http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/cape-cod-community-considers-taking-down-wind-turbines-after-illness-noise/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/cape-cod-community-considers-taking-down-wind-turbines-after-illness-noise/?test=latestnews)
I couldn't resist posting this as a little comic relief from a bunch of libs. I am making the assumption the great majority of the people in this community are libs considering the location. The turbines cost $10M and it will be $5M-$15M to deconstruct them. Another effort at green energy not being what it was thought to be. :lol: :lol:
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 26, 2013, 10:24:05 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/cape-cod-community-considers-taking-down-wind-turbines-after-illness-noise/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/cape-cod-community-considers-taking-down-wind-turbines-after-illness-noise/?test=latestnews)
I couldn't resist posting this as a little comic relief from a bunch of libs. I am making the assumption the great majority of the people in this community are libs considering the location. The turbines cost $10M and it will be $5M-$15M to deconstruct them. Another effort at green energy not being what it was thought to be. :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: It's ok as long as it is not in my back yard. :lol: :lol:
Idiot libs!!!
Foulmouth is quite fitting for a leftist community.
But I say idiots because they could auction these off and possibly save a few bucks, not that there is a real honest market demand for this crap, but someone out there would take it off their hands for nothing.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 10:44:34 AM
Idiot libs!!!
Foulmouth is quite fitting for a leftist community.
But I say idiots because they could auction these off and possibly save a few bucks, not that there is a real honest market demand for this crap, but someone out there would take it off their hands for nothing.
Will Obama come to their rescue and waste some more of OUR money?
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 26, 2013, 10:54:54 AM
Will Obama come to their rescue and waste some more of OUR money?
Hmmm, that's a good question.
I suspect a more aggressive approach on his behalf, where investigators will be sent in to disprove this as a Conservative attempt to discredit Green energy. :laugh:
Little history lesson. Once upon a time all ships used sails. The wind was free, and after the era of galley slaves, it was the only way to get around. Then along came steam, and pretty soon everyone who could afford to do so was powered by steam engines - even little harbor craft and small fishing boats. Why? Because the wind doesn't always blow - and sometimes it blows too much. So it's better to have power source subject to your control. Incidentally - seen any factories run by windmills recently? There used to be a lot of those around too, you know, mills and such.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 26, 2013, 11:30:30 AM
Little history lesson. Once upon a time all ships used sails. The wind was free, and after the era of galley slaves, it was the only way to get around. Then along came steam, and pretty soon everyone who could afford to do so was powered by steam engines - even little harbor craft and small fishing boats. Why? Because the wind doesn't always blow - and sometimes it blows too much. So it's better to have power source subject to your control. Incidentally - seen any factories run by windmills recently? There used to be a lot of those around too, you know, mills and such.
Libs usurp the moniker "Progressive", but want to take us into the past.
And they are probably totally afraid of fracking that has a safe record that spans decades. I was in the environmental industry for a long time and I had no doubt that windmills were a guaranteed problem given that they have to be located where the air is unrestricted so their power has to be transmitted along power-lines from places where they did not exist. Plus you add in the tiny little problem that they are not cost effective it really is a no brainier that they are more a novelty than a solution. Yea and you have to have 100 percent capacity from another source anyway for when the wind does not blow or it blows to strong or it is to hot or too cold or they are down for maintenance. Someone seriously has to be stupid, a liar or a con man to push these windmills as a possible solution to our energy problem.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Libs usurp the moniker "Progressive", but want to take us into the past.
What I like most about them, is they want everything to be solar powered - but seem to have forgotten that about half of each day is night - when everybody turns on the lights - and the need for power goes up.
Again libs prove their ignorance, rules and laws and green stuff is for the commoners not them! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: raptor5618 on February 26, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
And they are probably totally afraid of fracking that has a safe record that spans decades. I was in the environmental industry for a long time and I had no doubt that windmills were a guaranteed problem given that they have to be located where the air is unrestricted so their power has to be transmitted along power-lines from places where they did not exist. Plus you add in the tiny little problem that they are not cost effective it really is a no brainier that they are more a novelty than a solution. Yea and you have to have 100 percent capacity from another source anyway for when the wind does not blow or it blows to strong or it is to hot or too cold or they are down for maintenance. Someone seriously has to be stupid, a liar or a con man to push these windmills as a possible solution to our energy problem.
And the answer is....Green socialist agenda to destroy our ability to produce.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 11:49:09 AM
And the answer is....Green socialist agenda to destroy our ability to produce.
I agree but I think they find it is easier to sell a fantasy than a reality. They are selling to city people who have lost touch with the circle of life. They believe that nothing bad should ever happen, that consequences do not exist and that everything man made is going to kill them. They eat food that uses organic pesticides that are more harmful than synthetic pesticides just so they can say they are eating organic and pay more to do it too. It is just like they think the Land of OZ is really a place and Kansas is the fake nasty place.
Apparently there are enough followers that are like little kids. How many of you told your kids that if they are good at the doctors you will get them ice cream or a toy or what ever. Works every time and well maybe I am a bad parent but cannot say that I gave them something after the doctors every-time. Yes disregard the pain and discomfort you are about to get ice cream.
Quote from: raptor5618 on February 26, 2013, 12:10:54 PM
I agree but I think they find it is easier to sell a fantasy than a reality. They are selling to city people who have lost touch with the circle of life. They believe that nothing bad should ever happen, that consequences do not exist and that everything man made is going to kill them. They eat food that uses organic pesticides that are more harmful than synthetic pesticides just so they can say they are eating organic and pay more to do it too. It is just like they think the Land of OZ is really a place and Kansas is the fake nasty place.
Apparently there are enough followers that are like little kids. How many of you told your kids that if they are good at the doctors you will get them ice cream or a toy or what ever. Works every time and well maybe I am a bad parent but cannot say that I gave them something after the doctors every-time. Yes disregard the pain and discomfort you are about to get ice cream.
It's just more evidence that the left are followers, they jump on every fad the left puts forward, which is why the Green/socialist BS was so easy to foist upon them, they're basically ignorant people.
I had a couple of friends that thought of themselves as thoughtful Independents that couldn't be swayed, and they thought it was so wonderful that I had a alternative energy business, because as they put it, the UN is right, we need to save the planet.
When I explained the hype behind it and how it was a socialist movement designed to kill our energy sector, they thought I was some kind of nut, that was 15 years ago, and of course time proved I was right, but these so called informed people refuse to listen to reason, which is why the left is so hard to get through to.
They believe the hype that they can personally save the planet by backing these environmental schemes, because they were swayed by emotion, not fact.
It's been an uphill battle but one I think we are actually finally winning.
Lib business model...get money from Govt...fail...blame it on conservatives...whine for more money from Govt to support failing business.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 26, 2013, 04:06:14 PM
Lib business model...get money from Govt...fail...blame it on conservatives...whine for more money from Govt to support failing business.
Billy
That is pretty much the exact model...
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 26, 2013, 10:24:05 AMI couldn't resist posting this as a little comic relief from a bunch of libs. I am making the assumption the great majority of the people in this community are libs considering the location... :lol: :lol:
Actually, Barnstable County, MA:
QuoteDemocratic 44,070 26.48%
Republican 27,687 16.63%
Unaffiliated 93,815 56.36%
Minor Parties 881 0.53%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnstable_County,_Massachusetts#Politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnstable_County,_Massachusetts#Politics)
And, 2012:
QuoteObama-Biden 12,842
Romney-Ryan 12,290
Elizabeth Warren 11,360
Scott Brown 14,046
http://barnstable-hyannis.patch.com/articles/barnstable-election-results-2012?logout=true (http://barnstable-hyannis.patch.com/articles/barnstable-election-results-2012?logout=true)
Obama got the same percentage he did nationally, 51%, and the Republican, Brown, trounced Warren in a state that Warren won. It's exactly as stupid as a MA resident "making the assumption the great majority of the people in" Asheville are cons "considering the (NC) location." Didn't anyone in this echo chamber think to check?
Irony. :lol: :lol:
All energy sources other than reasonable conservation have their downsides. If there are minor negatives in Falmouth, at least they're being experienced by the energy consumers. Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
Actually, Barnstable County, MA:And, 2012:Obama got the same percentage he did nationally, 51%, and the Republican, Brown, trounced Warren in a state that Warren won. It's exactly as stupid as a MA resident "making the assumption the great majority of the people in" Asheville are cons "considering the (NC) location." Didn't anyone in this echo chamber think to check?
Irony. :lol: :lol:
All energy sources other than reasonable conservation have their downsides. If there are minor negatives in Falmouth, at least they're being experienced by the energy consumers. Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption.
Explain.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Libs usurp the moniker "Progressive", but want to take us into the past.
Aha! You just touched onto more than irony. While taking us back into the anals of time, these idiot libs are part and parcel of the same bunch that thinks we all came from monkeys or fish-heck, I lost track of how many different opinions out there that the libs have that are contrary to accepted information. Their opinions are an attempt to rewrite not only history but science and anything else that makes sense. How does continually going backasswards push us foward? :woot:
"...Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption."
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 04:39:21 PMExplain.
Subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, etc. - with nukes and fossil fuels. If you, taxed, believe that consumer energy prices should reflect their true costs, all of them, so that the market can operate accurately and efficiently then I am not referring to you.
What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here?
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 04:58:49 PM
"...Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption."Subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, etc. - with nukes and fossil fuels. If you, taxed, believe that consumer energy prices should reflect their true costs, all of them, so that the market can operate accurately and efficiently then I am not referring to you.
What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here?
I know you are pent up and want to go down a laundry list of idiocy, but let's take them one at a time. Count to 10.
First, conservatives aren't for energy subsidies. That is entirely a liberal/big government thing. Please show the forum where conservatives favor energy subsidies. Liberals/big government ruined solar, are driving up gas prices, fighting fracking, fighting against nuclear, and on and on. Conservatives want smaller government and more freedom to innovate and produce energy -- and yes, as the free market dictates. Again, please explain your attempt to hang the energy problems on conservatives.
Second, I have no idea what supsalesmgr's position is on Falmouth. If it was anti-capitalist and big-government, then debates will ensue. Otherwise, I haven't seen that, so please tell the class where he is big-government. I don't think he is, and have seen zero evidence as such.
I am 100% for the free market dictating energy costs, and innovation, hence why I'm a conservative and not a liberal.
When you reply, please take a moment to breath, take your time, and articulate yourself. You can do it.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
All energy sources other than reasonable conservation have their downsides. If there are minor negatives in Falmouth, at least they're being experienced by the energy consumers. Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption.
English?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:25:02 PM
English?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Thanks goodness it isn't just me. It looks like he's trying to blame the link in the OP on conservatives. I'm hoping he has the intellect to articulate that position.
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:26:49 PM
Thanks goodness it isn't just me. It looks like he's trying to blame the link in the OP on conservatives. I'm hoping he has the intellect to articulate that position.
I read it several times, it sounds like he is an advocate for Green. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:33:47 PM
I read it several times, it sounds like he is an advocate for Green. :laugh:
A "free market" greenie?? hahahaha
It's adorable when they try and load up all their talking points into one post.
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:36:19 PM
A "free market" greenie?? hahahaha
It's adorable when they try and load up all their talking points into one post.
He's right about one thing though, I love watching libs suffer for being stupid enough to fall for the Big Green Hype. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:39:34 PM
He's right about one thing though, I love watching libs suffer for being stupid enough to fall for the Big Green Hype. :laugh:
This goes back to my "liberals are less intelligent" thread. What kind of moron falls for this??
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:41:25 PM
This goes back to my "liberals are less intelligent" thread. What kind of moron falls for this??
Wait, you mean there are
types of morons?
I just assumed they were all the same, you know, the low information voters...
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:55:00 PM
Wait, you mean there are types of morons?
I just assumed they were all the same, you know, the low information voters...
Indeed, but they have different smells. For example, the OWS moron is just as stupid as a San Fransisco elitist moron, but one of them smells like a sewer. Oddly, they like to congregate at coffee shops.
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:21:21 PM
I know you are pent up and want to go down a laundry list of idiocy, but let's take them one at a time. Count to 10.
First, conservatives aren't for energy subsidies.
If you are unaware of the many, many, many direct and indirect subsidies (I only listed a few) enjoyed by nukes and fossil fuels and supported by cons, I'm afraid that I don't have enough time to help you. Have you heard of Google?
That is entirely a liberal/big government thing.
Wrong, the subsidies received by sustainable energy producers are a tiny fraction of that given to nukes and fossil fuels.
Please show the forum where conservatives favor energy subsidies. Liberals/big government ruined solar,
Huh?
are driving up gas prices,
The ones that have never reflected the true costs.
fighting fracking,
Subsidized with our clean water.
fighting against nuclear,
Subsidized with huge loan guarantees and liability limits.
and on and on. Conservatives want smaller government and more freedom to innovate and produce energy -- and yes, as the free market dictates. Again, please explain your attempt to hang the energy problems on conservatives.
I didn't, I just posted, truthfully that many cons have long supported subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels. As for hanging "the energy problems on conservatives", we've all done our part. Why do you feel the need to create a straw man in lieu of addressing what I actually posted?
Second, I have no idea what supsalesmgr's position is on Falmouth. If it was anti-capitalist and big-government, then debates will ensue. Otherwise, I haven't seen that, so please tell the class where he is big-government. I don't think he is, and have seen zero evidence as such.
His position, as he clearly posted and I clearly debunked is that it's liberal. Are you ducking now? The position of every other poster here is that supsalesmgr must be correct because it's in MA, and none showed the initiative to check.
I am 100% for the free market dictating energy costs, and innovation, hence why I'm a conservative and not a liberal.
Good for you. Now get your GOP reps to actually be conservative and end the anti-free market subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, dirty water, loan guarantees, liability limits, etc. - for nukes and fossil fuels.
When you reply, please take a moment to breath, take your time, and articulate yourself. You can do it.
No problem. Will you also stop creating inaccurate straw men out of what I do post? I doubt you can do it.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:25:02 PM
English?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
It was elaborated on in a subsequent post. I can't help it if your dogma creates language blinders.
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:26:49 PM
Thanks goodness it isn't just me. It looks like he's trying to blame the link in the OP on conservatives. I'm hoping he has the intellect to articulate that position.
Actually, what I
clearly did was debunk supsalemgr's uninformed and false assumption that Falmouth is liberal, along with pointing out that every other poster here, including Solar, was gullible enough to believe him. At best it is moderate, though the vote for Brown over Warren might suggest that it leans con.
It's not my problem that supsalemgr and the others chose to ridicule a place that votes GOP, take it up with them.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:35:32 PM
It was elaborated on in a subsequent post. I can't help it if your dogma creates language blinders.
Yeah, I read that mess the best I could, (learn to use the quote function) but you neglect the main point, Green energy regardless of subsidy is a Complete and utter failure on a grand scale.
Ng, nuclear and Hydro are all proven sources of cheap energy and readily available, if Govt would get out of the way, there would be no need for subsidies.
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:36:19 PM
A "free market" greenie?? hahahaha
It's adorable when they try and load up all their talking points into one post.
Despite my posting it very coherently, you remain confused. hahahaha
I am fine with free market energy policy. Get rid of all the anti-free market subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, dirty water, loan guarantees, liability limits, etc. - for nukes and fossil fuels, and then the subsidies for sustainable energy and I'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.
But, we all know that will never happen. Con these days means shilling for corporate welfare and has nothing at all to do with being ideologically conservative. It's adorable that y'all pretend otherwise.
Again - What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here? It's not very courageous of you to have ducked it 6 times now, taxed. Does "con" also mean endorsing con fallacies rather than proven truth? That didn't used to be ideologically conservative, either.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:41:51 PM
Actually, what I clearly did was debunk supsalemgr's uninformed and false assumption that Falmouth is liberal, along with pointing out that every other poster here, including Solar, was gullible enough to believe him. At best it is moderate, though the vote for Brown over Warren might suggest that it leans con.
It's not my problem that supsalemgr and the others chose to ridicule a place that votes GOP, take it up with them.
You debunked nothing, It's Mass for crying out loud and the fact that these people were stupid enough to buy into the hype of so called Green Energy is proof they're liberal.
Conservatives know better, we knew long before Husein forced the Nation into this plot to destroy our energy infrastructure that is was a boondoggle.
It was a feel good for libs and a kick in the balls of the country.
A Massachusetts liberal is a typically ultra-liberal in or from Massachusetts, in many ways the most liberal state in the United States. It is the only state where it is a crime, with a mandatory prison sentence of at least one year, to transport a lawfully owned gun for a lawful purpose in an automobile without a special permit. Out-of-state drivers traveling to hunting or gun competitions in the Northeast have to choose between going hours out of their way to avoid Massachusetts, or spending hours attempting to obtain a permit.[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Massachusetts_liberal (http://www.conservapedia.com/Massachusetts_liberal)
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Despite my posting it very coherently, you remain confused. hahahaha
I am fine with free market energy policy. Get rid of all the anti-free market subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, dirty water, loan guarantees, liability limits, etc. - for nukes and fossil fuels, and then the subsidies for sustainable energy and I'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.
But, we all know that will never happen. Con these days means shilling for corporate welfare and has nothing at all to do with being ideologically conservative. It's adorable that y'all pretend otherwise.
Again - What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here? It's not very courageous of you to have ducked it 6 times now, taxed. Does "con" also mean endorsing con fallacies rather than proven truth? That didn't used to be ideologically conservative, either.
OK, back that confidence up with proof.
I'll add, meaning in full competition with accepted energy, like comparing cost of watt and let the customer decide which they want, the cheap cost of nuclear, hydro, or the cost per watt of solar, wind.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Yeah, I read that mess the best I could, (learn to use the quote function)
I've quoted every post I've replied to. Why be dishonest about that? It's not my problem that this format, unlike most others, makes sub-quotes disappear. I'm just not going to go to a lot of extra effort to rectify your confusion or your inability to look back and comprehend.
but you neglect the main point, Green energy regardless of subsidy
False narrative. You can't ignore the massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels.
is a Complete and utter failure on a grand scale.
Wrong, it's been quite successful notwithstanding a handful of failed loans.
Ng,
"Ng"?
nuclear
Most subsidized of all. You just endorsed socialism.
and Hydro
Hydro is not the worst and in some applications can be considered "green". That said, most hydro has been and is a government thing. You just endorsed socialism, again.
are all proven sources of cheap energy and readily available, if Govt would get out of the way, there would be no need for subsidies.
If government gets out of the way fossil fuel and nuclear power prices will skyrocket, as they should in a truly free market where all true costs are reflected in the consumer purchase price.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:07:12 PM
If government gets out of the way fossil fuel and nuclear power prices will skyrocket, as they should in a truly free market where all true costs are reflected in the consumer purchase price.
Pure BS, solar is more heavily subsidized than any other energy, yet it still costs more per watt than it's closest competitor.
For this reason Husein tried to stop drilling on Federal lands, has all but killed coal.
He didn't like the cheap competition.
I'll be back in the morning to finish this, it's getting late.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
You debunked nothing, It's Mass for crying out loud
I see, in your strange world every county in a state that votes Dem is the same as that state. Wow.
and the fact that these people were stupid enough to buy into the hype of so called Green Energy is proof they're liberal.
Silly, they voted GOP.
Conservatives know better, we knew long before Husein forced the Nation into this plot to destroy our energy infrastructure
I see, you're one of them. :rolleyes:
that is was a boondoggle.
It was a feel good for libs and a kick in the balls of the country.
We're producing far more oil and natural gas than we ever did under Bush. Didn't you know?
(long, irrelevant rant about Massachusetts that has nothing to do with Falmouth's voting patterns)
supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:12:57 PM
Pure BS, solar is more heavily subsidized than any other energy,
Wrong, you're just making things up now. Look up the Price-Anderson Act or tell us which wars we've entered to protect access to the sun.
yet it still costs more per watt than it's closest competitor.
Agreed, but this thread is about wind, not solar electric which is one of the least green of the green energy sources.
For this reason Husein tried to stop drilling on Federal lands,
We're producing far more oil and natural gas than we ever did under Bush. Didn't you know?
has all but killed coal.
He hasn't done nearly enough to stop Big Coal from foisting their true costs off on all of us, but every informed person knows that it's the fracking boom that has really hurt coal. You're just making things up again.
He didn't like the cheap competition.
Coal is only "cheap" because it's actual costs are not reflected in the price thanks mostly to "con" lovers of corporate welfare.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:15:05 PM
supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.
Learn the quote function, it really is easy.
But I was not duped in the slightest, liberals are gullible beyond belief where Green energy is concerned.
The people elected these morons as leaders of community and the fact that they decided to install this crap is a glaring example of stupidity, it costs more than it's worth, maintenance costs are ridiculous, they kill thousand of birds yearly, they're noisy, and require steady wind between 25 and no higher than 50 Mph.
Did I mention noise? It was a feel good move, they didn't research it, had they done so, they would never have stuck it so close to people, let alone even bought them.
No, that my friend is the business move of a nonthinking liberal, pure and simple.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:15:05 PM
supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.
No true price is reflected where Govt is involved.
Get Govt out of the way and all prices would plummet.
Still waiting for that proof that solar could compete in a level playing field.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
Learn the quote function, it really is easy.
I've quoted every post I've replied to. Why be dishonest about that?
But I was not duped in the slightest...
Sure you were. On page one you endorsed supsalemgr's fallacy that Falmouth is liberal. Be a big boy and just admit it.
...It was a feel good move, they didn't research it, had they done so, they would never have stuck it so close to people...
You may be correct, but that's a planning issue, not a wind energy issue. And who were the planners? Why, folks that just voted 55-45 for the GOP Senate candidate.
No, that my friend is the business move of a nonthinking liberal, pure and simple.
Got it, in your bizarre world people that vote GOP are liberals when they screw up. That's a hoot!
Learn to quote what you're replying to, it really is easy. Instead you quoted a sentence about supsalemgr's Falmouth civics flub while replying about energy.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:25:27 PM
No true price is reflected where Govt is involved.
Get Govt out of the way and all prices would plummet.
Wrong. Nukes couldn't afford the insurance if their liability wasn't limited by government fiat and none of us would be driving cars if Exxon had to defend its own supply routes. Those are just 2 of the many, many ways that government is currently making prices cheap.
Still waiting
First time you asked, no wonder you're waiting.
for that proof that solar
This thread is about wind. Why are you still confused about that? I pointed out your straw man earlier.
could compete in a level playing field.
Others have made the case, try Google. All I've done is say that I think so. However, given the huge direct and indirect corporate welfare that so-called cons have long supported, you can't prove that it won't.
Paging Senator Kennedy...
There has been a great deal of secret experimentation by the Military with the use of Sound as a weapon.
Very Low frequencies particularly of 7 Hz and 3.5 Hz and cause organ damage or death with enough decibels
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
Noise-induced neurologic disturbances in humans exposed to continuous low frequency tones for durations longer than 15 minutes has involved in some cases the development of immediate and long term problems affecting brain tissue. The symptoms resembled those of individuals who had suffered minor head injuries. One theory for a causal mechanism is that the prolonged sound exposure resulted in enough mechanical strain to brain tissue to induce an encephalopathy
The Wind Turbine generate a very low frequency sound in the sound produce by the Turbines. How come no one has ever seen the alleged exhaustive studies that were done to make sure there were no acoustic audio damage to animals or humans!
I fully believe the couple that said they became Ill.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:31:04 PM
Got it, in your bizarre world people that vote GOP are liberals when they screw up. That's a hoot!
No son, in the real world, those that vote emotionally are liberal.
And anyone that believes Green energy is even remotely viable is a bleeding heart Idiot, it is a Stand Alone energy source when no other is available.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:42:12 PM
Learn to quote what you're replying to, it really is easy. Instead you quoted a sentence about supsalemgr's Falmouth civics flub while replying about energy.Others have made the case, try Google. All I've done is say that I think so. However, given the huge direct and indirect corporate welfare that so-called cons have long supported, you can't prove that it won't.
See, this is where you've failed miserably, Republicans may in some cases and RINO in every case back corporate subsidy, however on this forum we are Conservatives and want Govt completely out of the Free mkt.
Your lib misconceptions are tantamount to to your belief that emotion is equivalent to thinking.
It's akin to me claiming all libs wear pink panty's, even though all of you do get them in a knot when proven wrong, at least we know they aren't all pink.
Quote from: Cyborg on February 26, 2013, 10:08:26 PM
There has been a great deal of secret experimentation by the Military with the use of Sound as a weapon.
Very Low frequencies particularly of 7 Hz and 3.5 Hz and cause organ damage or death with enough decibels
The Wind Turbine generate a very low frequency sound in the sound produce by the Turbines. How come no one has ever seen the alleged exhaustive studies that were done to make sure there were no acoustic audio damage to animals or humans!
I fully believe the couple that said they became Ill.
They've been done and buried for obvious reasons, Husein's Green Agenda.
Quote"The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies."
http://docs.wind-watch.org/schomer-shirley.pdf (http://docs.wind-watch.org/schomer-shirley.pdf)
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
Actually, Barnstable County, MA:And, 2012:Obama got the same percentage he did nationally, 51%, and the Republican, Brown, trounced Warren in a state that Warren won. It's exactly as stupid as a MA resident "making the assumption the great majority of the people in" Asheville are cons "considering the (NC) location." Didn't anyone in this echo chamber think to check?
Irony. :lol: :lol:
All energy sources other than reasonable conservation have their downsides. If there are minor negatives in Falmouth, at least they're being experienced by the energy consumers. Supsalemgr and many cons are consistent advocates for others having to suffer majorly for their consumption.
This is Vrede from the BRD forum. She posted the same post on that board trying to bait me into responding. The administratoer of that board posted two posts from this board.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 05:50:55 AM
This is Vrede from the BRD forum. She posted the same post on that board trying to bait me into responding. The administratoer of that board posted two posts from this board.
I have no idea who this person is, but their every post supports my argument even further.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 05:54:43 AM
I have no idea who this person is, but their every post supports my argument even further.
She is one of the libs with many names. In reading the posts and style it is very clear who it is. Eventually she will evolve into disparaging remarks as her posts are debunked.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 05:50:55 AM
This is Vrede from the BRD forum. She posted the same post on that board trying to bait me into responding. The administratoer of that board posted two posts from this board.
The master of a hundred or so Forum Names from a Liberal websites. And has been banned from nearly everyone at least a dozen times and keeps coming back until the site closes down.
Wow to have a mental illness and access to the internet. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yea it's her, first thing will be the denial then the lies then the insults and name calling when she is proven wrong, which is usually with every post.
They are so desperate they come here and steal post (they have a few of mine over their I see) to put over at their liberal site because no one visits it anymore not even their own lib friends.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes many or at least the last of the libs who still post there have bragged about being banned and having their post deleted. It was all potty mouth stuff no substance.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:33:23 PM
If you are unaware of the many, many, many direct and indirect subsidies (I only listed a few) enjoyed by nukes and fossil fuels and supported by cons, I'm afraid that I don't have enough time to help you. Have you heard of Google?
Barth, can you please try and generate enough brain power to figure out the quoting functionality? It really isn't that hard. We'll discuss your responses, one at a time.
A few things. First, government subsidies are never supported by conservatives. Please show us where conservatives or conservative policy is for government subsidies. You brought it into the discussion, so please elaborate on your supporting points.
We are still waiting for you to answer Solar's question instead of hiding behind your go-to "heard of Google" response, like you did with me. You put it into play, so back it up. This is where libs, like yourself, fail 100% of the time; just try not to fail so hard, please.
Reagrding the sound weapons, I've always been partial to the "crap-your-pants-gun".
What a nasty little development, lol. I'd pay to see that rolled out on an OWS gaggle. Not that watching them all shit their pants would be a whole lot different than ther previously demonstrated habits, but it would be funny.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:41:51 PM
Actually, what I clearly did was debunk supsalemgr's uninformed and false assumption that Falmouth is liberal, along with pointing out that every other poster here, including Solar, was gullible enough to believe him. At best it is moderate, though the vote for Brown over Warren might suggest that it leans con.
No you didn't. Even if we were to assume your assertion that the city is "conservative" because more voted for Brown, you would be shooting yourself in the foot, because Brown is a lib RINO. I know you want to have your circular reference cake and eat it too, but you must accept that if a Republican behaves like a liberal, that makes them liberal. People are defined by their actions, and Brown is a lib; he just wasn't as radical and more palatable to the liberal town when they voted Brown, apparently. That doesn't place the blame of the support for wind, solar, and other failed experiments on conservatives. Please try to be more creative than that.
Quote
It's not my problem that supsalemgr and the others chose to ridicule a place that votes GOP, take it up with them.
He posted about the town, who if I had to guess, was probably misled by some state entity promising them all sorts of liberal goodies if they take on the windmills.
Quote from: AndyJackson on February 27, 2013, 09:58:51 AM
Reagrding the sound weapons, I've always been partial to the "crap-your-pants-gun".
What a nasty little development, lol. I'd pay to see that rolled out on an OWS gaggle. Not that watching them all shit their pants would be a whole lot different than ther previously demonstrated habits, but it would be funny.
Hahahaha
They should build a little OWS town right under those things and let them build a little community there, then make it into a reality show!
You can tell the lib by their incessant recitations of how everyone else is ignorant, stupid, gullible, dumb, racist, etc.
Now keep in mind, said liberal is probably from 15 to 25, still a child or minimally an adult who has avoided college, jobs, and having a family, like the plague.
The only other variant is an older failed person, who never got past this 15-25 mentality.
And they know it all ! Classic Obama voter.
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:42:12 PM
Learn to quote what you're replying to, it really is easy. Instead you quoted a sentence about supsalemgr's Falmouth civics flub while replying about energy.Others have made the case, try Google. All I've done is say that I think so. However, given the huge direct and indirect corporate welfare that so-called cons have long supported, you can't prove that it won't.
No....that is what we call a lie...
First you claimed you were confident, now you want us to believe "You think so"?
Let's put your words on display so others know what were talking about.
You claimed:
Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Despite my posting it very coherently, you remain confused. hahahaha
I'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.
So for the third time, I'll repeat my question.
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:03:44 PM
OK, back that confidence up with proof.
I'll add, meaning in full competition with accepted energy, like comparing cost of watt and let the customer decide which they want, the cheap cost of nuclear, hydro, or the cost per watt of solar, wind.
Now, quote this page and study how the quote function actually works.
On another point, Hydro is a renewable source, but EIA refused to include it as an renewable energy with solar, wind, biomass etc, because... Wait for it....
We haven't built a new dam since before Husein was born, so he does not get credit for it.
But shock of all shocks, he insisted EIA include it anyway and it backfired.Now I know this is a lot for a lib to absorb, but let me put up some pretty pics that you might be able to grasp.Quote
The graph below illustrates the history of the production of electricity by renewables during the last decade. Hydro, at 41 GW in 1997 and 28 GW in 2007, is not included because the other renewables would not be distinguishable on that scale. Electricity delivered from all renewables combined decreased from 49 GW in 1997 to 34 GW in 2007 mainly because of the drop in hydro and despite the illustrated increase in wind-derived electricity. For comparison, while renewables' contribution declined, overall electricity consumption in the US grew from 403 GW in 1997 to 440 GW in 2007.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.energytribune.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FET_091010Graphic1.jpg&hash=a699ff838d65c992868d7412ae727c20bae08f30)
[b]Now lets see how all this wonderful Green energy compares to real energy production, shall we?[/b]
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fcleanenergy%2Fimages%2Fpie_chart_fuel_mix.gif&hash=a69b12e2780aeac289de448b779520f77c7cec2e)
I really hope none of this was over your head, if it was, just ask and I'll happily go into more detail.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:59:24 AM
No son, in the real world, those that vote emotionally are liberal.
I see, in your bizarre world cons that vote con based on social issues are liberals. Wow.
The fact is that Falmouth is provably moderate to con, supsalemgr screwed up calling it lib, you bought it, and you're lamely trying to duck his and your flubs.
And anyone that believes Green energy is even remotely viable is a bleeding heart Idiot, it is a Stand Alone energy source when no other is available.
Wrong, still. It's competitive here some already, including some of the hydro that you strangely think is not green, and much more so other places where nukes and fossil fuels don't get the massive corporate welfare that you refuse to admit even exists, or that it's been promoted and defended largely by anti-free market cons.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 05:05:52 AM
See, this is where you've failed miserably, Republicans may in some cases and RINO in every case back corporate subsidy, however on this forum we are Conservatives and want Govt completely out of the Free mkt...
You, a supposed con, have yet to admit that nukes and fossil fuels get far more in direct and indirect subsidies than green energy does. If you're way of claiming that you're a free marketer is only possible if you deny reality, you're no free marketer at all.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 02:28:55 PM
You, a supposed con, have yet to admit that nukes and fossil fuels get far more in direct and indirect subsidies than green energy does. If you're way of claiming that you're a free marketer is only possible if you deny reality, you're no free marketer at all.
I see Vrede is still responding to her own posts.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 05:50:55 AM
This is Vrede from the BRD forum. She posted the same post on that board trying to bait me into responding. The administratoer of that board posted two posts from this board.
Looks like you're diverting from the fact that you screwed up from the get-go in describing Falmouth as liberal. It makes no difference who points it out, man up, your premise completely falls apart when it turns out to have gone 55-45 for the GOP Senate candidate.
Irony.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 02:31:41 PM
I see John Barth is still responding to her own posts.
No, I responded to Solar, as everyone can see from my quote of her/him. Why are you choosing dishonesty and why do you think you can get away with it on the same page?
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Wrong, still. It's competitive here some already, including some of the hydro that you strangely think is not green, and much more so other places where nukes and fossil fuels don't get the massive corporate welfare that you refuse to admit even exists, or that it's been promoted and defended largely by anti-free market cons.
Completely ignored post #59.
Now go back and respond, and I suggest you answer my earlier question.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 09:52:24 AM
Barth, can you please try and generate enough brain power to figure out the quoting functionality? It really isn't that hard.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Every one of my posts includes the quote I'm responding to and who posted it.
We'll discuss your responses, one at a time.
A few things. First, government subsidies are never supported by conservatives. Please show us where conservatives or conservative policy is for government subsidies. You brought it into the discussion, so please elaborate on your supporting points.
Nukes, fossil fuels and, as it turns out, the community that supsalemgr falsely called lib, which all of you swallowed without checking.
We are still waiting for you to answer Solar's question...
If you mean the direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels, I have in detail. If you mean proving that green can compete on a level playing field, it was his straw man. I have no responsibility to address his inventions.
Can you answer my question? Solar didn't. Prove that it can't.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 02:45:31 PM
Completely ignored post #59...
I'm working my way down to it, you're whining too soon.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Wrong, still. It's competitive here some already, including some of the hydro that you strangely think is not green, and much more so other places where nukes and fossil fuels don't get the massive corporate welfare that you refuse to admit even exists, or that it's been promoted and defended largely by anti-free market cons.
And no!!! Hydro is Not Green, associating an efficient energy with the term Green is pure BS!
Is it renewable? Absolutely yes, but is it Green, like all the other BS the socialists are trying to cram down our throats, absolutely not! Green means socialism, learn your history.
Besides, you can't include hydro anyway, we haven't built a new dam in Husein's lifetime, so he is not entitled to include it as party of his socialist scheme.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 10:03:11 AM
...Even if we were to assume your assertion that the city is "conservative" because more voted for Brown, you would be shooting yourself in the foot, because Brown is a lib RINO...
They voted for the more conservative candidate. It may be news to you but that's how our system works. By any sane definition based on voter registration and voting patterns Falmouth is moderate to con, supsalemgr messed up in calling it liberal, y'all swallowed it, and neither he nor you can bring yourselves to admit it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 02:31:41 PM
I see Vrede is still responding to her own posts.
Thought I recognized the style from another forum, a dead one at that. Susales, is this truly the same person? Sure sounds like the same brain-dead person that lurked on the last forum you and I were on together-although I was on it with a different user name. Not to worry, we know exactly how long they last here. These kind generally can't keep their insults down even if they keep their facts straight. Too funny how they always wind up gloating to themselves in their own mirrors. Nobody else will put up with them. :biggrin:
Solar, "confident" and "think" are both opinions. You lied in saying that I said I it was fact and are now lying in claiming I've lied about what I posted. I do note that you have chosen not to look it up for yourself. Easier for your reality that way?
There's a simple solution - get your con reps to end all energy subsidies - Exxon defends it's own sources and transportation routes, nukes insure themselves fully for their potential liability like every other energy source does, etc. - and we'll see what the market decides. But, we all know that this will never happen, 4 pages now and you can't even admit that the non-green energy gets subsidized.
I don't care what "EIA" (?) or Obama says about hydro, as you now admit it's renewable and thus green in some applications and you were wrong to first cite is an example of non-green.
As for your statements about the world getting more energy from non-renewables - duh! My point all along is that they're massively subsidized, directly or with externalized costs. Sorry you went to all that effort debunking something I haven't posted.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 02:54:36 PM
And no!!! Hydro is Not Green, associating an efficient energy with the term Green is pure BS!
Is it renewable? Absolutely yes, but is it Green, like all the other BS the socialists are trying to cram down our throats, absolutely not! Green means socialism, learn your history.
Renewable, depending on the situational specifics, equals green. The political ideology promoting it is irrelevant. Learn your definitions.
For example nukes, which so many cons love, are and always have been as socialized an energy source as we've had. Look up their research history, special legislation, construction funding, state authorized pre-billing (unlike other energy sources) and ongoing loan guarantees.
Besides, you can't include hydro anyway, we haven't built a new dam in Husein's lifetime, so he is not entitled to include it as party of his socialist scheme.
:lol: I merely responded to your laughable claim that it's not green, construction dates are irrelevant. Nukes are what they are, their nature doesn't change because we haven't built a new one in decades. You're just not making sense now.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 05:58:07 AM...Eventually she will evolve into disparaging remarks as her posts are debunked.
Umm, that's been all your side from the start of this chat. Kinda hypocritical of you not to notice, isn't it?
Now, about your false premise that Falmouth is liberal - Are you ever going to correct it and apologize to the several cons you duped now that it's been debunked? Or, will you just post more "disparaging remarks" about me as you divert again?
The Vred, MSConstrued, Harpo, et al, is happy now that she has someone to argue with. Her home forum has truned into a lib mutual admiration society so no excitement there.
Word to the wise, the Vred never lets go. She's the Everready Energized Rabbit on steroids
So, Reality, enough of the diversions, let's get back on supsalemgr's topic. What do you think about supsalemgr mis-describing Falmouth with his thread starter and still not retracting despite having duped several of your fellow cons?
Quote from: Reality on February 27, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
The Vred, MSConstrued, Harpo, et al, is happy now that she has someone to argue with. Her home forum has truned into a lib mutual admiration society so no excitement there.
Word to the wise, the Vred never lets go. She's the Everready Energized Rabbit on steroids
Is that who this John barth Character is? Some refuge from a Lib forum on steroids?
Sounds a rather boring type to me, much ado over nothing
He said she said arguements is the bets she can do?
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 03:09:50 PM
Solar, "confident" and "think" are both opinions. You lied in saying that I said I it was fact and are now lying in claiming I've lied about what I posted. I do note that you have chosen not to look it up for yourself. Easier for your reality that way?
But it was part of your argument that it would survive on it's own, so are you back peddling now?
QuoteI'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.
QuoteThere's a simple solution - get your con reps to end all energy subsidies - Exxon defends it's own sources and transportation routes, nukes insure themselves fully for their potential liability like every other energy source does, etc. - and we'll see what the market decides. But, we all know that this will never happen, 4 pages now and you can't even admit that the non-green energy gets subsidized.
OK, this is just stupid, we're Conservatives on a real Conservative forum, and you think we back any kind of Govt interference?
Subsidies or red tape, it all needs to go, but it both party's, Libs and RINO that are to blame, us Tea party types want no Govt involvement.
I can't believe you were actually asking such a stupid question, that's why I ignored it, it's akin to a 3 year old asking Why incessantly.
QuoteI don't care what "EIA" (?) or Obama says about hydro, as you now admit it's renewable and thus green in some applications and you were wrong to first cite is an example of non-green.
I never said it wasn't renewable, I said it's not Green, the term that's associated with a socialistic movement.
Believe me, I've written about it for more than 20 years, Green has nothing to do with energy.
QuoteAs for your statements about the world getting more energy from non-renewables - duh! My point all along is that they're massively subsidized, directly or with externalized costs. Sorry you went to all that effort debunking something I haven't posted.
Sorry I went beyond your intellectual level.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 27, 2013, 03:58:58 PM
Is that who this John barth Character is? Some refuge from a Lib forum on steroids?
Sounds a rather boring type to me, much ado over nothing
He said she said arguements is the bets she can do?
I'm just toying with it, haven't had much to chew on for awhile, and this one leaves itself wide open not to mention
debating a topic they know absolutely nothing about.Oh wait, I just described every lib. :laugh:
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
So, Reality, enough of the diversions, let's get back on supsalemgr's topic. What do you think about supsalemgr mis-describing Falmouth with his thread starter and still not retracting despite having duped several of your fellow cons?
Sorry, sweetheart, the political breakdown of Falmouth is irrelevant. Even if it was, you posted county info. A county has multiple cities and towns. Feel free to post the breakdown of Falmouth if you feel its relevant to your point. I really need you to try harder please.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 02:58:38 PM
They voted for the more conservative candidate. It may be news to you but that's how our system works. By any sane definition based on voter registration and voting patterns Falmouth is moderate to con, supsalemgr messed up in calling it liberal, y'all swallowed it, and neither he nor you can bring yourselves to admit it.
You posted county info. Please post city voting info for Falmouth. I know you're hanging onto that county data for dear life, but if you're going to call another poster out on being inaccurate about a particular city, then you need to post proof. Again, you posted county info. If you need help understanding the difference between a county and a city, then let us know.
Quote from: Reality on February 27, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
The Vred, MSConstrued, Harpo, et al, is happy now that she has someone to argue with. Her home forum has truned into a lib mutual admiration society so no excitement there.
Word to the wise, the Vred never lets go. She's the Everready Energized Rabbit on steroids
He/she will be fine if he/she can learn to support their arguments. So far, he/she is doing a horrible job, and needs to step it up.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:30:10 PM
You posted county info. Please post city voting info for Falmouth. I know you're hanging onto that county data for dear life, but if you're going to call another poster out on being inaccurate about a particular city, then you need to post proof. Again, you posted county info. If you need help understanding the difference between a county and a city, then let us know.
I'm sorry, I got so wrapped up in slapping it around, I completely forgot about this. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Geee, it looks like Supsalesmgr was right all along, and not that one of doubted him. :cool:
http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf (http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf)
Barth, I'm giving you one more chance to use the quote function correctly. You hit 'quote', and you add quote and /quote (within brackets) around the text you want to quote.
Let me know if you need pictures to understand this process better.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:31:46 PM
He/she will be fine if he/she can learn to support their arguments. So far, he/she is doing a horrible job, and needs to step it up.
Needs to learn how to quote properly as well, this is getting old.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Needs to learn how to quote properly as well, this is getting old.
I agree. Is he using a handi-capable keyboard or something? I never thought it was difficult to master.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:41:04 PM
I agree. Is he using a handi-capable keyboard or something? I never thought it was difficult to master.
Did you miss « Reply #82 ?
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:38:42 PM
I'm sorry, I got so wrapped up in slapping it around, I completely forgot about this. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Geee, it looks like Supsalesmgr was right all along, and not that one of doubted him. :cool:
http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf (http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf)
hahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:43:56 PM
hahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha
Libs are so predictable...... :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:47:27 PM
Libs are so predictable...... :biggrin:
This one is so adorable. He falls on his face on his own!!
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:50:29 PM
This one is so adorable. He falls on his face on his own!!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ahhh, now I'm all nostalgic for Face Plant Oldsocialist. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:52:50 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ahhh, now I'm all nostalgic for Face Plant Oldsocialist. :lol:
Maybe we found one who can replace him?? I hope he can learn the difficult quoting function and is willing to stay, because he will be fun for us...
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Maybe we found one who can replace him?? I hope he can learn the difficult quoting function and is willing to stay, because he will be fun for us...
Maybe they're working hard on the quote function, or writing a novel, one of the two.
They've been at it 20 minutes already, it's got to be good. :rolleyes:
John Barth 04:42:30 PM Posting in Irony?.
Quote from: John Barth on Today at 06:09:50 PM
QuoteSolar, "confident" and "think" are both opinions. You lied in saying that I said I it was fact and are now lying in claiming I've lied about what I posted. I do note that you have chosen not to look it up for yourself. Easier for your reality that way?
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
But it was part of your argument that it would survive on it's own, so are you back peddling now?
It's my opinion, your lies about it stand - add "back peddling" (?) to them. :rolleyes: Now, where's your proof that green technologies can't compete on a truly level playing field? What's good for the goose . . .
Quote from: John Barth on Today at 06:09:50 PM
QuoteThere's a simple solution - get your con reps to end all energy subsidies - Exxon defends it's own sources and transportation routes, nukes insure themselves fully for their potential liability like every other energy source does, etc. - and we'll see what the market decides. But, we all know that this will never happen, 4 pages now and you can't even admit that the non-green energy gets subsidized.
OK, this is just stupid, we're Conservatives on a real Conservative forum, and you think we back any kind of Govt interference?
Talk is cheap, the fact is that supsalemgr (erroneously) and you whine about the far smaller green subsidies while giving the far larger fossil fuel and nukes subsidies a pass. Heck, you've yet to admit they exist.
Subsidies or red tape, it all needs to go, but it both party's, Libs and RINO that are to blame, us Tea party types want no Govt involvement.
Your TP reps have not been voting that way when it comes to fossil fuels and nukes.
I can't believe you were actually asking such a stupid question, that's why I ignored it, it's akin to a 3 year old asking Why incessantly.
Ummm, I didn't ask a question, look at the quote box. Who's "stupid" now?
I never said it wasn't renewable, I said it's not Green, the term that's associated with a socialistic movement.
Believe me, I've written about it for more than 20 years, Green has nothing to do with energy.
Then you've been making up your own silly definitions for 20 years. I don't care if a socialist or a fascist proposes smart energy strategy without the externalized costs.
Sorry I went beyond your intellectual level.
Mis-described posts, "it's own", "back peddling", "but it both party's" (2 fer), "Tea party", no question asked. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:59:46 PM
Maybe they're working hard on the quote function, or writing a novel, one of the two.
They've been at it 20 minutes already, it's got to be good. :rolleyes:
John Barth 04:42:30 PM Posting in Irony?.
He gets headaches between each keystroke...
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Maybe we found one who can replace him?? I hope he can learn the difficult quoting function and is willing to stay, because he will be fun for us...
Oh, and I doubt it, no one can compare to Oldsocialist Face Plant, that guy didn't just trip, he took running starts at cliffs for full effect. :laugh:
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 05:01:14 PM
He gets headaches between each keystroke...
Speech to text might be something they should look into.
I know I will when these eyes wear out. :blink:
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:26:48 PM
Sorry, sweetheart, the political breakdown of Falmouth is irrelevant. Even if it was, you posted county info. A county has multiple cities and towns. Feel free to post the breakdown of Falmouth if you feel its relevant to your point. I really need you to try harder please.
City breakdowns are harder to find given that precincts can cross city lines. For now what we have is the county vote debunking supsalemgr's claim that Falmouth is liberal.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 04:38:42 PM
I'm sorry, I got so wrapped up in slapping it around, I completely forgot about this. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Geee, it looks like Supsalesmgr was right all along, and not that one of doubted him. :cool:
http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf (http://www.falmouthmass.us/clerk/2008%20pres.pdf)
:lol: 2008, with an incumbent Dem Senator and a lousy GOP POTUS team following a lousy GOP POTUS, both supsalemgr and I posted about 2012 when the POTUS race reflected the nation exactly and the more con Senate candidate won handily. Slap harder, I didn't even feel the breeze.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Solar, "confident" and "think" are both opinions. You lied in saying that I said I it was fact and are now lying in claiming I've lied about what I posted. I do note that you have chosen not to look it up for yourself. Easier for your reality that way?
Geeezus what a freakin mess, Learn to use the quote function, or I'm just going to ignore you, this is terrible!!!!
QuoteIt's my opinion, your lies about it stand - add "back peddling" (?) to them. :rolleyes: Now, where's your proof that green technologies can't compete on a truly level playing field? What's good for the goose . . .
Instead of me giving you stats that you will just ignore, read a pretty fair article on solar.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/solar_power_backlash-99403 (http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/solar_power_backlash-99403)
QuoteThere's a simple solution - get your con reps to end all energy subsidies - Exxon defends it's own sources and transportation routes, nukes insure themselves fully for their potential liability like every other energy source does, etc. - and we'll see what the market decides. But, we all know that this will never happen, 4 pages now and you can't even admit that the non-green energy gets subsidized.
What part of Tea party Idealist did you not get?
I said, and I quote myself, "We want Govt out of the private sector, Period!
No subsidies, no interference, meaning doing away with the EPA and it's ridiculous regs, let the Free mkt dictate what is feasible.
QuoteOK, this is just stupid, we're Conservatives on a real Conservative forum, and you think we back any kind of Govt interference?
QuoteTalk is cheap, the fact is that supsalemgr (erroneously) and you whine about the far smaller green subsidies while giving the far larger fossil fuel and nukes subsidies a pass. Heck, you've yet to admit they exist.
Smaller? Husein spent nearly a trillion dollars proping up soalr, and where did it get us? Bankruptcies!
QuoteYour TP reps have not been voting that way when it comes to fossil fuels and nukes.
I don't know that they have, but if they did, it's only to offset the red tape Husein is putting them through.
That's where subsidies came from, the Govt was interfering so much, that the private sector could no longer do business under such stupid conditions.
You really do need to understand a subject before you open your mouth and prove my points about liberals in general.
QuoteI never said it wasn't renewable, I said it's not Green, the term that's associated with a socialistic movement.
Believe me, I've written about it for more than 20 years, Green has nothing to do with energy.
Then you've been making up your own silly definitions for 20 years. I don't care if a socialist or a fascist proposes smart energy strategy without the externalized costs.
Sorry I went beyond your intellectual level.
That made no sense whatsoever!
Green energy is Not Smart energy, it's an agenda!
Quote
Mis-described posts, "it's own", "back peddling", "but it both party's" (2 fer), "Tea party", no question asked.
Do you need a break to take your meds?
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
City breakdowns are harder to find given that precincts can cross city lines. For now what we have is the county vote debunking supsalemgr's claim that Falmouth is liberal.
:lol: 2008, with an incumbent Dem Senator and a lousy GOP POTUS team following a lousy GOP POTUS, both supsalemgr and I posted about 2012 when the POTUS race reflected the nation exactly and the more con Senate candidate won handily. Slap harder, I didn't even feel the breeze.
And you think the demographics changed all that much since then?
Face it, you lost, the lib count is 3 to 1 in the town, that is a lib town if I've ever seen one, in fact, it mirrors San Franfreako.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 05:29:41 PM
And you think the demographics changed all that much since then?
Face it, you lost, the lib count is 3 to 1 in the town, that is a lib town if I've ever seen one, in fact, it mirrors San Franfreako.
Is he still holding on to his county data?
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 05:36:51 PM
Is he still holding on to his county data?
What else has he, he was grasping at so many straws, that he dismantled his own strawman. :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 05:39:40 PM
What else has he, he was grasping at so many straws, that he dismantled his own strawman. :laugh:
Funny aren't they? You could post quotes, articles and even video's of a liberals (Obama) saying something and they will still deny it. It's been done many many many times. You know it was taken out of context. They are always right and you are always wrong, the end. This is why they can't sustain a forum because after a while even their own get tired of the B/S so they just start name calling amongst themselves and reporting and threatening each other and the forums get closed after they get banned a few hundred times.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 04:39:30 PM
Barth, I'm giving you one more chance to use the quote function correctly. You hit 'quote', and you add quote and /quote (within brackets) around the text you want to quote.
Let me know if you need pictures to understand this process better.
I'm not sure what you're seeing. The quoting styles on #69 (mine) and #70 (keyboarder), for example, look identical to me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but it all seems pretty silly of you if you're able to get what I'm saying. Your "one more chance" threat is cute, btw.
But, if one does have to " hit 'quote', and" then redundantly "add quote and /quote (within brackets) around the text you want to quote," that's on the administrators for setting this forum up more bizarrely than most others. It's also way strange that sub-quotes disappear and have to be added back if necessary for the conversational flow.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F1302199658_front-flip-faceplant_zps08558ecb.gif&hash=c264ace983d01dd5929dfa58fe0e029c4e711165)
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
I'm not sure what you're seeing. The quoting styles on #69 (mine) and #70 (keyboarder), for example, look identical to me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but it all seems pretty silly of you if you're able to get what I'm saying. Your "one more chance" threat is cute, btw.
But, if one does have to " hit 'quote', and" then redundantly "add quote and /quote (within brackets) around the text you want to quote," that's on the administrators for setting this forum up more bizarrely than most others. It's also way strange that sub-quotes disappear and have to be added back if necessary for the conversational flow.
Sheesh, it's not that damn hard, look at my Reply #98, then click quote and see how I did it.
You will note a little box above that looks like this (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif) highlight the are in dark blue you want to qoute and the click the little box above (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif)
It really is that simple.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 05:52:53 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F1302199658_front-flip-faceplant_zps08558ecb.gif&hash=c264ace983d01dd5929dfa58fe0e029c4e711165)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well played!
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
I'm not sure what you're seeing. The quoting styles on #69 (mine) and #70 (keyboarder), for example, look identical to me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but it all seems pretty silly of you if you're able to get what I'm saying. Your "one more chance" threat is cute, btw.
But, if one does have to " hit 'quote', and" then redundantly "add quote and /quote (within brackets) around the text you want to quote," that's on the administrators for setting this forum up more bizarrely than most others. It's also way strange that sub-quotes disappear and have to be added back if necessary for the conversational flow.
Thanks for trying. I'm not threatening, just asking you to make it easier to follow your posts. We don't do nested quotes here if that's what you're used to.
John, let me see if I can walk you through the process.
When you hit quote, go to the bottom of the page and copy the last word which will be a quote in brackets, once you've copied, delete the one you copied.
Now go to the top of the page and go to the end of the sentence you want to quote and paste it there.
Click enter and then write your reply.
This was the hard part, you're almost done.
Now highlight the next sentence/paragraph you want to quote, go up to the bottom row of icons and look for this one (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif) fourth from the right, and click it and hit enter again, then write your reply, just keep repeating this and your posts will come out like the rest.
Thanks, we're really not that mean, we just want everyone to be able to read what you're trying to say.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 05:25:37 PM...Instead of me giving you stats that you will just ignore, read a pretty fair article on solar.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/solar_power_backlash-99403 (http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/solar_power_backlash-99403)
Again with solar electric? :rolleyes: As I said once, it's among the least green of the greens. And, as I said several times, supsalemgr's thread is about wind. Do straw men make you feel like you're not floundering?
QuoteWhat part of Tea party Idealist did you not get?
What part of TP reality do you not get? They luv dem dat corporate welfare.
QuoteI said, and I quote myself, "We want Govt out of the private sector, Period!
No subsidies, no interference, meaning doing away with the EPA and it's ridiculous regs, let the Free mkt dictate what is feasible.
Got it, you've missed the entire point. If fossil fuels are allowed to externalize their air pollution, water pollution, flattened mountains, health disasters, etc. costs off on all of us rather than having these costs show up in the consumer price, that's not a "Free mkt" at all. That's private profit with socialized harm.
QuoteSmaller? Husein spent nearly a trillion dollars proping up soalr, and where did it get us? Bankruptcies!
Yep, it's peanuts compared to what fossil fuels and nukes get, everyone knows that. Oh, and most of the loans have not failed and it was a Shrub program, anyhow. Didn't you know?
QuoteYour TP reps have not been voting that way when it comes to fossil fuels and nukes.
QuoteI don't know that they have,
Of course you don't. :rolleyes:
Quotebut if they did, it's only to offset the red tape Husein is putting them through.
Yeah, that's it, you haven't been exploited and co-opted by corporate lap dogs at all.
QuoteThat's where subsidies came from, the Govt was interfering so much, that the private sector could no longer do business under such stupid conditions...
Now you're just making things up out of thin air. Even the authors never said it was mediation for regulation. You're a hoot!
QuoteThat made no sense whatsoever!...
That's because half the words you quoted were your own. Good one. :thumbsup:
QuoteGreen energy is Not Smart energy, it's an agenda!Do you need a break to take your meds?
No thanks, I'm getting a contact high off of you.
John, please back up your position that us Tea Party conservatives support corporate welfare.
Wow. They all sound the same...
Let's begin with the TP being Koch Brothers astroturf. Then, if you don't know how your reps vote that's on you for being ignorant. I never was going to vote for them.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:23:16 PM
Let's begin with the TP being Koch Brothers astroturf. Then, if you don't know how your reps vote that's on you for being ignorant. I never was going to vote for them.
Again, show us where the Tea Party supports government subsidies.
OMG! these talking points are three years old...
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:23:16 PM
Let's begin with the TP being Koch Brothers astroturf. Then, if you don't know how your reps vote that's on you for being ignorant. I never was going to vote for them.
It appears you do not know what corporate welfare is...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 06:25:13 PM
It appears you do not know what corporate welfare is...
So far, his point is conservatives support subsidies because the county of the town with the windmills voted for Brown.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 06:24:29 PM
OMG! these talking points are three years old...
Most of their talking points come from Media Matters, DNC page or People's World.
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 06:01:32 PM
Sheesh, it's not that damn hard, look at my Reply #98, then click quote and see how I did it.
You will note a little box above that looks like this (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif) highlight the are in dark blue you want to qoute and the click the little box above (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif)
It really is that simple.
You didn't even bother to look at my post #69, did you? Like this post of yours I'm seeing -
"Quote from: taxed on Today at 01:03:11 PM"
- followed by taxed's words in a dark blue box. What are you seeing? Looking at how you did it is pointless since subquotes disappear when one clicks on the "quote" tab in this weird forum. Almost every other forum you can have strings of 5 quotes or more embedded within each other. Here, you have to cut and paste to embed just one more than the "quote" tab gets you.
Edit: And here I'm seeing -
"Quote from: Solar on Today at 09:01:32 PM"
- - followed by your words in a dark blue box. Again, what are you seeing?
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 06:27:24 PM
So far, his point is conservatives support subsidies because the county of the town with the windmills voted for Brown.
Well
that clears it up. I wish they would get their crap straight before they come here. According to him Corporate Welfare is when a corporation donates to a political group.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 06:32:19 PM
Well that clears it up. I wish they would get their crap straight before they come here. According to him Corporate Welfare is when a corporation donates to a political group.
We haven't gotten that far yet... we're still working on his quoting abilities...
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:18:34 PM
Again with solar electric? :rolleyes: As I said once, it's among the least green of the greens. And, as I said several times, supsalemgr's thread is about wind. Do straw men make you feel like you're not floundering?
It's where the lion share of our treasury was spent.
QuoteWhat part of TP reality do you not get? They luv dem dat corporate welfare.
No we do not, in fact it will be on the chopping block once we kick the libs out of the GOP.
Quote
Got it, you've missed the entire point. If fossil fuels are allowed to externalize their air pollution, water pollution, flattened mountains, health disasters, etc. costs off on all of us rather than having these costs show up in the consumer price, that's not a "Free mkt" at all. That's private profit with socialized harm.
We actually agree on something, problem is, it's both party's causing the problem, look into the Tea party and forget the media BS you've heard about it, you'll be shocked to find out you agree with them more than the Dems.
QuoteYep, it's peanuts compared to what fossil fuels and nukes get, everyone knows that. Oh, and most of the loans have not failed and it was a Shrub program, anyhow. Didn't you know?
Solyndra. Do I really need to go down the list for you? Then there is the boondoggle of solar plants out in the desert miles from the grid costing billions to construct and only producing a quarter of what they originally purported.
QuoteYeah, that's it, you haven't been exploited and co-opted by corporate lap dogs at all.
Welcome to an over bearing Big Govt, something the Tea party wants to gut.
QuoteNow you're just making things up out of thin air. Even the authors never said it was mediation for regulation. You're a hoot!
I didn't claim that was the only reason, it was the start, now it's who can grease who's hand the most, and it needs to stop.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 06:32:54 PM
We haven't gotten that far yet... we're still working on his quoting abilities...
*sigh*
Where are the training wheels...
QuoteJohn, let me see if I can walk you through the process.
When you hit quote, go to the bottom of the page and copy the last word which will be a quote in brackets, once you've copied, delete the one you copied.
Now go to the top of the page and go to the end of the sentence you want to quote and paste it there.
Click enter and then write your reply.
This was the hard part, you're almost done.
Now highlight the next sentence/paragraph you want to quote, go up to the bottom row of icons and look for this one (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif) fourth from the right, and click it and hit enter again, then write your reply, just keep repeating this and your posts will come out like the rest.
Thanks, we're really not that mean, we just want everyone to be able to read what you're trying to say.
Really, all that rather than just clicking on the quote button and having it be a quote? Was your format set up by chimps? Screw it, I'm just going to use the quote box and y'all can figure out who said it.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:41:02 PM
Really, all that rather than just clicking on the quote button and having it be a quote? Was your format set up by chimps?
I'm trying to help you here, but if you don't care that other libs are cringing over your inability to grasp simple concepts, then there is nothing any of us can do to help you.
QuoteSo far, his point is conservatives support subsidies because the county of the town with the windmills voted for Brown.
You are confused. Conservatives have long supported massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels. My only point about Falmouth was that supsalemgr flubbed in calling it "liberal" since it's at most moderate, and that he duped a bunch of you in the process. The connection is that conservatives screech and screech about green subsidies while ignoring the far bigger ones. It's petty partisanship, not honesty or principle. The mote-beam adage comes to mind.
I see that The Boo Man believed your incorrect interpretation:
QuoteWell that clears it up. I wish they would get their crap straight before they come here. According to him Corporate Welfare is when a corporation donates to a political group.
Reminds me of how many of y'all believed supsalemgr that Falmouth is liberal without checking for yourselves.
To his credit, though, The Boo Man creates his own silliness. Corporate welfare is when government massively favors corporations, like with fossil fuels and nukes. When a corporation donates to a politician it's bribery, when it donates to a political group it's just making astroturf.
QuoteMost of their talking points come from Media Matters, DNC page or People's World.
I don't peruse MM and I'm neither a Dem nor a commie. You have a vivid imagination.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
You are confused. Conservatives have long supported massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels.
I'm asking you one more time to prove it.
Quote
My only point about Falmouth was that supsalemgr flubbed in calling it "liberal" since it's at most moderate,
Solar proved it is a liberal town. You have not posted any data on the town.
Quote
and that he duped a bunch of you in the process.
How so?
Quote
The connection is that conservatives screech and screech about green subsidies while ignoring the far bigger ones. It's petty partisanship, not honesty or principle. The mote-beam adage comes to mind.
Final request. Please post proof conservatives/Tea Party supports subsidies.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
You are confused. Conservatives have long supported massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels.
Wrong, Republicans/RINO support subsidies, not Conservatives.
QuoteMy only point about Falmouth was that supsalemgr flubbed in calling it "liberal" since it's at most moderate, and that he duped a bunch of you in the process. The connection is that conservatives screech and screech about green subsidies while ignoring the far bigger ones. It's petty partisanship, not honesty or principle. The mote-beam adage comes to mind.
Then you go through the numbers and show me where it's not a Dim town.
http://www.falmouthmass.us/deppage.php?number=29 (http://www.falmouthmass.us/deppage.php?number=29)
QuoteI'm trying to help you here, but if you don't care that other libs are cringing over your inability to grasp simple concepts, then there is nothing any of us can do to help you.
What other lefties? Certainly none in this thread. My understanding is that they get banned by your censors before too long. That's why I'm trying not to engage in the childish personal attacks y'all have been since page 2, I've heard about the double standard here.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
You are confused. Conservatives have long supported massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels. My only point about Falmouth was that supsalemgr flubbed in calling it "liberal" since it's at most moderate, and that he duped a bunch of you in the process. The connection is that conservatives screech and screech about green subsidies while ignoring the far bigger ones. It's petty partisanship, not honesty or principle. The mote-beam adage comes to mind.
The one confused is YOU. Learn the difference between ideology and party affiliation. Educate yourself before continuing here.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
What other lefties? Certainly none in this thread. My understanding is that they get banned by your censors before too long. That's why I'm trying not to engage in the childish personal attacks y'all have been since page 2, I've heard about the double standard here.
'The revilement is a derivative of your posts, when you say ignorant things, you can expect it to be followed by a harassing post.
The libs I speak of are in the guest list, to assume only Conservatives read this forum is just another of your ignorant posts, which I will not follow up with an insult. :rolleyes: :wink:
Do you seriously think all of those 97 guests, currently on, (97 Guests, 16 Users) or the 20104 that were on today were all Conservative?
I smell retread...
QuoteIt's where the lion share of our treasury was spent.
Green loans? Not hardly. Budget much?
QuoteNo we do not, in fact it will be on the chopping block once we kick the libs out of the GOP.
I fully support your party's self destruction. :thumbup:
QuoteWe actually agree on something, problem is, it's both party's causing the problem,
I'm no fan of the Dems.
Quotelook into the Tea party and forget the media BS you've heard about it, you'll be shocked to find out you agree with them more than the Dems.
Too many nutcases.
QuoteSolyndra. Do I really need to go down the list for you? Then there is the boondoggle of solar plants out in the desert miles from the grid costing billions to construct and only producing a quarter of what they originally purported.
Some failed, most have not. I only support the attempts at all as a means of leveling the field a bit with the more massive subsidies to nukes and fossil fuels, like the TP-funding Kochs get. End those and I'd be fine with nary a dime going to green industry.
QuoteWelcome to an over bearing Big Govt, something the Tea party wants to gut.
Any hope for effectiveness the sincere libertarian believers once had has been co-opted by the GOP and gutted by the social con wingnuts. Not their fault, our system does not make room for 3rd parties or extremists on either end like parliamentary ones do. Feel free to keep beating your head against the wall though, the Dems are loving the show.
QuoteI didn't claim that was the only reason, it was the start, now it's who can grease who's hand the most, and it needs to stop.
Have the TPers done anything, anything at all, about joining with the non-corporatist Dems to get the big money out of politics? Of course not, they're sucking at the same teat you claim to descry.
And John, people only get banned here for a few reasons, one is trolling, posting for the sake of getting a rise, and not acting like adults.
One was actually banned for refusing to use the quote function, a process everyone eventually masters, but this guy flat out refused.
You on the other hand are fine, I have faith you too will get the quote thingy down, I too had a problem with it years ago, but after about 10 tries I finally figured it out.
We have no issue with people not being Conservative on this site, we do however take issue with (SIP) Stupid In Public, and no, you are not guilty of that one either, ill informed, definitely, but not stupid.
All we ask is good old fashion back and forth debate, and that claims be backed up with fact, of course within reason, and we do not accept opinion sites as a source to back up claims, and WIKI is laughed at most of the time, so avoid that one as well, considering most of it is opinion.
Just keep posting, no one wants you banned, anyway, I don't.
QuoteI'm asking you one more time to prove it.
Yawn, you'll just say that those Republicans are not "real" cons. Sorry, we live in the world where winners, not wishers, create the definitions.
QuoteSolar proved it is a liberal town. You have not posted any data on the town...
In 2008, with weak GOP candidates that flopped everywhere. In 2012, with comparable candidates, the only data we have points towards moderate/con.
Plus, the issue is that supsalemgr had no data at all other than it being in MA. By that silly standard Asheville and Chapel Hill are con burgs. Obviously, you're not badgering him for his far sketchier claim solely because you don't want to believe you were duped.
QuoteThe revilement is a derivative of your posts, when you say ignorant things, you can expect it to be followed by a harassing post.
I can hack your immaturity, but we both know what happens if I reply in kind. That's why you and especially supsalemger and Reality have chosen a con-censored forum.
QuoteThe libs I speak of are in the guest list, to assume only Conservatives read this forum is just another of your ignorant posts, which I will not follow up with an insult. :rolleyes: :wink:
Do you seriously think all of those 97 guests, currently on, (97 Guests, 16 Users) or the 20104 that were on today were all Conservative?
They're not in this thread, I haven't looked at the others. Do you seriously think even one of them, if there are any left, thinks you speak for them? :rolleyes: It's adorable that you do.
QuoteAnd John, people only get banned here for a few reasons, one is trolling, posting for the sake of getting a rise, and not acting like adults.
You and your buddies have all done that in posting to me, admit it. And, we both know that if I'd used the exact same words I'd already be gone. Do you think the off-topic accusations about my supposed identity were an "accident"? C'mon, you aren't that naive, are you?
QuoteWe have no issue with people not being Conservative on this site...
Could be, but if a lefty posts like you cons do, it's the axe.
QuoteJust keep posting, no one wants you banned, anyway, I don't.
Sure, as long as I accept the double standard. I know both myself and this forum's censors, it won't last.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 07:54:30 PM
You and your buddies have all done that in posting to me, admit it. And, we both know that if I'd used the exact same words I'd already be gone. Do you think the off-topic accusations about my supposed identity were an "accident"? C'mon, you aren't that naive, are you?
Could be, but if a lefty posts like you cons do, it's the axe.
Sure, as long as I accept the double standard. I know both myself and this forum's censors, it won't last.
If you are so unhappy just leave. Your whining is getting tiresome...
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 07:54:30 PM
You and your buddies have all done that in posting to me, admit it. And, we both know that if I'd used the exact same words I'd already be gone. Do you think the off-topic accusations about my supposed identity were an "accident"? C'mon, you aren't that naive, are you?
Could be, but if a lefty posts like you cons do, it's the axe.
Sure, as long as I accept the double standard. I know both myself and this forum's censors, it won't last.
:laugh:
Congrats John, you nailed the quote function. :thumbup:
But John, show me where in http://conservativepoliticalforum.com (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com) it say Lib.
We are a forum for Conservatives, you are here only because we accept opposing views, but because we are not a lib site, you and others like you are not afforded the privileges or leniency that Conservatives are, it's no different than any other site that caters to a certain group.
In fact we are more lenient than most lib sites, there, they simply ban you for having an opposing view, I know, being an expert in the alternative energy field, libs simply couldn't handle the truth being presented in a calm manner, so without explanation I've been banned repeatedly, and in every case with no explanation.
So if you don't like it, find another forum, we really don't give a damn about the sensibilities of liberals.
Is that clear enough?
The Boo Man, you are confused again, just as you were in believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare" - both of which you ran away from.
I'm neither unhappy nor whining, just stating facts about this censor-enforced echo chamber y'all have created. I find it to be too pathetic to get worked up about.
In fact, it's my pleasure to be posting here for 10 pages about how supsalemgr flubbed with his thread-starter (Warren barely won in the city [51%] and did measurably worse than in the state, 3 Republicans ran unopposed and far fewer than half are registered Dem), how he duped several cons that didn't bother to check, and how none can admit it. Sooner or later I'll get banned for doing so and that will just highlight their disgrace and need for protection. It's a win-win for me.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 08:40:56 PM
The Boo Man, you are confused again, just as you were in believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare" - both of which you ran away from.
I'm neither unhappy nor whining, just stating facts about this censor-enforced echo chamber y'all have created. I find it to be too pathetic to get worked up about.
In fact, it's my pleasure to be posting here for 10 pages about how supsalemgr flubbed with his thread-starter (Warren barely won in the city (51%) and did measurably worse than in the state, 3 Republicans ran unopposed and far fewer than half are registered Dem), how he duped several cons that didn't bother to check, and how none can admit it. Sooner or later I'll get banned for doing so and that will just highlight their disgrace and need for protection. It's a win-win for me.
It's not a win win for you. You're a moron. You have been consistently wrong on everything. Then you whine about censorship. Not to mention you refuse to back up anything you claim. Why are you liberals so cowardly?
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 08:40:56 PM
The Boo Man, you are confused again, just as you were in believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare" - both of which you ran away from.
I'm neither unhappy nor whining, just stating facts about this censor-enforced echo chamber y'all have created. I find it to be too pathetic to get worked up about.
In fact, it's my pleasure to be posting here for 10 pages about how supsalemgr flubbed with his thread-starter (Warren barely won in the city (51%) and did measurably worse than in the state, 3 Republicans ran unopposed and far fewer than half are registered Dem), how he duped several cons that didn't bother to check, and how none can admit it. Sooner or later I'll get banned for doing so and that will just highlight their disgrace and need for protection. It's a win-win for me.
So, you still have a city that voted for Warren, but are really conservatives? You're now admitting it was a city that voted for a far left liberal who even got busted lying about her heritage. I'll also go out on a limb and say Ted "The Chauffeur" Kennedy maybe carried the city once or twice.
I'm still waiting for you to show me some tangible shred of evidence of Tea Party conservatives supporting government subsidies. If you decline again, I'll take it you aren't serious about discussing and will move on...
QuoteCongrats John, you nailed the quote function. :thumbup:
I always have known it, you are confused. It's the ridiculous contortions y'all unnecessarily go though to keep the author's name attached to it or to include one or more other quotes that I don't get. It's not like most other forums work that silly way.
QuoteWe are a forum for Conservatives, you are here only because we accept opposing views, but because we are not a lib site, you and others like you are not afforded the privileges or leniency that Conservatives are, it's no different than any other site that caters to a certain group.
Ah, so you were not being fully honest when you posted:
QuoteAnd John, people only get banned here for a few reasons, one is trolling, posting for the sake of getting a rise, and not acting like adults.
That's what I thought. It's libs that get banned for those things while cons need the protection.
QuoteIn fact we are more lenient than most lib sites, there, they simply ban you for having an opposing view, I know, being an expert in the alternative energy field, libs simply couldn't handle the truth being presented in a calm manner, so without explanation I've been banned repeatedly, and in every case with no explanation.
Could be though I suspect there's more to the story, but the forum I'm most familiar with is run by a lib who never censors. Ask "Reality", supsalemgr and The Stranger, they couldn't hack it. That's why they're here.
QuoteSo if you don't like it, find another forum, we really don't give a damn about the sensibilities of liberals.
Is that clear enough?
You misunderstand, I love it here! It says so much about cons these days, they live in their own rapidly shrinking magical world.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 08:57:40 PM
I always have known it, you are confused. It's the ridiculous contortions y'all unnecessarily go though to keep the author's name attached to it or to include one or more other quotes that I don't get. It's not like most other forums work that silly way.
Ah, so you were not being fully honest when you posted:That's what I thought. It's libs that get banned for those things while cons need the protection.
Could be though I suspect there's more to the story, but the forum I'm most familiar with is run by a lib who never censors. Ask "Reality", supsalemgr and The Stranger, they couldn't hack it. That's why they're here.
You misunderstand, I love it here! It says so much about cons these days, they live in their own rapidly shrinking magical world.
You are clearly here to start trouble...
QuoteIt's not a win win for you.
Keep telling yourself that.
You're a moron.
That, too.
You have been consistently wrong on everything.
You flubbed the two examples you tried, then ran away from them. Try again, please.
Then you whine about censorship.
You are confused. I appreciate having my opinion of cons confirmed, as I said. Thank you.
Not to mention you refuse to back up anything you claim.
It's more fun watching y'all demand citations for the obvious. Thank you. But, as you know, my inspiration for being here is that supasalemgr started a thread with a premise that not only couldn't he back up but was actually flat-out wrong.
Why are you liberals so cowardly?
Why did you run away from your Falmouth and corporate welfare flubs?
QuoteYou are clearly here to start trouble...
Gee, seems to me that supsalemgr did that when he posted hooey and duped a bunch of you cons. It's not like I'm the one that diverted then ran away when it was pointed out or tried to deceive you. All I've done is debunk supsalemgr and post my opinions, which you can accept or reject.
But, I hear you loud and clear. "here to start trouble" is code for imminent censorship, right?
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 09:18:20 PM
Gee, seems to me that supsalemgr did that when he posted hooey and duped a bunch of you cons. It's not like I'm the one that diverted then ran away when it was pointed out or tried to deceive you. All I've done is debunk supsalemgr and post my opinions, which you can accept or reject.
But, I hear you loud and clear. "here to start trouble" is code for imminent censorship, right?
Yeah, I guess you're right. 24 hour ban.
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 09:24:26 PM
Yeah, I guess you're right. 24 hour ban.
What? Only 24 hours? Supersales, Reality, Stranger and I know full well that the attitude of this trouble maker will only get worse. The need of this poster to be heard and accepted over conservative adults will be greater than his willingness to act like he/she has any sense.
Quote from: keyboarder on February 28, 2013, 03:54:35 AM
What? Only 24 hours? Supersales, Reality, Stranger and I know full well that the attitude of this trouble maker will only get worse. The need of this poster to be heard and accepted over conservative adults will be greater than his willingness to act like he/she has any sense.
It will be back with another forum name most likely, I do believe she is the one who has bragged about being banned here already, over their they teach all how to use a proxy that's the M.O.
It can never ever be wrong and HER opinion is always right just like I described earlier. Next she will go and resurrect an old post of a foe edit it to make you sound as though you said something you didn't. Sort of like a child living in momma's basement would do. Then you will show she is a liar so she will be hell bent on finding your real name and starting threads about you and putting it out here, then she will find where you work and put that out here also.
This is a seriously sick individual to be involved in this kind of stalking. Oh and she claims she knows deputies so it's OK most likely how she get her info and she has admitted to being a snitch also.
This is why NO ONE post any longer on forums she's at not even other libs, she thinks it's because she is always right but she just runs them off with this kind of baby stuff. She is some kind of administrator on her home lib. site so has access to info folks but out there.
Good luck and love all my fellow man, but remember she is a real loon.
There is a double standard here, just like on other forums, we all know that.
I would say let him say and debate what he has to say about politics/economics. That is what we are all here for after all. Not to talk about shit like everyone has been for the last x amount of pages.
Quote from: John Barth on February 27, 2013, 08:57:40 PM
I always have known it, you are confused. It's the ridiculous contortions y'all unnecessarily go though to keep the author's name attached to it or to include one or more other quotes that I don't get. It's not like most other forums work that silly way.
Wow, you're really thick, I genuinely congratulate you for accomplishing the quote function, and all you can do is turn around and insult.
This forum software is the majority of forum software on the web, there are two others, one you pay for and we decided with this one because of the amount of people on the web familiar with it, another, V=Bulletin is good but I didn't like it, and that leaves Yabb, the old standard, but very outdated.
And you have the audacity to insult 70% of forum users over your inability to grasp a simple concept?
Like I said, libs read this forum as well and many were probably pulling for you in the beginning, but when you go petty over little things and insult more than half the world, you lose their sympathy.
QuoteAh, so you were not being fully honest when you posted:That's what I thought. It's libs that get banned for those things while cons need the protection.
Did I say we haven't banned Cons? In fact we've banned more Cons than libs, most libs leave on their own, but cons we give a hearty boot in the ass when all they want to do is argue petty shit, like you're doing in this post of yours.
I suggest you get back on topic and cut the shit or I will give you a boot in the ass as well.
QuoteCould be though I suspect there's more to the story, but the forum I'm most familiar with is run by a lib who never censors. Ask "Reality", supsalemgr and The Stranger, they couldn't hack it. That's why they're here.
Now you're trying to rebuild that strawman you so lovingly dismantled all by yourself early on, but here it is back again.
Never have we censored anyone, your posts speak for themselves.
Why in the world would we want to stop a lib from showing their true ignorant self, it's the best proof that the liberal mind is stuck in the early stages of development, and relies solely on emotion, as you are exhibiting here in this post.
This is typical of liberals, they know nothing of any given subject, so they try and derail the thread and make it all about their sensibilities.
Note to all libs, this tactic simply doesn't work, if you can't debate an issue, it's best not to open your mouth and prove your ignorance, it's better to just sit back and read, you may learn something, but to do what John is doing here, distracting from the original subject and made the thread all about the host, a host gracious enough to let opposing views be expressed, only to have their hospitality stepped on, is what truly ignorant people do.
And yes, John is showing just how ignorant he is by using the tactic of a teenager, and maybe he is, I honestly don't know.
QuoteYou misunderstand, I love it here! It says so much about cons these days, they live in their own rapidly shrinking magical world.
See what I mean libs? This is just more proof he has no interest in debate, just insulting the host. Think about that for a moment, you invite people into your house and offer them hospitality and make them feel welcome, when one in the group turns and begins insulting your home, all the guests and in general just disrupting the conversation and all because they aren't smart enough to keep up with the rest of the group.
Now be honest with yourself, what would you do in a situation like this.
No, I'm not ready to kick him out, I'm going to let him simply continue to embarrass himself to the point he leaves on his own, which is usually the way we do things around here.
But I want you to keep watching, because he knows nothing on any given subject, which is why he resorts to making the thread personal and in the process derails it.
But since you've been following this thread, you've already concluded he got way in over his head.
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 05:29:11 AM
Wow, you're really thick, I genuinely congratulate you for accomplishing the quote function, and all you can do is turn around and insult.
This forum software is the majority of forum software on the web, there are two others, one you pay for and we decided with this one because of the amount of people on the web familiar with it, another, V=Bulletin is good but I didn't like it, and that leaves Yabb, the old standard, but very outdated.
And you have the audacity to insult 70% of forum users over your inability to grasp a simple concept?
Like I said, libs read this forum as well and many were probably pulling for you in the beginning, but when you go petty over little things and insult more than half the world, you lose their sympathy.
Did I say we haven't banned Cons? In fact we've banned more Cons than libs, most libs leave on their own, but cons we give a hearty boot in the ass when all they want to do is argue petty shit, like you're doing in this post of yours.
I suggest you get back on topic and cut the shit or I will give you a boot in the ass as well.
Now you're trying to rebuild that strawman you so lovingly dismantled all by yourself early on, but here it is back again.
Never have we censored anyone, your posts speak for themselves.
Why in the world would we want to stop a lib from showing their true ignorant self, it's the best proof that the liberal mind is stuck in the early stages of development, and relies solely on emotion, as you are exhibiting here in this post.
This is typical of liberals, they know nothing of any given subject, so they try and derail the thread and make it all about their sensibilities.
Note to all libs, this tactic simply doesn't work, if you can't debate an issue, it's best not to open your mouth and prove your ignorance, it's better to just sit back and read, you may learn something, but to do what John is doing here, distracting from the original subject and made the thread all about the host, a host gracious enough to let opposing views be expressed, only to have their hospitality stepped on, is what truly ignorant people do.
And yes, John is showing just how ignorant he is by using the tactic of a teenager, and maybe he is, I honestly don't know.See what I mean libs? This is just more proof he has no interest in debate, just insulting the host. Think about that for a moment, you invite people into your house and offer them hospitality and make them feel welcome, when one in the group turns and begins insulting your home, all the guests and in general just disrupting the conversation and all because they aren't smart enough to keep up with the rest of the group.
Now be honest with yourself, what would you do in a situation like this.
No, I'm not ready to kick him out, I'm going to let him simply continue to embarrass himself to the point he leaves on his own, which is usually the way we do things around here.
But I want you to keep watching, because he knows nothing on any given subject, which is why he resorts to making the thread personal and in the process derails it.
But since you've been following this thread, you've already concluded he got way in over his head.
Welcome to the world of Vrede (John Barth). It is so boring. I commend you and taxed as Vrede is a major twister of reslity.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 28, 2013, 05:35:58 AM
Welcome to the world of Vrede (John Barth). It is so boring. I commend you and taxed as Vrede is a major twister of reslity.
I now remember this poster from last time, just a typical troll, they never actually post on any given subject, they typically look for something to do with emotion they can target and pick away at like a sore they can potentially infect.
I plan on using this guy as an example to other trolls that your ignorance will be put on display and used against you, very much like a Miranda warning, "Whatever you say, can and will be used against you".
Quote from: redlom xof on February 28, 2013, 04:26:01 AM
There is a double standard here, just like on other forums, we all know that.
I would say let him say and debate what he has to say about politics/economics. That is what we are all here for after all. Not to talk about shit like everyone has been for the last x amount of pages.
What double standard, redlom?
Quote from: redlom xof on February 28, 2013, 04:26:01 AM
There is a double standard here, just like on other forums, we all know that.
I would say let him say and debate what he has to say about politics/economics. That is what we are all here for after all. Not to talk about shit like everyone has been for the last x amount of pages.
When will this debate begin?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 10:10:29 AM
When will this debate begin?
redlom has problem with us undercutting the premise that Falmouth is conservative. He has issue with that.
Quote from: redlom xof on February 28, 2013, 04:26:01 AM
There is a double standard here, just like on other forums, we all know that.
I would say let him say and debate what he has to say about politics/economics. That is what we are all here for after all. Not to talk about shit like everyone has been for the last x amount of pages.
Really? And when have we ever censored a post,
like those other forums, or banned someone for an opposing belief,
like those other forums, or deleted their account without explanation
like those other forums?
Point is, were not like other forums, and the fact that you post freely as a liberal, and not once have we ever stifled your views, kind of slaps in the face of your claim, that we're
like those other forums, now doesn't it?
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
redlom has problem with us undercutting the premise that Falmouth is conservative. He has issue with that.
He should get used to disappointment...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 10:24:12 AM
He should get used to disappointment...
I'm still trying to figure out how he is using a town that voted for Warren as proof that conservatives support energy subsidies.
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 10:26:17 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how he is using a town that voted for Warren as proof that conservatives support energy subsidies.
So is he so in the meantime he will obfuscate by whining about the forum...
QuoteReally? And when have we ever censored a post, like those other forums, or banned someone for an opposing belief, like those other forums, or deleted their account without explanation like those other forums?
Point is, were not like other forums, and the fact that you post freely as a liberal, and not once have we ever stifled your views, kind of slaps in the face of your claim, that we're like those other forums, now doesn't it?
I'm not saying you or other admins ban people for having a different point of view. But I do see the conservatives on this board having more flexibility in their personal attacks. If a liberal did the same thing some others here do, he/she would be branded rude and a troll.
The pattern seems to be, someone new comes on, they don't say the conservative viewpoint, get branded a moron/liberal/idiot by a few members, this new person lashes back and he/she is either banned or asked to leave.
Quote from: redlom xof on February 28, 2013, 10:58:18 AM
I'm not saying you or other admins ban people for having a different point of view. But I do see the conservatives on this board having more flexibility in their personal attacks. If a liberal did the same thing some others here do, he/she would be branded rude and a troll.
The pattern seems to be, someone new comes on, they don't say the conservative viewpoint, get branded a moron/liberal/idiot by a few members, this new person lashes back and he/she is either banned or asked to leave.
If someone is serious, serious discussion will continue... if they continue with unfounded crap that we've heard forever, they need to make the case for it. That is what value a liberal bring to the forum. I don't think that is very unfair.
Quote from: redlom xof on February 28, 2013, 10:58:18 AM
I'm not saying you or other admins ban people for having a different point of view. But I do see the conservatives on this board having more flexibility in their personal attacks. If a liberal did the same thing some others here do, he/she would be branded rude and a troll.
The pattern seems to be, someone new comes on, they don't say the conservative viewpoint, get branded a moron/liberal/idiot by a few members, this new person lashes back and he/she is either banned or asked to leave.
Ever heard the term "Culling the Herd"?, new people come in, and regardless of their political persuasion, if they say something stupid, and I do mean truly ignorant, they are challenged, and sometimes rather rudely, but this is how we as a society cull the herd.
They either stand their ground, or leave to safer pastures, we are a reflection of the human experiment, where only the strong survive and the weak become food.
If you expected us to be Politically Correct, you would be sadly mistaken, Conservatives believe in individual strength, not strength through Govt, or in simpler terms, by being sheep and following the leader, that is for liberals.
I honestly hope you understand this, because the left is trying to quash individualism, kill off the free thinkers, they hate people like us, people that believe in self sufficiency.
So to those that come here expecting this forum to be a reflection of the microcosm of the PC Leftists, they will learn a hard lesson.
Lib or Con, stupid is not welcome here.
Quote and reply if you dare, taxed thinks you and your friends are too delicate to read some things.
Thank you, redlom, but we all know that it would never be tolerated here.
No, Solar, it may be the same base program here, but many others don't have its unwieldy quirks. You live in your own magical little "extrem
est" world, like your repeated fantasy about all the hidden lib readers here. Much simpler are all the forums that give you this just by hitting the quote button:
Quote from: John BarthQuote from: Solar...Sorry I went beyond your intellectual level.
Mis-described posts, "it's own", "back peddling", "but it both party's" (2 fer), "Tea party", no question even asked in the quote you responded to. :lol:
Evidently, your administrators don't have the "intellectual level" to fix their own site.
You also need to look up "censor" (banning is the same thing) and "straw man" in the dictionary. Your "stupid" is obviously very welcome here.
Btw, it's hilarious that you're now describing the "original subject" as anything other than the erroneous supsalemgr assumption that you swallowed whole. That was always my main point and most of the diverting away from it came from you. As for the tactics "of a teenager", that's your censor, taxed. Pay attention. There's no "individual strength" or "self sufficiency" in grown men with wet nurses and your definition of "free thinkers" are only ones that spout con wingnuttery, others get banned. Oh, and your pathetic anonymous threats and childish vulgarity are a scream!
Quit whining, The Stranger, if you can prove me wrong about TP votes for corporate largesse from the taxpayers, get off your lazy butt and do so. That's how competent posters do it, not by screeching that any unproven opinion must be wrong. It's more fun that way, too, for those that are competent enough to do it. Of course, you remember all this from having it done to you so very many times, including your believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare". Still running from those, I see.
taxed wrote:
QuoteSo, you still have a city that voted for Warren, but are really conservatives? You're now admitting it was a city that voted for a far left liberal who even got busted lying about her heritage...
Actually, I was fairly careful to post "moderate at best" or "moderate/conservative" but I don't expect you to be honest about it. You've now, with the protection of your own censorship powers, lied about it three more times. What a weenie!
The fact is that supsalemgr was flat out wrong to post:
supsalemgr wrote:
Quote...I am making the assumption the great majority of the people in this community are libs considering the location...
And, y'all swallowed it whole and still can't admit it. That he flubbed is no big deal, that he can't man-up about it is so, so revealing. Now, you're just using your Administrator powers to cover for it.
supsalemgr's only posts since the county data suggested otherwise have been attacks diverting from his flub. In stark contrast, when I found (y'all were too lazy to look or looked and knew that supsalemgr was debunked) that the current city results were a bit different from the county I immediately posted it and let the slightest of majority (51%) chips fall where they may.
Not that I mind - I'm not as sensitive as the cons here and I don't need a wet nurse to protect me - but the childish con attacks began with my first post, yet I'm the one punished for suggesting honest and accountability.
Thank you all, my opinions about cons have been confirmed:
Incompetent.
Illiterate.
Childish.
Vulgar.
Whiny.
Lazy.
Befuddled.
Wingnut assumptions.
Gullible.
Dishonest.
Biased and self-serving when in power.
Too weak to admit error.
Unable to let your arguments stand on their own.
Needing a mommy to step in when shown up.
Many of us are laughing at and pitying you over on an uncensored forum. If any of you are confident enough in your ideas that you think you can hack it, ask supsalemgr, The Stranger and "Reality" what they ran away from like frightened children.
Now, delete this, we all know it's the resort of the desperate. Thank you for proving it. My job is done, exactly as I intended and expected. Bye for good (if not censored again), honestly, you may have the shallow end of the gene pool all to yourselves.
Irony.
Quote from: John Barth on February 28, 2013, 11:02:09 PM
Quote and reply if you dare, taxed thinks you and your friends are too delicate to read some things.
Thank you, redlom, but we all know that it would never be tolerated here.
No, Solar, it may be the same base program here, but many others don't have its unwieldy quirks. You live in your own magical little "extremest" world, like your repeated fantasy about all the hidden lib readers here. Much simpler are all the forums that give you this just by hitting the quote button:
Mis-described posts, "it's own", "back peddling", "but it both party's" (2 fer), "Tea party", no question even asked in the quote you responded to. :lol:
Evidently, your administrators don't have the "intellectual level" to fix their own site.
You also need to look up "censor" (banning is the same thing) and "straw man" in the dictionary. Your "stupid" is obviously very welcome here.
Btw, it's hilarious that you're now describing the "original subject" as anything other than the erroneous supsalemgr assumption that you swallowed whole. That was always my main point and most of the diverting away from it came from you. As for the tactics "of a teenager", that's your censor, taxed. Pay attention. There's no "individual strength" or "self sufficiency" in grown men with wet nurses and your definition of "free thinkers" are only ones that spout con wingnuttery, others get banned. Oh, and your pathetic anonymous threats and childish vulgarity are a scream!
Quit whining, The Stranger, if you can prove me wrong about TP votes for corporate largesse from the taxpayers, get off your lazy butt and do so. That's how competent posters do it, not by screeching that any unproven opinion must be wrong. It's more fun that way, too, for those that are competent enough to do it. Of course, you remember all this from having it done to you so very many times, including your believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare". Still running from those, I see.
taxed wrote:Actually, I was fairly careful to post "moderate at best" or "moderate/conservative" but I don't expect you to be honest about it. You've now, with the protection of your own censorship powers, lied about it three more times. What a weenie!
The fact is that supsalemgr was flat out wrong to post:
supsalemgr wrote:And, y'all swallowed it whole and still can't admit it. That he flubbed is no big deal, that he can't man-up about it is so, so revealing. Now, you're just using your Administrator powers to cover for it.
supsalemgr's only posts since the county data suggested otherwise have been attacks diverting from his flub. In stark contrast, when I found (y'all were too lazy to look or looked and knew that supsalemgr was debunked) that the current city results were a bit different from the county I immediately posted it and let the slightest of majority (51%) chips fall where they may.
Not that I mind - I'm not as sensitive as the cons here and I don't need a wet nurse to protect me - but the childish con attacks began with my first post, yet I'm the one punished for suggesting honest and accountability.
Thank you all, my opinions about cons have been confirmed:
Incompetent.
Illiterate.
Childish.
Vulgar.
Whiny.
Lazy.
Befuddled.
Wingnut assumptions.
Gullible.
Dishonest.
Biased and self-serving when in power.
Too weak to admit error.
Unable to let your arguments stand on their own.
Needing a mommy to step in when shown up.
Many of us are laughing at and pitying you over on an uncensored forum. If any of you are confident enough in your ideas that you think you can hack it, ask supsalemgr, The Stranger and "Reality" what they ran away from like frightened children.
Now, delete this, we all know it's the resort of the desperate. Thank you for proving it. My job is done, exactly as I intended and expected. Bye for good (if not censored again), honestly, you may have the shallow end of the gene pool all to yourselves.
Irony.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsforum.com%2Fimages%2Fgif%2Fcool%2520story%2520bro%2Fgrand%2FDv5e5.gif&hash=b76880979a9947cf09d045fb55731efdce1c3923) (http://gifsforum.com/listofgifs/gallery/cool-story-bro)
One of the most pathetic things liberals do is write these "goodbye cruel world" posts and promise to leave forever. Then instead of leaving they sit and lurk and wait to see if anyone responds to their over emotional rant. Mr. Barth is just such a pathetic liberal as he is still here. Lurking and watching.
Kids these days...
He's still lurking...
Still lurking...
lurking....
Someone get John a chair....
Well, one more, but only because of new research and realizations.
The Stranger, I see that you were "brave" enough to attack me in this thread and others (just like nascarfan88/Bowhntr), but not brave enough to ID yourself as Colonel Taylor/Det.Thorn from the BDF forum that you ran away from the very moment it was proven that you used multiple handles like you whined about (and are still whining about) for months and years.
Bowhntr and supsalemgr, I'm not and never was "Vern". You are paranoid fools, again.
Thank you, sincerely, for the quote and reply, The Boo Man...
I am done, regardless of the replies, if your quote and/or my post aren't deleted. You are free to fantasize otherwise.
Wet nurse-protected con forums aren't worth the time for a lefty that believes in the free and uncensored exchange of ideas. If there are any cons with stones left here, c'mon over to BDF. Just be prepared to post facts and be accountable for your words, The Stranger, Bowhntr and supsalemgr can tell you what happens when you don't and aren't.
Quote from: John Barth on March 01, 2013, 12:13:21 AM
Well, one more, but only because of new research and realizations.
The Stranger, I see that you were "brave" enough to attack me in this thread and others (just like nascarfan88/Bowhntr), but not brave enough to ID yourself as Colonel Taylor/Det.Thorn from the BDF forum that you ran away from the very moment it was proven that you used multiple handles like you whined about (and are still whining about) for months and years.
Bowhntr and supsalemgr, I'm not and never was "Vern". You are paranoid fools, again.
Thank you, sincerely, for the quote and reply, The Boo Man...
I am done, regardless of the replies, if your quote and/or my post aren't deleted. You are free to fantasize otherwise.
Wet nurse-protected con forums aren't worth the time for a lefty that believes in the free and uncensored exchange of ideas. If there are any cons with stones left here, c'mon over to BDF. Just be prepared to post facts and be accountable for your words, The Stranger, Bowhntr and supsalemgr can tell you what happens when you don't and aren't.
:lol:
Too easy...
Still lurking...
He's not just lurking but sending me private messages :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote"Too easy..."
« Sent to: The Boo Man... on: Today at 03:30:43 AM »
Reply
Quote
Delete
I was looking up some familiar wingnuts for posting about in the uncensored BDF forum and decided they merited a response here.
You are welcome to delude yourself that you had anything to do with my last post or that you have psychic powers. It's not the only delusion you have and from all all available evidence the dupes here are slow enough to swallow it. I'll let you enjoy your false victory among them.
Thanks again, sincerely, for the quote and reply. We'll see if the wet nurse lets it stand. If not, you will see it again. Otherwise, see you at BDF, if you dare.
Liberals fun. Creepy but fun...
I noticed that this current halfwit likes to mention another forum. Even inviting us there.
Someone belongs to a failing forum :lol:
Solar, be a nice guy and donate a member. Send him Redlom Xof. People that pretend they're above the fray amuse me. Oh and the that weird Canadian chap JTFM...
Delicious delicious...
John's forum must be really slow!
This is getting pathetic....
Methinks someone isn't going to leave as he promised...
Quote from: John Barth on March 01, 2013, 12:13:21 AM
Well, one more, but only because of new research and realizations.
The Stranger, I see that you were "brave" enough to attack me in this thread and others (just like nascarfan88/Bowhntr), but not brave enough to ID yourself as Colonel Taylor/Det.Thorn from the BDF forum that you ran away from the very moment it was proven that you used multiple handles like you whined about (and are still whining about) for months and years.
Wow she has really stepped it up with the lies. Vrede I PROVED you made those other names up several times just to make yourself look good to your lib friends, keep telling the story over and over doesn't make it true ya know. Ask Bill Clinton. Even though when the forum is so desperate they gave you the powers to get into the personal info section of posters you forgot to add those names YOU claimed I used to the members list. You can't even complete a lie right. Those two names you mentioned that I used were from two different forums not one, oops you forgot to mention that too. You also forgot to mention I was one of the few to use my real name originally way back on another forum.
But y'all have proven so childish y'all now seek real names of posters to post along with places of employment and pictures when you can find them. Only the likes of a mentally ill stalker do these type of childish things. Now run off to your snitch friend in the sheriff dept and try to find our real names and places off employment to post. Yes this mental case Vrede has admitted to knowing a snitch deputy who gives her information. She just may go postal soon the way she is popping off on the other forum.
Why don't you have the balls to post your real name like I did? Keep the lies coming everyone figured you out in only a few days. :popcorn:
Bowhntr and supsalemgr, I'm not and never was "Vern". You are paranoid fools, again.
Thank you, sincerely, for the quote and reply, The Boo Man...
I am done, regardless of the replies, if your quote and/or my post aren't deleted. You are free to fantasize otherwise.
Wet nurse-protected con forums aren't worth the time for a lefty that believes in the free and uncensored exchange of ideas. If there are any cons with stones left here, c'mon over to BDF. Just be prepared to post facts and be accountable for your words, The Stranger, Bowhntr and supsalemgr can tell you what happens when you don't and aren't.
What does "BDF" stand for? :confused:
Quote from: John Barth on March 01, 2013, 12:13:21 AM
Well, one more, but only because of new research and realizations.
The Stranger, I see that you were "brave" enough to attack me in this thread and others (just like nascarfan88/Bowhntr), but not brave enough to ID yourself as Colonel Taylor/Det.Thorn from the BDF forum that you ran away from the very moment it was proven that you used multiple handles like you whined about (and are still whining about) for months and years.
Bowhntr and supsalemgr, I'm not and never was "Vern". You are paranoid fools, again.
Thank you, sincerely, for the quote and reply, The Boo Man...
I am done, regardless of the replies, if your quote and/or my post aren't deleted. You are free to fantasize otherwise.
Wet nurse-protected con forums aren't worth the time for a lefty that believes in the free and uncensored exchange of ideas. If there are any cons with stones left here, c'mon over to BDF. Just be prepared to post facts and be accountable for your words, The Stranger, Bowhntr and supsalemgr can tell you what happens when you don't and aren't.
Do you promise? However, knowing your dishonesty about everything else I doubt it. Bye, Bye.
Quote from: Turks on March 01, 2013, 03:50:53 AM
What does "BDF" stand for? :confused:
Blueridge Debate Forum
Never heard of it but thank you. Much appreciated. :smile:
Quote from: Turks on March 01, 2013, 04:49:23 AM
Never heard of it but thank you. Much appreciated. :smile:
If the trolls ran everyone off, then why bother? Argue with them here, for however long it takes to skin and cook them, with the appropriate and sundry seasonings.
I think this entire thread is symbolic of how America is doomed and can't be saved. We see each other as real enemies based on words like liberal and conservative.
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Quote from: John Barth on February 28, 2013, 11:02:09 PM
Quote and reply if you dare, taxed thinks you and your friends are too delicate to read some things.
Thank you, redlom, but we all know that it would never be tolerated here.
No, Solar, it may be the same base program here, but many others don't have its unwieldy quirks. You live in your own magical little "extremest" world, like your repeated fantasy about all the hidden lib readers here. Much simpler are all the forums that give you this just by hitting the quote button:
Mis-described posts, "it's own", "back peddling", "but it both party's" (2 fer), "Tea party", no question even asked in the quote you responded to. :lol:
Evidently, your administrators don't have the "intellectual level" to fix their own site.
You also need to look up "censor" (banning is the same thing) and "straw man" in the dictionary. Your "stupid" is obviously very welcome here.
Btw, it's hilarious that you're now describing the "original subject" as anything other than the erroneous supsalemgr assumption that you swallowed whole. That was always my main point and most of the diverting away from it came from you. As for the tactics "of a teenager", that's your censor, taxed. Pay attention. There's no "individual strength" or "self sufficiency" in grown men with wet nurses and your definition of "free thinkers" are only ones that spout con wingnuttery, others get banned. Oh, and your pathetic anonymous threats and childish vulgarity are a scream!
Quit whining, The Stranger, if you can prove me wrong about TP votes for corporate largesse from the taxpayers, get off your lazy butt and do so. That's how competent posters do it, not by screeching that any unproven opinion must be wrong. It's more fun that way, too, for those that are competent enough to do it. Of course, you remember all this from having it done to you so very many times, including your believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare". Still running from those, I see.
taxed wrote:Actually, I was fairly careful to post "moderate at best" or "moderate/conservative" but I don't expect you to be honest about it. You've now, with the protection of your own censorship powers, lied about it three more times. What a weenie!
The fact is that supsalemgr was flat out wrong to post:
supsalemgr wrote:And, y'all swallowed it whole and still can't admit it. That he flubbed is no big deal, that he can't man-up about it is so, so revealing. Now, you're just using your Administrator powers to cover for it.
supsalemgr's only posts since the county data suggested otherwise have been attacks diverting from his flub. In stark contrast, when I found (y'all were too lazy to look or looked and knew that supsalemgr was debunked) that the current city results were a bit different from the county I immediately posted it and let the slightest of majority (51%) chips fall where they may.
Not that I mind - I'm not as sensitive as the cons here and I don't need a wet nurse to protect me - but the childish con attacks began with my first post, yet I'm the one punished for suggesting honest and accountability.
Thank you all, my opinions about cons have been confirmed:
Incompetent.
Illiterate.
Childish.
Vulgar.
Whiny.
Lazy.
Befuddled.
Wingnut assumptions.
Gullible.
Dishonest.
Biased and self-serving when in power.
Too weak to admit error.
Unable to let your arguments stand on their own.
Needing a mommy to step in when shown up.
Many of us are laughing at and pitying you over on an uncensored forum. If any of you are confident enough in your ideas that you think you can hack it, ask supsalemgr, The Stranger and "Reality" what they ran away from like frightened children.
Now, delete this, we all know it's the resort of the desperate. Thank you for proving it. My job is done, exactly as I intended and expected. Bye for good (if not censored again), honestly, you may have the shallow end of the gene pool all to yourselves.
Irony.
A reverse dear John? Why is it your claim of breaking up with us, is really just you running away?
Awww, John, I'm so hurt, all the time we spent together.
It seems like just like yesterday, where you were still grasping at the concept of the English language with your grammar and contextual issues, oh wait, you still are.
But really, we had good times, I remember how you used to constantly screw up the quote function, and right on cue, you'd throw a tantrum and blame others, just like a young spoiled liberal teenager.
But like a trooper, you continued on and even though it was obvious you were making headway, it was still our fault that you had the learning curve of....
what did you call it, Chimps? Yeah, that little fit was sooooo cute.
And even after you mastered it, you still struck out at the instructor, whom of which was ohh so proud of you, but I understood it was the act of defiance like that of a child learning to ride a bike and needing to take all the credit of mastering it, even though we only raised the training wheels a half inch.
But the achievement was yours and no one else'.
Yes it was fun watching you grow into ....
Well... anyway, it was funny watching you try and spin facts, you know those pesky little things that kept getting in the way of your hypothetical argument about the supposed Moderate make up of the town of Falmouth Mass.
And I even provided you with the tools to prove us wrong by presenting the towns very own political info. they created proving they are a liberal town.
http://www.falmouthmass.us/deppage.php?number=29 (http://www.falmouthmass.us/deppage.php?number=29)
But like the burgeoning little trooper, you clung to that Wiki evidence as if someone was trying to steel your drool covered blankie.
Yes John, we had good times, you with your talking points, me with actual facts and evidence from years in the field as an expert, but again, you being the little trooper you are, just hung onto those lib talking points in an effort to derail the thread, but I have to admit, even after all that training you received, you still couldn't help yourself and you went personal.
But that's OK, it's what teenage girls do, they lash out when angered, they simply can't control their emotion because they haven't developed the intellect that comes from gleaned wisdom of years in any given field, but do not despair, this ignorant phase doesn't last forever, once you move out of mom and dads house and discover that actually having a job is really kind of neat, rather than being a dependent.
So yes John, we will miss you, but if you ever actually learn a skill/trade of some sort, be sure to come back so we can celebrate your achievement with you and you can tell us how stupid the teachers were, how it was their fault you were the slowest in the class...
Awwww, kind of brings a tear to my eye reminiscing over your learning disabilities and your tantrums that followed.
Damn, here I am getting all misty watching you grow up, knowing life will be soo hard for you, having to learn difficult tasks, like which dumpster gets recyclables and which one gets spoiled Taco Bell food, or watching you get fired for blaming one of the customers because you spilled the mop water.
Though remember John, running away from your problems is never the answer, but we won't actually call this running away, considering where you came from, again,
it's not your fault you entered a forum that actually debates your points rather than simply accept talking points as facts.
If anything I hope our time together will be a fond memory, you the emotional kid, me the unwavering pinnacle of facts, yet compassionate of those with learning disabilities.
Good luck John, or Martha, or whatever name you chose to come back as, but no matter the moniker, we'll always know it's you sleeping on the back porch when you get kicked out of your parents house.
Keep warm...
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 01, 2013, 04:34:27 AM
Do you promise? However, knowing your dishonesty about everything else I doubt it. Bye, Bye.
It'll be back, she can't help herself. :lol: She always has to get the last lie in there some how so her followers will look up to her. :scared: :sad:
Quote from: The Stranger on March 01, 2013, 07:37:32 AM
It'll be back, she can't help herself. :lol: She always has to get the last lie in there some how so her followers will look up to her. :scared: :sad:
Maybe, they just can't help digging themselves in deeper.
But John, in an attempt at a last word, sent me a PM proclaiming I made a mistake in quoting him. :rolleyes:
Like all subjects John enters to, he hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about, there was no mistake made, I saw no reason to go point on point and embarrass him further.
QuoteJohn Barth
Newbie
*
Posts: 42
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Irony
« Sent to: Solar on: Today at 07:44:39 AM »
In quoting me you screwed up the quote function at least 4 times.
Thank you.
What's really sad, is that the forum he came from was cheering him on, that is, until he started getting shredded in every post he made, his intellect was splayed out like a sail cat in the road, like all dried out road kill, blowing in the wind of passing cars.
He managed to expose himself to be nothing more than a glorified dictionary of leftist talking points.
I have a feeling he won't even be returning to the forum he came from, out of arrant embarrassment.
Quote from: Solar on March 01, 2013, 08:41:30 AM
Maybe, they just can't help digging themselves in deeper.
But John, in an attempt at a last word, sent me a PM proclaiming I made a mistake in quoting him. :rolleyes:
Like all subjects John enters to, he hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about, there was no mistake made, I saw no reason to go point on point and embarrass him further.
What's really sad, is that the forum he came from was cheering him on, that is, until he started getting shredded in every post he made, his intellect was splayed out like a sail cat in the road, like all dried out road kill, blowing in the wind of passing cars.
He managed to expose himself to be nothing more than a glorified dictionary of leftist talking points.
I have a feeling he won't even be returning to the forum he came from, out of arrant embarrassment.
Solar you don't understand her and her friends, the few she has left anyway. There is no embarrassment, she will lay low a few days then start the
same exact argument over again like it never happened, that's why I always say they get their talking points and go on like they were never made a fool of. Just like when I proved to them I never had more then one forum name, she went and made things up, again I prover her wrong and here she is here months later spewing the same lies.
My ideas may be different then yours who may be different then salesmgr idea but we are still cons, WE have our OWN ideas. These libs never ever have their own thoughts they go to certain websites and get talking points and run with it! The sad part is on the other site don't matter what lie this vrede clown sells there are a few instantly up her butt, they are not capable of self thought. There are few over there who have never stated an opinion or comment without following her in years. That is the reason our great country is where it is now because they follow instead of leading. :popcorn:
Wow now the gutless wonder is blowing up mailboxes with her insults, to much of a Coward to post so she blows up our mailbox.
How do we but our PM on ignore?
Vrede's involvement in this thread is so typical of his/her MO. Vrede went straight to the diversion of changing the subject from the waste of the wind turbines to the political makeup of Falmouth. Since there is nothing but "irony" about the desire to remove these Vrede went to a minor point in the thread.
Quote from: redlom xof on March 01, 2013, 05:59:04 AM
I think this entire thread is symbolic of how America is doomed and can't be saved. We see each other as real enemies based on words like liberal and conservative.
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Compromise is suicide. Take no prisoners.
Quote from: redlom xof on March 01, 2013, 05:59:04 AM
I think this entire thread is symbolic of how America is doomed and can't be saved. We see each other as real enemies based on words like liberal and conservative.
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Remember that statement. It will be a reminder of just how confused you were in your younger years.
Quote from: Solar on March 01, 2013, 06:24:49 AM
A reverse dear John? Why is it your claim of breaking up with us, is really just you running away?
More like this.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv168%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201654%2Fdemoncrats-vi.jpg&hash=1aca7e1fb537f35655ea9259ed8f1230a319128e)
Quote from: John Barth on February 28, 2013, 11:02:09 PM
Quote and reply if you dare, taxed thinks you and your friends are too delicate to read some things.
This was as brilliant as you trying to use 2009 county data to make the case a small town is conservative when they voted for liberals all the way down the line.
Quote
Btw, it's hilarious that you're now describing the "original subject" as anything other than the erroneous supsalemgr assumption that you swallowed whole. That was always my main point and most of the diverting away from it came from you. As for the tactics "of a teenager", that's your censor, taxed. Pay attention. There's no "individual strength" or "self sufficiency" in grown men with wet nurses and your definition of "free thinkers" are only ones that spout con wingnuttery, others get banned. Oh, and your pathetic anonymous threats and childish vulgarity are a scream!
Huh?
Quote
Quit whining, The Stranger, if you can prove me wrong about TP votes for corporate largesse from the taxpayers, get off your lazy butt and do so. That's how competent posters do it, not by screeching that any unproven opinion must be wrong. It's more fun that way, too, for those that are competent enough to do it. Of course, you remember all this from having it done to you so very many times, including your believing the misstatement by taxed of what I posted about Falmouth and then in creating your own befuddlement on "corporate welfare". Still running from those, I see.
You posted county data. Falsmouth, as supsalesmgr correctly assumed, proven by Solar, is a liberal town. You then tried to walk it back. Just be careful, because you might trip...
Quote
Actually, I was fairly careful to post "moderate at best" or "moderate/conservative" but I don't expect you to be honest about it. You've now, with the protection of your own censorship powers, lied about it three more times. What a weenie!
You debunked nothing. When Solar took 2 seconds to check, he showed Falsmouth voted hard lib from President on down. Their dog catcher is a Marxist. You attempted to disprove supsalesmgr's assumption as wrong, and you ended up in a very embarrassing face plant.
Also, saying I censor you is not correct. You kept making a fuss about how you were going to be banned, so I put you in time out for a day. If you be a good boy, I'll give you your Gameboy back.
Quote
The fact is that supsalemgr was flat out wrong to post:
supsalemgr wrote:And, y'all swallowed it whole and still can't admit it. That he flubbed is no big deal, that he can't man-up about it is so, so revealing. Now, you're just using your Administrator powers to cover for it.
He flubbed nothing. Falsmouth elected Elizabeth Warren, a radical lib. Heritage Action Scorecard is what a lot of us conservatives use to get a quick glance at how conservative a politician is. Scott Brown:http://heritageactionscorecard.com/scorecard/index.html#B001268#member
So, they voted for a radical liberal over a RINO liberal, and you say that makes the town moderate.
Quote
supsalemgr's only posts since the county data suggested otherwise have been attacks diverting from his flub. In stark contrast, when I found (y'all were too lazy to look or looked and knew that supsalemgr was debunked) that the current city results were a bit different from the county I immediately posted it and let the slightest of majority (51%) chips fall where they may.
You posted county data to support that supsalesmgr was wrong. Solar posted Falsmouth-specific data confirming they vote lib all the way down. After you were handed this fact (which libs HATE, as you are proving here), you try and cling onto the margin of victory of a radical lib over a lib RINO to say supsalesmgr (not your own assertion), is wrong.
This is exactly why we love libs coming here to "debate". You're like a gift to the forum.
Quote
Not that I mind - I'm not as sensitive as the cons here and I don't need a wet nurse to protect me - but the childish con attacks began with my first post, yet I'm the one punished for suggesting honest and accountability.
Those weren't "attacks" -- they were facts. I know they hurt you the same, but understand when you post misinformation, and we post the correction (RINO county vs LIB town), you need to deal with it.
Quote
Many of us are laughing at and pitying you over on an uncensored forum. If any of you are confident enough in your ideas that you think you can hack it, ask supsalemgr, The Stranger and "Reality" what they ran away from like frightened children.
Now, delete this, we all know it's the resort of the desperate. Thank you for proving it. My job is done, exactly as I intended and expected. Bye for good (if not censored again), honestly, you may have the shallow end of the gene pool all to yourselves.
Irony.
You don't have to worry about getting banned. Just keep posting and arguing like you are, and all will be fine.
Solar's right -- we found our new SiouxRebel.
Quote from: redlom xof on March 01, 2013, 05:59:04 AM
I think this entire thread is symbolic of how America is doomed and can't be saved. We see each other as real enemies based on words like liberal and conservative.
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Would you agree Barth was proved wrong? In other words, would you say Falmouth is a conservative town? (yes, I know it has nothing to do with the windmill story)
I just went to the Blueridge Debate Forum. Never been there before, clicked on the first thread I saw and the topic is.....US! :lol:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 01, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
I just went to the Blueridge Debate Forum. Never been there before, clicked on the first thread I saw and the topic is.....US! :lol:
We're famous???
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 01, 2013, 12:55:52 PM
I just went to the Blueridge Debate Forum. Never been there before, clicked on the first thread I saw and the topic is.....US! :lol:
That is why The Stranger, Reality, Bowhunter and myself are here. Keyboarder was also on a board in our area that shut down because of Vrede and her friends. I can't speak for the others, but going around in circles chasing my tail did not appeal to me. Banni created that forum for his lib buddies and now there are only a couple of cons that post there.
Banni spends about as much time monitoring this board as on his own.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 01, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
That is why The Stranger, Reality, Bowhunter and myself are here. Keyboarder was also on a board in our area that shut down because of Vrede and her friends. I can't speak for the others, but going around in circles chasing my tail did not appeal to me. Banni created that forum for his lib buddies and now there are only a couple of cons that post there.
Banni spends about as much time monitoring this board as on his own.
They have been trashing you a lot.
Just let it die, we don't need to trash other boards, they can do that to themselves, and we'll pick up more members because of it.
We've witnessed this with LNF,and look where it is today, and I have no doubt this other forum is headed to the same graveyard, lets not lower ourselves to their level.
We have far more important issues to focus on, like purging the GOP of scum.
Quote from: Turks on March 01, 2013, 03:50:53 AM
What does "BDF" stand for? :confused:
I thought it was Big Ducking Feel.
Quote from: redlom xof on March 01, 2013, 05:59:04 AM
I think this entire thread is symbolic of how America is doomed and can't be saved. We see each other as real enemies based on words like liberal and conservative.
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Ah, the old "they all do it".
As in "oh why can't they work together and meet in the middle".....when the GOP already gave Obama the taxes he wanted, and Obama won't even discuss the cuts he owes for the taxes.
Yeah, that's a real evenly spread responsibility. If you reason like a 12-year-old.
This Jennie Garth fella is quite the angry gargoyle. Why is that the nature of all liberal posts ?
wow, I just looked at that site. It's nuts ! Like a bunch of teenagers all screaming at the same time. Which is probably what it is lol.
Besides warring with this site, they seem to be having a major conflagration with another site of almost the same name as them. Just plain strange.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 01, 2013, 01:06:13 AM
John's forum must be really slow!
It is. It has about 4 regulars and about 3 or 4 other occasional drive by posters. They pretty much destroyed the forum that was attached to the local paper and now have destroyed their own playground. They kind of remind me of how the aliens from "Independence Day" were described...like locusts, moving from forum to forum, once they have ran all the decent folks off and destroyed one, they move on to another.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 01, 2013, 01:23:24 PM
They have been trashing you a lot.
If you ever prove them wrong that's how it goes. If it wasn't for us there would be no discussion over there at all. They have ran off most of their own with there B/S. It's just sad that humans have to be so low that they sit on a forum made up for themselves (
because no one else will have them) and trash others.
Then again it's good entertainment. :lol: :lol: :popcorn: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on March 01, 2013, 01:37:23 PM
Just let it die, we don't need to trash other boards, they can do that to themselves, and we'll pick up more members because of it.
We've witnessed this with LNF,and look where it is today, and I have no doubt this other forum is headed to the same graveyard, lets not lower ourselves to their level.
We have far more important issues to focus on, like purging the GOP of scum.
Since I still flagellate myself by posting at LNF (despite Ricky's writing advice), I can see you're trying to hold the high ground, which is admirable despite your other left-leaning ways. :wink: I never claimed to be a Republican or a Democrat, so I enjoy a fast game of slap-a-troll, just as much as the next guy.
As for any other forum coming here, how many leftists from LNF ever seriously tried? They created their own forums, as I understand it, and drifted away from here almost as fast as from LNF itself. The trolls remaining are the trolls they always had.
These new kids in the CPF hall? If they come here spewing Josh Marshall or Kos Kidz or Democratic Underground rubbish, I see no problem in hammering them---here. Going THERE to do it is counterproductive since every time THEY link to HERE it benefits CPF rankings, yes? (You know that stuff, right? Am I close here or what?)
We'll talk about eliminating RINO scum some other time. I have a gerbil I have to go strangle. Leftist films say all conservatives are like that, so who am I to argue?
Quote from: quiller on March 03, 2013, 10:28:04 AM
Since I still flagellate myself by posting at LNF (despite Ricky's writing advice), I can see you're trying to hold the high ground, which is admirable despite your other left-leaning ways. :wink: I never claimed to be a Republican or a Democrat, so I enjoy a fast game of slap-a-troll, just as much as the next guy.
As for any other forum coming here, how many leftists from LNF ever seriously tried? They created their own forums, as I understand it, and drifted away from here almost as fast as from LNF itself. The trolls remaining are the trolls they always had.
These new kids in the CPF hall? If they come here spewing Josh Marshall or Kos Kidz or Democratic Underground rubbish, I see no problem in hammering them---here. Going THERE to do it is counterproductive since every time THEY link to HERE it benefits CPF rankings, yes? (You know that stuff, right? Am I close here or what?)
We'll talk about eliminating RINO scum some other time. I have a gerbil I have to go strangle. Leftist films say all conservatives are like that, so who am I to argue?
Yes, you would be correct, although their forum is extremely miniscule, in fact not even a blip on googles radar.
They rank#1, there is no #0, so you can see they are at the very bottom of rankings, we on the other hand rank in at a respectable #4, so their linking to us in essence does nothing for us, a rank of 10 are the Drudges, Yahoo, Microsoft, so we have serious work ahead.
I hold no ill will with their site, in fact I hope they do well, for that would mean they are allowing Conservatives to post, lib sites by themselves don't really do all that well, no one cares about their message, we are inundated daily through the media, so we don't need another site parroting the leftist MSM, they really should try and encourage more Cons to join.
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2013, 11:20:21 AM
Yes, you would be correct, although their forum is extremely miniscule, in fact not even a blip on googles radar.
They rank#1, there is no #0, so you can see they are at the very bottom of rankings, we on the other hand rank in at a respectable #4, so their linking to us in essence does nothing for us, a rank of 10 are the Drudges, Yahoo, Microsoft, so we have serious work ahead.
I hold no ill will with their site, in fact I hope they do well, for that would mean they are allowing Conservatives to post, lib sites by themselves don't really do all that well, no one cares about their message, we are inundated daily through the media, so we don't need another site parroting the leftist MSM, they really should try and encourage more Cons to join.
You might change your tune if you popped in over there and saw the insults and degrading comments that are being made about this site and you personally. Those numbnuts have even started a "blanket ban on all cons" thread to poke fun at us. I always said those fools led a pitiful life. The events of recent days pretty much prove it.
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 06, 2013, 12:10:33 PM
You might change your tune if you popped in over there and saw the insults and degrading comments that are being made about this site and you personally. Those numbnuts have even started a "blanket ban on all cons" thread to poke fun at us. I always said those fools led a pitiful life. The events of recent days pretty much prove it.
Do you really think a handful of inbred libs warrants my attention?
Just ignore them, but I do find imitation the sincerest form of flattery, being they found it necessary to copy us. :laugh:
But seriously, the place is dead, let them lock the doors, it's not as if people are actually clamoring to get in .
Think of it as more like keeping them in, like as in a nut house. :biggrin:
Like I always say, once you've seen the rotting carcass, there's no reason to keep going back, it's still dead and not getting any more dead.
Quote from: Solar on March 06, 2013, 12:22:43 PM
Do you really think a handful of inbred libs warrants my attention?
Just ignore them, but I do find imitation the sincerest form of flattery, being they found it necessary to copy us. :laugh:
But seriously, the place is dead, let them lock the doors, it's not as if people are actually clamoring to get in .
Think of it as more like keeping them in, like as in a nut house. :biggrin:
Like I always say, once you've seen the rotting carcass, there's no reason to keep going back, it's still dead and not getting any more dead.
I think ignoring is the best way to go. It drives Vrede nuts when a poster won't take all the baits. They are really on me and that is indication I got to them. So be it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 06, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
I think ignoring is the best way to go. It drives Vrede nuts when a poster won't take all the baits. They are really on me and that is indication I got to them. So be it.
Exactly!!!
Being a pimple on a fleas ass on the internet is shameful enough, ignoring them is akin to lancing said pimple. :biggrin: