. The earliest a chemical abortion abortion can be performed is 21 days after conception. Do you not know that a tiny beating human heart is deliberately and permanently stopped in every abortion? But somehow in your sick world, this isn't killing a baby.

            Dorothy, close your eyes and kick your heels together three times while saying:

            "When I defend deliberately and permanently stopping a human heart from beating, I'm not defending killing babies."

            "When I defend deliberately and permanently stopping a human heart from beating, I'm not defending killing babies."

            "When I defend deliberately and permanently stopping a human heart from beating, I'm not defending killing babies."

            There now, because you've wished it so, it's so, isn't it?

            Only in relativistic Oz.

            "Mankind cannot stand too much reality."
            -T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

            P.S. Do you not know that when you continually bring up abortion on threads that aren't about abortion, that this represents the struggle of your conscience with what you're defending?

          • Sidekick just whopped Olivia's ass again...Remember the old saying about hitting a jackass with a two by four to get its attention...Sometimes there is just not enough two by fours in the world....

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015