PDA

View Full Version : Quote from Tea Party candidate



hondo
10-19-2010, 06:07 AM
" And I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing major corporations to donate millions to my campaign without having to disclose who they really are." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
10-19-2010, 06:12 AM
Whatever they put on the spoon.

LWW

LWW
10-19-2010, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" And I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing major corporations to donate millions to my campaign without having to disclose who they really are." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>


This seems to be a good fit for this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you never link to these things you claim?

Don't know how?

On other boards if you don't provide a link your post gets deleted.

BTW, you made the claim. Provide evidence that Code Pink provided cash.


Put up or shut up, themīs the rules.......or do you prefer anarchy.

Q </div></div>

LWW

hondo
10-19-2010, 06:15 AM
The Huffington Post October 19,2010

Arthur Delaney arthur@huffingtonpost.com


Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions


By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections.

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."

Republicans offered measured praise for the decision, but progressive good-government groups and Democrats responded angrily and vowed to fight back with legislation.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, for years a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, called the decision a "disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme Court majority has acted recklessly to free up corporations to use their immense, aggregate corporate wealth to flood federal elections and buy government influence. The Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13 trillion and profits of $605 billion during the last election cycle," Wertheimer wrote.

"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and thereby to buy influence over the candidate's positions on issues of economic importance to the compangain.

"We are moving to an age where we won't have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America," said Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season. Corporations and labor unions are now free to advertise -- and tell people to vote for individual candidates -- as they please. Before Thursday, corporations had to funnel money through political action committees to pay for ads, with limits on what could be spent. The court upheld, however, disclosure requirements for corporations that spend $10,000 to produce election-season ads, and ads will still have to disclaim who paid for them.

"Today's decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a statement. But, while Steele said he was pleased with the decision, he cautioned that unlimited spending by corporations will hurt the party apparatus.

"Free speech strengthens our democracy. While the Court's recognition that organizations have the freedom to speak on public issues and have their views protected from censorship is fundamental, the Court has now left an imbalance that disadvantages national parties in their ability to support their candidates."

Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group that filed an amicus brief in the case and since 2005 has advocated against campaign spending limits, praised the decision during a conference call with reporters.

"Most of us think that's good thing," he said. "Speech is important and this will be good in allowing unions and corporations to speak."

Labor unions don't seem to share the feeling.

"Unlimited corporate spending in federal elections threatens to drown out the voices of the people who should really be at the center of the political process, i.e., voters and candidates," said Anna Burger, treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, in a statement. "Unleashing corporate spending will only serve to distort and ultimately delegitimize the electoral process."

"It is a sweeping opinion -- in one fell swoop the Supreme Court struck down seemingly all bans on expenditures," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for congressional Democrats, in an interview with HuffPost. "We've had a series of Supreme Court rulings in recent years where the court splits the difference on certain things. We didn't see that here. They only thing they upheld was the disclosure.

hondo
10-19-2010, 06:18 AM
Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post.

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post. </div></div>

Good one, friend. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The damages to democracy by this RW activist Supreme Court have been incredibly destructive.

The only hope to correct the fascist damages, is another Obama term. Without that, democracy is dead.

G.

Deeman3
10-19-2010, 07:54 AM
And I'd like, on behalf of the unions, to thank those very same laws that allow us to do the same but be ignored by the left, liberal media.

It's only wrong when it is not your team doing it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I'd like, on behalf of the unions, to thank those very same laws that allow us to do the same but be ignored by the left, liberal media.

It's only wrong when it is not your team doing it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

It has nothing to do with teams, to me, it has to do with policies, and Republican policies will lead to No American Middle Class, which equals a life like living in a third world country, Deeman.

That is what people vote for, when they vote for any Republican.

JMHO....

G.

jimmyg
10-19-2010, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I'd like, on behalf of the unions, to thank those very same laws that allow us to do the same but be ignored by the left, liberal media.

It's only wrong when it is not your team doing it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

It has nothing to do with teams, to me, it has to do with policies, and Republican policies will lead to No American Middle Class, which equals a life like living in a third world country, Deeman.

That is what people vote for, when they vote for any Republican.

JMHO....G. </div></div>

That's rich.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
10-19-2010, 12:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It has nothing to do with teams, to me,

G. </div></div>

What a joke! With you, it is all about the team, and nothing else. If a Dem tells you water isn't wet, you believe it. If a Rep tells you water is wet, you think it's a lie.

You have no credibility left. You have completely sold out to the party, and have become a puppet. They pull your strings, and you dance. That's just how it is.

Steve

LWW
10-19-2010, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post. </div></div>

Actually you made the whole thing up.

LWW

LWW
10-19-2010, 01:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Huffington Post October 19,2010

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

</div></div>

What part of that do you disagree with?

LWW

LWW
10-19-2010, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Huffington Post October 19,2010

Arthur Delaney arthur@huffingtonpost.com

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.</span> Corporations and labor unions are now free to advertise -- and tell people to vote for individual candidates -- as they please. Before Thursday, corporations had to funnel money through political action committees to pay for ads, with limits on what could be spent. The court upheld, however, disclosure requirements for corporations that spend $10,000 to produce election-season ads, and ads will still have to disclaim who paid for them. ...

Labor unions don't seem to share the feeling. </div></div>

And therein lies the real issue.

The far left had no issue with Michael Moorecheeseburgers turning out propaganda using non union crews. They also had no issue with special interest groups such as unions, NAMBLA, GREENPEACE, and other whacked out leftists promoting an anti capitalist ... anti truth ... anti American ... anti right to work ... anti liberty ... pro death agenda.

What they have a problem with is people funding an anti democrook position.

LWW

hondo
10-19-2010, 08:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post. </div></div>

Actually you made the whole thing up.

LWW </div></div>

DING! We have a winner! And yet, it's true of most of them.
The older you get, the slower you get.

Qtec
10-20-2010, 12:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" And I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing major corporations to donate millions to my campaign <u>without having to disclose who they really are.</u>" </div></div>

Do you see the part I underlined?

This whole Chamber of Commerce scandal is that they refuse to say who is backing them. At least we know who backs the Auto Workers Union, Joe six-pack!

I just read somewhere that the corporate money in this election, for the first time ever, is greater than all the all the voter,s contributions put together!
Attacks ads against Dems outnumber those against the GOP by 5 to 1! Where is the money coming from?

Either you were just trying to get a reaction from G or you don't understand the issue........or the danger.

Q






Q

LWW
10-20-2010, 02:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post. </div></div>

Actually you made the whole thing up.

LWW </div></div>

DING! We have a winner! And yet, it's true of most of them.
The older you get, the slower you get. </div></div>

See, don't you feel better now that you confessed to being a doublethinker.

It is astounding that a college educated man in his sixties can believe that something is both truth and lie at the same time ... but, if that's what the party tells you to believe that's what you will cling to.

LWW

hondo
10-20-2010, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" And I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing major corporations to donate millions to my campaign <u>without having to disclose who they really are.</u>" </div></div>

Do you see the part I underlined?

This whole Chamber of Commerce scandal is that they refuse to say who is backing them. At least we know who backs the Auto Workers Union, Joe six-pack!

I just read somewhere that the corporate money in this election, for the first time ever, is greater than all the all the voter,s contributions put together!
Attacks ads against Dems outnumber those against the GOP by 5 to 1! Where is the money coming from?

Either you were just trying to get a reaction from G or you don't understand the issue........or the danger.

Q






Q </div></div>

That was my point for this this thread, Q,, which ,typically, the Killer B's chose to mis-interpret.

hondo
10-20-2010, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Huffington Post October 19,2010

Arthur Delaney arthur@huffingtonpost.com


Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions


By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections.

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."

Republicans offered measured praise for the decision, but progressive good-government groups and Democrats responded angrily and vowed to fight back with legislation.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, for years a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, called the decision a "disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."

"The Supreme Court majority has acted recklessly to free up corporations to use their immense, aggregate corporate wealth to flood federal elections and buy government influence. The Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13 trillion and profits of $605 billion during the last election cycle," Wertheimer wrote.

"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and thereby to buy influence over the candidate's positions on issues of economic importance to the compangain.

"We are moving to an age where we won't have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America," said Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season. Corporations and labor unions are now free to advertise -- and tell people to vote for individual candidates -- as they please. Before Thursday, corporations had to funnel money through political action committees to pay for ads, with limits on what could be spent. The court upheld, however, disclosure requirements for corporations that spend $10,000 to produce election-season ads, and ads will still have to disclaim who paid for them.

"Today's decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a statement. But, while Steele said he was pleased with the decision, he cautioned that unlimited spending by corporations will hurt the party apparatus.

"Free speech strengthens our democracy. While the Court's recognition that organizations have the freedom to speak on public issues and have their views protected from censorship is fundamental, the Court has now left an imbalance that disadvantages national parties in their ability to support their candidates."

Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group that filed an amicus brief in the case and since 2005 has advocated against campaign spending limits, praised the decision during a conference call with reporters.

"Most of us think that's good thing," he said. "Speech is important and this will be good in allowing unions and corporations to speak."

Labor unions don't seem to share the feeling.

"Unlimited corporate spending in federal elections threatens to drown out the voices of the people who should really be at the center of the political process, i.e., voters and candidates," said Anna Burger, treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, in a statement. "Unleashing corporate spending will only serve to distort and ultimately delegitimize the electoral process."

"It is a sweeping opinion -- in one fell swoop the Supreme Court struck down seemingly all bans on expenditures," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for congressional Democrats, in an interview with HuffPost. "We've had a series of Supreme Court rulings in recent years where the court splits the difference on certain things. We didn't see that here. They only thing they upheld was the disclosure.
</div></div>

To which I get this response:

"See, don't you feel better now that you confessed to being a doublethinker.

It is astounding that a college educated man in his sixties can believe that something is both truth and lie at the same time ... but, if that's what the party tells you to believe that's what you will cling to."

LWW

It would be kinda funny if it wasn't so lame and pathetic. Doublethinker, indeed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

hondo
10-20-2010, 05:33 AM
Aitch, I don't have a credible response to that post, so
I'll emphasize the fact that I'm better with the quote
function than you.

You got me again.

LWW

hondo
10-20-2010, 05:35 AM
LWW, houndo iz talken to hisself agin.
I done belive he was evr a skool tchr.
He cant eben spel gude.

You're pal, Steve

pooltchr
10-20-2010, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, houndo iz talken to hisself agin.
I done belive he was evr a skool tchr.
He cant eben spel gude.

You're pal, Steve </div></div>

Kindly provide the link to where I said that, or admit that is nothing more than a lie you made up.

Steve

sack316
10-20-2010, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

... At least we know who backs the Auto Workers Union, Joe six-pack!

</div></div>

Indeed, much the same way a parent of an abducted child "backs" the kidnappers with ransom money

Sack

hondo
10-20-2010, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, houndo iz talken to hisself agin.
I done belive he was evr a skool tchr.
He cant eben spel gude.

You're pal, Steve </div></div>

Kindly provide the link to where I said that, or admit that is nothing more than a lie you made up.

Steve </div></div>

OMG!!!

Steve, Steve, I typed that!!
I was simply making fun of your posting style.
Really, ole chap, I shouldn't have to be telling you this.

sack316
10-20-2010, 02:52 PM
Actually that looks more like Mac's posting style /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

hondo
10-20-2010, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually that looks more like Mac's posting style /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

The fact that Steve even asked for a link is pretty disturbing imho.
Was he not sure?

pooltchr
10-20-2010, 03:20 PM
You signed my name, Houndo, which means some other idiot might pick it up in a quote somewhere and think I actually have worse writing skills than you.

You are bound and determined to continue to stir up more crap on this forum. If you can't find something, you just make it up.

You are a jerk, pure and simple.

I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions.


Steve

LWW
10-20-2010, 03:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It has nothing to do with teams, to me,

G. </div></div>

What a joke! With you, it is all about the team, and nothing else. If a Dem tells you water isn't wet, you believe it. If a Rep tells you water is wet, you think it's a lie.

You have no credibility left. You have completely sold out to the party, and have become a puppet. They pull your strings, and you dance. That's just how it is.

Steve </div></div>

It's far worse than that.

If one democrook tells her water is wet and another democrook tells her water is dry she believes both to be true at the same time.

LWW

hondo
10-20-2010, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Houndo, some "other" idiot

You are a jerk,

I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions.


Steve </div></div>

IRONY

hondo
10-20-2010, 04:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You signed my name, Houndo, which means "some other idiot" might pick it up in a quote somewhere and think I actually have worse writing skills than you.




Steve </div></div>


LMFAO! No, I don't think so.
I imagine everyone else saw it for what it was. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
10-20-2010, 04:14 PM
"I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions."


Steve

And thus it starts again.
Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself
threatening me every time I tease you a little?
Good ole Steve. 58 going on 14.
What a big baby!

Stretch
10-20-2010, 04:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually that looks more like Mac's posting style /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

There is no mistaking Mac's work that's for sure! lol While they are entertaining, original, quirky, and thought provoking, the spelling alone is enough to send LWW into an apoplectic fit. Probaly why he never comments on any of them. I wonder how Mac's weighted arms fared out at the pool hall the other day? St.

pooltchr
10-20-2010, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions."


Steve

And thus it starts again.
Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself
threatening me every time I tease you a little?
Good ole Steve. 58 going on 14.
What a big baby! </div></div>

Houndo, I have tried to restrain myself in hopes that you would tire of your little games, but even when I do so, you continue to post your little attack posts. You just aren't happy unless you are fighting with someone, are you?

I am glad I am not you. It must be a terribly sad life you live.

Now, here's the deal. Knock off the crap, and make the effort to turn the forum into the "nice place" you claim you want it to be. Or, keep fanning the flames with your little games, and eventually, you will find yourself crying on the "victims dot com" forum how you got yourself banned from another pool forum because you didn't know when to quit.

I don't like you. I really don't want anything to do with you, but you are here, so that isn't an option. I wouldn't really care if I never heard another word out of you, but I doubt that will happen either. So, I ask you to restrain yourself, or deal with the consequences of your actions.

Maybe if you quit howling at the moon, the name "houndo" will go away.

Steve

Stretch
10-20-2010, 08:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions."


Steve

And thus it starts again.
Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself
threatening me every time I tease you a little?
Good ole Steve. 58 going on 14.
What a big baby! </div></div>

He can dish it out but........St.

bobroberts
10-20-2010, 08:32 PM
Ha ha ha gayle you are delusional. You should be committed with Honda for life.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the Killer B's thought I was talking about one TP candidate when I was talking about most.
I expected that post. </div></div>

Good one, friend. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The damages to democracy by this RW activist Supreme Court have been incredibly destructive.

The only hope to correct the fascist damages, is another Obama term. Without that, democracy is dead.

G.

</div></div>

hondo
10-20-2010, 09:20 PM
Read his post above yours, Stretch. He says he doesn't like me
and yet shadow posts my every entry.

He asks to be civil or be banned and yet he calls those he disagrees with every name in the book.

He thinks I lead a sad, miserable life?
I'm retired, Stevie. I'm almost having too much fun.

Little Stevie Whiner. What a card!

hondo
10-20-2010, 09:27 PM
Well, I imagine some of your tea partiers are going to get in.
Enjoy.
And if it pleases you to think I'm so upset I'll be wringing my hands and considering suicide, enjoy your little vision of that also.

Meanwhile, I'll be down at the honky tonk talking to the ladies, racken em up, and having a cold one while your buddies toil away on the keyboards saving us libs from ourselves. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
10-20-2010, 09:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



You are a jerk, pure and simple.




Steve </div></div>

You just aren't happy unless you are fighting with someone, are you?

I am glad I am not you. It must be a terribly sad life you live. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
10-20-2010, 09:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions."


Steve

And thus it starts again.
Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself
threatening me every time I tease you a little?
Good ole Steve. 58 going on 14.
What a big baby! </div></div>

Houndo,

I don't like you.

Maybe if you quit howling at the moon, the name "houndo" will go away.

Steve </div></div>

You just aren't happy unless you are fighting with someone, are you?

I am glad I am not you. It must be a terribly sad life you live. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Stretch
10-20-2010, 11:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read his post above yours, Stretch. He says he doesn't like me
and yet shadow posts my every entry.

He asks to be civil or be banned and yet he calls those he disagrees with every name in the book.

He thinks I lead a sad, miserable life?
I'm retired, Stevie. I'm almost having too much fun.

Little Stevie Whiner. What a card! </div></div>

Hondo, yes i see how he rags on yours and Gayles every post. When he's not directly insulting you he's agreeing with all LWW's twisted views of you. But hey, that's what goes on here. So to then get indignant over any backlash is almost laughable. St.

Gayle in MD
10-21-2010, 01:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I suggest you get yourself under control before you are held accountable for your actions."


Steve

And thus it starts again.
Aren't you just a tiny bit ashamed of yourself
threatening me every time I tease you a little?
Good ole Steve. 58 going on 14.
What a big baby! </div></div>

He can dish it out but........St. </div></div>

Yet, Wolfdancer is gone, while the out of control, insulting, constantly attacking cyberstalkers, S,LWW,B.R., and the rest of the Peanut Brain Gallary, are all still here.

How does Wilson justify his slanted moderating?

G.

hondo
10-21-2010, 10:36 AM
Steve calls you and me every name in the book and warns that I'll be banned if I retaliate.
My daughters and wife tell me to quit this site but I WOULD miss a few of you.

pooltchr
10-21-2010, 10:45 AM
You don't have to quit the site...just quit being such a troll.

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-22-2010, 04:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve calls you and me every name in the book and warns that I'll be banned if I retaliate.
My daughters and wife tell me to quit this site but I WOULD miss a few of you. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Yes, his game is to stalk every post I write, with hateful posts and personal insults, while accusing me of being hateful, and hope that I will respond to him, so he can go whining to the Mod, again.

I don't read his dribble. He's so far beneath you, on every level, I woudn't waste my time reading his pointless posts, at all, if I were you.

G. </span>