PDA

View Full Version : Dear leader attacks COTUS "UNDER THE RADAR" ...



LWW
05-26-2011, 03:16 AM
The thugocracy certainly needs an unarmed electorate to complete it's agenda:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."</span>

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar#ixzz1NRqXwiLq </div></div>

cushioncrawler
05-26-2011, 04:15 AM
Radars shood be in the COTUS. Radars would be, if the foundling farters had known about radars.
mac.

Qtec
05-26-2011, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sarah, came to Capitol Hill<span style='font-size: 14pt'> to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thugocracy certainly needs <span style='font-size: 20pt'>an unarmed electorate </span>to complete it's agenda: </div></div>

The only one who is talking about unarming the electorate is YOU.

Thatīs because you are a paranoid wingnut who thinks Obama is coming to get you and your guns.


Q

LWW
05-26-2011, 05:35 AM
Actually ... he was quoted in the article as agreeing with what I claimed, the regime wanted to disarm the electorate.



But, I have an unfair advantage over you ... I read the article as opposed to having my "OPINION" spoon fed to me by the regime.

Stretch
05-26-2011, 05:58 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">Sarah, came to Capitol Hill<span style='font-size: 14pt'> to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thugocracy certainly needs <span style='font-size: 20pt'>an unarmed electorate </span>to complete it's agenda: </div></div>

The only one who is talking about unarming the electorate is YOU.

Thatīs because you are a paranoid wingnut who thinks Obama is coming to get you and your guns.


Q </div></div>

Of course the Weenies would equate clip size restrictions with outright gun bannishment. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Gayle in MD
05-26-2011, 06:32 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: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sarah, came to Capitol Hill<span style='font-size: 14pt'> to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thugocracy certainly needs <span style='font-size: 20pt'>an unarmed electorate </span>to complete it's agenda: </div></div>

The only one who is talking about unarming the electorate is YOU.

Thatīs because you are a paranoid wingnut who thinks Obama is coming to get you and your guns.


Q </div></div>

Of course the Weenies would equate clip size restrictions with outright gun bannishment. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St. </div></div>

Yep, the usual, Wonk, wonk, wonk pointless, irrational and radical rewriting of facts and inabiility to read simple statements, without adding their usual Fear Mongering and paranoia, aka BS.

LWW
05-26-2011, 08:10 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: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 8pt'>I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...

I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>I MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>


Q </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...

I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>I ALSO MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...

WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>WE ALL MUST DEFEND DEAR LEADER ...</span></div></div>

It's astounding how brainwashed people can get, that they fixate on the unimportant quote and absolutely miss dear leader's promise to undermine the rights of the people ... but, in their defense, they are merely marching in collective lockstep to their orders.

Soflasnapper
05-27-2011, 03:50 PM
We ALREADY had this same restriction on clip size in effect, with no apparent loss of freedoms (except to buy such a clip size; I think previously purchased clips of this size were grandfathered in as legal).

After the alleged peril to the country, we got back the super-sized clips in the most boring of fashions-- the assault weapon bill expired, without being renewed.

So it didn't appear deadly to our Constitution when it first came into effect, and no less of 2nd amendment proponents than the Cheneys, Dick and Liz, both said they thought restricting clip sizes was a good idea in the aftermath of the Phoenix shootings.

Let me turn your claim around for you. It isn't blind support of the president that drives these go-rounds, but your blind opposition to him, in conflict with the facts and reason.

You are willing to torture both the facts and reason to attack this man at all times, for all things.

Plenty of real things to complain about legitimately, factually, and with correct reasoning, but you can't do any better than you do?

Rarely, but occasionally, I admit Rush may have stumbled upon a correct position, but he, like you, can't stop making illogical arguments for even what may be a correct position. He, like you, is as lockstep as supposed Obamatron supporters, just on the opposite side. And pointing out how dishonest, false, and illogical are his and your regular spew doesn't make anyone a hypnotized Obamatron, any more than the same thing in the '90s meant someone must be a Clintonista.

LWW
05-27-2011, 04:06 PM
And again, you are being totally dishonest.

Read the article, Sarah brought up gun control and dear leader said he was working on it under the radar.

He neglected to say that the O-cult would twist the facts to give him cover and keep it under the radar.

Soflasnapper
05-27-2011, 04:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And again, you are being totally dishonest.

Read the article, Sarah brought up gun control and dear leader said he was working on it under the radar.

He neglected to say that the O-cult would twist the facts to give him cover and keep it under the radar. </div></div>

No, your problem with me is that I can read.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines."</div></div>

From your cite above.

That's what the evidence here supports, as I suggested, not your fevered claims.

"No, YOU tell it! It's always a better story when you tell it!"

Gayle in MD
05-27-2011, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Let me turn your claim around for you. It isn't blind support of the president that drives these go-rounds, but your blind opposition to him, in conflict with the facts and reason.

You are willing to torture both the facts and reason to attack this man at all times, for all things.

</span> </div></div>

That says it all!

G.

LWW
05-28-2011, 01:29 AM
Why did you leave out the rest:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." </div></div>

What's that?

You left it out because it doesn't support your agenda of slavishly defending the regime?

I already knew that.

So did you.

Qtec
05-28-2011, 02:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thugocracy certainly needs an <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>unarmed</span></u> electorate to complete it's agenda:
</div></div>

Unarmed means no guns.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>gun control </u></span></div></div>

Two different things.

Q

Qtec
05-28-2011, 02:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... he was quoted in the article as agreeing with what I claimed, the regime wanted to disarm the electorate. </div></div>

Show us the quote.

Q

LWW
05-28-2011, 04:14 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">Actually ... he was quoted in the article as agreeing with what I claimed, the regime wanted to disarm the electorate. </div></div>

Show us the quote.

Q </div></div>

HER (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=353256#Post353256) you go Snoopy.

This is where you argue that just because I can show you where he said it doesn't mean that I can show you where he said it.

LWW
05-28-2011, 04:18 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">The thugocracy certainly needs an <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>unarmed</span></u> electorate to complete it's agenda:
</div></div>

Unarmed means no guns.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>gun control </u></span></div></div>

Two different things.

Q </div></div>

Then you should be able to explain the difference?

What's that?

You don't know the difference, but since you must defend dear leader you will pontificate as if you did?

Uw dorp noemde en zij willen hun idioot terug.

Qtec
05-28-2011, 05:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you should be able to explain the difference?
</div></div>

I thought I just did.

Gun control means regulating guns.
Disarmament means no guns.

Try and keep up.

Q

LWW
05-28-2011, 06:26 AM
As I said earlier ... uw dorp noemde en zij willen hun idioot terug.

They miss you. By comparison, you made them appear to be much smarter.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 08:57 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">The thugocracy certainly needs an <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>unarmed</span></u> electorate to complete it's agenda:
</div></div>

Unarmed means no guns.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>gun control </u></span></div></div>

Two different things.

Q </div></div>

What's so funny is that their HERO, RR, was actually the president who supported the Brady Bill.

BWA HA HA HA...same ol' same ol; RW BS!

pooltchr
05-28-2011, 09:45 AM
If my primary agenda was to take control of a large number of people, one of the first things I would want to do would be to make sure that my team had all the weapons, and they didn't have any.

Steve

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If my primary agenda was to take control of a large number of people, one of the first things I would want to do would be to make sure that my team had all the weapons, and they didn't have any.

Steve </div></div>

That's already true, when it comes to anything on the 'heavy weapon' side. Small arms available to the general public are not competitive with even fixed .50 caliber machine guns, let alone mortars, bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades, and still less Tomahawks and cruise missiles.

If the people had to match up in armaments, we've already been doomed, and for a long time.

LWW
05-28-2011, 03:37 PM
That's funny.

Qtec
05-29-2011, 12:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">uw dorp noemde en zij willen hun idioot terug. </div></div>

Again, that's not Dutch. The whole sentence construction is wrong and you used 'noemde' totally wrong.

Q

LWW
12-08-2011, 06:15 AM
Much to the embarrassment of the slavish followers of dear leader:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."

The Gun Dealers' Quandary

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.

Read the email http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/at..._02_111207.pdf

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."

Read the email http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/at..._01_111207.pdf

ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."

"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

The "Demand Letter 3" Debate

The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.

On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."

Reaction

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.</div></div>

LWW
12-08-2011, 06:19 AM
BTW ... that story was from the REICH WING CBS NEWS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/)

And traces the "UNDER THE RADAR" program back to before the time dear leader revealed that he had anything working "UNDER THE RADAR" to the anti liberty forces.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wrong, again, but I suspect you might contact the feds and report me. Again.


</div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>STILL WAITING FOR YOUR PROOF. LIAR! </span> </span>

LWW
12-08-2011, 08:31 AM
Yep ... I struck a nerve.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep ... I struck a nerve. </div></div>

What you did was prove again, to everyone here, that you are a sicko slandering LIAR, making things up, and no proof for any of it.

We've all seen it 21,964 times already, sicko PIG.

G.

LWW
12-08-2011, 08:56 AM
Stop deflecting dearest ... the topic is dear leader's assault on American freedoms through deceit and treachery.

eg8r
12-08-2011, 09:06 AM
She is like a little ankle biting chihuahua that no one wants.

eg8r

LWW
12-08-2011, 09:08 AM
I just want them to use facts and logic to come to an epiphany on this subject.

Soflasnapper
12-12-2011, 03:32 PM
The facts and logic of this situation are that Sarah Brady has an agenda, and the president wanted her to believe that he shares this agenda. Did he say what she says he said? We do not know. Did he mean what he said, if this is what he said? There's no reason to think he did.

Did he put on his comfortable shoes to walk the union line, as he directly said he would do, on the record? No, at least, not yet.

Part of the sly misdirection involved with politics is to leave people with the impression that you are totally on their side, and will work tirelessly for their agenda, when that is often not the case whatsoever. But it may still be important that they BELIEVE you are with them, and that only the obstruction of OTHERS is what prevents them from accomplishing what you want.

This was the admitted ploy and genius of Bill Clinton as president-- everybody (including Newt, who said he 'melted' in his presence) came away from meetings with him convinced they had an ally in that man. Bob Kerrey explained that 'he [Clinton] is an excellent liar.'

eg8r
12-12-2011, 04:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part of the sly misdirection involved with politics is to leave people with the impression that you are totally on their side, and will work tirelessly for their agenda, when that is often not the case whatsoever.</div></div>So if Obama does this it is called a "sly misdirection" but if a Rep did this it is called "lying". For me no matter who does it, it is called lying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bob Kerrey explained that 'he [Clinton] is an excellent liar.' </div></div>No truer words have ever been spoken.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-12-2011, 05:54 PM
Amazing you can directly quote me, and still get the quote wrong.

I didn't give Obama any special pass.

As you can see, my phrase was 'Part of the sly misdirection involved with politics...' (with politics in general, nothing about Obama in particular).

What politician wants to say to fervent partisans of this or that issue, 'I'm with you, but I cannot move on this for the next two years, until I'm re-elected.' So they say things like 'we're working under the radar, things are in motion, don't worry!' which is beautiful, because how can anyone check on things 'under the radar' or expect to see evidence of that going on?

eg8r
12-12-2011, 06:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amazing you can directly quote me, and still get the quote wrong.

I didn't give Obama any special pass.
</div></div>You speak for yourself as if the rest of the looney left would agree. After seeing the way the looney left react for the past 15 or so years I stand by my interpretation of your words.

eg8r

Qtec
12-16-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After seeing the way the looney left react for the past 15 or so years </div></div>

You are so dumb you think anything you utter is the truth. WHY should anyone believe you after you have been shown to be wrong SO MANY TIMES?
Do you really think <span style='font-size: 17pt'>we are all as dumb as you are? [/size[size:20pt]]A guy that gets ALL his info from Rush and Boortz? LMAO</span>

Q

eg8r
12-16-2011, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are so dumb you think anything you utter is the truth. WHY should anyone believe you after you have been shown to be wrong SO MANY TIMES?
</div></div>Well I would not suspect you to be the objective type. Are you excluding yourself in the question?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really think we are all as dumb as you are?</div></div>Do you increase the font so that you can keep focus? As far as how dumb you are, let's just say you have earned the title "village idiot".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[/size[size:20pt]]A guy that gets ALL his info from Rush and Boortz? LMAO
</div></div>LOL it is funny that directly after you ask me how dumb you are, you go and prove me correct. Go look up the word "proofread" and see if you can fix your "focus" issues.

eg8r