Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He has a point...tossing out the "racist" or "anti-semetic" card is a last ditch effort when you can't win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
But, you can't win against Rappy- anything you say or cite is dismissable with his all-powerful "Try again", it is a God-like power, that.

Jealousisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Here's a novel idea Chrissy..... why don't you support your claim by presenting some actual quotes by McCain. Speaking of having to take the learned opinions of someone..... .show me the quote!!!

---

Here's something else, CRAppy, Sarah Palin's favourite political magazine (she subscribes):
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/10/palinreadingmaterial.jpeg

Biped moron.

isall

---

Quote:

---

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

---

Quote:

---

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

---

Quote:

---

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Interesting article from CNN...


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It was over with you tossing out the 'racist' card, marking that you had nothing left. I don't waste my time or witty retorts on those who are so intellectually bankrupt as to try to win debates / arguments/ discussions by falsely painting others as racist.

You do know the story of the boy who cried 'wolf!' too many times, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He has a point...tossing out the "racist" or "anti-semetic" card is a last ditch effort when you can't win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
3 years ago, if someone here (in America) were to say that Blacks have/contract a disproportionately high amount of HIV/AIDS, that person would have been labeled a "racist" by the socialist elite.

However, it has been proven that this is true.

Today, if someone were to say that black people, BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS, continue to spread and contract this disease in a disproportionately high way...well, that someone would also be called a racist.

However, truth is truth.

Denying truth because it makes you feel uncomfortable does not change inherant truthfullness of the thing.

Its only when you acknowledge the truth of things, that you can work to correct them.

Racism DOES exist, I know that. However, its not in when someone points out cultural flaws.

Its when a person no longer sees another as human. Then, and only then, are they racist.

Also, using the term racist for every single thing has made it lose much of its stigma.

Just because I like plain milk, instead of chocolate, does not make me a racist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
IF he stated that Muslims are not human, then that is correct.

If and only IF he said that, then I believe it to be racist.

But I doubt he said that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
IF he stated that Muslims are not human, then that is correct.

If and only IF he said that, then I believe it to be racist.

But I doubt he said that.

---

I forget if he stated it, but he certainly implied it. Besides there's more to racism than simple dehumanisation. Saying levels of criminality amongst blacks isn't racism, saying you won't employ a black man because they're all thieves is.

Racism is as much about stereotyping as anything else.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

was to contrast the dire lies which the Left were spreading, and has been since Bush was elected.

---

Quote:

---

After 7 yrs and the mortgage crisis they bungled, it's finally taken its toll.

---

Quote:

---

White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If he never said it, in those (or damn near close) words, then it is not the truth.

It is just your interpretation of what you THINK he MAY have meant..

What you think is implied, could be misinterpreted by someone else to imply an entirely new thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen,

You are right. Its just easier to label everyone a racist (Except brown people of course).

Sort of like how feminists call consenting sex between a man and a woman, rape.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No Citizen,

You are just as intolerant of other ideas/opinions/facts as any right-wing Bible-banger.

Point of fact, you are a hypocrite.

The nonsense you spout is the same gibberish as right wing nut jobs, just on the other end of the spectrum.

Same shit, different color.

Its not worth my time trying to show you that the truth is somewhere in the middle. You can't see it. Even if you could, you wouldn't believe it.

So, I'm not going to waste anymore energy with you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue,

Hows the saying go?

"I disapprove/disagree of what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We need a little more of that around here...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


Never said Rap shouldn't post.

---

Quote:

---

"I disapprove/disagree of what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
All these words to say one thing...

RAppy is a stud.
And he has a club.

The He-man Constitution Protectors Society.



Seditious bovine bipedsisall

---

Quote:

---

Over the weekend I sat down and read a few documents that you might find interesting. United Nations resolutions. More particularly, UN Resolution Numbers 678, 687 and 1441. Just click on the resolution number and you can read them for yourself if you like. Maybe you ought to just go ahead and do that right now so that you can be sure I'm not lying to you. You know how us "neocons" will lie about something like this, don't you? But ... If you're not so inclined, you can just listen to my show today and I'll give you a quick rundown on what you'll find in these UN Resolutions.

Sadly, there are a few folks out there who read the Nuze every day who can't hear the show. For you, this briefest of explanations:

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - not only have I never lied on here, I've never shown any approval of those who who are racist. Calling me a racist is as stupid as is calling me a liar. You have zero evidence for either, yet you try to brand me as both.

Why? Simple. You can't honestly, maturely or coherently respond to my post. In short, you've got no case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I've already shown that you have lied by putting your comments together. So that's at least two lies right there.

---

Quote:

---

Further you've made racist comments on numerous occasions, you just defend your racism by denying its racist unless aimed at black people, in and of itself a racist comment.

I've shown evidence for all these things, either now or before. I have plenty of evidence for both. You on the other hand have no evidence for anything you ever say.

---

Quote:

---

Why? Simple. You are the most dishonest person on this site,

---

Quote:

---

...and even when you try really hard to discuss maturely without resorting to personal insults, you just can't manage it.

---

Quote:

---

In short you never have a case, no one takes you seriously, and we're all laughing at you and your deluded red neck conspiracy theories.

---

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by AuRaptor:


Wrong Sig, all you do is take a quote and then misapply it weeks , months, years later. That's the only way you can claim victory in anything. If I say it was sunny one Saturday 2 yrs ago, and then a hurricane hits on a Saturday this week, you take my dated remarks utterly out of context and claim I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm some how " lying ".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's all due to greed on Wall Street.

SARAH PALIN SAID SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Now, to your other point. Fannie and Freddie are not at the heart of the mortgage crisis.

---

Quote:

---

The companies {Fannie and Freddie} said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year.

---

Quote:

---

Ameriquest paid $295 million to consumers in 2006 to settle charges by states of predatory lending.New Century, now the biggest subprime lender in bankruptcy, produced 24 percent. It created a security for Fannie and Freddie in August 2006. About 75 percent of the loans had interest rates set to adjust to as high as 20 percent, mostly after two years, from an average of 8.3 percent. Countrywide... faces investigations for fraudulent lending practices, supplied about 23 percent of Fannie's and Freddie's total loan volume in 2007, according to Credit Suisse.

---