Yossarian

Do you believe it or are you just following the party line? Believe it? Heck, I saw him do it. He screwed up and the back pedaling just prolongs the conversation. Any day that goes by with Barack Obama defending his record or trying to rationalize something he has said is a good day for the Romney campaign. i usually hardly know what you are talking about, but no blunder is going to take away attention from romney not releasing his tax forms. well, we might get a breath from that story with this one: Romney’s ’02 Olympics short on transparency: Despite pledge, records destroyed or this one: Romney backtracks on criticism of London Olympics (also, what backpedaling or defending his record are you talking about?) On CNN (gasp!!) they were showing DNC commercials where Barack Obama was explaining that he was talking about building bridges. It's got to be true since it was on CNN.

If you criticize Barack Obama USING THE VERY WORDS AND PHRASES USED BY FOX NEWS, you are accused of regurgitating Fox News. Funny how that works, huh? You believe anyone who criticizes the President can't come up with reasons on their own? I can....and I have.

Do you believe it or are you just following the party line? Believe it? Heck, I saw him do it. He screwed up and the back pedaling just prolongs the conversation. Any day that goes by with Barack Obama defending his record or trying to rationalize something he has said is a good day for the Romney campaign.

If you criticize Barack Obama, you are accused of regurgitating Fox News. Every one of the non-conservatives on here use that as their argument when they, in fact, sound like Daily KOS, MSNBC, and Huffington Post in defending the President.

Not sure how Fox News forced the President of a capitalist country to belittle the capitalists who build companies. He screwed the pooch and has tried to walk the dog back but that dog won't hunt (to continue the canine metaphor). He does it a lot when he goes off the teleprompter. If he is going off the teleprompter to impress Charles Krauthammer, then Fox is partly to blame.

I tried to explain here: http://www.huskerboa...post__p__973036 I did a poor job of it. I'll try again. "That" doesn't refer to the business unless you rip the quote away from all context as the attack ads have done. Obama made a poor grammatical choice and said "that" instead of "those." That made it easy for the Romney campaign to base their entire ad war on a willful misrepresentation of Obama's statement. Now we are explaining away President Obama's collectivist philosophy as simply a bad choice of words; i.e., he said "that" when he meant "those." What he said was a complete, standalone sentence: "If you own a business...you didn't build that." I can understand why he doesn't have a clue about what it takes to build a business. He's never been involved in building one, and he wouldn't know a good one from a bad one. Evidence? Solyndra. But he's right about Solyndra, they couldn't have lasted long enough to spend $500,000,000 and go belly up without Government help.

Good! Agreement!

what? edit: warren specifically says you deserve a big chunk of that money, but you owe a certain amount back to help others succeed and pay back what you have used to get where you are. What you said is hilarious: "you deserve a big chunk of that money." Really, I actually deserve a big chunk of the money that I earned? But some freeloading failure I do not know deserves a chunk of it too?

I blame John Hancock.

this seems to be a common theme with your posts that is annoying. 'why are you worried about this (issue i deem inconsequential) when there are these issues (i deem far more important to worry about)'. the issues you listed hardly make sense, but even so, we all know there are more important issues than gay cookies, but that does not mean we can not or should not discuss it or even the reactions to it. also, the dude, i think you forgot broadway. I don't even understand what you are trying to say. But thanks for trying. i do not appreciate your condescension, especially when it is your fault for not understanding. I couldn't figure out what your rant had to do with me since I didn't even mention the "gay cookies." I was simply commenting on how leftists predict what "knuckle draggers" will do when they should be worried about real problems. Gay cookies are not real problems. Double-dipped Oreos are real solutions.

To say that this lack of information is unusual is an understatement. They almost never have information releases like this. Uh...what knapplc said. Something odd is going on...

Merrriam-Webster defines it as one who writes editorials. Can you do anything except post "smiley faces"? I realize that it's quicker and time is money. http://www.merriam-w...ry/editorialist It might be hard for you to believe it, but it's often more efficient (and rewarding) to simply laugh at the inanity of your posts. You're right.

Merrriam-Webster defines it as one who writes editorials. Can you do anything except post "smiley faces"? I realize that it's quicker and time is money. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorialist

I'm just trying to figure out how you leap from a few incidents spread over the course of 25 years, which you say are "becoming more common these days" (but I guess not common enough that you can agree we substitute the phrase "common daily"...so I guess really it's not that common? )...how do you get from that to assuming this story is suspicious? Where in this story do you see a commonality with the others you listed where "perps set themselves up to be victims?" What made me suspicious was the fact that the attackers threw gasoline on the floor and set it afire - the fire was still burning when the police arrived, and caused $200.00 in damage. Something doesn't seem right about that. Meanwhile, everyone seems to think that the "hate crime" part of this is somehow worse than attempted murder. It has gotten to the point where even questioning a victim's story is usually thought to be a hate crime in itself.

What both Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama are suggesting is that you do not deserve to keep your money. The Government wants more and you will fork it over if they get their way since the Government made it possible for you to succeed. If Mitt Romney had suggested taking medals from winners and giving them to losers (what the President wants to do with tax dollars), then comparing his statement to what Obama and Warren said would be a little more valid.

Maybe you could point out where the stereotypes in the thread are. Let's start with the title. You apparently don't know what the word "stereotype" means. The title can easily be backed up by statistics and, more personally, the fact that my grandparents and over 25 1st and 2nd cousins are farmers. An example of a stereotype would be: "Why are farmers simple?" or "Why are farmers stupid?" I guess what I don't get is how this started out, with a simple question being posed. But, in the space of a few posts, it's been hijacked for a asinine reason, and been shifted in a different direction. If it can't be turned into left-wing talking points, it is a useless thread.

You bought the "ACA is prolonging the recession" argument? I'd better add that to my stockpile. WP editorialist thinks so. After all, the WP is always right in the left-wing echo chambers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-folly-of-obamacare/2012/06/17/gJQAf5o1jV_story.html

this seems to be a common theme with your posts that is annoying. 'why are you worried about this (issue i deem inconsequential) when there are these issues (i deem far more important to worry about)'. the issues you listed hardly make sense, but even so, we all know there are more important issues than gay cookies, but that does not mean we can not or should not discuss it or even the reactions to it. also, the dude, i think you forgot broadway. I don't even understand what you are trying to say. But thanks for trying.

What are the "lots of hoaxes" you're talking about? Are there many cases I'm unaware of several LGBT people claiming to be assaulted but actually making it all up? I said nothing about LGBT hoaxes...Here are some of the hoaxes I was talking about. 1) Tawana Brawley: everyone knows about this one in 1987. 2) Charles Stuart: Stuart and his pregnant wife Carol were driving in Boston in 1989, a black gunman supposedly forced his way into the car and shot them both, hitting Carol in the head and killing her eventually. After suspicions rose, Stuart committed suicide. 3) Susan Smith: In October 1994, in South Carolina, Smith drowned her sons by putting them in her car and letting it roll into John D. Long Lake. She called the police and stated that an armed black man had hijacked her car with her two sons inside. After an extensive manhunt, Smith confessed that she had killed her sons. 4) Duke Lacrosse Team 5) Harvard Hate Mail Hoax: Hate-filled emails were supposedly received by four people at Harvard in April 2007. The source of the emails was one of the people who "received" them. 6) Black Church Arson: In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed white supremacists were burning black churches across the south. In fact, the increase was in white church arsons. 7) University of Wisconsin-Parkside Black Hit List: A black student supposedly found a noose hanging in a dorm suite and a "hit list" of black students in February 2012 that were targeted "to die." The black student who who found it was the person wrote it and hung the noose. There are many others. Google "black noose hoax" and you will see...as for LGBT hoaxes, google "LGBT hoaxes." so these "commonly daily" hoaxes are occuring over the course of 1987 to 2012? More specifically 7 occurences over the course of 25 years? Of course, I know you said these are just examples (the majority seeming to be "black noose hoaxes" which have nothing to do with the LGBT community). So you must have thousands or even hundreds more currently related attempts to substantiate a reason why we should consider this recent claim as dubious, correct? Plus, you misquoted my post - I didn't say "common daily." i said "becoming more common these days." I realize it's easier to frame an argument when you misquote in order to have someone say what you want to hear. Especially when you can actually amend what I actually posted. .

What are the "lots of hoaxes" you're talking about? Are there many cases I'm unaware of several LGBT people claiming to be assaulted but actually making it all up? I said nothing about LGBT hoaxes...Here are some of the hoaxes I was talking about. 1) Tawana Brawley: everyone knows about this one in 1987. 2) Charles Stuart: Stuart and his pregnant wife Carol were driving in Boston in 1989, a black gunman supposedly forced his way into the car and shot them both, hitting Carol in the head and killing her eventually. After suspicions rose, Stuart committed suicide. 3) Susan Smith: In October 1994, in South Carolina, Smith drowned her sons by putting them in her car and letting it roll into John D. Long Lake. She called the police and stated that an armed black man had hijacked her car with her two sons inside. After an extensive manhunt, Smith confessed that she had killed her sons. 4) Duke Lacrosse Team 5) Harvard Hate Mail Hoax: Hate-filled emails were supposedly received by four people at Harvard in April 2007. The source of the emails was one of the people who "received" them. 6) Black Church Arson: In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed white supremacists were burning black churches across the south. In fact, the increase was in white church arsons. 7) University of Wisconsin-Parkside Black Hit List: A black student supposedly found a noose hanging in a dorm suite and a "hit list" of black students in February 2012 that were targeted "to die." The black student who who found it was the person wrote it and hung the noose. There are many others. Google "black noose hoax" and you will see...as for LGBT hoaxes, google "LGBT hoaxes." so these "commonly daily" hoaxes are occuring over the course of 1987 to 2012? More specifically 7 occurences over the course of 25 years? Of course, I know you said these are just examples (the majority seeming to be "black noose hoaxes" which have nothing to do with the LGBT community). So you must have thousands or even hundreds more currently related attempts to substantiate a reason why we should consider this recent claim as dubious, correct? You keep insisting that I somehow said that there are many instances of hoaxes involving LGBT "victims" when I said no such thing. Correct? The one common factor in these are the that the perps set themselves up to be a victim when in fact they were not. I also said that, if true, someone needs to be charged with murder - tying someone up and then spreading gasoline on the floor and lighting it seems almost as serious to me as calling someone a name. Of course, that's just me.

What are the "lots of hoaxes" you're talking about? Are there many cases I'm unaware of several LGBT people claiming to be assaulted but actually making it all up? I said nothing about LGBT hoaxes...Here are some of the hoaxes I was talking about. 1) Tawana Brawley: everyone knows about this one in 1987. 2) Charles Stuart: Stuart and his pregnant wife Carol were driving in Boston in 1989, a black gunman supposedly forced his way into the car and shot them both, hitting Carol in the head and killing her eventually. After suspicions rose, Stuart committed suicide. 3) Susan Smith: In October 1994, in South Carolina, Smith drowned her sons by putting them in her car and letting it roll into John D. Long Lake. She called the police and stated that an armed black man had hijacked her car with her two sons inside. After an extensive manhunt, Smith confessed that she had killed her sons. 4) Duke Lacrosse Team 5) Harvard Hate Mail Hoax: Hate-filled emails were supposedly received by four people at Harvard in April 2007. The source of the emails was one of the people who "received" them. 6) Black Church Arson: In 1996, the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed white supremacists were burning black churches across the south. In fact, the increase was in white church arsons. 7) University of Wisconsin-Parkside Black Hit List: A black student supposedly found a noose hanging in a dorm suite and a "hit list" of black students in February 2012 that were targeted "to die." The black student who who found it was the person wrote it and hung the noose. There are many others. Google "black noose hoax" and you will see...as for LGBT hoaxes, google "LGBT hoaxes."

Sounds suspiciously like lots of other hoaxes that are becoming more common these days. If true, the perps need to be caught and punished - severely. Two things that bother be about the case, the lady was tied up and her house was set afire. That could have killed her. I consider murder a more serious crime. Second thing - the fire only caused $200 in damages. Curious and curiouser...

I'd like to apologize for pointing out that there is a certain type of racism that is both tolerated and encouraged in the U.S. I'm so sorry. I have been accused of "baiting" and in fact, It was stupid of me.

of football wins. An attorney for the city of Grambling, LA, has asked for some of Penn State's wins to be "vacated." Why? Because Joe Paterno won 409 games while Eddie Robinson won 408. The college is staying out of the fray. I just hope they don't ask for one of Nebraska's MNCs because of Lawrence Phillips. The NCAA might just "vacate" the 1995 championship. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/attorney-city-of-grambling-wants-paternos-all-time-wins-record-vacated/2012/07/19/gJQA9WrGwW_story.html