# Did Obama Fib?



## Plainsman

Well the Drudge Report says "Obama Fibs", but lets be clear he simply out and out lied. Obama has zero accomplishments. He simply fights everything and stupid people think he is on their side fighting the evil establishment. We have had nothing but constant campaign and no leadership. Now the big argument is the sequester which Obama blames the republicans for. Unfortunately our under informed liberals will swallow that bull.



> By Bob Woodward, Published: February 22
> Bob Woodward ([email protected]) is an associate editor of The Post. His latest book is "The Price of Politics." Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this column.
> 
> Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.
> 
> What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
> 
> The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. "The sequester is not something that I've proposed," Obama said. "It is something that Congress has proposed."
> 
> The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.
> 
> "There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger," Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It "was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure."
> 
> The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors - probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
> 
> Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.


----------



## People

Fib or lie nothing will happen to him.

If you listen to him he lies in his own speachs. If you make less then 250k your taxes will not go up. We all need to do our share. The list goes on and on.

I do know one thing for sure not that any of our last 8 presidents could be trusted as far as they can be thrown. Obama is the most anti American president we have ever had. If there is a clear path to help America he will take option B or C every time.


----------



## the ghost of MT

NO accomplishments? Come on, you know better than that. Integrated gays into the military, got out of Iraq/Afghanistan, passed a health care bill, etc. Obama has plenty of accomplishments. They're mostly things we don't like, but pretending like the man's a complete failure is a good way to put blinders on yourself and turn any moderate person away from your position. Uneducated liberals will absolutely swallow his bull- which is why we need to be bigger than them and recognize accomplishment while shaming failure.

I also don't buy that he's any more anti-American in his acts than GW Bush or hell even Nixon. Rhetoric wise, he panders to the international community more than those presidents, but if you look at his acts I think they're about all on par.


----------



## Plainsman

Well if you consider damaging the United States an accomplishment then yes he has accomplishments.



> I also don't buy that he's any more anti-American in his acts than GW Bush or hell even Nixon.


I think Obama wants us to be a third world nation. I don't think Bush or Nixon wanted that.


----------



## the ghost of MT

I think you bit a little too hard on the whole Kenyan Muslim/Anti-American line some of the Fox nuts were slinging back in 2008. With a few exceptions on issues like gay marriage and health care, Obama's actions have been almost entirely in line with what Bush did. The fact that you see them as so radically different says more about you than it does him.


----------



## blhunter3

So passing things that people don't want like Obamacare in an accomplishment?


----------



## the ghost of MT

Who is "people?" Much, maybe even most of the nation wanted socialized health care. We don't, but denying that a large portion of Americans didn't is just burying your head.


----------



## Plainsman

the ghost of MT said:


> Who is "people?" Much, maybe even most of the nation wanted socialized health care. We don't, but denying that a large portion of Americans didn't is just burying your head.


Actually polls say that 70% of the people didn't want Obama care.



> I think you bit a little too hard on the whole Kenyan Muslim/Anti-American line some of the Fox nuts were slinging back in 2008. With a few exceptions on issues like gay marriage and health care, Obama's actions have been almost entirely in line with what Bush did. The fact that you see them as so radically different says more about you than it does him.


Actually I'm to socially conservative to be a libertarian, but are you really libertarian if you think Fox news is a poor news outlet? I don't think Obama is Kenyan. I don't think his father was either. That's because I don't think they guy they say is his father was his father. I think that's why we don't see his real birth certificate. Do you have netflix? Watch Dreams From His Real Father. 
As for Bush I don't think he would have gone so far with bailouts. I don't think he would have taken over GM. I don't think he would be pushing gun control ------- you know I think your comparison says more about you than Bush. :wink: I don't see any similarities in Obama and Bush. Especially in their personal life. Bush didn't have the crazy pastor. Bush didn't start his political career in the living room of a murdering terrorist etc etc.

Edit: I forgot to add, Bush has had a number of real jobs. Obama has never had a job other than community agitator. How is a man who never had a job supposed to have any idea how to create jobs for the rest of the nation?


----------



## the ghost of MT

Depends on who you ask and how you ask. Rasmussen (generally tends right) says 45% view it favorably, 48% view it unfavorably. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law



> Actually I'm to socially conservative to be a libertarian, but are you really libertarian if you think Fox news is a poor news outlet?


Aside from you I don't know a single libertarian who thinks Fox is anything but a vile outlet for the neo-con Republican party line.



> I don't think Obama is Kenyan. I don't think his father was either. That's because I don't think they guy they say is his father was his father. I think that's why we don't see his real birth certificate. Do you have netflix? Watch Dreams From His Real Father.


See man, this is where we diverge. This is really close to flat earth/protocols of elders of zion type conspiracy garbage. If you can't understand your opponent without painting him as fundamentally hateful/foreign/evil, you haven't really understood what that person is trying to say.



> As for Bush I don't think he would have gone so far with bailouts. I don't think he would have taken over GM. I don't think he would be pushing gun control ------- you know I think your comparison says more about you than Bush. I don't see any similarities in Obama and Bush. Especially in their personal life. Bush didn't have the crazy pastor. Bush didn't start his political career in the living room of a murdering terrorist etc etc.


Bush bailed out the banks. He appointed Ben "make it rain" Bernanke He pushed for more bailout money. As to the 2nd Amendment, Bush said:


> BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.


 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/george ... ontrol.htm

As to their personal lives, I couldn't really give a damn. I care how the runs the country, not how he runs his life.


----------



## ShineRunner

February 23, 2013 
Obama's lies about the origin of the sequester 
Rick Moran

President Obama has been making a big deal about blaming Congress for the sequester, even saying at one point during his debate with Romney last year, "The sequester is not something that I've proposed," Obama said. "It is something that Congress has proposed."

He either has a short memory or is a bald faced liar, as Bob Woodward points out:

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

"There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger," Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It "was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure."

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors -- probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, "We didn't actually think it would be that hard to convince them" -- Reid and the Republicans -- to adopt the sequester. "It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table."

The president's apologists like to point out that the GOP voted for it, and are therefore culpable. But no one is saying Republicans didn't support the idea of the sequester. The question is who made it up and who is responsible for pushing it?

This is the president's baby and now, he wants to run away from it by blaming it all on his opponents. Very few in the media have acknowledged the president's lies and simply don't report the fact that it was his OMB director who came up with the idea.

It's why the GOP will probably be blamed for any pain caused by the sequester.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...he_origin_of_the_sequester.html#ixzz2MKASgQljFollow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## Plainsman

> See man, this is where we diverge. This is really close to flat earth/protocols of elders of zion type conspiracy garbage. If you can't understand your opponent without painting him as fundamentally hateful/foreign/evil, you haven't really understood what that person is trying to say.


Those comments are indicative of a double standard. You don't like my view of Obama because you think it's radical then go on to have your own radical view of those who think different than you. An open mind doesn't mean I have to believe the earth is flat. It simply means I can look at the possibilities. Your comments tell me your mind is closed. That's not libetarian MT you have been jerking my leg. A true libetarian would have a totaly open mind about the possibilities. Most intellectuals would also consider all possibilities. "Elders of zion type" isn't that a liberal trick to try and demean those who don't agree with you? So tell me again about this political epiphany you have had.


----------



## the ghost of MT

Plainsman said:


> See man, this is where we diverge. This is really close to flat earth/protocols of elders of zion type conspiracy garbage. If you can't understand your opponent without painting him as fundamentally hateful/foreign/evil, you haven't really understood what that person is trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments are indicative of a double standard. You don't like my view of Obama because you think it's radical then go on to have your own radical view of those who think different than you. An open mind doesn't mean I have to believe the earth is flat. It simply means I can look at the possibilities. Your comments tell me your mind is closed. That's not libetarian MT you have been jerking my leg. A true libetarian would have a totaly open mind about the possibilities. Most intellectuals would also consider all possibilities. "Elders of zion type" isn't that a liberal trick to try and demean those who don't agree with you? So tell me again about this political epiphany you have had.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism does not mean you are willing to give credence to a racist theory wholly lacking in evidence. It means you support liberty. You believe Obama has a secret, unappealing past not because you've been convinced by analysis, but because you dislike him and thus are willing to believe most anything about him. Again, this is not how you understand or overcome an opponent.


----------



## Plainsman

> Libertarianism does not mean you are willing to give credence to a racist theory wholly lacking in evidence. It means you support liberty. You believe Obama has a secret, unappealing past not because you've been convinced by analysis, but because you dislike him and thus are willing to believe most anything about him. Again, this is not how you understand or overcome an opponent.


That's reminiscent of your old liberal comments. Only a liberal could come up with racist theory out of anything I said. Your right about one thing I don't like Obama. I don't like him because of his Marxist policies. Remember in our debates when I told you Obama said his most influential author was Karl Marx? 
I have a question. Did you give this answer without ever watching the movie "Dreams from my real father". If you did you have a pro Obama bias, not a libetarian bias. You may tell me you watched it, but your comments reaveal you have not. I think Rush Limbaugh refers to that as underinformed. You said "WHOLLY LACKING IN EVIDENCE". You commented without watching or knowing anything about that movie. Isn't that sort of like telling everyone they can ignore the owners manual for a Ruger 10/22? oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith

The title of this thread makes me laugh...."DID OBAMA FIB?"..... Well he is a politician so he is constantly fibing or lying every time he opens his mouth. They all do....LOL

But I was in an ice shack from last weds to saturday. All we got was MPR on the radio. The whole time he was talking doom and gloom....then by the last day he was back peddaling so bad it wasn't even funny.

Then we don't even need to get into the discussion of the debt ceiling needs to be raised again by the end of the month.....didn't we do that just this past fall and it was going to "save our nation"..... I heard that enough in his talks over the past days in the ice shack.

Anyway.....just thought I would throw my .02 cents in. But like someone mentioned.....he contradicts himself in his own speeches.


----------



## the ghost of MT

Plainsman said:


> Libertarianism does not mean you are willing to give credence to a racist theory wholly lacking in evidence. It means you support liberty. You believe Obama has a secret, unappealing past not because you've been convinced by analysis, but because you dislike him and thus are willing to believe most anything about him. Again, this is not how you understand or overcome an opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> That's reminiscent of your old liberal comments. Only a liberal could come up with racist theory out of anything I said. Your right about one thing I don't like Obama. I don't like him because of his Marxist policies. Remember in our debates when I told you Obama said his most influential author was Karl Marx?
> I have a question. Did you give this answer without ever watching the movie "Dreams from my real father". If you did you have a pro Obama bias, not a libetarian bias. You may tell me you watched it, but your comments reaveal you have not. I think Rush Limbaugh refers to that as underinformed. You said "WHOLLY LACKING IN EVIDENCE". You commented without watching or knowing anything about that movie. Isn't that sort of like telling everyone they can ignore the owners manual for a Ruger 10/22? oke:
Click to expand...

You remember the old Palmolive commercial? You're not recognizing the bigotry that you're purveying because you're soaking in it. You would have never come up with a cockamamie theory like this about Clinton, even though he pushed for many of the same policies. You wouldn't have done the same for Romney when he was in his state-insurance-is-best-insurance phase in MA. Harry Reid is every bit as socialistic as Obama, where's your research into his secret Leninist father? You reserve this secret-commie/hidden past treatment for Obama because he's different, and that makes you feel insecure and confused.

I didn't tell you I watched your propaganda piece, and I don't intend to. Lacking in evidence means you haven't looked at the facts, not that you haven't tracked down and viewed every crackpot conspiracy theory out there. If you can cite research by a respected journalist verifying your theory I'll read that.

Saddest of all, you're so deeply entrenched in this garbage that you think anyone who isn't is pro-Obama. I don't support a single policy of his, yet because I don't think there's a legitimate conspiracy regarding the identity of his father that makes me into a supporter in your mind. This isn't a "with us or against us" issue.


----------



## ShineRunner

A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus sitting over there?"

The waitress nodded "Yes," so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.

The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea.
He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus, over there?"

The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea, "My treat."

The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down, and hollered, "Hey there honey! How's about getting me a cold mug of Miller Light?"
He too looked across the restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there?"

The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold beer. "On my bill," he said loudly.

As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him, and said, "For your kindness, you are healed."
The Republican felt the strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.

Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him, and said, "For your kindness, you are healed."
The Libertarian felt his back straightening up, and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips out the door.

Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.

The Democrat jumped up and yelled, "Don't touch me! I'm on disability!"


----------



## Plainsman

> You remember the old Palmolive commercial? You're not recognizing the bigotry that you're purveying because you're soaking in it. You would have never come up with a cockamamie theory like this about Clinton, even though he pushed for many of the same policies. You wouldn't have done the same for Romney when he was in his state-insurance-is-best-insurance phase in MA. Harry Reid is every bit as socialistic as Obama, where's your research into his secret Leninist father? You reserve this secret-commie/hidden past treatment for Obama because he's different, and that makes you feel insecure and confused.
> 
> I didn't tell you I watched your propaganda piece, and I don't intend to. Lacking in evidence means you haven't looked at the facts, not that you haven't tracked down and viewed every crackpot conspiracy theory out there. If you can cite research by a respected journalist verifying your theory I'll read that.
> 
> Saddest of all, you're so deeply entrenched in this garbage that you think anyone who isn't is pro-Obama. I don't support a single policy of his, yet because I don't think there's a legitimate conspiracy regarding the identity of his father that makes me into a supporter in your mind. This isn't a "with us or against us" issue.


Reverend Wright is that you?

No I don't remember the old Palmolive commercial.

:rollin: Your still talking liberal while claiming libertarian. Did you notice my political test? I rated a centrist. You have gone from one far corner to another radical far corner and your telling me I'm the racist, bigot, closed mind etc? :rollin:

I would not have said that about Clinton because he lived with his parents and was not sent to be trained for years by a mentor who was a card carrying communist? Did you even know that fact? Do you remember Obama himself saying his most influential author was Karl Marx? Do you remember him saying he surrounded himself with Marxist professors in college? Your still defending Obama and you claim your libertarian. Just because you answered the questions right and put your little black circle way up in the libertarian corner do you expect me to believe your libertarian? I did until you begin to speak as the same old liberal MT.

Where is your evidence that Harry Reid is as socialist as Obama? I think Harry Reid is a socialist and Obama is a Marxist. You sure do like Obama don't you? Do you think Obama is a libertarian? Do you think Obama has read his Ruger 10/22 owners manual? :rollin: :rollin:

Hey MT speaking of Ruger 10/22 what do you think about the liberal ideas of gun control?

You know MT I gave you the benefit of the doubt and believed you when you told us how you have changed. However, your words say your still the same old MT. A smart attorney would have been able to hide that for a while. i would recommend a good trade school in bs shoveling. :laugh:


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Your still talking liberal while claiming libertarian.


I have not supported a single liberal policy since I returned. You must be accusing me of being a liberal because I see your "secret communist past" story as veiled racism. Anyone with a lick of skepticism can see there's no evidence to your claim, so it's rational to look to what else might be spurring on your theorizing.



> I would not have said that about Clinton because he lived with his parents and was not sent to be trained for years by a mentor who was a card carrying communist? Did you even know that fact? Do you remember Obama himself saying his most influential author was Karl Marx? Do you remember him saying he surrounded himself with Marxist professors in college?


I'm certain at least one of Clinton's mentors leaned socialistic. He did end up passing numerous socialistic policies, so that seems like plenty of reason to do the same sort of evidenceless hypothesizing about him that you're doing about Obama.

As to the "most influential author" quote, I just ran a search using several different terms and couldn't find a single site even claiming that he said such a thing, much less an actual verified quote from him. In fact, the fourth highest ranked link on google is this very thread, which doesn't bode well for the credibility of your claim.

Link to my search http://goo.gl/o4JmQ

Comedically, the top three results for _obama "most influential author" marx_ are all posts by you. link here- http://goo.gl/X0vgn It seems you're the only one on the whole internet making this extraordinary claim. Did you fib too?



> Your still defending Obama and you claim your libertarian. Just because you answered the questions right and put your little black circle way up in the libertarian corner do you expect me to believe your libertarian? I did until you begin to speak as the same old liberal MT.


I repeat: I have supported not a single liberal policy since I returned here. Not one. I have defended not one single Obama policy. The only thing I have defended against is manufactured personal attacks like the ones you have just launched. If you attack Stalin for being secretly gay, and I say that there is no evidence of that, I do not magically transmute into a Stalin loving red communist. If you think otherwise, you have gone off the deep end.


----------



## ShineRunner

How Obama Wins
By Ben Shapiro February 27, 2013 6:50 am

President Obama is one of the great political knife-fighters in modern history. He is a failed president -- his economy is bleak, his foreign policy bleaker, his vision for American even bleaker still. But he wins.
He wins by losing.
President Obama has only had two major policy victories during his tenure: the stimulus package and Obamacare. Both are massively unpopular. The stimulus package launched the tea party movement. Obamacare led to the Republican wipeout of 2010.
Then Obama began to lose. He wasn't able to push forward climate change legislation or immigration reform or gun control or increased taxes before the election of 2012. And he won a sweeping electoral victory. The strategy was -- and is -- simple. Obama pursues policies that are widely popular and then purposefully sinks them by casting Republicans as obstructionists.
He is not truly interested in immigration reform; Republicans are fools to think that he is. Obama wants to raise the issue of immigration reform so that he can demonize Republicans as anti-Hispanic. That's why Obama ignores the broad support for an immigration plan that would provide border security once and for all and then deal with the illegal immigrants who live here. Instead, he proposes an immigration plan that would do nothing for border security while essentially granting gradual amnesty to those already here -- and to millions more who will cross the border unmolested.
By doing so, Obama puts himself in a no-lose situation: If immigration reform passes, he takes credit; if not, he blames Republicans as racists who simply don't like Hispanics. The media will abet this little game. Suddenly a failed proposal from Obama becomes a political winner for him.
The same holds true of the sequester. President Obama originated the sequester. It was his idea to put into place an automatic cut in the rate of spending increase, and it was his idea to focus those cuts on the defense industry. Republicans, idiotically believing that Obama was interested in honest negotiation, voted for sequestration. Now Obama runs to the cameras to suggest that if these cuts go forward, the world will end. All he asks to avert this earth-shattering crisis is a few tax increases. The media helps him pimp this narrative.
Again, it's a no-lose for Obama. If sequestration is averted, Obama takes the credit. If not, he gets to cast Republicans as hard-hearted Scrooges who want Tiny Tim to starve to death. Another failed proposal, another victory for Obama.
What does all this achieve? It achieves electoral victory. Once Democrats have enough votes in the House and Senate to ram through their agenda, the game is over: Obama forces through his policies. America moves to the left.
Obama understands what Republicans do not: Politics is a waiting game. If nothing gets done with a split government, Obama is happy to live with that. Meanwhile, he'll demagogue each and every issue until he gets the votes he needs to truly transform America.
---
Ben Shapiro, 29, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KRLA 870 Los Angeles, and Editor-At-Large for Breitbart News. He is the New York Times bestselling author of "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.


----------



## Plainsman

This little tablet is driving me nuts. It has lost two posts with the tap of a wrong key or something.

Anyway, as I said I will google further. I don't find him saying his most influential author was Marx, but there are many that say his most influential authors were Marxists. 



 I had one where his mother said all his most influential authors were Marxist, but can't find it again. Anyway does it really make any difference if Marx was his most influential author or that his most influential authors were all Marxist? The important point for you to understand MT is that his influential authors have influenced his principles. Your simply arguing potatoe - potato etc. That means you are defending Obama for a reason unknown to the rest of us. Do you think he is a libertarian?

I say your still liberal MT, because only a liberal would fall back on the cry of racist. Only liberals play the racist card, not libertarians or conservatives. Who do you think your fooling?



> I didn't tell you I watched your propaganda piece, and I don't intend to. Lacking in evidence means you haven't looked


Didn't listen, but there is no evidence. I remember my kids saying things like that when they were preschool. Eat your carrots. I don't like carrots. Have you ever tasted carrots? No, but I don't like them. :rollin:

Edit: Here you go MT google this phrase: obama admits marxist influence


----------



## Plainsman

MT I almost forgot. You need to explain to me how calling Obama a Marxist is racist. Or why I think Marshal Davis being a card carrying communist and also being Obama's mentor is racist. How do you get from an opinion about ones political principles to a racist card? I know liberals play the racist card even when it's not applicable, but a libertarian? I fail to see any connection. You said it was because I was what --- steeped in it or something like that. Then isn't it your responsibility to explain it to me and bring me into the light?


----------



## the ghost of MT

The whole book is about how he went from being a small minded, race centric, radical leftist to becoming someone with a broad understanding of and respect for all facets of American culture. I don't buy it, but that's the line, and you're taking it out of context.



> I had one where his mother said all his most influential authors were Marxist, but can't find it again.


I'll be waiting.



> Anyway does it really make any difference if Marx was his most influential author or that his most influential authors were all Marxist?


Of course not. It doesn't matter if his favorite author was Adolf Hitler. What matters is what he has done in office. You seem to be losing sight of that.



> The important point for you to understand MT is that his influential authors have influenced his principles. Your simply arguing potatoe - potato etc. That means you are defending Obama for a reason unknown to the rest of us. Do you think he is a libertarian?


Let's just be clear, you still haven't found this unicorn of a quote you've been yelling about for the entire thread (and apparently on other forums as well), so let's not just take it as written that his favorite authors ARE in fact Marxists. Again, not that it matters.

I'm defending him against baseless personal attacks because they are 1. made up, 2. have no relevance to evaluating his successes/failures/meaning as a president, 3. obfuscate the conversation about his policies, 4. encourage bigoted dismissal of his views on the basis of him being "other" rather than evaluating them on their merits. What part of that do you disagree with?



> I say your still liberal MT, because only a liberal would fall back on the cry of racist. Only liberals play the racist card, not libertarians or conservatives. Who do you think your fooling?


I call a spade a spade. I really don't think you believe you're racist, but only a racist would cook up or believe such a load of horse crap. You saw one "documentary" that confirmed something you already wanted to believe (that Obama has a dirty secret past that makes him ineligible or otherwise unqualified to be the president at all) and which thus lets you dismiss what he does out of hand rather than reasoning though his policies and coming up with educated answers for why you think they're wrong, as the rest of us do. The reason it's racist is because you haven't come up with any similar "outsider" or "secret past" theories for any of the other major socialistic politicians. Clinton gets a pass, Harry Reid gets a pass, Romney circa 2003 gets a pass. The only one who catches the pain is the black guy. Isn't that odd?



> Didn't listen, but there is no evidence. I remember my kids saying things like that when they were preschool. Eat your carrots. I don't like carrots. Have you ever tasted carrots? No, but I don't like them.


If there was evidence, you'd be able to find a credible journalist, professor, politician or other thinker who has researched and confirmed the issue. All you have is a video on netflix which I have neither the time nor inclination to watch. You know there's also a video called Zeitgeist that posits that 9/11 was a conspiracy in a fairly interesting way. Are you obligated to watch it before you dismiss that 9/11 wasn't carried out by a secret government plot? Conspiracies are a dime a dozen on the internet.

I assume you're referencing this link. Which part is supposed to blow my mind again? http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/p ... st-mentor/


----------



## Longshot

There it is, the same old MT but now a liberal in denial. It always amazes me how someone can find something racial out of nothing. Can't come up with facts, play the race card to deflect or the use of condescension to try to discredit without substance.


----------



## blhunter3

Longshot said:


> There it is, the same old MT but now a liberal in denial. It always amazes me how someone can find something racial out of nothing. Can't come up with facts, play the race card to deflect or the use of condescension to try to discredit without substance.


The race card gets over used and get real old real fast....

Liberail logic 101
If your losing a debate play the race card.


----------



## Plainsman

> The whole book is about how he went from being a small minded, race centric, radical leftist to becoming someone with a broad understanding of and respect for all facets of American culture. I don't buy it, but that's the line, and you're taking it out of context.


Book? Book, what book? What are you talking about?



> What matters is what he has done in office. You seem to be losing sight of that.


Oh, I have not forgot what he has done. It's a growing tragedy every day.



> Again, not that it matters


For not mattering it sure gets you excited.



> I really don't think you believe you're racist, but only a racist would cook up or believe such a load of horse crap


Lets see now you stared with the racist bit when I called Obama a Marxist. So in his first run for president he said he was for spreading the wealth which is a communist principle. Then in the video I provided for you he admits in college he sought out Marxist professors and friends. His pastor reverend Wright was his pastor for at least two decades and is a good friend of Lewis Farrakhan. I remember Wright and Farrakhan traveling together to meat with Qaddafi. So when I look at his comments, his past, his friends, and his policies, and see him as a Marxist you think that's racist? So MT which is it you think all blacks are Marxist, only blacks are Marxist, no blacks are Marxist? It appears you associate Marxist with black and I think that's racist. I think most people will find your remarks condescending and racist.

So MT you made the statement that you would be very interested about the results of my political test. Have you noticed I am centrist? You went from way left liberal to way top of the scale libertarian. I think people all the way any direction are the real radicals. Radical left wants to tell everyone what to do, but don't want anyone telling them what to do. They do want everyone else to support them like their parents did. Perhaps many still live in their mothers basement. Far right don't want anyone telling them what to do, but want to tell others what to do. They want the freedom to take advantage of their employees and everyone else. Statists think they should run everything and tell everyone what to do. They don't want anyone telling them what to do. Moderate libertarians like moderate conservatives are level headed people, but push them way to the limits where you scored and like the other three categories they become radical. What was that you said your for personal responsibility? Carry that to the extreme and you get social irresponsibility. If anything goes some may say that is tolerant, but tolerance carried to the far end of the libertarian scale is simply total lack of principles. With no principles it's easy to be tolerant. I don't think you fit that top category MT, because your only tolerant of people who think exactly like you.

I agree with others MT your still the same Obama loving liberal, or maybe Marxist. I think you answered the questions in that political test until you got it where you wanted us to see it. I know libertarians and like them, and none would be that far up the scale, but then none of them are radical. You messed up your con by pushing the scale further than anyone is willing to believe. Nice try. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: I do appreciate the entertainment.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Book? Book, what book? What are you talking about?


Dreams From My Father. It was given to me as a gift for doing well in a college class. I read about half of it.



> Oh, I have not forgot what he has done. It's a growing tragedy every day.


Then who gives a crap what his parentage was? If he was the spawn of Hitler and Stalin, but was a good president, would that matter? If he was the child of Jesus and Gandhi, but was an awful warmonger, would that matter?



> Lets see now you stared with the racist bit when I called Obama a Marxist. So in his first run for president he said he was for spreading the wealth which is a communist principle. Then in the video I provided for you he admits in college he sought out Marxist professors and friends. His pastor reverend Wright was his pastor for at least two decades and is a good friend of Lewis Farrakhan. I remember Wright and Farrakhan traveling together to meat with Qaddafi. So when I look at his comments, his past, his friends, and his policies, and see him as a Marxist you think that's racist? So MT which is it you think all blacks are Marxist, only blacks are Marxist, no blacks are Marxist? It appears you associate Marxist with black and I think that's racist. I think most people will find your remarks condescending and racist.


You can call him a Marxist all day long. I think that's probably wrong, but I can't prove it. What irks me is creating a conspiracy theory about his true parentage, and using that to discredit him. For you, thus far, the conversation seems to start and end at "his real dad was a commie," when in reality that 1. has little relevance given that we can look at how he actually governs and discern whether those acts are in keeping with this supposed ideology, thus we have no need for recourse to his parentage, and 2. labeling someone doesn't decide whether what they've done is good or bad. The interesting discussion is about why what he has done is good or bad. You learn nothing and better yourself not a bit by accusing him of having a secret past.



> I think people all the way any direction are the real radicals. Radical left wants to tell everyone what to do, but don't want anyone telling them what to do. They do want everyone else to support them like their parents did. Perhaps many still live in their mothers basement. Far right don't want anyone telling them what to do, but want to tell others what to do. They want the freedom to take advantage of their employees and everyone else. Statists think they should run everything and tell everyone what to do. They don't want anyone telling them what to do. Moderate libertarians like moderate conservatives are level headed people, but push them way to the limits where you scored and like the other three categories they become radical. What was that you said your for personal responsibility? Carry that to the extreme and you get social irresponsibility. If anything goes some may say that is tolerant, but tolerance carried to the far end of the libertarian scale is simply total lack of principles. With no principles it's easy to be tolerant. I don't think you fit that top category MT, because your only tolerant of people who think exactly like you.


If ever you wanted a meaningless rant, look to this paragraph. You simultaneously smear the entire political spectrum, and then put yourself right into those positions you just smeared. You don't want people telling you how to live, but you're happy to tell others how to run their businesses, pay their employees. I also seem to recall you were against gay marriage and abortion. As for me, I am without question a radical for liberty. I believe in the harm principle. No significant, quantifiable harm, no law. I am extremely principled, I simply derive mine from natural law rather than from my gut. While you might vacillate on whether the government should be able to tell people how to run their lives, I insist that all men be free to live as they choose. You call that principled?



> I agree with others MT your still the same Obama loving liberal, or maybe Marxist.


Honestly man, why do you act this way? I have stated support for not one single Obama/liberal policy. I voted for Johnson, and I spend a large portion of my time criticizing hardcore leftie friends for excusing Obama's wars, interventionism, illegal surveillance policies, etc. Apparently you're alright with making things up to soothe yourself. You call that principled?


----------



## Plainsman

Mt you talk about Obama's accomplishments. I don't consider destruction an accomplishment. Therefore I disagree with your thoughts on his accomplishments.



> Then who gives a crap what his parentage was?


 Many many people who look for the truth.

I think it's very important that his father (perhaps) / mentor (surely) or mentors were Marxist. The first and most important mentor (possibly father) in his life was a card carrying communist from Chicago that moved to Hawaii. Obama started out in Hawaii but went to the heart of dirty politics in Chicago. A persons teachers, mentors, parents, and past are very important in understanding who a person is and why.



> What irks me is creating a conspiracy theory about his true parentage


Obama is the person who created the questions by spending what a million to hide his birth certificate. I don't know why, but since it was so important to him I think it should be important to all of us. All of us who are serious about who our president is.



> 2. labeling someone doesn't decide whether what they've done is good or bad


Of course not, but it may explain why he has done such a terrible job to this point, and the he may go from here. It's irresponsible not to look for the truth. I think the truth explains many of his past political moves, and what to expect next. I would venture to say expect nothing good from this Marxist. Unless your a freeloader of course. Then you may still think he is the Messiah.



> You learn nothing and better yourself not a bit by accusing him of having a secret past.


I think it's very clear he does have a secret past. No one remembers him at the colleges he attended, he spends money to hide his birth certificate etc. He created the question, he has hidden his past, what we do know tells us his principles are in direct conflict with freedom and free market.



> You simultaneously smear the entire political spectrum, and then put yourself right into those positions you just smeared.


Mt you need to work on comprehension.  My point was any of those political spectrums are radical if you take them to the extreme. I'm right in the middle and you went from far left liberal to far out libertarian. Radical one way to radical another. I did not put myself right into those positions. Being in the middle of that spectrum I understand that business should be free, but limited by regulations so they don't hurt others. I understand that we need environmental laws, but not to extreme measures. I consider the EPA a good idea carried to far. I support the constitution all the way which gives us freedom up to the point we infringe on the freedom of others. I support the second amendment with no infringements.

If you don't want me to think your still liberal don't talk about Obama's accomplishments. Do you think Obama has a transparent administration? I want to know who my president is. I want to know his past, and his future plans for me and my fellow Americans. Why do you want to sweep that under the rug?

Since you are so far over on the libertarian scale what if any infringements do you think are reasonable on total freedom? I'm sure we both agree on murder and rape, but carried to the extreme everything is a go. That's why I question your position as far as the scale goes for libertarian. That is extreme.

Hey I know I have rambled, but I simply type as the thoughts come to me. More things to do in Key West than debate with you.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Mt you talk about Obama's accomplishments. I don't consider destruction an accomplishment. Therefore I disagree with your thoughts on his accomplishments.


You take accomplishment to be a positive word. I take it to mean "a significant goal completed." Bush accomplished the destruction of the Saddam regime. Some thought it was good, some bad. Personally I didn't think it was a wise move, but it was doubtless an accomplishment. Obama passed Obamacare. You don't like it, I don't like it, but a lot of people do. That's a large accomplishment.



> I think it's very important that his father (perhaps) / mentor (surely) or mentors were Marxist. The first and most important mentor (possibly father) in his life was a card carrying communist from Chicago that moved to Hawaii. Obama started out in Hawaii but went to the heart of dirty politics in Chicago. A persons teachers, mentors, parents, and past are very important in understanding who a person is and why.


The only plausible reason for that to matter is if it has affected how he has acted as president. If it has, you should be able to discern it in his acts as president, with no need to look at his upbringing. Do you disagree with that?



> Obama is the person who created the questions by spending what a million to hide his birth certificate. I don't know why, but since it was so important to him I think it should be important to all of us. All of us who are serious about who our president is.


Any evidence that he 1. hid it, or 2. spent millions to do so? Snopes thinks you're wrong. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp



> Of course not, but it may explain why he has done such a terrible job to this point, and the he may go from here. It's irresponsible not to look for the truth. I think the truth explains many of his past political moves, and what to expect next. I would venture to say expect nothing good from this Marxist. Unless your a freeloader of course. Then you may still think he is the Messiah.


You could discern all of that just by looking at his actions over the last ~5 years. Why do you need to prove he had a Marxist upbringing to show his acts today are bad?



> I think it's very clear he does have a secret past. No one remembers him at the colleges he attended, he spends money to hide his birth certificate etc. He created the question, he has hidden his past, what we do know tells us his principles are in direct conflict with freedom and free market.


No one remembers him at the colleges he attended? Really? Any evidence for this one, or do we have another "favorite author is Karl Marx" claim on our hands?



> Mt you need to work on comprehension. My point was any of those political spectrums are radical if you take them to the extreme. I'm right in the middle and you went from far left liberal to far out libertarian.


You call people who want to control the lives of others radical, call yourself a centrist, and then assert all the ways we need to control peoples' lives. Do you see the contradiction?



> Do you think Obama has a transparent administration?


Of course not, but that's because he has fought FOIA tooth and nail and used "state secrets" to justify hiding everything under the sun, not because I think he was raised as a Marxist. That doesn't prove a damn thing.



> Since you are so far over on the libertarian scale what if any infringements do you think are reasonable on total freedom? I'm sure we both agree on murder and rape, but carried to the extreme everything is a go. That's why I question your position as far as the scale goes for libertarian. That is extreme.


I've already stated my principle- the harm principle. If you can clearly quantify a significant harm, that may be banned by law. No significant, quantifiable harm, no law. No "gay marriage hurts the sanctity of marriage" bull****. No "your speech offended me" bull****. No "your drinking a soda makes you fat which makes you cost more in health care which I then pay for through my health insurance" bull****.

You're in Key West and you're spending time on forums? What's wrong with you man? Go do some fishing.


----------



## Plainsman

> You're in Key West and you're spending time on forums? What's wrong with you man? Go do some fishing.


Well actually I'm off the Keys now and crashed for the night (an hour later here). To many steamed clams and gator with white beans to keep my eyes open. I don't want to invest an hour in TV. So checking out email, and having fun lighting you up. :rollin: I think I will do some fishing when I hit Louisiana. I hear nice big yellow fin tuna are hitting now. I have been following coastal highways for the past 500 miles and eating seafood every chance I get. I still have not found any soft shell crab on this trip. Maybe it's the wrong time of year.

Have you not given up on that snoops yet? They are only slightly better than the Huffington Post. Sometimes I read those things for entertainment and sometimes I have to click off them because they are so stupid they are disturbing.

So MT I am happy to hear about your stand on the second amendment. I disagree with what you think don't hurt America. I think some things degrade the morals of our nation. I can see the destruction of our nation with no moral compass.

As for Obama it is important to understand what has made the man. It will help us understand what to expect. That is simply like watching a weather forecast in the morning so you can avoid some things. If people understood that Obamas wants this nation to be extreme socialistic perhaps they would not have pushed for his socialized medicine plan. If they understood now and looked back at his background, Obamacare, and the bail out of GM and banks perhaps they would now agree we need to stop the direction we are headed. Without the background many will not believe what his intentions are. Would you have believed it five years ago? If you knew everything there is to know about him would that not have changed your mind about him sooner?

I have a brain block right now. Who was the lady he appointed to the Supreme Court? She was his attorney when he resisted public presentation of his birth certificate. I don't remember what he has spent to date, but I had heard a million once. That does sound like an exaggeration. The idea that he spent anything bothers me. It's an indication he hides something. It may not be important, but if he hides it perhaps it's very realistic that it is important.

Edit: Yes your right I do judge an accomplishment as something good. Even in the negative I would say Obama has few accomplishments. He simply signs what an idiotic congress sends his way. We need to have term limits. I am very disappointed in the "conservative" congressmen who responded negatively to Rand Paul's filibuster.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Have you not given up on that snoops yet? They are only slightly better than the Huffington Post. Sometimes I read those things for entertainment and sometimes I have to click off them because they are so stupid they are disturbing.


Says who? They've always done right by me.



> So MT I am happy to hear about your stand on the second amendment. I disagree with what you think don't hurt America. I think some things degrade the morals of our nation. I can see the destruction of our nation with no moral compass.


You want to tell others how to live because you think your subjective moral precepts are superior to your neighbor's, and you call me the extremist?



> As for Obama it is important to understand what has made the man. It will help us understand what to expect. That is simply like watching a weather forecast in the morning so you can avoid some things. If people understood that Obamas wants this nation to be extreme socialistic perhaps they would not have pushed for his socialized medicine plan.


You're telling me that the people who were for _socialized _medicine wouldn't have been supportive of it if they knew it was being promoted by a socialist? Does this really make sense to you? Have you considered that a large portion of the nation might just have socialistic tendencies? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy.



> As for Obama it is important to understand what has made the man. It will help us understand what to expect.


You've got 5 years of policies to help you decide what's coming up. If you paid attention to that instead of who sired him you might have something beneficial to add to the conversation.



> I have a brain block right now. Who was the lady he appointed to the Supreme Court? She was his attorney when he resisted public presentation of his birth certificate. I don't remember what he has spent to date, but I had heard a million once. That does sound like an exaggeration. The idea that he spent anything bothers me. It's an indication he hides something. It may not be important, but if he hides it perhaps it's very realistic that it is important.


We're on the internet. I'm sure you'll be able to find some good sources for these claims once your brain is unblocked.



> We need to have term limits. I am very disappointed in the "conservative" congressmen who responded negatively to Rand Paul's filibuster.


We're together on that. Rand 2016.


----------



## Plainsman

> You're telling me that the people who were for socialized medicine wouldn't have been supportive of it if they knew it was being promoted by a socialist?


No I'm not telling you anything close to that. I am telling you that if people had paid attention to reverend Wright and Bill Ayers the political naive and those who complain about talking politics because they want to talk about playing may not have voted for him. Remember, I had this guy pegged before the first election and you did not. If you had known then what you know now would you have voted for him? That's history now, but isn't that what we are talking about, his history? The policies he enacted that you use to judge him now are history just like the things I am talking about. You are simply talking more recent history, but all of his history is imporant, not just yesterday.



> You've got 5 years of policies to help you decide what's coming up.


 Again yes, and that is history right?

So MT is it important when a political person hides their past? Why is it any different with Obama? Remember when you thought it was important that Bush was a draft dodger (which he was not)?

As for snoops if you really are not still liberal you should see their liberal bias. Remember when I thought factcheck.org was so good? Well they are not, and are as bias as snoops. Neither deserve the reputation they appear to have gained. Look at some of their answers and compare them to what you know for sure. I didn't know anyone but a liberal still believed them.



> You want to tell others how to live because you think your subjective moral precepts are superior to your neighbor's, and you call me the extremist?


So you don't believe morals exist? You don't want to be inhibited by morals? What????? From your comment it appears you have your own ideas, but object to mine. But, but, isn't that your complaint about my comments. Pot - Kettle- black???? From my perspective it appears you don't like me making comments about morals. Yet you have no idea what morals I talk about. However, your guilty of the same actions that you condemn. :rollin: Extremist or not aside you get a gold star for champion hypocrite. oke: Surely you can now see that when it's pointed out clearly. It's as if your saying your subjective morals tell you that no one else should have subjective morals. Say what????????


----------



## the ghost of MT

> So MT is it important when a political person hides their past? Why is it any different with Obama? Remember when you thought it was important that Bush was a draft dodger (which he was not)?


It was relevant before he was elected in so far as predicting his policies. It was relevant after he was elected to show he was a scumbag. Same for your secret Obama history.



> As for snoops if you really are not still liberal you should see their liberal bias. Remember when I thought factcheck.org was so good? Well they are not, and are as bias as snoops. Neither deserve the reputation they appear to have gained. Look at some of their answers and compare them to what you know for sure. I didn't know anyone but a liberal still believed them.


Honestly man, the more polemical you are the less likely I am to believe what you're saying. Saying "man they're so liberal you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise" is not a good way to convert people to your belief. If you can point out some instances of them being unfair I'd be more inclined to agree.



> You don't want to be inhibited by morals? What????? From your comment it appears you have your own ideas, but object to mine. But, but, isn't that your complaint about my comments. Pot - Kettle- black???? From my perspective it appears you don't like me making comments about morals.


Perhaps there's some confusion. I have my own morals, I just don't think I have the right to enforce them on others. The harm principle is universal and measurable. Your belief in god, homosexuality, contraception, etc is not.

Assuming you want to enforce your morals on others through the law, how exactly do you decide which morals to enforce? My father thinks it's moral for the state to provide food, housing, health care, etc for everyone. You think that's wrong, but you want to prevent gay marriage. Neither of you has an objective basis for your belief, it's not based on the harm principle, it's just a gut feeling about how others should live. That's not a principle, that's being a statist.


----------



## Plainsman

> but you want to prevent gay marriage


You have had that hangup with me for a long time. So you don't think there is a harm factor? Have you noticed those priests that people don't like molesting children? Have you noticed that it's always little boys? Pro gay people don't like to admit that homosexuality is part of that problem. Are you familiar with NAMBLA ( North American Man Boy Love Association)? I think the gay movement is part of the degradation of society. It's not a hate thing because the Bible calls for us to love each other. NAMBLA wants the age of consent dropped to what was it, six years old? Are you telling me there is no harm factor in that. You may say that will never happen, but back just a few short years ago everyone laughed about gay marriage. It's going to happen, and it's going to screw up young minds, and those young minds will cause even more problems. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's right for some six year old to be tooting your tool for a chocolate bar.

I think libertarians are very good people and not allergic to morals.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> So you don't think there is a harm factor? Have you noticed those priests that people don't like molesting children? Have you noticed that it's always little boys? Pro gay people don't like to admit that homosexuality is part of that problem.


This is the problem with letting your subjective moral beliefs guide your views on what the state should do- it lets your ignorance and biases take over your reason. Most churches are explicitly and adamantly anti-gay. The Catholic church holds that it's one of the greatest sins. Why then does the Catholic church have such a problem with child molestation? Perhaps because they lead gays to repress their true identity, which then expresses itself through pedophilia. However, a psychologist would tell you that pedophiles who molest boys aren't gay, they're pedophiles. It's motivated by entirely different feelings.

I would also note that molestation of children has not a damn thing to do with gay marriage. I see plenty of harm here, but unfortunately it's an old bigot trying to impose the homophobia he learned as a boy onto a world that is quickly recognizing the suffering caused by that position. I've got terrible news for you- in 50 years gay marriage will be as near to 100% acceptance as interracial marriage, and your generation will be looked down upon like the bigots who prevented racial integration.



> Are you familiar with NAMBLA ( North American Man Boy Love Association)? I think the gay movement is part of the degradation of society. It's not a hate thing because the Bible calls for us to love each other. NAMBLA wants the age of consent dropped to what was it, six years old? Are you telling me there is no harm factor in that. You may say that will never happen, but back just a few short years ago everyone laughed about gay marriage. It's going to happen, and it's going to screw up young minds, and those young minds will cause even more problems. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's right for some six year old to be tooting your tool for a chocolate bar.


Honestly man you are so clearly out of any realm of rationality I'm starting to doubt that there's anything productive that can come out of this discussion. NAMBLA is 1. a tiny extremist organization, 2. has nothing to do with 99.99% of gay people, 3. has nothing to do with gay marriage, 4. what the hell is wrong with your head? You can thump the bible all you want, you're an old school bigot filled with hate for those different from you, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. My generation is going to spit on your grave for the pain you've brought society. Repent.


----------



## ShineRunner

Re: Did Obama Fib?

Only if his lips are moving!!! :******:


----------



## ShineRunner

The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited. 
Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship.

Little Sally led off. "I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30" she said proudly, "My sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success." "Very good", said the teacher.

Little Debbie was next. "I sold magazines" she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events." "Very good, Debbie", said the teacher.

Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn. The teacher held her breath. Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467", he said. "$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"

Toothbrushes", said Little Johnny. "Toothbrushes", echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"
I found the busiest corner in town", said Little Johnny, "I set up a Dip &Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample."

They all said the same thing, "Hey, this tastes like dog poop!"

Then I would say, "It is dog poop. Wanna buy a toothbrush?

I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it's free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth."

Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment.

"Anyone may be asked what they did to make life worthwhile.
Can respond with a great deal of pride an satisfaction.
I served in the United States Navy." John F. Kennedy

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world, 
But the U.S. Military doesn't have that problem." Ronald Reagan


----------



## Plainsman

> However, a psychologist would tell you that pedophiles who molest boys aren't gay, they're pedophiles. It's motivated by entirely different feelings.


Logic says if they were not gay they would be molesting little girls. If gender had nothing to do with it we would se a 50/50 ratio, but no it's little boys that get molested. Did you see on the news about a month ago that psychiatrists in England and Canada want us to now believe pedophelia is normal? That's right, and one psychiatrist was explaining that a sexual experience with an older guy may be good for a boy. This stuff is getting out of hand and you want to defend it?????? :eyeroll:

I think your physcally libertrian, but I don't know many libetarians who think anything goes socially. I doubt you fit into that far upper corner the political test put you in.

Hey MT did you notice what a level headed centrist I was? oke: :rollin:

I don't dislike gay people MT. I believe I should care about everyone including them. That doesn't mean I need to accept the practice.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Logic says if they were not gay they would be molesting little girls.


Logic does not dictate the function of the mind.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html



> Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified - only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
> 
> In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).
> 
> This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).





> Did you see on the news about a month ago that psychiatrists in England and Canada want us to now believe pedophelia is normal? That's right, and one psychiatrist was explaining that a sexual experience with an older guy may be good for a boy. This stuff is getting out of hand and you want to defend it??????


I would again ask what this has to do with marriage between two adult gay persons, but the answer is plain as day.



> I think your physcally libertrian, but I don't know many libetarians who think anything goes socially. I doubt you fit into that far upper corner the political test put you in.


If you know a single libertarian that thinks homosexuals shouldn't be permitted to marry and do whatever they choose with consenting adults, then you probably don't know a libertarian.



> I don't dislike gay people MT. I believe I should care about everyone including them. That doesn't mean I need to accept the practice.


I don't dislike you. I just believe that you're a bigot who should be shamed and silenced. You are corrupting young minds to believe in hate, and you should be stopped before you degrade the moral character of our country any further. The Bible tells me so.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> *don't dislike you. I just believe that you're a bigot who should be shamed and silenced.* You are corrupting young minds to believe in hate, and you should be stopped before you degrade the moral character of our country any further. The Bible tells me so


that is more of a liberal thought than libitarian. Liberals want to silence there opposition. even if the opposition is right. They keep squawking until they are louder than everyone else.

that is what this thread has become. It states did Obama Fib.... YES HE DID. Also like I and other stated if a politician opens his or her's mouth.....99% of the time they are fibbing. Doesn't matter if they are Rep, Dem, Libeitarian, Tea Party, etc. They all fib.

Quick question..... Didn't the Obama Administration and other Dem's who voted for the Health Care bill say insurance premiums will go down if this bill is passed??

http://t.money.msn.com/business-news/ne ... d=16230977

this say premiums will rise for most people who buy insurance on their own in a private market. But wait.... in the same article it says they will be given tax credits. Ok that is good but will the tax credit equal out the increase in premium?? Nobody knows.... So yep you could pay $1000 more a year for insurance yet get a tax credit of $500.... So you still have out of pocket expense of $500. Oh yeah a great bill..... uke:

The whole point I am making above.....is all those politicians FIBBED and LIED. Premiums are not decreasing. They will be increasing for about 14 million people. Most self employeed and younger people. Or people who choose to not participate in group plans and want individual plans tailored to them.


----------



## Chuck Smith

excerpts from the link I posted above...



> In many states, insurers charge a 60-year-old customer $5 in premiums for every $1 they collect from a 24-year-old. The logic behind that is that older people use health care more and generate more expensive claims than younger customers, so insurers need to collect more to help pay their bills.
> 
> But the overhaul will narrow that ratio to 3-to-1. That alone could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays $1,200 annually to jump to $1,800, according to AHIP. Meanwhile, the 60-year-old who currently pays $6,000 will see a 10 percent drop in price.


So a person not using the insurance will pay more and the person who is not using the insurance will pay less??? Auto insurance and home owners insurance is opposite. If you are a bad driver and have claims....you pay more. If you are a homeowner and have tons of claims you get surcharged. Isn't that how insurance works????



> Prices also may change depending on a person's current coverage. Many policies on the individual market (coverage not sold through employers) exclude maternity coverage, but that will be considered an essential health benefit under the overhaul. That could mean higher prices for some.
> 
> Vikki Swanson, 49, of Newport Beach, Calif., resents that the added benefit may lead to higher costs for her. "I had a hysterectomy, I have no need for maternity coverage, but I have to now pay for it," she said.
> 
> As a self-employed accountant and financial analyst, Swanson has paid for her insurance coverage on the individual market for about 13 years. She watched her monthly premium climb from around $136 in 2001 to more than $600 before she could find cheaper coverage. She's frustrated that the overhaul may add to her bill.
> 
> "I have to pay not only my own premium but I have to subsidize everybody else," she said.


Hmmmm..... so this law makes it mandatory for certain coverages to be in every policy. Yet some people don't need that coverage. Also take a single man will have to have maternity coverage in his policy. YES A SINGLE MAN. He can't add it later if he gets married or a girlfriend.....HE HAS TO HAVE IT FROM DAY 1. does that make sense??

[quoteThere also will be tax credits, or subsidies, given to people with incomes that fall within 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For 2013, 400 percent of the poverty level for all states except Alaska and Hawaii would be $94,200.* These credits won't lower premiums, but they can ease the insurance bill depending on a person's income*.][/quote]

the bold is exactly what I was talking about in my other post. You pay an extra $1000 a year in premium but could get a credit of $500..... So you are still out $500....yep government at its finest.... uke: .... Oh wait... I thought Obama and others said insurance premium would be cheaper and all would save the tax payer money.... *Wait another FIB*



> Additionally, people under age 30 who face big premium hikes will be able to buy plans that charge low premiums and just provide coverage for big or catastrophic costs. Those plans also will be available to people required to pay more than 8 percent of their income for coverage.


So if they have insurance now.....they can opt for this plan which will cost about what they pay now....but have less coverage??? So when Obama and others stated that coverages will not be cut....*ANOTHER FIB*

I could go on and on. This bill will cripple our nation and the income each person makes. Look at 5 guys burgers....Now they are speaking out about the bill. Yep....great legislation.

MT.... I remember you were all for this bill... Are you still all for it or do you see many of the things that others state will happen.....happening. Remember Myself and other predicted this. But I guess I am a bigot and need to be silenced.


----------



## Longshot

the ghost of MT said:


> I don't dislike you. I just believe that you're a bigot who should be shamed and silenced. You are corrupting young minds to believe in hate, and you should be stopped before you degrade the moral character of our country any further. The Bible tells me so.


Keep showing your true colors MT. You're still the same old Liberal. A true Libertarian would be more than willing to hear and let someone state their opinion and beliefs. A person is to be free to do so, not limited and silenced. You're still the same old arrogant and blind man you were those years ago. Are you going to law school to learn how to hide your true beliefs better? Be honest with us and yourself. You're still a Liberal who claims to be tolerant, but not tolerant to any belief outside your own. You have just shown your own bigotry.


----------



## the ghost of MT

> that is more of a liberal thought than libitarian. Liberals want to silence there opposition. even if the opposition is right. They keep squawking until they are louder than everyone else.


I'm being sarcastic for purposes of showing how outrageously Plainsman is acting. I am 100% for free speech of all kinds, even the most extreme and outrageous. He should be allowed to say the most horrid things he wants, I will just criticize him for it. My point is that he's pretending to not be a bigot by clothing it in the robes of religion. If you say "homosexuality is the cause of pedophilia, and thus gay marriage should be banned and gays should be scorned" but follow it up with "but I love them because the Bible tells me so" you're a hateful bigot not withstanding the subsequent statement.


----------



## huntin1

MT, you asked for something saying that Obama classmates did not remember him.



> If anyone should have questions about Obama's record at Columbia University, it's me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of '83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I'd heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.


Oh my, look where it comes from, a libertarian publication.

http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/20 ... smate.html

Obama didn't just fib, he outright lied, just about everything that he says on his own is a lie. He doesn't want his college records made public because he received scholarships as a foreign student. So, he has either lied about being an American citizen, or he lied about his foreign status to secure tuition money. Either one is a felony, being a law student that should be readily apparent to even you. He was raised and mentored by communists. His idealism is decidedly Marxist.

You are still looking at the world through rose colored liberal tainted glasses.

Huntin1


----------



## the ghost of MT

> You are still looking at the world through rose colored liberal tainted glasses.


I swear to god you guys are worse than communists. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is a counter-revolutionary enemy of the people.

You've got one guy of unknown repute, and unknown existence, saying that he doesn't remember someone at a populous college in NYC. Shocker. They were even in the same program!

Snopes did an article debunking this, but thankfully because they listed their sources you don't have to trust them. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp

Check under the Origins section for outside links. So there's a bunch of people who do remember him, he was in the newspaper, and he got admitted to Harvard on that basis. But it's more likely that this is a giant moon landing style hoax rewriting history so that an evil Muslim Communist Kenyan can sit on the throne, right? I mean let's be reasonable guy.

Factcheck.org also did a similar article. But they're probably run by the evil liberal conspiracy too. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/obama- ... niversity/

So did politifact, but again, Muslim conspiracy, so can't trust that. 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... obama-nev/

But hey, a guy with a blog said he's a liar, so that's enough for you.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I found this....and since I was on my soap box about how poor Obama Care is..... Maybe some PETA people should get on this...

OBAMA CARE bill could cost pet owners more money at the vet clinic. Yep so more possible increased costs to consumers who own pets. I never even thought about this when the bill called for taxes on medical equipment. Yet again...that will do nothing to lower the cost of insurance only raise it. Again the cost of medical care rises so will insurance premiums. That is how insurance works! Again another FIB Mr. Obama. Anyway....



> Pet owners' wallets might get nipped by Obamacare, vets warn
> 23 hrs ago
> Will pet owners soon have to cut back on kibble and chew toys to pay their vet bills? Animal-lovers have been warned they could see an increase in the health care costs for their furry family members under Obamacare. Although the Affordable Care Act was not supposed to affect veterinary bills, vets say* they're bracing for a new tax on some medical equipment and might have to pass the costs along to consumers. Devices used only for animals are exempt from the tax, but anything that can be used by both animals and humans *- IV pumps and anesthesia equipment, for instance - is not. The American Veterinary Medical Association says it's waiting to hear more. And now pet-owners are, too. [Source]
> 
> Click to see more on msnNOW.com, updated 24 hours a day.


----------



## huntin1

But......but.....the guy making the claim is a LIBERTARIAN, he must be telling the truth.

You are really going to use these three "fact checkers"?

Snopes leans so far left its tipping and has been proven wrong so many times it's laughable.

Factcheck has its origins in ACORN. You know who they are, right?

Politifact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times. Another extremely liberal news outlet.

So you, who claims to be libertarian, uses liberally biased "fact checkers" to refute the claims made in a Libertarian publication.

I guess you really aren't a liberal. [sarcasm][/sarcasm]

Oh, and I did my Masters at the University of Cincinnati, a fairly populace school. I remember most of the people who were in the same program as I, certainly well enough to recognize their name.

But then maybe I have a photographic memory, or something.

Huntin1


----------



## ShineRunner

Report: Obama Is Failing US Veterans 
President Obama touts his dedication to war vets among his top priorities, but a new report seems to seriously undermine that claim.

Why some accuse him of 'a total betrayal'

Surely he didn't lie about this too :eyeroll: :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## the ghost of MT

huntin1 said:


> But......but.....the guy making the claim is a LIBERTARIAN, he must be telling the truth.
> 
> You are really going to use these three "fact checkers"?
> 
> Snopes leans so far left its tipping and has been proven wrong so many times it's laughable.
> 
> Factcheck has its origins in ACORN. You know who they are, right?
> 
> Politifact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times. Another extremely liberal news outlet.
> 
> So you, who claims to be libertarian, uses liberally biased "fact checkers" to refute the claims made in a Libertarian publication.
> 
> I guess you really aren't a liberal. [sarcasm][/sarcasm]
> 
> Oh, and I did my Masters at the University of Cincinnati, a fairly populace school. I remember most of the people who were in the same program as I, certainly well enough to recognize their name.
> 
> But then maybe I have a photographic memory, or something.
> 
> Huntin1


I don't get if you're trying to do satire or if you're being serious. Obviously someone's word doesn't become gospel just because they claim to be libertarian. You'd have to be a total moron to take anyone's word just because they claim to agree with your politics.

It's a shame you got out of your MA program without better reading comprehension. As I specifically pointed out, Snopes cites multiple sources. You don't have to trust Snopes, just the sources they cite.


----------



## Longshot

the ghost of MT said:


> I'm being sarcastic for purposes of showing how outrageously Plainsman is acting. I am 100% for free speech of all kinds, even the most extreme and outrageous. He should be allowed to say the most horrid things he wants, I will just criticize him for it.


Nice try MT. My 9 and 11 year olds also uses the "I'm just kidding" excuse when they get caught. At least when you get heated you show your true colors.


----------



## Longshot

So your sites point out that one person has come forward to says he was Obama's roommate. So they call what another person says as untrue. The college claims Obama, according to your site, of course what liberal college wouldn't. Your site takes one person's word over another. I can do the same thing. So far Obama has hidden his college transcript. Why, something to hide would be the reason any intelligent person would conclude. You don't put that kind of effort to conceal something if you don't have anything to hide.


----------



## huntin1

Yes, my first line was satire, would you find a picture easier to understand?



> It's a shame you got out of your MA program without better reading comprehension. As I specifically pointed out, Snopes cites multiple sources. You don't have to trust Snopes, just the sources they cite.


MS, not MA. If that sort of thing is important to you.

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, pretty sure it would be nearly impossible to earn a graduate degree without both reading comprehension and research skills.

I do not trust snopes or the sources they cite. They choose the sources they are going to use, or not use, according to their view point. As such, their sources are suspect.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Guys go back and look at the thread "Political test". I think MT answered those questions until he got that little dot to go way way way up into that top corner. He thinks that fools us. Then he goes on to defend Obama and gay marriage.

Chuck speaking of health costs any idea what the cost of AIDS has been to date? Maybe it would have bought me a new boat. Ouch.

huntin1 Center Market was not open today. It is other days. However I stopped across the street and purchased the makeings for a Mouffelata (spelling). I'm to lazy to run out to the car and check the correct spelling, and this little tablet will not open two pages at once. I had to settle for some good seafood, a Po Boy, and a couple of French donuts. The big party is over, but they are still throwing beads on Bourbon Street.


----------



## huntin1

That's too bad, Central Grocery has a special olive relish they use and they guard the recipe. You bought the wrong tablet, I've had as many as 8 pages open at once on my Blackberry. The food down there is unbelievable isn't it?

huntin1


----------



## the ghost of MT

I really don't think you guys grasp just how much of a political bubble you are in. You have no conception of what libertarian means (hint: it means you're not anti-gay marriage), you treat anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest as a heretic/leper, and you will immediately dismiss several well sourced sites in favor of a single blog with no credibility or verifiable sources whatsoever stating what you want to hear. You are suffering under some very severe delusions.

Edit: Huntin1, for what it's worth, I can also find no evidence that Pelosi ever said anything remotely like "'You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats.' (Nancy Pelosi - 2006)." I certainly hope you pay more attention to the truth when arresting a suspect than you do on this board.


----------



## huntin1

the ghost of MT said:


> I really don't think you guys grasp just how much of a political bubble you are in. You have no conception of what libertarian means (hint: it means you're not anti-gay marriage), you treat anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest as a heretic/leper, and you will immediately dismiss several well sourced sites in favor of a single blog with no credibility or verifiable sources whatsoever stating what you want to hear. You are suffering under some very severe delusions.


Liberal sources of dubious reliability, just like the guy you claim isn't credible. But, why is it that Obama refuses to release any of his college information. Maybe he is not hiding anything, maybe everything he has done is above board, but if so why hide it. You and every other liberal out there demanded that Bush release everything, and that is as it should be, the American people deserve no less. But why is it that Obama can refuse and all the democrats and liberal media think that that is okay?



the ghost of MT said:


> Edit: Huntin1, for what it's worth, I can also find no evidence that Pelosi ever said anything remotely like "'You don't need God anymore, you have us Democrats.' (Nancy Pelosi - 2006)." I certainly hope you pay more attention to the truth when arresting a suspect than you do on this board.


Why do you think I removed it. Typical of you MT, this is your past MO, get frustrated and you attack the individual instead of the argument. You should make a good lawyer.

huntin1


----------



## the ghost of MT

> Liberal sources of dubious reliability, just like the guy you claim isn't credible.


You didn't even bother to look at the sources, you assumed that because they were cited by a liberal group that they must be liberal sources, and are thus tainted. This is not the path of a wise man.



> But, why is it that Obama refuses to release any of his college information. Maybe he is not hiding anything, maybe everything he has done is above board, but if so why hide it.


I have no idea. Doesn't give you the right to make things up wholesale though.



> You and every other liberal out there


Do you think that by repeating a falsehood it becomes so? *OBVIOUS SATIRE ALERT* Say, did you know huntin1 is an active member of the KKK? 100% hate filled Klansman. I read it on a blog somewhere.



> Why do you think I removed it. Typical of you MT, this is your past MO, get frustrated and you attack the individual instead of the argument. You should make a good lawyer.


Check your profile page. memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1740
*OBVIOUS SATIRE ALERT OVER *


----------



## huntin1

Wow, you are a snarky one, aren't you. You came back here in Oct claiming that you had changed. I, for one don't see it.

Yes, I looked at your sources, still of dubious reliability in my opinion.



> Check your profile page, Mr. Grand Wizard. memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1740


I have no idea why any of those sig lines are still there, they were deleted quite awhile ago.

Referring to you or anyone else as a liberal, conservative, or libertarian is not libelous. However, this statement:


the ghost of MT said:


> Say, did you know huntin1 is an active member of the KKK? It's true. 100% hate filled Klansman.


 is.

I would think that someone aspiring to be an attorney would know the definition of defamation of character as well as the detrimental effects such an act could have on their chosen career path.

Have a nice day MT. I'd like to introduce you to my ignore list, you're the first one on it.

huntin1


----------



## the ghost of MT

When you make things up and call me names it's built on good sense. When I do the same I get accused of violating the law and put on a block list. Like I said, that's one hell of a political bubble.

It was very obvious I was being satirical for the purpose of demonstrating a point, and you have made it quite well for me.


----------



## Longshot

the ghost of MT said:


> When you make things up and call me names it's built on good sense. When I do the same I get accused of violating the law and put on a block list. Like I said, that's one hell of a political bubble.
> 
> It was very obvious I was being satirical for the purpose of demonstrating a point, and you have made it quite well for me.


MT you claim to be going to college for law, yet you don't know the difference? I have a difficult time believing it. This thread has now turned in to "Did MT Fib?". :rollin: No matter if your liberal or libertarian you have proven YOU are the extremist.


----------



## zogman

I think this fits in here

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day.
As they walk, theycome across a sign:

"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."

"I am entering" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her,
"Well, how'd ya do?
" First Place ," said Snow White..

They continue walking and they see a sign:

"Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
" First Place ," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"

They continue walking when they see a sign:

"Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?"
Pinocchio says "This is mine."
Half an hour later, he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.

"Who the hell is Obama?" he asked.


----------



## huntin1

^^ :laugh: ^^


----------



## Chuck Smith

Another FIB about the Affordable Care Act....



> Applying for Obamacare could be painful
> 7 hr ago | By Aimee Picchi
> 
> The Affordable Care Act was supposed to be as easy as shopping online. But the application form is nothing like one-click buying.
> 
> If you think doing taxes is fun, you're going to love applying for Obamacare.
> 
> Getting benefits from the Affordable Care Act may require filling out a 21-page form, according to a draft proposal. And the online version doesn't sound any easier, with a hefty 21 steps, according to the Associated Press. That's a far cry from Amazon.com's (AMZN) one-step ordering process.
> 
> The complexity raises the question of whether the application form will actually backfire, scaring off the very consumers the law is meant to serve.
> 
> While the government estimates the paper application should take 45 minutes to complete, that seems like wishful thinking. It's like when a cookbook advises you to set aside 30 minutes to prepare a complicated dish. If your gut tells you that time frame applies only to experts, you're probably right.
> 
> "This lengthy draft application will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete," Ron Pollack, executive director of advocacy group Families USA, told the AP. "It does not get you to the selection of a plan."
> 
> Would-be Obamacare customers need to supply information such as their current employment status, their income, what deductions they take and other income from sources such as rental properties or capital gains.
> 
> And the application is just the start. Applicants will have their paperwork examined by three major U.S. agencies, including the IRS. An applicant's income, identity and citizenship will be reviewed.
> 
> Of course, the application is still only in draft form, which means it may change before it's issued to the public. But perhaps it's not surprising that the form is so lengthy or complicated, given that the government isn't known for consumer-friendly paperwork.


And your income will be a factor....hmmmmm.....doesn't sound like fair rating to me. It should be age, gender, heath, location ( where you live), job and family history. Those should be only factor. But they want to know income.... Interesting. Why should it matter if you made money from Capital Gains. Should it matter if you made money selling a home, a parents home (they left it in childrens names), made money in the stock market, etc??? Why should that matter with your health???? This is interesting and would love to know what this actuarial data has to do with health. I know on a regular application you fill out with a independent carrier or with your work plan they don't ask these questions....but yet they do for a "government" program.....hmmmm. do I smell something not right or is it just because the wind is blowing in from the east today.... (I live east of Washington DC and that is where all this BS is coming from.)

Again....this bill is horrible.


----------



## People

The cost of health care should be based on what is needed only. This **** about the gov owes us anything is total BS! There is nothing free and everything costs. The actual cost of anything should be based on what is offered not what someone can pay for it.

The helicopter was invented after Chuck Norris was observed doing 8 roundhouse kicks a second.


----------



## Plainsman

MT I was listening to a to a program today as I was traveling. They were talking about libertarians. The point was total freedom without virtue is a recipe for social decay. It's kind of like the EPA being a good idea gone to far. Also like the unions were once a good idea, but now are a danger to business survival. What your looking for MT is a green light for no restrictions.

I know many libertarians MT, but I don't know any that carry it to the extent you do.


----------

