[SKINNYPIG]

I can have civil talks with anybody that I disagree with, except people like Hoot, that at every turn call people "ignorant or idiot" for having a view different than his. He stalks me all over BGR, talking his BS, in just about every thread I post in. Without fail, he will bring up the religion(calling me atheist) stuff, or the BGR buying stuff, when he runs a thread into the ground and can get no more out of it. There are a few on here that know me personally, and know that I will bend over backwards for people I like. Hoot is not one of those people I like. I get tired of his relentless following me around in threads I post in, starting his BS.

For the past three years I have read almost every post made in Politics and Current Events. I don't "know" that you are an Obama "supporter" but I can certainly see you as a "defender".

In my opinion a healthy debate can only be healthy if point of views are not totally one sided. The main subject over the last three years has been Obama's way of governing, his policies and the 2012 election. I can find faults in every candidate in the race, I can certainly find faults in myself.

IMO our last two Presidents have been lacking at best. Bush expanded government (with homeland security) like a true liberal while halfheartedly protecting US citizens from the housing and market crashes that were looming. Obama has been terrible in his fight to revive the economy. In the 2008 campaign Obama campaigned as a uniter, a middle of the road centrist that would bring congress and the country together...He has consistently opposed any legislation to the right or center of his. He has passed the buck in the laps of republicans at every turn. He totally ignored and insulted the Tea Party Americans with legitimate concerns. And with that, we have a divided country like I cannot remember.

If the fact you do not have a post supporting Obama means you are not an Obama supporter, could the fact that you refuse to criticize him in a post means you are? After all, there is plenty to criticize, right? None of them are perfect. It's obvious in your posts that EVERY REPUBLICAN in the race is imperfect while almost never pointing out imperfections of Obama.

I'm sure Hoot or anybody else can find faults in EVERY candidate and policies from both side of the aisle. If you're not willing to do so, it makes it very hard to have a civil debate.

Hoot never hesitates to criticize Newt, Paul, Cain, Romney or Obama when he sees fit. It's easier for conservatives or those right of center to criticize Obama because he is ALWAYS way left of where we are. I bet with a little coaxing, Hoot might even be able to say something positive about Obama.

When I open up BGP I always look forward to reading your debates with Hoot and the rest. Sometimes I find them humorous and entertaining. Sometimes they are disappointing. I think they would be much better if you debated from both sides...It just makes a better, more respectable debate when both side are treated equally. You won't like this comparison, but I see you as Obama's Hannity. :yikes:

[TheRealVille]

For the past three years I have read almost every post made in Politics and Current Events. I don't "know" that you are an Obama "supporter" but I can certainly see you as a "defender".

In my opinion a healthy debate can only be healthy if point of views are not totally one sided. The main subject over the last three years has been Obama's way of governing, his policies and the 2012 election. I can find faults in every candidate in the race, I can certainly find faults in myself.

IMO our last two Presidents have been lacking at best. Bush expanded government (with homeland security) like a true liberal while halfheartedly protecting US citizens from the housing and market crashes that were looming. Obama has been terrible in his fight to revive the economy. In the 2008 campaign Obama campaigned as a uniter, a middle of the road centrist that would bring congress and the country together...He has consistently opposed any legislation to the right or center of his. He has passed the buck in the laps of republicans at every turn. He totally ignored and insulted the Tea Party Americans with legitimate concerns. And with that, we have a divided country like I cannot remember.

If the fact you do not have a post supporting Obama means you are not an Obama supporter, could the fact that you refuse to criticize him in a post means you are? After all, there is plenty to criticize, right? None of them are perfect. It's obvious in your posts that EVERY REPUBLICAN in the race is imperfect while almost never pointing out imperfections of Obama.

I'm sure Hoot or anybody else can find faults in EVERY candidate and policies from both side of the aisle. If you're not willing to do so, it makes it very hard to have a civil debate.

Hoot never hesitates to criticize Newt, Paul, Cain, Romney or Obama when he sees fit. It's easier for conservatives or those right of center to criticize Obama because he is ALWAYS way left of where we are. I bet with a little coaxing, Hoot might even be able to say something positive about Obama.

When I open up BGP I always look forward to reading your debates with Hoot and the rest. Sometimes I find them humorous and entertaining. Sometimes they are disappointing. I think they would be much better if you debated from both sides...It just makes a better, more respectable debate when both side are treated equally. You won't like this comparison, but I see you as Obama's Hannity. :yikes:

I don't see how you can see me as an Obama defender, just because of my lack of criticism. I don't see a need for me to criticize Obama, because everybody on here does that plenty. I post negative articles about some of the republicans running for office sometimes, just to even things out, because I know that no else one on here will.


With you and everybody else, except Hoot, I can have a good time talking. I can't deal with him, because when you don't agree with him, he starts what he always does, downgrading you, and doing his usual "smartass" stuff, like bringing up my lack of religion. Surely you can see, how he comes to every thread I post in, almost without fail, starting his BS.

[SKINNYPIG]

I don't see how you can see me as an Obama defender, just because of my lack of criticism. I don't see a need for me to criticize Obama, because everybody on here does that plenty. I post negative articles about some of the republicans running for office sometimes, just to even things out, because I know that no else one on here will.


With you and everybody else, except Hoot, I can have a good time talking. I can't deal with him, because when you don't agree with him, he starts what he always does, downgrading you, and doing his usual "smartass" stuff, like bringing up my lack of religion. Surely you can see, how he comes to every thread I post in, almost without fail, starting his BS.

To be quite honest, I enjoy the banter between you and Hoot. Not so enjoyable when it ends up like post #114 in this thread.

We all do our share of agging each other on and to me, that's what makes this stuff fun. It would really be fun if we all could take everything we dished without resorting to #114. Understand?

The beauty of our country and even BGP is, along as you stay within the rules, you have every right to post/say whatever you want, no matter what myself, Hoot or anyone else thinks about it.

IMO if your skin were a little thicker, Hoot/TRV debates would be much better.

[RunItUpTheGut]

To be quite honest, I enjoy the banter between you and Hoot. Not so enjoyable when it ends up like post #114 in this thread.

We all do our share of agging each other on and to me, that's what makes this stuff fun. It would really be fun if we all could take everything we dished without resorting to #114. Understand?

The beauty of our country and even BGP is, along as you stay within the rules, you have every right to post/say whatever you want, no matter what myself, Hoot or anyone else thinks about it.

IMO if your skin were a little thicker, Hoot/TRV debates would be much better.

What!!!:yikes:

[TheRealVille]

What!!!:yikes:

:biggrin: That's twice he has called this place BGP in this thread, but I wasn't going to name it, lol. I also saw Dusty call it BGP a few days ago.

[SKINNYPIG]

:biggrin: That's twice he has called this place BGP in this thread, but I wasn't going to name it, lol. I also saw Dusty call it BGP a few days ago.

Sorry...That's BGR :o

[TheRealVille]

The slate of Republican presidential hopefuls who did not qualify for the Virginia primary might get another shot. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II plans to file emergency legislation to re-open the process to GOP candidates.

Virginia’s process has come under fire since it was announced last week that only former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) had qualified for the ballot.

 The Texas governor is seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
Gallery

 The former House speaker is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
More On This Story

“Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” Cuccinelli ® said in a statement Saturday. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Neither Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former senator Rick Santorum nor former House speaker Newt Gingrich submitted the 10,000 signatures required to get a spot on the state’s ballot in time for Super Tuesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/r...story.html

[TheRealVille]

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
The four candidates "knew the rules in Virginia many months ago," the judge wrote in his ruling. "In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair."
Gibney, a 2010 appointee to the federal bench in Richmond by President Barack Obama, said his ruling denied the candidates' motion for a preliminary injunction.
"The plaintiffs have waited too long to file, and the doctrine of laches bars their claim," Gibney wrote.
"The Commonwealth is far along in the electoral process. The primary election is so close that the plaintiffs cannot gather the requisite signatures to get on the ballot. To place the plaintiffs on the ballot would deprive Virginia of its rights not only to conduct the primary in an orderly way but also to insist that a candidate show broad support," the judge wrote.
Two other candidates did qualify for the GOP primary: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/v...index.html

[RunItUpTheGut]

Correct me if im wrong, but pretty much, Romney and Paul are the only two presidential candidates that Virginians can vote for in the primary?

Talk about classic. The front runner and the close second battling it out for all of the delegates that state has, while the rest must sit home and watch and also fall further behind.

[TheRealVille]

Correct me if im wrong, but pretty much, Romney and Paul are the only two presidential candidates that Virginians can vote for in the primary?

Talk about classic. The front runner and the close second battling it out for all of the delegates that state has, while the rest must sit home and watch and also fall further behind.

Right.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Right.

How much do you honestly think this will hurt gingrich and santorum?
On one hand i think, its only one state and its not that big of deal, while on the other hand if romney smokes paul or vice versa in virginia, it could be detrimental delegates wise to all of the other challengers.

[TheRealVille]

How much do you honestly think this will hurt gingrich and santorum?
On one hand i think, its only one state and its not that big of deal, while on the other hand if romney smokes paul or vice versa in virginia, it could be detrimental delegates wise to all of the other challengers.

I honestly think both of them, Gingrich more than Santorum, are all but out of the race completely. This Presidency is Romney's to win or lose.

[vundy33]

Sorry...That's BGR :o

You just made my head explode man...pretty lucky I didn't see that then, lol..

[vundy33]

President Obama will win another term...we can go ahead and cash that check. Why? Because all of the Republicans suck ass horribly. I've spent the last few weeks trying to figure out which ones suck less..but they're all just straight up horrible. They won't come close to beating Pres Obama.

It's pathetic, and we're screwed..I really, really wish that Hillary could run against Obama instead of any of the Republicans.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
One thing thats very true is that we dont have anybody fit for running this country right now.

[vundy33]

^
One thing thats very true is that we dont have anybody fit for running this country right now.

Yeah...every time I get reminded of the upcoming elections, I just sigh..this sucks.

[Hoot Gibson]

President Obama will win another term...we can go ahead and cash that check. Why? Because all of the Republicans suck ass horribly. I've spent the last few weeks trying to figure out which ones suck less..but they're all just straight up horrible. They won't come close to beating Pres Obama.

It's pathetic, and we're screwed..I really, really wish that Hillary could run against Obama instead of any of the Republicans.

Obama will lose in 2012 and it will not even be close. Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama - but she still would have been a very poor president, IMO. She has not been an effective Secretary of State, partly because she was totally unqualified for the position but nobody could be an effective SoS executing Obama's foreign policy. Hillary has a tough job and has done nothing to show that she is presidential material.

[TheRealVille]

Obama will lose in 2012 and it will not even be close. Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama - but she still would have been a very poor president, IMO. She has not been an effective Secretary of State, partly because she was totally unqualified for the position but nobody could be an effective SoS executing Obama's foreign policy. Hillary has a tough job and has done nothing to show that she is presidential material.

I saved this quote, just in case. I might get to use it as my signature for all of 2013.

[Hoot Gibson]

I saved this quote, just in case. I might get to use it as my signature for all of 2013.

I am not running for president. If I am wrong and we get four more years of Obama, then we all lose. However, I am sure that you will celebrate the reelection of Obama if the absoute worst scenario becomes reality. One would think that a non-supporter of Obama would not be among the first to gloat over his unlikely victory. It is a strange world in which we live, full of contradictions.

[TheRealVille]

I am not running for president. If I am wrong and we get four more years of Obama, then we all lose. However, I am sure that you will celebrate the reelection of Obama if the absoute worst scenario becomes reality. One would think that a non-supporter of Obama would not be among the first to gloat over his unlikely victory. It is a strange world in which we live, full of contradictions.

If I celebrate an Obama victory, it will only be because I get to hear you bitch for four more years, and come up with your off the wall stuff. BTW, how did that Obama Justice department and recess thing go for you? I didn't see you respond in that thread. I said I might have to hold my nose and vote for him though.

[Hoot Gibson]

If I celebrate an Obama victory, it will only be because I get to hear you bitch for four more years, and come up with your off the wall stuff. BTW, how did that Obama Justice department and recess thing go for you? I didn't see you respond in that thread. I said I might have to hold my nose and vote for him though.

Quite the mature adult you are, RV. There was no need for much comment on Obama's latest unconstitutional action. I suppose that you celebrated Obama making recess appointments while the US Senate was not in recess. Am I correct?

[TheRealVille]

Quite the mature adult you are, RV. There was no need for much comment on Obama's latest unconstitutional action. I suppose that you celebrated Obama making recess appointments while the US Senate was not in recess. Am I correct?

It wasn't unconstitutional. The justice department already ruled that congress was in recess. The pro forma sessions, that didn't allow business weren't legal sessions. I wouldn't talk too much about being mature, Hoot. Your actions many months ago, weren't very mature either. You don't remember us arguing over something or other, then taking it to PM's, and agreeing to drop it and bury the hatchet, then the very first time or two that we disagreed, you bring out our private conversations in open forum? How mature was that on your part? That's when I first realized that you were a worm. Now everyone else knows why I think like I do.

[Hoot Gibson]

It wasn't unconstitutional. The justice department already ruled that congress was in recess. The pro forma sessions, that didn't allow business weren't legal sessions. I wouldn't talk too much about being mature, Hoot. Your actions many months ago, when I first realized you were a worm, weren't very mature either. You don't remember us arguing over something or other, then taking it to PM's, and agreeing to drop it and bury the hatchet, then the very first time or two that we disagreed, in open forum you bring out our private conversations in open forum? How mature was that on your part?

You really are clueless about how our federal government works. The Justice Department is not a court - it reports to President Obama and it cannot simply declare that unconstitutional actions are constitutional. Ruling on constitutional issues is a role of the Judicial Branch. The names are similar - Justice Department and Judicial Branch - but they are not the same.

As for the rest of your post, I refuse to indulge your delusions by debating your revisionist version of events. We both know the truth but you keep trying to change the past. I suggest that you put the past behind you and focus on doing better in the future.

[TheRealVille]

You really are clueless about how our federal government works. The Justice Department is not a court - it reports to President Obama and it cannot simply declare that unconstitutional actions are constitutional. Ruling on constitutional issues is a role of the Judicial Branch. The names are similar - Justice Department and Judicial Branch - but they are not the same.

As for the rest of your post, I refuse to indulge your delusions by debating your revisionist version of events. We both know the truth but you keep trying to change the past. I suggest that you put the past behind you and focus on doing better in the future.

Well they must have some kind of say, look at my post about it in the other thread.
http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...tcount=111




I suggest you leave PM's private, and not publish them in open forum. Do you deny bringing up a private conversation in open forum?

[Hoot Gibson]

Well they must have some kind of say, look at my post about it in the other thread.
http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...tcount=111
I suggest you leave PM's private, and not publish them in open forum. Do you deny bringing up a private conversation in open forum?

If I wanted to comment on your post, then I would have done it in the appropriate thread. I get tired of every exchange with you devolving into an exchang of personal insults and prefer debating with people who can support their opinions with facts instead of personal attacks. As for PMs, I stopped reading anything that you sent me long ago. If you want to threaten or insult me, then you will need to do it in an open forum.

[TheRealVille]

If I wanted to comment on your post, then I would have done it in the appropriate thread. I get tired of every exchange with you devolving into an exchang of personal insults and prefer debating with people who can support their opinions with facts instead of personal attacks. As for PMs, I stopped reading anything that you sent me long ago. If you want to threaten or insult me, then you will need to do it in an open forum.

I posted the facts, you just refuse to see them. His Justice department said said he was completely legal, and I will bet money that it won't go any further than them.



You know that you did, that's why you don't answer straight. The PM's you definitely read, because we talked back and forth in them, then the first time we disagreed, after we decided to drop it, you posted in open forum that I threatened you. You know I didn't, I just gave you an address to look me up when you got to Paintsville, and call me a liar to my face. At least be an adult and admit when you do something.

[Hoot Gibson]

I posted the facts, you just refuse to see them. His Justice department said said he was completely legal, and I will bet money that it won't go any further than them.



You know that you did, that's why you don't answer straight. The PM's you definitely read, because we talked back and forth in them, then the first time we disagreed, after we decided to drop it, you posted in open forum that I threatened you. You know I didn't, I just gave you an address to look me up when you got to Paintsville, and call me a liar to my face. At least be an adult and admit when you do something.

As I have said before, RV, you have too much time on your hands and need to take up a hobby or get a winter job. You do not have an adequate background to debate politics and current evnts effectively, so when I choose to ignore your posts you cry for attention. Eventually you resort to profanity. The pattern is predictable and boring.

There are too many good reruns on TV to relive the low points of your posting history with you for the umpteenth time. Good night.

[TheRealVille]

As I have said before, RV, you have too much time on your hands and need to take up a hobby or get a winter job. You do not have an adequate background to debate politics and current evnts effectively, so when I choose to ignore your posts you cry for attention. Eventually you resort to profanity. The pattern is predictable and boring.

There are too many good reruns on TV to relive the low points of your posting history with you for the umpteenth time. Good night.

Just what I thought. At least everybody can see too.

[Hoot Gibson]

Just what I thought. At least everybody can see too.

What people can see is that it bothers you so much that I did not respond to one of your posts in another thread that you reposted a link here in the wrong thread. They can also see that you have no understanding of what the role of the Justice Department is in the federal government. Debating issues with you that you clearly do not understand is a waste of my time and I have wasted enough time dealing with you already. Obviously, it upsets you when I ignore you for some reason, but that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine.

[TheRealVille]

What people can see is that it bothers you so much that I did not respond to one of your posts in another thread that you reposted a link here in the wrong thread. They can also see that you have no understanding of what the role of the Justice Department is in the federal government. Debating issues with you that you clearly do not understand is a waste of my time and I have wasted enough time dealing with you already. Obviously, it upsets you when I ignore you for some reason, but that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine.

Doesn't bother me a bit. I just like calling you out when you post obviously wrong stuff. You ignore everything that shows you are wrong. Pro Forma sessions aren't legal "in sessions". They didn't allow business to be conducted, or allow Obama the opportunity to bring anybody up for appointment.


You can ignore the other stuff also, it only shows that what I told about how you handle stuff is wormy. Goodnight Hoot, go crawl back in your hole. Now maybe people understand why I told you once before to go crawl back in your hole, now that the story is out in the open.