btw - looks like those crooked corporations jt mentioned were actually more in cahoots with w and the repubs than with the dems.

1) "Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds to Republicans. More than $2 million of that money came during the 1999-2000 election cycle alone, when the company became one of the biggest boosters to President Bush’s campaign for the White House."
2) "Since 1989, Worldcom has contributed roughly $7.6 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties, 54 percent to the GOP. President Bush raised $41,601 from the company during the 2000 election cycle."

Jtornado wrote:

ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. He just can't handle it can he...haha... Thinks "Maybe if I REALLY insult him then he will be drawn in" Keep on trollin JC!

keep on apologizing for w's failures. he needs all the excuses he can get.

jc wrote:

ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual.

I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there...

That was my own thought... moron.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual. I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there... That was my own thought... moron.

and now he is responding to his own posts to try to drag me back in...Happy Trolling JC!

Jtornado wrote:

ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual. I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there... That was my own thought... moron. and now he is responding to his own posts to try to drag me back in...Happy Trolling JC!

no dragging required. you're in and always will be. again, if i had a dollar for every time you people say you are done when you aren't i would be rich.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual. I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there... That was my own thought... moron.

jumping in to defend one of your little buddies = mp, mp.

jc wrote:

ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual. I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there... That was my own thought... moron. jumping in to defend one of your little buddies = mp, mp.

I didn't defend anyone. I made an observation... moron.

jc wrote:

btw - looks like those crooked corporations jt mentioned were actually more in cahoots with w and the repubs than with the dems. 1) "Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds to Republicans. More than $2 million of that money came during the 1999-2000 election cycle alone, when the company became one of the biggest boosters to President Bush’s campaign for the White House." 2) "Since 1989, Worldcom has contributed roughly $7.6 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties, 54 percent to the GOP. President Bush raised $41,601 from the company during the 2000 election cycle."

Maybe not. Those crooks were making money left and right under Clinton and getting tossed in jail under Bush in many cases.

bk wrote:

jc wrote: btw - looks like those crooked corporations jt mentioned were actually more in cahoots with w and the repubs than with the dems. 1) "Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds to Republicans. More than $2 million of that money came during the 1999-2000 election cycle alone, when the company became one of the biggest boosters to President Bush’s campaign for the White House." 2) "Since 1989, Worldcom has contributed roughly $7.6 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties, 54 percent to the GOP. President Bush raised $41,601 from the company during the 2000 election cycle." Maybe not. Those crooks were making money left and right under Clinton and getting tossed in jail under Bush in many cases.

the fact that the majority of the $ was going to w and the repubs shows the theme. of course, all politicians are bought and sold on a daily basis, dems repubs alike. that's why it's so funny when jt and the other w apologists try to pretend that w and the repubs aren't crooks and aren't killing thousands of u,.s. troops for their own personal political gain.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: ThunderFan4Life wrote: jc wrote: for christ's sake, jt, you replied to my post, started mp-ing for 5for, made excuses for w's failings and now you call me a troll and run off to some other thread. i think that may qualify as the biggest bit of h-y-p-o-c-r-i-c-y in this thread. so sayeth the hypocritical troll. I think we need a study. mp..................as usual. I love it. I did not defend anyone, I said you were a hypocritical troll and you put the mp out there... That was my own thought... moron. jumping in to defend one of your little buddies = mp, mp. I didn't defend anyone. I made an observation... moron.

you seldom have anything to say on your own. about 75% of your posts are jumping in to mp for one or the other of your pals. the other 25% are to complain about fred's homophobia.

Your posts are:

90% Complaining about other posters
10% repetitive childish bullshit
and 100% moronic.

I say good day.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

Your posts are: 90% Complaining about other posters 10% repetitive childish bullshit and 100% moronic. I say good day.

you are correct about the 10%. i have to try to at least stay in that game. you are wrong about the rest, though. i know that your gunloving, w apologizing perspective makes it seem like i am critical of you and your mp-ing pals, but that is only because you take criticism of your guns and your w personally.

Wow... now you call me gunloving and W apologizing!?!?!?!

I voted against Bush in the last two elections. I have never approved of anything he has done, ever.

I do not own a gun nor see myself owning a gun (mainly to avoid being 43 xs likely to live in one county in the US and kill a relative or friend instead of a criminal)

so again, you have it pegged all wrong, just like you say I either mp or complain about fred... you obviously have no clue about anything because I post about quite a bit and none of it has to do with fred and a lot of it is my own thoughts.

again I say, moron.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

Wow... now you call me gunloving and W apologizing!?!?!?! I voted against Bush in the last two elections. I have never approved of anything he has done, ever. I do not own a gun nor see myself owning a gun (mainly to avoid being 43 xs likely to live in one county in the US and kill a relative or friend instead of a criminal) so again, you have it pegged all wrong, just like you say I either mp or complain about fred... you obviously have no clue about anything because I post about quite a bit and none of it has to do with fred and a lot of it is my own thoughts. again I say, moron.

all i have to go by is what you say and do here. and what you say and do here is jump in to defend guns and w every time anyone says anything negative about them. i assure you, when you stop acting like a gunloving, w apologist i will stop thinking that you are one.

actually... when you guys get talking about George Bush... I don't get involved because I don't like him... why would I apologize for George Bush?

And as far as the gun thing... all I did was see that your 43 times thing was a fallacy.

Gee, you must not read my posts at all... you don't know anything I talk about apparently.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

actually... when you guys get talking about George Bush... I don't get involved because I don't like him... why would I apologize for George Bush? And as far as the gun thing... all I did was see that your 43 times thing was a fallacy. Gee, you must not read my posts at all... you don't know anything I talk about apparently.

like i said, i have no idea what you actually believe, all i know is what you do and say here. and mostly what you do in these threads is to jump in and mp for one of your buddies who is upset because someone said something negative about w or guns.

And like I keep telling you, you apparently don't read anything I say... you just think anyone who disagrees with you is a W apologist and a gun lover. Hell, you fucking thought I was a pot smoker because I said it should be legalized.

This portion of the hypocritical thread has proven just that about you. You don't know jack shit, jc. All you do is skim someone's post, take from it what *you* think it said and then call them a neocon, a gunut or a w apologist... oh and a racist.

If you actually read my posts you would see what I believe, but that won't happen.

jc wrote:

it is interesting how some people can identify racism so easily when a person of another race does it, but still feel like racism is o.k. when they are practicing it themselves. the real hypocricy in all of this is people who feel like someone else's ignorance justifies their own.

I couldn't agree with you more. I myself was apalled at the way wright considers all white people to be racist, yet seems to have no idea that his own comments are racist towards others.

BT wrote:

What gets me is the constant grilling of Obama's "former" pastor (he pretty much denounced this week), and yet when the preacher at one of McCain's rallies went on and on, adnausium, about Obama's name, and made as racist of comments as he could get away with, and all McCain had to say is he didn't know him? Umm, someone in his camp had to "know" him for him to talk at one of his rallies. They wouldn't let some whack job from off the street just come in and start ranting off racist views. And here's something the neocons keep forgetting. Just because Wright was Obama's pastor for so many years, doesn't mean he's always spouted these crazy views of his. Ever think it might have started once Obama was in the spot light, and now he can piggy back his whacked out views, because he knows he's going to get the press, with his relationship with Obama? There's alot of closet whackos that keep quiet for years until they're in the spotlight. Maybe Obama should have dumped him sooner, but you can't throw someone under the bus, for one stupid remark, possibly taken out of context, otherwise noone running for political office would have friends or family. How many times have you heard after some whack job goes and shoots up a school full of kids, that the poeple they lived next to, or their family, never saw this coming? I'm sure Wright's always had these "ideals", but never really spoke them out until Obama was a Presidential front runner. I just can't see how he thinks this will get his "friend" elected. Nothing like kicking someone

wright wasn't just his pastor. they were close friends for twenty years. I suppose it's possible that wright secretly hid his true feelings away while around obama, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. I personally would be a bit concerned voting for anyone who could consider someone a close friend and spiritual advisor for so many years and not have an inkling of what the guy was about. Not to mention that obama didn't denounce what wright had to say until he got into more trouble over it. In any event, this thread was about hypocrisy regarding romney's treatment and obama's treatment and, as I said, the difference is in the fact that the wright issue isn't about religion.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

And like I keep telling you, you apparently don't read anything I say... you just think anyone who disagrees with you is a W apologist and a gun lover. Hell, you fucking thought I was a pot smoker because I said it should be legalized. This portion of the hypocritical thread has proven just that about you. You don't know jack shit, jc. All you do is skim someone's post, take from it what *you* think it said and then call them a neocon, a gunut or a w apologist... oh and a racist. If you actually read my posts you would see what I believe, but that won't happen.

you don't seem to believe in anything, tf. like i said, you simply jump in to either mp for your little buddies (no matter what they say) or to disagree with me. i hate to disappoint you, but that does not constitute a "belief system".