Comments Posted By antimedia
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments


"Obama understands Electric companies pass on tax increases to the consumers as a back end consumption tax.
Why doesn’t he understand the same principal works on all business, with the worst part being foreign goods being exempt in our demestic market and decreased demand for the artificially inflated priced American goods overseas."

He does understand it. He just told you so. He just doesn't care. His plan would destroy the poor in this country. Electricity is a basic need, and no one would be hurt worse than the poor if rates "skyrocket" (as Obama puts it in the same interview.) But he could care less about the poor. He only cares about "doing what's right", which is to turn the government into a giant enforcement agency that compels the people to do the same right thing he wants them to do.

The real question is, why don't Americans understand that?

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 2.11.2008 @ 16:30


Please! The word terrorist is thrown around with abandon and applied to everyone one disagrees with these days. Palin is clearly distinguishing between the criminal act of murdering people at abortion clinics and the terrorist acts of someone who actively sought to bring down our government (and still seeks it today.) Surely you wouldn't argue that abortion clinic bombers are trying to destroy the US government?

While both acts are reprehensible, the latter is much more serious than the former and deserves to be in a category by itself.

The only reason you chose this line of argument is because you know that Palin is anti-abortion (or pro life - pick your poison.)

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 25.10.2008 @ 13:37


So, if I understand your argument correctly, the fact that Obama wants to nationalize healthcare doesn't make him a socialist. The fact that he agreed with and voted for the recent bailout bill, which at least partially nationalizes our financial systems (what would you call the government owning banks and investment houses?) doesn't make him a socialist. The fact that he wants to educate children to the racist and imperialist nature of America doesn't make him a socialist.

Wwweeellll.....You've convinced me.......

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 10.10.2008 @ 23:01


aric writes "I wish someone would call this woman out on her crazy views with regard to Creationism; you can’t teach it both ways either the world is 6000 years old or not. And birth control – the abstinence only policy makes me wonder if any of these folks were ever teenagers."

So now it's crazy to say one ought to be allowed to discuss alternate views and theories? Because Palin has never said creationism ought to be taught in public schools. She simply said she didn't see anything wrong with the concept being discussed in schools.

Of course nowadays far too many Americans prefer to suppress debate by insulting others or shouting them down.

As for birth control, this may come as a surprise to you, but not every teenager is a rutting pig. Some actually have the maturity to abstain from sex until they are older and more mature. Some are actually crazy enough to abstain until they are married.

It's amazing how many people in this country seem to think that their way is the only way and all other ways are wrong.

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 16.09.2008 @ 23:50


funnyman writes this "why don’t you lay off calling people idiots just because they have a different take on things than you. If I want left or right wing morons screaming incoherent nonsense I have plenty of sites to choose from. However, I come here for discussions not shouting matches." shortly after he writes this "To Antimedia:
why don’t you try the “American Conservative”. You are probably one of these dimwitted Ann Coulter conservatives who trashes anyone who doesn’t stay ‘on message’."

Yeah, you convinced me you're interested in intelligent discussion. ;-)

This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a conservative, I don't listen to Rush, Hannity, et. al., I think Bill O'Reilly is an obnoxious jerk, and Ann Coulter is deliberately provocative because she knows she gets under liberals' skins. (I've also never heard her speak nor have I read anything that she's written.)

More to the point, however, you wrote "I finally did see Sarah Palin’s interview on U-tube. That really is a shame, I mean what a bimbo. Doesn’t know anything about Georgia and Russia (as we all know Georgia first attacked) but she appears to be ready to defend a ‘NATO ally’."

First, the claim that Sarah Palin is a "bimbo" can only have come from a liberal. It's purely a liberal talking point promulgated by Andrew Sullivan and Daily Kos and Huffington Post and other slime holes like them. For you to repeat the claim belies your fraudulent claim to being a conservative.

Second, you display a profound ignorance by stating "she appears to be ready to defend a 'NATO ally'." First of all, the NATO treaty obligates the US to defend the member states of NATO when called upon. (Although the behavior of NATO allies in Afghanistan strains the terms of the treaty excessively.) Secondly, the member states of NATO are often called 'NATO allies', but your derisive use of the term (characterized by the scare quotes) is another liberal talking point. Ooow, she called them allies. She doesn't realize they're members.

Finally, the use of the phrase "as we all now" belies a certainty about events that typically comes from a liberal mouth these days. "As we all know, the Swiftboat vets were proven wrong." "As we all know, McCain's ad about sex education is a lie." Of course, we don't all know that, and some of us have actually looked at the facts and concluded the opposite.

The least you can do, if you're going to lie, is not be so transparent about it. And yes, I AM accusing you of being a liar. And a liberal sock puppet as well.

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 17.09.2008 @ 21:17

"funnyman" writes "The election is close so it is going to get ugly. However, the one reason that I as a conservative would consider voting for Obama is that I really want the neocons and their concept of “nation building” go to hell. All this change mantra on both sides is obviously nonsense. However, I finally did see Sarah Palin’s interview on U-tube. That really is a shame, I mean what a bimbo. Doesn’t know anything about Georgia and Russia (as we all know Georgia first attacked) but she appears to be ready to defend a ‘NATO ally’. Sure Russia provoked Georgia but it sure wasn’t an ‘unprovoked’ invasion by Russia. I’m not sure I’m going to vote but not for that ticket!! Where have conservative values gone? Aren’t you guys ashamed at with all the conservative thinkers and experts on our side we come up with someone like her. We rightfully accuse Obama of empty phrases but then…enough venting"

At least your title is apt. Anyone who claims to be a conservative but would vote for a Marxist is a liar. Most likely one of Obama's sock puppets spreading this lie across the land.

At least your comment was good for a chuckle.

Comment Posted By Antimedia On 15.09.2008 @ 22:11


So, loving Steve, following your example, if I want to be a Christian I should be smug and self-righteous and refuse to share my faith unless asked?

Out of curiousity, how do you know that you have a "genuine personal relationship" with your Maker? Does he talk to you? Does he come visit you from time to time? Or are you just imagining things?

Comment Posted By antimedia On 7.10.2006 @ 17:09


At the risk of pissing you off, Rick, it might be worthwhile to look at Ben Franklin actually said. He said those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security will have neither. (I'm paraphrasing.) Not the use of the modifiers "essential" and "temporary". Big difference from what most of the bozos are quoting. Now, I can trade a "supposed" liberty for a "permanent" security, that's a trade I'll make. And I suspect Ben will be right there with me.

Comment Posted By antimedia On 24.12.2005 @ 23:46


Western Infidels, even if your interpretation were the correct one (and I doubt seriously that it is), it would still be wrong.

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

So the reporter either didn't do his research or is lying. Since he calls WP "chemical weapons", I'll opt for the latter.

Comment Posted By antimedia On 8.11.2005 @ 23:04



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page