GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz

Aren't you the one calling us names?

Responding makes it 'all about you'...

weird..

is 'Idiocracy' a required daily watch at whatever school of thought you come from?
 
you wouldn't be still keeping it about me would you? of course you would! Zero capacity otherwise.

and in today's news let's see what Obama supporter Joan Baez has to say about obama's Nobel Prize. . .

POLITICO: The president campaigned on the promise of closing Guantanamo. What does this move mean to someone like yourself, who supported his candidacy in 2008?

Baez: Part of that stuff comes from just being in office. I'm not defending him at all, but I know that people with those ideals and dreams, once you get into office, your hands are tied by so many people. My concern with Obama is, I don't know who he listens to. He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner — as kind of silly as that was and premature — but he could meet with Nobel Peace Prize winners who have moved mountains and he could do extraordinary things by not falling into the trap that I think he is: of waking up in the morning and meeting with the military. So that's all he gets for input, unless we can make ourselves heard somehow.​

We know, we know, she get's it from glen beck.
 
Last edited:
Can someone truthfully and honestly to the best of their understanding explain to me the difference between a conservative, a Republican, and the ideals each traditionally and modernly stand for? I hear those two classifications blending together and I am confused as they are almost interchangeable.
 
Can someone truthfully and honestly to the best of their understanding explain to me the difference between a conservative, a Republican, and the ideals each traditionally and modernly stand for? I hear those two classifications blending together and I am confused as they are almost interchangeable.

Who the hell knows these days, it's quite a fractured landscape.
 
lolz. So I point out the emperors clothes & the lemmings resort to sameole sameole dem playbook crap.
because this is certainly something important in the grand scheme of things :tard: your use of the emperor's new clothes shows that you not only fail to understand the current situation but you lack an understanding of the parable as well
no surprises here.


modicum of research semper? you and the other stooges would do well to form an original thought. not that anyone is expecting it.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.​
this is funny shit. Someone staple a copy of this Nobel presser to the reports of what's going on in the middle east and mail them to him. He could at least repeat that 'all options are on the table' line again.
obama m.o. stand back, watch it happen, then claim the results were your goals. lemmings cheer.[/QUOTE]

That is entirely different than what you suggested he received it for. You even proved yourself wrong. Good job, moron.
 
EBW90.jpg


:waw:
 
ANN COULTER: Don't Believe The Experts, Radiation Is Actually GOOD For You

http://www.businessinsider.com/ann-coulter-radiation-oreilly-video-2011-3

The writer lost me in the second paragraph. Maybe it was a good article, but this

Yes, you read that correctly. According to Ann Coulter, radiation is actually the cure for cancer, and, no, she was not talking about chemo levels of radiation.

shows me that the author isn't one who actually does anything but blog about shit, and gets misinformed from shit he reads in other blogs.

there is no such thing as chemo levels of radiation. Chemotherapy is chemistry based treatment of cancer. Radiation Oncology is radiation treatment for cancer.

Can't even understand that basic difference.

And all he did was to help the world become a little more uninformed and stupid.
 


well, it's certainly not in the constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.