[timsatt1]

luv;55939 wrote:

Hey genius, why are you responding to someone who has you on ignore?

because i am such the genius that i know bronxy cannot resist not knowing what i said, so he truly doesnt have me on ignore…

…plus, Ms. Genius, he DOESNT HAVE YOU ON IGNORE…so now that YOU responded to that message, using my quotes, he can now see what I typed

[timsatt1]

bryonc;55920 wrote:

I voted, but then put Timsatt on ignore his ignorance finally gets to ya. Well as far as banning him, I could care less I just banned him myself, I just hope he doesnt keep others from coming to this wonderful board. I am quite sure he has cost us some members already.

lol….

message too short. oh well, all i have to say is lol

[timsatt1]

IlovetheChiefs;55647 wrote:

Say, these last 2 posts reminded me of another great name a baseball player had! But I’ll post it in the appropriate thread.

i played little league with a guy named Blake Hurlbutt.

he just finished his last season with the Wichita State Shockers.

Hurlbutt is the weirdest last name i have heard.

[timsatt1]

hermhater;55183 wrote:

Thank God your parents weren’t too lazy or you would have been born poor and addicted to drugs, and premarital sex!

Thank God they weren’t lazy so you CAN be!

haha…ok so even though this joke was directed at me….it was pretty funny. and i just got off the phone with chuch norris, and he said it is sometimes ok to laugh at yourself.

[timsatt1]

chief31;55180 wrote:

Or we can reject you altogether. 😆

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

please dont. i do not take well to rejection.

[timsatt1]

Guru;55176 wrote:

It is SPEECH not SPEACH.

You want to be accepted as intelligent and can’t spell the damn word you feel so strongly about?

yeah i was actually debating which spelling it was and kept changing it…then posted the wrong one. yes i realize there is a spell checker up there…too lazy to check it. you can accept me however you want to!!! :bananen_smilies046:

oh and by the way i have the freedom of speech and the freedom of type and if i want to spell it speach then i have that freedom too!!! until harry reed takes it away from me.

[timsatt1]

hermhater;55168 wrote:

This comment makes me assume you heard about this particular issues on talk radio, and that it was Rush, in particular.

If this is the case I assume there was a bias in his reporting, so I cannot comment on the issue at hand.

I will have to research the issue to inform you why you are wrong!

drudge report, rush limbaugh, fox news, then even went to the Clinton News Network, msnbc, NY times…i go through it all…but go ahead and do your research then u can enlighten me tomorrow aka later today.

[timsatt1]

chief31;55167 wrote:

The media is the same as anything else. They have a “left side”, and a “right side”. And most people who are “on the left” don’t consider themselves to be ” on the left”. They are considered to be so, by those who aren’t.

Myself, and most people that I know, I consider myself to be neither, on the left, nor on the right. Because there are issues that I agree with one side, whereas I agree with the other side on other issues.

So, no. I don’t agree with “people are in line with…” statement.

ok, ill agree that there are many independends out there that dont agree with mainstream media and some liberals that just arent as far left as the mainstream media.

so…there…i finally agreed with you. you get a lolipop!

[timsatt1]

hermhater;55165 wrote:

Not to suppress the campaign of a political contender because of their politics.

The publication has the right to censor content (because of obscenity) but not to disallow advertising from any political party.

I thought you would have known that.

ok i think you are right on this one, i think i have heard that before….it is true that you cannot suppress a political contender…

…but this issue had nothing to do with when the senate brought up the fairness doctrine. they were specifically talking about “talk radio” and the imbalance of it….conservatives dominating the liberals.

[timsatt1]

chief31;55161 wrote:

You know that there are examples of each side of the floor going against the consensus of what their side of the floor generally represents. It is no big miracle.

yeah, to a degree there is, but the issues i am talking about is a very big deal…trying to stop a person’s freedom of speach.

the democrats and the media are pretty much on the same page….but are you telling me that the actual people that are to the left are not in line with the media and political leaders? the ones that i know sure are.

[timsatt1]

i dont know who murdock is….but he doesnt have to let a democrat advertise on his private station.

you cannot discriminate on certain things such as race, gender, etc….but you CAN discriminate on political side.

[timsatt1]

hermhater;55157 wrote:

That’s where you’re lost for starters.

ok….why are you bringing up fox? it had nothing to do with tv, only radio.

and you can bring up another time that the senate actually called out a private citizen ON THE SENATE FLOOR for using their freedom of speach.

but please wait till you are sober to respond to this discussion anymore.

everything i said in these last few responses that i posted is fact about the fairness doctrine and also the senate government attacking a private citizen for their free speach.

[timsatt1]

hermhater;55143 wrote:

You are so lost man…

ok mr HH. you are a nice guy. i like you…

…but how can you just make a general statement without actually debating.

take this post you just now responded to.

first of all, have you been informed yet that Mr. Harry Reed, that would be your senate leader, called Rush Limbaugh’s boss and informed rush limbaughs boss that he was upset with some of the things rush had said.

then the next day he actually spoke out against rush on the senate floor during real government work hours!!! this is government attacking a private citizen for their freedom of speach….so where exactly am i lost on this? this is actually historic what happened. this is the first time ever that the senate attacked a person for their freedom of speech on the senate floor.

and then the second thing i brought up…..the democrats in the senate tried to bring back the fairness doctrine making it to where the government would literally monitor each radio station and make sure that if a republican got 30 seconds to talk about republican issues that a democrat got his turn to share his thoughts.

where at in this am i lost.

[timsatt1]

stlchief;55108 wrote:

Banning him is too conservative of a step. Liberals believe in free speech, even if people are saying what you don’t like.

Not that I’m saying I’m a liberal (or that I’m not), but I say let the conservative stay because liberals say he should….

i cant speak for liberals…just the leaders of the liberal party aka the house and senate leaders and speaker of house.

first off….they believe in freedom of speach? is that why the actual leaders of the liberal agenda tried to stop a private citizen, rush limbaugh, for being able to use his freedom of speach on his private radio station.

second….bringing back the fairness doctrine on the radio waves? yes, this what the democrats in the senate tried to do…make it to where the radio waves are now monitored by government, and there has to be equal time for every side, democrat and republican.

so, there is your liberals and their “freedom of speach” aka “we truly want a socialist or communist country, whichever comes first.”

[timsatt1]

chief31;55133 wrote:

I didn’t see anything personal in those statements. Maybe prough91 just needed to put timsatt1 on his ‘ignore’ list.

timsatt1, you can be a very irritating person, on here. But, I remember being in my early twenties, myself. Later, when you look back on yourself, you may be embarrassed for yourself. Maybe not. But I know I was more cocky and judgemental than I feel that I should have been.

But, I do not see any violation of the rules there. I generalize to make my point alot too. And if it isn’t specifically insulting someone, then it isn’t a violation of the rules. At least not in my opinion.

I voted yes on the poll, (Just for fun.) but I will not be banning him….YET.

i voted yes just for fun as well, so now i got to figure out who the 3rd person was…that took it seriously !!!

but anyways, i will never look back and be embarrased as i dont have a lot of pride anyways. i dont think i am above everyone or even anyone for that matter. i think we are all equally important as we are created by God…never tried to put anyone down, trying to teach them not to rely on government but learn to do what they got to do for themselves.

[Author]

Posts