I can picture BO reading this letter & turning to high five his partners in crime...mission accomplished! The problem, though, is that BO hasn't been able to deliver any viable, affordable alternatives to fossil fuels but I guess the blind followers on the left haven't noticed. I'll say this again- gas prices dictate the economy. People can only cut back so much as driving to work, school, etc is an absolute necessity. When more money goes into your tank less is available for other spending & businesses that spend on fuel pass their costs on to the consumer.
I wonder if tom & iqless (assuming they aren't the same person) have interacted? They have so much in common.
They both seem to have an aversion to hard work, both believe it is the duty of the gov't and the successful to pay their way and both refuse to place responsibility for their lives on the guy in the mirror.
Yep, as I've put in an awful lot of hard work in my life-time, and I'm sure tom has too. But, that's the problem with libel-laws... they don't account for personal opinions well, only the content of the opinions. Your statement that neither tom or I believe in "hard work", that we "believe in living off the goverment", and that we don't believe in "personal responsibility" is wrong on all counts. It may be true that you believe what you said is true, but it isn't. The saving grace for you is that neither of us will likely see any actual financial harm from your opinion, but these kinds of statements are increasingly being used by employers investigating potential employees. In other words: Your comments may hurt our chances of finding work and being financially stable. Therefore, if it could be proven that a specific comment influenced an employer's decision not to hire someone, those types of comments are potentially libelous.
So sue - PLEASE. I will gladly be a witness to the fact that David said neither you nor Tom "have an aversion to hard work" and both "believe it is the duty of the gov't and the successful to pay their way and both refuse to place responsibility for their lives on the guy in the mirror." However, somehow those exact quotes from David do not agree with your supposed quotes. Also, I find it rather interesting that you accuse David of making statements that "may hurt our chances of finding work", but yet somehow you also state "neither of us will likely see any actual financial harm from your opinion". The only way I can translate that is you believe that neither you nor Tom will ever look for work. UHMMM! Somehow that sounds remarkably similar David's comment that the both of you "have an aversion to hard work"! BTW, I have used exact quotes throughout without attributing lies to either you nor David.
I've explained how and why in another thread. The point I'm making though is that your beliefs about tom and I are unprovable at best, and libelous at worst. You don't have all the facts on our situations or circumstances, and you never will.
Good luck with your "libel" on the net. However, purposely misquoting someone is absolutely libelous and can be proven. Perhaps you ought to be a bit more careful with your accusations.
Is he still threatening me with a libel case? Really? Anonymous posters on an obscure internet forum? Hardly makes for much of a case. Sounds more like the whining of an unbalanced crybaby to me.
David, David, David... you are so limited in reasoning that there should be collections made for you. No 'threat' was intended, only a warning. Ignore it at your own risk.
You know, this is one time Obama is right. We don't need another pipeline: the "conversation" between the children in this thread is enough to give anyone gas.
I am not just sure what your definition of "need" is, but I am curious how you figure we would be better off if Canada sent their crude to China to profit from. One way or another, that crude is going to be processed. Why shouldn't we make the profit from it?
