LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop, you guys are killing me! LOL LOL
Jim - Tim - Frank - Ever Heard Of These Guys?
- Thread starter Brisco
- Start date
LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop, you guys are killing me! LOL LOL
Left wing can not be wacko, they are morons, remember?
Only Right wing can be wacko.
No, Obama would be killing you, not me.
Left wing can not be wacko, they are morons, remember?
Only Right wing can be wacko.
No, only those who vote for left wing wackos are morons. Get with the game plan, will you?
AHHH, got it!
LO doesnt kid to much over anything like the above, hes not a fan of the Marxist crowdI believe you are on to something here!
But you are barely scratching the surface.
Obama has a big interest in Mars and so do the Soviet Commies. This is no coincidence. They are working together and secretly training Martians to help with the take over. Martians are Marxists!
Very soon the Martians will invade from the skies, the socialist Canadians will invade from the north, the Mexicans from the south, and the Socialist Republic of California from the west!!!
Okay, I'm just kidding. But I can't tell if you are or not?
View attachment 5388.....................Frank always reminded me of a Flintstone character.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Sounds like you are not kidding. Seems extreme but then over time some extreme ideas become less extreme and make more sense. Maybe you are ahead of your time?
I will stay tuned.
Sounds like you are not kidding. Seems extreme but then over time some extreme ideas become less extreme and make more sense. Maybe you are ahead of your time?
I will stay tuned.
This country was founded by radicals. They had a radical idea that government should not have the primary power, that the People should control the government. I believe in that. Name me ONE Marxist controlled country that follows that belief. Then remember that, by his own words, Obama believes in Marxist principles. He IS putting them into practice.
There are few real choices left now. Get rid of most of the congress and Obama and put in people who believe in our Constitution. Continue down the path we are on and give in to total government control of every aspect of our lives.
Each person must decide for themselves what is important. There will be those who help in the take over. Others will go along, preferring to just accept what hand is forced on them, some will fight. You must decide for yourself.
My choice is made, I WILL uphold my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic.
21cExp
Veteran Expediter
My post was not about what the specific issues may be, but that the dissemination of erroneous information about issues, whatever they may be in any given case, only serves to obfuscate the truth.
That does no real good for either side of an argument and tends to further confuse the issues (again, whatever the issues may be in any given case), wasting a lot of energy and time of participants on both sides in both promoting and defending their own points and opinions.
When those points and opinions have been formed on untruths, what good are they? It becomes a snowball of untruth and accusations based on vapors.
I don't believe Brisco--or most others who have posted this over the last few years--believed it was untrue when they posted it. I never mean any offense by pointing out something has been debunked. My purpose in doing so is to promote clarity and understanding based on facts, not fiction. A more honest dialogue and debate, and hopefully a more civil one, then can be had by all.
This sort of post has often been shown to originate in the blogosphere as an intentional misleading of the public, and both Republicans and Democrats have been found guilty in spreading what they know are untruths. It is often done through organizations--much like the Superpacs of today--funded outside of the parties themselves but in full support of this candidate or that, or this issue or that.
It's a sad tradition that goes back ages; the intentional misleading of the public and the intentional clouding of issues for one's own gain. In the terrific book 1861: The Civil War Awakening, author Adam Goodheart talks about how Steven A. Douglas, a Democrat, paid for stories to be written that he knew were not true, in hopes of influencing the electorate in the race between himself and Abraham Lincoln. (An interesting side note is that in Lincoln's time, the presidential candidates themselves really did not campaign on their own behalf in the way we see it done today. Douglas was one of the first to go out and promote himself.)
And no, I don't think the American public in general know exactly what's at stake in this election at all. Especially in this election, more than in the past. You may, and others here on EO may, as there generally seems to be a more opinioned constituency here than in many other places in America, whether on-line or off.
In general, I think the greater public is falling for the pablum fed them by mainstream media and talking heads, which include blowhards and fiction makers on both sides of the aisle.
It's become a finger-pointing whoever-can-shout-the-loudest-wins affair, based more on ratings and advertising dollars, usually with distorted facts and completely made up b***s***.
That does no real good for either side of an argument and tends to further confuse the issues (again, whatever the issues may be in any given case), wasting a lot of energy and time of participants on both sides in both promoting and defending their own points and opinions.
When those points and opinions have been formed on untruths, what good are they? It becomes a snowball of untruth and accusations based on vapors.
I don't believe Brisco--or most others who have posted this over the last few years--believed it was untrue when they posted it. I never mean any offense by pointing out something has been debunked. My purpose in doing so is to promote clarity and understanding based on facts, not fiction. A more honest dialogue and debate, and hopefully a more civil one, then can be had by all.
This sort of post has often been shown to originate in the blogosphere as an intentional misleading of the public, and both Republicans and Democrats have been found guilty in spreading what they know are untruths. It is often done through organizations--much like the Superpacs of today--funded outside of the parties themselves but in full support of this candidate or that, or this issue or that.
It's a sad tradition that goes back ages; the intentional misleading of the public and the intentional clouding of issues for one's own gain. In the terrific book 1861: The Civil War Awakening, author Adam Goodheart talks about how Steven A. Douglas, a Democrat, paid for stories to be written that he knew were not true, in hopes of influencing the electorate in the race between himself and Abraham Lincoln. (An interesting side note is that in Lincoln's time, the presidential candidates themselves really did not campaign on their own behalf in the way we see it done today. Douglas was one of the first to go out and promote himself.)
And no, I don't think the American public in general know exactly what's at stake in this election at all. Especially in this election, more than in the past. You may, and others here on EO may, as there generally seems to be a more opinioned constituency here than in many other places in America, whether on-line or off.
In general, I think the greater public is falling for the pablum fed them by mainstream media and talking heads, which include blowhards and fiction makers on both sides of the aisle.
It's become a finger-pointing whoever-can-shout-the-loudest-wins affair, based more on ratings and advertising dollars, usually with distorted facts and completely made up b***s***.
Last edited: