invite response« First « Previous Comments 114 - 153 of 297 Next » Last » Search these comments
leo707
2011 Sep 27, 10:00am
so then he can start having his fun with them.
Why does that sound perverted?
Hmmmm, I guess this brings the thread full circle...
At least we can be consoled that Shrek died doing what he loved best and probably multitasking by posting on patrick.net at the same time.
Maybe posting on Pnet is not so much multitasking for shrek, but in "support" of doing what he loved best. Perhaps on that fateful day he had derailed 42 threads, and "had his fun with them".
Hey patrick
Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)
leo707
2011 Sep 27, 10:08am
I would say that there is ample evolutionary evidence that humans are inherently groupist. Racism is just one arbitrary way of forming groups. However, there was a study that showed even if you randomly assign people into one of two groups, they will come to dislike the other group...
As such, even if racism never existed, some other form of groupism would take its place. Perhaps classism, religious sectism, musical preferencism. It doesn't matter. Just as long as a coalition can be form and it is profitable to use that coalition to take resources from others.
Yes, yes, and yes.
"Race" by appearance is just an easy outward way for people to self-select into groups. When actually trying to define race by DNA the waters get muddy very fast. Ahhh... perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances, and discriminate based on differences in DNA.
Patrick
2011 Sep 27, 10:59am
Hey patrick
Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)
Woohoo, the "hey patrick" thing worked again! I'm never sure that any particular email will really get sent. Email is really flaky compared to the web.
I guess I'm kind of opposed to ban polls. It's often exactly the unpopular opinion that people should really listen to (eg, world is flat, evolution, black people are actually human no matter how much you paid for them). But I know what you mean about a few commenters poisoning the air. So maybe I should make some counter for flag clicks per user, and just ban the people who consistently get flagged for personal insults.
discriminate based on differences in DNA.
Ever see Gattaca? All that could happen for sure.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 27, 11:32am
perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances
Nay, that would never happen. Hotties will always be treat much better than uglies. You can't change that. Even babies are subject to that prejudice. Studies have shown that babies look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones. It's hard-coded in our DNA.
Perhaps I am a hypocrite, because as a hottie, I've always taken advantage of that. It's how I get most of my jobs.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 27, 11:34am
Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums.
The problem with banning users is that it promotes the kind of polarization of a community that is at the heart of the problem. I'd suggest just using the ignore feature if someone is too annoying. That way it's an individual decision.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 27, 11:37am
Remember shrek's goal is to:
Shrek-MarsAttacks! says[G]et [others] off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.
Not too have a productive conversation.
The irony of this thread is that Shrek has clearly demonstrated the reasons his account was deleted in the first place.
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 12:28am
Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:
But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.
Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?
elliemae
2011 Sep 28, 1:19am
But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.
We've all posted pics of people at some point. Doesn't make us racist. If it's a pic of us holding the sign, that's different.
You have an avatar of a dinosaur, doesn't make you a dead sack of bones. And I'm not a dog (nor do I play one on tv). It's just a pic that he used to make his point - and there are a lot of pics of tea partiers with offensive signs.
Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?
You're better than this, trout. really, you are.
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 1:39am
Come on Ellie you're better than that too.
If I post a pic it's in context to what I'm saying. And no one else or any other group is implied to own the impetus of my choosing the pic.
The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 1:41am
From what I'm seeing, Tea Party members are not at home making creative Photo Shop pictures to deface anyone. They are far to angry for that. At best they crudely scrawling slogans, typos and all, with a sharpie on poster board.
Bap33
2011 Sep 28, 1:42am
the sign carrier could be a leftist plant posing for the camera. Right?
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 1:43am
More over, I would wager, 99% of graphics artists are Liberals.
Conservatives aren't that creative.
I would bet a small fortune that 90% of the pics posted here, claiming to be made by a tea party member or of a tea party member. Was Photo shopped by a Liberal.
Bap33
2011 Sep 28, 3:09am
The double standard reached a new low when some anti-conservatives beat a conservative at a ralley, and it went unmentioned by anyone but Fox, or it was just laughed at in a "that's what he gets" sort of way ........ this attack and lack of coverage happened not long after an accusation against all conservatives everywhere for a mystery loogie and a mystery heckler using the all-powerful "N" word, on the faitful day of the ram-rod healthcare buggering of America.
A man gets attacked, media is silent. An unknown (probably a plant - if it even happened at all) may have, or may not have, said N, and THAT runs for days and days and "shows the Tea PArty is racist.
See the difference? Actual behavior is ignored, precieved behavior is trumpeted. With all things liberal, it is all about intent and prception. Since only conservative minded people hold each person accountable to a moral based standard for their personal behavior, there is very little chance a conservative acted at any time in the manner we see self-proclaimed liberals acting. And, since the media is so bias and tainted they remian silent while the moral fabric of this land is being shredded by The Progressive Army ..... the truth will remain unreported by mass media. For real news, go to GBTV.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 5:40am
Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:
But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.
Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?
Tenouncetrout, are you really that dumb or do you think that the readers of this forum are dumb enough to fall for such an obvious and insincere misdirection? I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists and show one of their own messages that clearly proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you try to imply I'm a racist because I pointed out the racism of the Tea Party? WTF? How daft are you?
That's like saying that a Jewish photographer who photographed the mass graves of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in order to make sure history never forgets that atrocity is guilty of the Holocaust himself. That's stupidity on a level I cannot even imagine and it should not be tolerated. I will always call bullshit on someone who uses such a cheap and dishonest tactic.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 5:50am
The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?
Really, do I have to freakin' spoon feed you the evidence. All I did, LITERALLY, was to go to Google image search and type in "Obama racist signs". I didn't even have to type in Tea Party and I got a bazillion results talking about the Tea Party's racist signs.
Google returned a motherload of Tea Party rallies showing Obama as a monkey, as a chimp, as a Muslim, in a KKK outfit, as a shoe-shine boy. JFC, it's not that hard. The evidence almost comes to you.
I mean, really, at this point you are just denying the facts.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 5:53am
the sign carrier could be a leftist plant posing for the camera. Right?
Yes, all 10 thousand of them are leftist plants, which is why they were not ostracized by the other Tea Party members surrounding them. The Tea Party is made up of 93% leftist plants.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 5:54am
I would bet a small fortune that 90% of the pics posted here, claiming to be made by a tea party member or of a tea party member. Was Photo shopped by a Liberal.
Just like the moon landing.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 6:34am
Since only conservative minded people hold each person accountable to a moral based standard for their personal behavior
No decent person would condone the act of violence you mentioned. It's not a liberal-conservative issue. People have the right to free speech and anyone who would act violently (say by stamping a women's head) in response to free speech is a scumbag and should be thrown in jail.
I don't know what you would consider "holding another person morally accountable". A person's morality can only govern that person's behavior, not another's. That's why we have law.
If you are implying that conservatives have a higher moral standard than liberals, then I'd say that's empirically false. Liberals have demonstrated time and again that they are more compassionate, particularly to the poor and misfortune, than conservatives. While conservatives cheer when they hear Rick Perry executed more people than any other governor and shout "Yes" to the question "should society let a man w/o insurance die", you really can't make a case that conservatives are highly moral people.
There's an old saying: The Christian Right is neither. Now I'm an atheist, so I don't follow the mythical B.S. in the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and taught by viscous Catholic nuns who would beat you with a ruler if you misbehaved -- and there is nothing scarier than a Catholic nun. So I know as much, if not more, about JFC and his teachings than any fundamentalist.
I can tell you that Jesus was the mother of all socialists. He said that in order to enter heaven you had to give up all of your possessions to the poor, that it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, that whatever you do to the least of his people (everyone) you do unto him. Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).
At least east-coast, liberal, Democrat-voting Catholics aren't hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus. They walk the walk whereas right-wing fundamentalists just talk the talk. And despite all the bad things I could say about Christians (including Catholics) -- and it's a hell of a lot -- at least the liberal Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus instead of perverting them like the right-wing does.
As for me, I have a very high moral standard. And when I put morality before material interests, it's not because I'm afraid some god will punish me for immoral acts or think that I'll be rewarded for moral ones. That would be a cheap morality. No, I do what I believe is morally right for its own sake, not for any reward/punishment system.
Furthermore, my morality is based on principles, evolutionary science, game theory, and social dynamics. As such, I consider moral issues that are far beyond the comprehension of anyone who bases morality on Bronze and Iron Age mythology. I can refine my moral understanding with mathematically precision, literally. Turning morality into a science advances morality as much as physics was advanced when it was turned from a philosophy into a science.
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 6:53am
I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists
You mean widely accused, there's a difference.
But that's indicative of the problem, Libs say, there for it is.
Where's the Tea Party members on this board, spouting racist views? To date, every one making those claims, and or speaking for the Tea Party have been Liberals.
Liberals are the only racist I see. They are trying to place that bag of Doo Doo on the Tea Party door step, ringing the door bell then running away giggling.
But the Tea Party never comes out and steps on it, how come?
I bet you guys are the same racists that were so vocal on Craigslist political forum, claiming to be republicans. I'd expect that if THEY weren't Liberal plants there as well, they would be over here all over the Tea Party race thing posting pictures of buckwheat and water melons. And just generally being as ugly here as they are on CL.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 7:02am
Dan8267 says
I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists
You mean widely accused, there's a difference.
Yes, there is a difference. No, I don't mean "accused". And the two statements are not contradictory. The Tea Party is widely accused and widely known of being racist. Did you even click on the "Obama racist signs" link? The evidence is overwhelming, as overwhelming as the evidence for evolution.
To deny that the Tea Party members are racist is like denying that the Nazis were anti-semitic. It is a ridiculous claim in light of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a claim cannot be taken seriously.
Bap33
2011 Sep 28, 7:54am
Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.
Danville - home of the whopper.
leo707
2011 Sep 28, 8:05am
Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).
I too am probably more familiar with the bible than most fundamentalists. Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.
Matthew 10
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Luke 14
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
leo707
2011 Sep 28, 8:07am
"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew" -- Barack Obama speaking before the Congressional Black Caucus over the weekend
At least he didn't flub it by saying "If asking a Jew to pay the same tax rate asa billionaire". Now that would have been bad.
It was a flub, he quickly corrected himself to say "janitor" instead of Jew. Why would you portray this as anything other than a flub?
terriDeaner
2011 Sep 28, 8:22am
Holy crap! Heads rolling left and right this afternoon!
Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense
Your account is now disabled.
You're such a whiny bitch
Your account is now disabled.
Patrick
2011 Sep 28, 8:41am
Yup, I wish them well, elsewhere.
New rule: golden one. Actually a very old rule.
Please try to maintain a sense of good will and cooperation.
Done!
2011 Sep 28, 8:42am
Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense
Your account is now disabled.
I'm quite certain that is taken out of context, I didn't directly call anyone an ignorant Ahole.
Wasn't there an "other wise, you're" in front of that, and I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, other than closing what ever I was saying?
Patrick
2011 Sep 28, 9:33am
Wow, that's an excellent forum policy in a nutshell.
OK, I adopt it as the Patrick.net Forum Motto. Thanks!
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 10:04am
Like when people say things like this?
I don't get what point you are trying to make, so I can't answer your question.
Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.
Danville - home of the whopper.
With analysis like that, do I even need to make a counter-argument? The posting is simply an assertion with no specifics, no evidence, and no reasoning. Although, I really don't get why Bap33 would think anyone would believe his assertion when I consistently back up everything I say with references. It's like the conservatives on this site have some major blind spots to anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.
True, the Bible does contradict itself greatly. No surprise since it was written by many different people with many different social, economic, and political agendas. However, I would not go so far as to say that the New Testament, which is the basis of Christianity, could justify any philosophy. Many perhaps, but not any.
The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy. And again, this is coming from a hard-core atheist, so I'm pretty objective as I have no religious agenda unless you count promoting rationalism over mysticism.
Tenouncetrout says
Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense
Darn, that message got deleted before I had a chance to read it. So, unfortunately, I cannot reply to it to show exactly why it's wrong, but I'm pretty sure from the quote above, it must have been a really lame argument.
All I can say is that good arguments go: point, counter-point, point, counter-point. Saying something insulting but ultimately vague and hollow like "just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense" is usually a pretty good indication that the speaker is on thin ice and has nothing substantial with which to counter his opponent.
In rebutting an opponent on any subject matter, you should address the specific points your opponent made and explain in concise, clear, and verifiable detail about why those points are wrong. This should be done one by one for each point you wish to counter. Ignoring those points and simply calling your opponent names has never convinced anyone. Debating isn't rocket science. Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.
Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.
Whatever Tenouncetrout (or is it Done! now) said, I'm willing to forgive him in exchange for a small token of rationality. I've given a list of 10 reasons Obama is a really bad president. I could probably give about as many examples of bad decision making for just about every president up to and including Kennedy. (I'm really not enough of a history buff to go further than that.) Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. They all make mistakes and most, if not all, sell out.
So Tenouncetrout, here's a little exercise you can do to prove to us that you are a rational person and not a wingnut like the Tea Party members. Give me an honest list of ten ways in which George W. Bush majorly fucked up as president. This should be a really easy assignment even for a Republican. I'll even give you a little help. You could use some of the items on my list of Obama no-no's. If you can't come up with a list of ten major Bush screw-ups, then how can we take your arguments seriously?
leo707
2011 Sep 28, 10:16am
The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy.
Just a reminder that the passages I quoted "hate your family" "I bring not peace but a sword" are new testament Jesus quotes. ;)
Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.
I don't think that it would change the uber-cons behavior. While there are some good arguments from a conservative perspective, with which one could rationally argue, they still would get your alter-ego labeled as a RINO. While the teabagger/neo-con/ditto head types often start with good intentions I have not seen any arguments from them that could be made to realistically fit in your "good argument" model (without just looking like a straw man).
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 10:26am
While there are some good arguments from a conservative perspective, with which one could rationally argue, they still would get your alter-ego labeled as a RINO.
There was a time when Republicans could debate rationally. I guess all the rational people left the party.
The thing is there are good conservative issues out there. The national debt is a major problem. The current implementations of social security and medicare are screwed up. Even gun rights, to an extent, make sense.
The so called "Rinos" are the Republican Party's only hope of not being destroyed by the Tea Party. But I guess, at this point it's inevitable that the Republican Party is going to die and it deserves to.
The question is, what happens next? Does the Democratic Party become unchallenged and thereby worsen year after year? Do Democrats fraction off into two separate parties due to internal disputes now that they have no common enemy? Does a new party rise from the ashes of the Republican Party? If so, is it rising from the Rinos or the crazy as bat-shit droppings?
I think the fall of the Republican Party will be like the fall of Communism. It will replace an evil empire, a known enemy, with chaos as a power vacuum looks to be filled.
Patrick
2011 Sep 28, 10:34am
Darn, that message got deleted before I had a chance to read it. So, unfortunately, I cannot reply to it to show exactly why it's wrong, but I'm pretty sure from the quote above, it must have been a really lame argument.
I have a copy. So here you go:
OH My God, somebody posted pictures on the internet, I clicked on some of those links I swear I did, and I did not find one single Tea Party affiliated web site period. Just random websites, of random people posting pics that if Obama was anything but black, would be a non issue. Just some one bent out of shape with the current president and lampooning him or making digital effigies.
Even the only blatant racist sign on that page makes no political affiliation at all. Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense or a Liberal doing it in his proxy.
I don't know, you be the judge. But there's nothing on any of the ten links I clicked on that even mentioned the Tea Party.So how does it feel to have your ass handed back to you, for being a Nancy Pelosi Boy?
Nancy Pelosi Boy = Presents erroneous information they didn't read, that counters their argument, as facts and truths to make their argument.
Â¥
2011 Sep 28, 11:10am
I think the fall of the Republican Party will be like the fall of Communism. It will replace an evil empire, a known enemy with chaos as a power vacuum looks to be filled.
I think the US actually HAS a soviet-quality economy now.
They may have blew themselves up economically in the late 1980s, but they didn't have reserve currency status to abuse. Well, maybe they did, but only Cuba and some African shitholes would take their currency so the ruble wasn't much of a currency bloc.
When I was pooing my pants in the late 1960s per capita debt in the US was under $10,000 per person ($65,000 in today's money).
Now it's over $200,000, over 3X over inflation alone.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2ua
We've got a fall coming here at home, too.
FWIW, the Reagan Era started with per-capita debt at under $30,000 and ended over $60,000.
Clinton: $80,000 & $130,000.
Bush Jr took that $130,000 and left it at $225,000.
The last most recent print for Obama has the per-capita systemic debt at $220,000.
Dan8267
2011 Sep 28, 11:17am
> I did not find one single Tea Party affiliated web site period.
I'd be surprised if the Tea Party had computers or knew how to use them. Nevertheless, the pictures were taken at Tea Party rallies as numerous of the websites discuss. Google's image search lets you go directly to the image or to the web page that hosts it. So it's not hard to tell they people pictured were Tea Party protesters.
Of course, you don't even have to rely on the Internet. Television news coverage of Tea Party protests have shown amble examples of racism including many of the signs revealed in Google's image search.
- Just random websites, of random people posting pics that if Obama was anything but black, would be a non issue.
No, it's ok to lampoon someone who happens to be black. Thre are plenty of non-racist political cartoons about Obama. But when you make him out to be a witch doctor or a shoe-shine boy, it's not hard to read between the lines. The intent is to dehumanize him based on race. That intent is clear.
When a sign dresses Obama as a Muslim and calls him by his middle name Huessein, it's a transparent attempt to falsely associated Obama with Sadam Heussein, who was falsely associated with Al Qaeda by the Bush administration. It is also obvious that the false association with Islam is meant to invoke religious bigotry. But perhaps most disturbing is the acceptance of such blatant distribution of misinformation.
Personally, I don't get why anyone would distribute such easily disprovable disinformation in the Information Age. You say something ridiculous and you have to apologize for it for the rest of your life. The Internet preserves all of your mistakes, often in video format nowadays. That alone should make people more cautious about getting their facts right.
- Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense or a Liberal doing it in his proxy.
Yeah, I don't get the utter paranoia about there being leftist planted in the Tea Party rallies to make the Tea Party look bad. The Tea Party has been pretty consistent in its vocalization including in heavily screened situations like the Republican / Tea Party Presidential Debate. It wasn't a leftist plant screaming out "YES!" to let him die.
Now there have been many occasions of the FBI infiltrating anti-war groups, radical groups composed of 67-year-old retired librarians and keeping detail records on them. That you can Google. Scary stuff.
But the left doesn't use these tactics. You're thinking of people like Andrew Breitbart, the pimp-wannabe would took down Acorn by secreting recording hundreds of encounters until he found something bad and then used that to imply that it was representative of the entire organization. The right does use such tactics, but the left is too busy eating brownies and smoking pot to get their shit together enough to pull something like that off or to even care enough to.
- there's nothing on any of the ten links I clicked on that even mentioned the Tea Party.
The image I linked to of Obama as a witchdoctor came from a Word Press article. Click the link and let the web page load. Then press Control+F and type "tea party" and click Next (I'm using Firefox, so adjust for your browser if different). You'll find many tea party references. You'll also see lots of ridiculously racist signs like "Obamanomics: Monkey see, Monkey spend". "Monkey" was a racist term for Africans -- see Clerks II and say hi to Pillowpants for me.
I can go to just about any of the images returned on the first page of Google's results and they pretty much all say the signs come from Tea Partiers. What other rally did you think would be using such rhetoric and imagery? Comic-Con?
- So how does it feel to have your ass handed back to you, for being a Nancy Pelosi Boy?
Yeah, I'm not getting why you feel like you've made a great argument. You certainly seem impressed by how you've rebutted my arguments, but what exactly is your thinking? You aren't even challenging me to think. From my perspective, this is more like a charity gig, like I'm a professional athlete running along side someone training to be in the Special Olympics in order to encourage him to run a little faster, meanwhile, the guy is yelling "you're so slow" while falling behind.
I'm deliberately dumbing-down the subject matter and taking it real slow so that you'll understand my points and be able to address them, or at least attempt to, and yet you still seem to be struggling. I mean, really, do you honestly believe that there's a good case to be made that the Tea Party isn't racist after all that we've seen?
You gotta recognize when some arguments have no where to go and are just better left discarded. I even gave you an "in" by stating that I thought the Tea Party is a vocal but small minority of the Republicans. You could have gone with that and distance yourself from all that crazy hate. Instead you embraced it. Can you see how that was a bad move?
By the way, I don't get your "Nancy Pelosi Boy" reference or why you define that term in such a way. I know conservatives hate Pelosi because
1. She's a woman
2. She's a Democrat
3. She's from San Francisco. You know that city with all the gay people! (And conservatives hate gays even more than they hate liberals.)
4. She had power because she was Speaker of the House.
But come on, is there any thing else that makes Pelosi craw up the conservative's butt so much?
And if you're implying that I'm somehow a Pelosi fanboy, you're wrong. I'd have to look her up on ontheissues.org just to find out what her policies are. So I have no idea about whether or not I'd vote for someone like her.
« First « Previous Comments 114 - 153 of 297 Next » Last » Search these comments
The great tragedy is that it is only now after his passing that I realize how much I miss the little guy and his insane rants. Let us all bow our heads and remember the fond times we had with him. Let us remember his sacrifice, which allows us to finally understand why the number 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.
At least we can be consoled that Shrek died doing what he loved best and probably multitasking by posting on patrick.net at the same time.
Full Article