|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 9:54:40 GMT -5
The people who vote for democrats. Democrats tell voters its all for them but most of it goes to govt. workers to help vote them back in . No wonder the Republicans are losing why didn't you say so? (If I wanted to hear Fox News propaganda I would turn on Fox News.) But that wont ever happen. Of course not. That would upset your delicate indoctrination, to find out there is another point of view, and that The Puppet is not universally worshiped as a god.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 9:57:08 GMT -5
Were the Brits aware of this fact on March 3, 1939? "On March 3, 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[5] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence.
... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.
On April 6, during a visit to London by the Polish foreign minister, it was agreed to formalise the guarantee as an Anglo-Polish military alliance, pending negotiations.
This guarantee was extended on April 13 to Greece and Romania following Italy's invasion of Albania."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_allianceSo, on March 3, 1939 the Brits, knowing that they could not effectively prosecute another war at that time due to their losses in WWI, signed an agreement to support Poland & France and then expanded the agreement to include Greece and Romania. In other words, Chamberlain's government was writing checks that the British people couldn't cash. On the other hand, the U.S., knowing that they could not effectively prosecute a war at that time due to other reasons, made no such commitment. Could your criticism of how the U.S. handled the early years of WWII have something to do with deflecting attention away from the mistakes the Brits made prior to WWII? Knowing your history of employing the deflection tactic I'd say the answer is "Yes". Good God man, what a load of old obfuscatory claptrap. The Brits made plenty of mistakes prior to WW2, but ducking out of it, when the chips were down, was not one of them. Regarding "deflection" your post is just the latest example of your own deflection tactics, as regards your "knowing my history", it is my opinion that you actually know Jack Shyte about me. Britain wasn't given much choice. Once Hitler started bombing her, she had 2 options. Surrender immediately, or fight. The BEF sent into Europe to help France was also a choice made out of desperation. They knew that, if France fell, they would be next.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 9:59:53 GMT -5
No wonder the Republicans are losing why didn't you say so? (If I wanted to hear Fox News propaganda I would turn on Fox News.) But that wont ever happen. Of course not. That would upset your delicate indoctrination, to find out there is another point of view, and that The Puppet is not universally worshiped as a god. No because Fox New produces uninformed viewers, and if you were informed you would know that.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 10:01:22 GMT -5
Of course not. That would upset your delicate indoctrination, to find out there is another point of view, and that The Puppet is not universally worshiped as a god. No because Fox New produces uninformed viewers, and if you were informed you would know that. You misspelled "indoctrinated".
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 28, 2014 11:25:44 GMT -5
Of course not. That would upset your delicate indoctrination, to find out there is another point of view, and that The Puppet is not universally worshiped as a god. No because Fox New produces uninformed viewers, and if you were informed you would know that. You forgot the link that supports your claim. Remember... Congratulation, I think you're finally beginning to understand that I won't accept everything you post here as the truth simply because it is you that posted it. Really because it would appear that perhaps you are beginning to believe that I can back up everything I post. And I can, and do. I provide links, most posters here do not. Can't say that about many posters on here, most when you ask for a link runaway and hide.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 11:31:39 GMT -5
No because Fox New produces uninformed viewers, and if you were informed you would know that. You forgot the link that supports your claim. Remember... Really because it would appear that perhaps you are beginning to believe that I can back up everything I post. And I can, and do. I provide links, most posters here do not. Can't say that about many posters on here, most when you ask for a link runaway and hide. Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 11:40:31 GMT -5
Notice that they don't post the poll, nor do they identify the ideology of those that didn't know about Syria or Egypt. Leftists tend to "not hear" whatever they don't want to hear. I heard, ad nauseum, on Fox that Egyptians were overthrowing Mubarak. Same with Syria. However, Fox also reported on The Puppet's backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and his support of Syrian rebels.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 28, 2014 12:31:11 GMT -5
Nice try. Won't fly. Opinion polls are not facts. Suggestions are not facts. When you said you provided links I thought you meant links to verified facts from legitimate news sources. I should have known better.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 12:35:07 GMT -5
Nice try. Won't fly. Opinion polls are not facts. Suggestions are not facts. When you said you provided links I thought you meant links to verified facts from legitimate news sources. I should have known better. You sure do a massive amount of posting, never see you post many links. Guess that is all you have……..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 12:42:33 GMT -5
Nice try. Won't fly. Opinion polls are not facts. Suggestions are not facts. When you said you provided links I thought you meant links to verified facts from legitimate news sources. I should have known better. You sure do a massive amount of posting, never see you post many links. Guess that is all you have…….. Like redleg and the rest of the cronies, he makes it up as he goes along. Polls are fine when they support his view but they're sham when they go against his bias.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 12:45:05 GMT -5
You sure do a massive amount of posting, never see you post many links. Guess that is all you have…….. Like redleg and the rest of the cronies, he makes it up as he goes along. Polls are fine when they support his view but they're sham when they go against his bias. No one posts links here, noooooobody. I guess they can't find links to support most of their ramblings.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 28, 2014 14:28:24 GMT -5
Time for another smack down of the Kashmir/BE Admiration Society. You sure do a massive amount of posting, never see you post many links. Guess that is all you have…….. Like redleg and the rest of the cronies, he makes it up as he goes along. Polls are fine when they support his view but they're sham when they go against his bias. No one posts links here, noooooobody.
I guess they can't find links to support most of their ramblings. Survey said…. Full Definition of IMPORT transitive verb 1 a : to bear or convey as meaning or portent : signify b archaic : express, state c : imply 2: to bring from a foreign or external source: as a : to bring (as merchandise) into a place or country from another country b : to transfer (as files or data) from one format to another usually within a new file 3: archaic : to be of importance to : concern intransitive verb : to be of consequence : matter www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/importWell, it appears that our Southern friend is correct although he made his case in a rather long, drawn out, inarticulate manner. Let me show you how it should have been done, old son. "Vosa, you asked ‘Now how could those 25-35,000 (D)s cross over to vote for Cochran if cross over voting is illegal in Mississippi?’
Very simple dance step...
There are no Democrats or Republicans here in Mississippi voting in the primaries... we don't have Party registration... they are all only registered voters who are required to vote in one Party's election or the other.
Here’s proof. This is a link to the Mississippi Voter Registration Application Note that there is no place, i.e., requirement or ability, to list a party affiliation.
Unfortunately the national media doesn’t understand that.”
There you go. In simple plain English with documented proof and no mention of what you’ve taught, who you know or where you’ve been to distract from the point you are trying to make. You have my apology for doubting you on this one and my assurance that I will continue to doubt you when available evidence indicates that you are wrong and you provide no countering proof. I made a "Lame attempt"? I fed "some false arguing points"? I made a "really desperate attempt"? Shame on me? All attacks on my character and no answer to the question. "Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominemYou want to tell me again that I don't know the meaning of an ad hominem attack? No squirming. I stand by what I posted. No lying, no false attribution, just your own words. I believe the appropriate phrase is "hoisted with your own petard".Every time you were called on one of your posts you responded by adding a new qualifier; not there, then there but old, then there, old, but not viable. You can play the poor victim role all you want but you've been caught and I think most folks here can see that. And there are many more but I think there is a limit on how long a thread can be so I’ll leave it at the examples I’ve posted above. That’s certainly enough to prove you two don’t know what you’re talking about. Time for you two to change the subject, stop posting to this thread or whatever else you do when you’ve had your clock cleaned.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 28, 2014 15:18:02 GMT -5
From the link...............In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. >meh< So 3% of Fox viewers compared to 11% MSNBC viewers are idiots?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 15:34:30 GMT -5
Yawn! I'd tell vosa that I couldn't be arsed to read his usual assemblage of endless claptrap but, as usual in his attempts to obfuscate and deflect, he has fecked up his quoting again, and I can't be bothered to tidy it up for him this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 15:35:53 GMT -5
From the link...............In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. >meh< So 3% of Fox viewers compared to 11% MSNBC viewers are idiots? Who farted?
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 28, 2014 15:54:43 GMT -5
From the link...............In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. >meh< So 3% of Fox viewers compared to 11% MSNBC viewers are idiots? Who farted? The queen? Quick..... resuscitate the skank!
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 28, 2014 16:06:05 GMT -5
Yawn! I'd tell vosa that I couldn't be arsed to read his usual assemblage of endless claptrap but, as usual in his attempts to obfuscate and deflect, he has fecked up his quoting again, and I can't be bothered to tidy it up for him this time. Kashmir said I never provided link. I proved her wrong. Instead of accepting that gracefully and moving on you trot out the old form over substance excuse to justify your feckless, snotty remarks. You lose. Again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 16:13:25 GMT -5
Yawn! I'd tell vosa that I couldn't be arsed to read his usual assemblage of endless claptrap but, as usual in his attempts to obfuscate and deflect, he has fecked up his quoting again, and I can't be bothered to tidy it up for him this time. Kashmir said I never provided link. I proved her wrong. Instead of accepting that gracefully and moving on you trot out the old form over substance excuse to justify your feckless, snotty remarks. You lose. Again. No dude, you lose every time you try to multi quote, you always make a total pigs ear out of it. I doubt anyone bothers to read your endless untidy, obfuscatory claptrap, even your own side. Frankly, those long winded assemblages of puerile bullshyte are mostly a waste of bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 21:40:04 GMT -5
From the link...............In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. >meh< So 3% of Fox viewers compared to 11% MSNBC viewers are idiots? In one question..........
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 28, 2014 22:50:05 GMT -5
From the link...............In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers. >meh< So 3% of Fox viewers compared to 11% MSNBC viewers are idiots? In one question.......... And that question epitomizes the incredible STUPIDITY of 57 states, seeing dead hero's, islands tipping over, telling generals how hard one has worked and passing bills with NO IDEA what was in them, LYING about sniper fire and having the character of a serial rapist. Shame the less evolved live normal life spans. Oh BTW, did you know Romney put a dog on TOP of his car while some other pos ate his?
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 29, 2014 15:22:21 GMT -5
Kashmir said I never provided link. I proved her wrong. Instead of accepting that gracefully and moving on you trot out the old form over substance excuse to justify your feckless, snotty remarks. You lose. Again. No dude, you lose every time you try to multi quote, you always make a total pigs ear out of it. I doubt anyone bothers to read your endless untidy, obfuscatory claptrap, even your own side. Frankly, those long winded assemblages of puerile bullshyte are mostly a waste of bandwidth. Can’t admit that I proved your buddy Kashmir wrong, can you? Well, that’s to be expected. Here’s a definition with which I am sure you are not familiar: grace•ful adjective \ˈgrās-fəl\
: moving in a smooth and attractive way : having a smooth and pleasing shape or style : polite or kindAnd here’s one I’m sure you’re very familiar with: nit–pick•ing noun \ˈnit-ˌpi-kiŋ\
: minute and usually unjustified criticism And for our link obsessed friends both definitions come from here.It’s clear you’ve never been associated with the former and one can only conclude you learned to techniques for the latter by watching a Nat Geo special on chimpanzees. Most people nit-pick because they’re perfectionists. You nit-pick because you’re a deflectionist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 15:51:07 GMT -5
No dude, you lose every time you try to multi quote, you always make a total pigs ear out of it. I doubt anyone bothers to read your endless untidy, obfuscatory claptrap, even your own side. Frankly, those long winded assemblages of puerile bullshyte are mostly a waste of bandwidth. Can’t admit that I proved your buddy Kashmir wrong, can you? Well, that’s to be expected. Here’s a definition with which I am sure you are not familiar: grace•ful adjective \ˈgrās-fəl\
: moving in a smooth and attractive way : having a smooth and pleasing shape or style : polite or kindAnd here’s one I’m sure you’re very familiar with: nit–pick•ing noun \ˈnit-ˌpi-kiŋ\
: minute and usually unjustified criticism And for our link obsessed friends both definitions come from here.It’s clear you’ve never been associated with the former and one can only conclude you learned to techniques for the latter by watching a Nat Geo special on chimpanzees. Most people nit-pick because they’re perfectionists. You nit-pick because you’re a deflectionist. More obfuscatory claptrap. Yawn!
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 29, 2014 16:07:35 GMT -5
Benny Hill your not. You are full of claptrap ......
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 29, 2014 16:16:19 GMT -5
No dude, you lose every time you try to multi quote, you always make a total pigs ear out of it. I doubt anyone bothers to read your endless untidy, obfuscatory claptrap, even your own side. Frankly, those long winded assemblages of puerile bullshyte are mostly a waste of bandwidth. Can’t admit that I proved your buddy Kashmir wrong, can you? Well, that’s to be expected. Here’s a definition with which I am sure you are not familiar: grace•ful adjective \ˈgrās-fəl\
: moving in a smooth and attractive way : having a smooth and pleasing shape or style : polite or kindAnd here’s one I’m sure you’re very familiar with: nit–pick•ing noun \ˈnit-ˌpi-kiŋ\
: minute and usually unjustified criticism And for our link obsessed friends both definitions come from here.It’s clear you’ve never been associated with the former and one can only conclude you learned to techniques for the latter by watching a Nat Geo special on chimpanzees. Most people nit-pick because they’re perfectionists. You nit-pick because you’re a deflectionist. LOT of that goes on from the left, like the one that likes to cry racist when racism is his birthrite.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 29, 2014 16:22:58 GMT -5
Can’t admit that I proved your buddy Kashmir wrong, can you? Well, that’s to be expected. Here’s a definition with which I am sure you are not familiar: grace•ful adjective \ˈgrās-fəl\
: moving in a smooth and attractive way : having a smooth and pleasing shape or style : polite or kindAnd here’s one I’m sure you’re very familiar with: nit–pick•ing noun \ˈnit-ˌpi-kiŋ\
: minute and usually unjustified criticism And for our link obsessed friends both definitions come from here.It’s clear you’ve never been associated with the former and one can only conclude you learned to techniques for the latter by watching a Nat Geo special on chimpanzees. Most people nit-pick because they’re perfectionists. You nit-pick because you’re a deflectionist. More obfuscatory claptrap. Yawn! And exactly what is it you think I'm trying to obfuscate?
|
|