• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

You know, I probably shouldn't admit it, but I only have a vague idea of what "WOOOT" is really supposed to mean, and it took me this long to care enough that the original poster couldn't even spell his name correctly....lol.
 
1110bxg.gif
 
WOOT DEHUMANIZATION OF 50+% AMERICAN VOTERS
Dehumanization is the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization (such as a state) or may be the composite of individual sentiments and actions, as with some types of de facto racism. State-organized dehumanization has been directed against perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities (or "foreigners" in general), religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations (eg. homosexuals), disabled people as a class, economic [e.g. the homeless] and social classes, and many other groups.
Click to expand...
 
Hey now, Kyle. Don't mess with neocon talking points. It's all they've got.

^^ (I guess this dehumanizes angry white men. :shrugs:)


Dale
 
Hypancistrus said:
I always love when people compare my girlfriend and I to animals.

Very classy. :( :( :(
Click to expand...
No intentional disrespect intended. Regardless of the fact that that direct comparison wasn't made, you can either take the copy/paste email as a direct slam on you or you can take it as a list of slams on democrats in general. Either way, I'm not going to PC-up tongue in cheek commentary.

D80
 
Drizzt80 said:
No intentional disrespect intended. Regardless of the fact that that direct comparison wasn't made, you can either take the copy/paste email as a direct slam on you or you can take it as a list of slams on democrats in general. Either way, I'm not going to PC-up tongue in cheek commentary.

D80
Click to expand...

When you copy and paste offensive material you are taking the resposibility for that statement.
 
whippet said:
When you copy and paste offensive material you are taking the resposibility for that statement.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I made an error in judgement and I apologize. Would you like me to edit it? Remove it? It would be most unfortunate if one copy/paste incident was held against me. Other than this incident I don't believe I have personally portrayed any aversion to you or yours have I?

D80
 
Drizzt80 said:
You are correct. I made an error in judgement and I apologize. Would you like me to edit it? Remove it? It would be most unfortunate if one copy/paste incident was held against me. Other than this incident I don't believe I have personally portrayed any aversion to you or yours have I?

D80
Click to expand...

Thank you... I personally would edit it out, but that is just me. I appreciate your apology.
 
Needless to say, I think I should apologize too... I "appreciated" Brent's original post without really "seeing" or "feeling" what some of it said. While I do appreciate the humor of most of that post, I do not agree with or find humorous that line of the list.

Hyp and Whippet, I consider both of you to be decent and good people. You have my sincerest of apologies.
 
medusacoils said:
I am sorry, but fact check is not a fact! The people behind it have a bias, just like the rest of us!! It's easy for them to twist and mold information, to bolster their point of view.
Click to expand...

I thought the article was fairly unbiased, especially when you consider that they didn't even come to a definitive conclusion. In fact, the article's point seemed to directly support my comment that the situation wasn't as simple as the posted quip would suggest. Here are some quotes from the article. Tell me where the bias is.

factcheck.org said:
Both taxes and profits account for a large share, but which is larger depends on too many unknown factors to allow for a clear answer.
Click to expand...

factcheck.org said:
"Unfortunately, there’s no real simple answer," says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which conducts economic analyses of energy issues and is supported by oil companies. It depends on when the gasoline was purchased. "If you bought it right now, I’d say the government is making more." If the gasoline was purchased a month ago or last year, that may not have been the case. And the answer further depends on what type of company the question refers to. Refineries, Pugliaresi says, are hurting right now. "If you’re an independent refinery, the answer is definitely they’re making a lot less than the government."

So, to the question of whether motorists pay more per gallon to the government than to oil-company profits, we can say only this: The answer depends on the state in which the fuel is purchased, the company that produced it and sold it, and when the motorist bought it.
Click to expand...


Controlled from doing what?? I don't know any gun capable of doing anything by itself! Do you??
Click to expand...
Semantics. I say that I don't want the trenchcoat-wearing, eye-liner sporting, 14-year old two houses down to be able to buy an UZI at 7-11. Call it gun control; call it people control. Semantics.
 
Roy Munson said:
Semantics. I say that I don't want the trenchcoat-wearing, eye-liner sporting, 14-year old two houses down to be able to buy an UZI at 7-11. Call it gun control; call it people control. Semantics.
Click to expand...

Yeah!! Too bad that that's already illegal and "controlled"!!
 
Roy Munson said:
Well, when I think of "gun control", I don't think of "gun elimination". The term "gun control" is a politically loaded one for many people, but I just take the words at face value.
Click to expand...
And that's the ticket. Much like PETA advertises pet "control" to garner more support, they really want pet elimination. (Definition of pet here being ownership of animals by humans.) The politicals advertise gun "control" to garner more support. :shrugs:

D80
 
Drizzt80 said:
And that's the ticket. Much like PETA advertises pet "control" to garner more support, they really want pet elimination. (Definition of pet here being ownership of animals by humans.) The politicals advertise gun "control" to garner more support. :shrugs:

D80
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize that. The term "gun control" is fun because the extremists from both sides skew the perception of the term to their own ends. For the arch-conservatives, it's used to create alarm. For the far-lefties, it's used to disguise a deeper agenda. Thankfully, the country isn't run by extremists (at least not exclusively).
 
This was a frivolous comment that I have chosen to delete.
 
Last edited:
This was a frivolous comment that I have chosen to delete.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top