bullets13

Ha. Winky face.

So I read the article. First off, let me say I have no problem with what the restaurant is doing. It's only logical that they'll have to find some way to make up the extra money that they're having to pay out. What gets me is the opinion piece you posted. He basically says that all liberals are in an uproar, tells us how stupid they are, but then posts quotes from a grand total of 1 (ONE) liberal who sounds, if we're perfectly honest, mildly concerned about the whole situation. So he tells you how stupid liberals are, how ridiculous it is that they're mad about this, and provides zero anecdotal evidence that they're actually upset.

I had just got through stating that I've gone after many people on here for attacking him with false accusations. You, however, defend him with false praise, which is as bad or worse. You have a really bad habit of ignoring things when they don't fit in with what you want to believe.

Reading the indictment, interviews with two different patients that he visited before his truck overheated state that he seemed "disoriented", and one patient said he stated he "felt sick", and spent a long time in their bathroom. They told him he should go home, but he said he had one more patient to see, but left going the wrong direction. Then his truck overheats at the store, and he runs away with nobody chasing him. I'm having a hard time following the claims of murder, but a bad reaction to drugs sounds pretty plausible. From the start I thought there was a real chance there was a coverup, but I highly doubt that a local country bumpkin coverup would somehow extend to the texas rangers and the Feds. The indictment also mentions that the wife admitted that he'd been acting strangely and she thought he "was on something" in the weeks leading up to his death.

It's probably been six months or more since I've quoted Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what that's all about, but its mostly full of facts. i have no problem with you accepting what's written in the bible as fact, but this thread was started based on one man's opinion piece based on his interpretation of scripture, not the scripture itself.

I actually heard that she could not pass her certification test, and had run out of the probationary time that she would be allowed to teach without it. But that's hearsay. I also heard she was married to a lawyer (also hearsay), so it would seem that even if she was about to be laid off they weren't about to go to the poor house, so I would assume there were other issues there.

Sorry bud, but it is a fact. How I feel about HIS opinion is an opinion, but there's no argument that it is in fact an opinion that was posted in the article.

It also says he said they "built the very fabric of our nation", which is the part that pissed everyone off, when in fact he thanked them for the contributions in helping build it. Big difference in meaning, and a big difference in what was said and what was quoted

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

I was strictly addressing your assertion that you had no idea why the article intentionally misquoted the president.

It was worded differently in the article than how he actually said it, which completely changed the context of the quote. The way the article worded it implied that he basically said that Muslims have built the framework of our country. The way he actually said it was that SOME Muslims have played a PART.

I'm sure that there is still the occasional case of discrimination that it remedies, but I believe it perpetrates many more cases of reverse discrimination, which goes against the purpose it is supposed to serve.

Steve and I get along fine, but we don't cut each other any slack. Given the opportunity, he will BOOM ROAST KAPOW the crap out of me.

You know the sources aren't valid. I refuse to believe you don't know better. I actually doubt you even read the links. But someone's known shortcomings does not mean that every lie told about them should be taken as fact. For instance, it would be unfair for me to take the fact that you choose to believe this swill (or at least pretend you do), and thus use that knowledge as a basis to believe everything Big Girl says about you. Nash buys into fake propaganda articles? Well, he must be racist too because big girl says so. It just doesn't make sense. The same principles apply to Obama. Just because he screwed some things up doesn't mean that every lie or misquote attributed to him should be taken as fact.

I guess if I take liberty with 1000 more quotes Smitty and I'll be even. And since you never question him, always giving a very serious response to his posts, I guess I owe you 1000 more as well.

I don't believe he's saying nobody should be on it. He's simply saying that those who treat it as a career rather than a tool to get a leg up should not be allowed to do so. That is not hypocritical.

Diving again? Someone deserves a spanking!

I support food stamps and government assistance. I do not support them as a career choice for those who are too lazy to work. Him not wanting to foot the bill for the lazy does not make him an Uncle Tom.

When the subject intentionally misquotes people to fit the narrative they're trying to spin, this creating a fake talking point, I'd say it's unworthy to be posted.

Wow. Unbelievable! You don't understand the very valid point he made? SMH

I DO know. The way the propaganda site "quoted" it is much more inflammatory, and better riles up its "low information readers".

At one time it was needed to ensure people like big girl's dad a shot at getting hired when they DESERVED to get hired. Now it seems that more often than not it is used to get chances that are given at the expense of better candidates. If your scores are good enough, you'll get the scholarship or the job if you deserve it, regardless of race now. And in situations where someone is passed over unfairly, our legal system can now be trusted to make things right. To me, affirmative action is an outdated law that now discriminates against deserving applicants, which counters the reasons it was established in the first place.

That passage did not come out of your "book of facts". That is someone's interpretive opinion formed from THEIR interpretation of your "book of facts".

I was smashing TVC but he made a nice rally at the end

Huh? Factual? It's just one big long opinion.