Jim in Anchorage Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 party, hardy, bubba. you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. i party to the Replacements, Joe "baby" Strummer and Stevie Earle. if that makes me a phony, then, since we're laying labels, that makes you captain or tenille and paul anka all rolled into one sugary sloppy one. as you've degenerated this thread to its utter base level, in which sense makes no sense and reality is but a myth, then i'll respond with a big, fat, wet fart. c'mon, now tell me who's freaking talking points i'm referring to now? jeeesus, whatta crybaby. in your world, the only thing that makes sense is to label people one thing or the other and to wholeheartedly imagine yourself as the last free-thinker alive. well, guess what, flubber, ain't even close. in fact, i'd accuse you of being a simpleton, but why disparage the foolish? so i'll leave you with one last thought: why do you take yourself so seriously, when few others do? as for me, i've as dumb as they come, acting with a distinct instinct of what's fair and what's not. i don't need a script for that, or a party to follow. i'm a dog, but not dogmatic. jw What do you think of the stuff you write when you read it sober?
OCinBuffalo Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 party, hardy, bubba. you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. i party to the Replacements, Joe "baby" Strummer and Stevie Earle. if that makes me a phony, then, since we're laying labels, that makes you captain or tenille and paul anka all rolled into one sugary sloppy one. as you've degenerated this thread to its utter base level, in which sense makes no sense and reality is but a myth, then i'll respond with a big, fat, wet fart. c'mon, now tell me who's freaking talking points i'm referring to now? jeeesus, whatta crybaby. in your world, the only thing that makes sense is to label people one thing or the other and to wholeheartedly imagine yourself as the last free-thinker alive. well, guess what, flubber, ain't even close. in fact, i'd accuse you of being a simpleton, but why disparage the foolish? so i'll leave you with one last thought: why do you take yourself so seriously, when few others do? as for me, i've as dumb as they come, acting with a distinct instinct of what's fair and what's not. i don't need a script for that, or a party to follow. i'm a dog, but not dogmatic. jw Obfuscate much? You can't refute a thing I say, so, as usual, you pretend you know me, attribute something to me that you "know" because you "know" me, and then criticize me for your attribution. Pathetic. You don't like the definitions of words...so you change them. Sorry, in the only world that matters, the real one, words mean things. For example: You are on the left. Period. No matter how much wriggling you do, no matter how much obfuscation, you know damn well you supported this whole gay marriage thing as one more "look at my post, I am superior" masturbatory charade. Look At My Liberal Superiority = the same premise every other post you have ever made on this part of the board. Weak. The funny part is: you don't realize, because you aren't here enough, that we shot down this whole "being on the left makes me better" notion...years ago. The consistent lefties here know that. You don't. You can't respond because there's nowhere to go. I have accurately described the events as they happened. You have done everything to distract from, obfuscate, and distort the truth. Hysterical. Hysterical that you think ANYBODY considers you to be winning this "discussion", or that anybody thinks less of me for whipping your ass in it.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 Obfuscate much? You can't refute a thing I say, so, as usual, you pretend you know me, attribute something to me that you "know" because you "know" me, and then criticize me for your attribution. Pathetic. You don't like the definitions of words...so you change them. Sorry, in the only world that matters, the real one, words mean things. For example: You are on the left. Period. No matter how much wriggling you do, no matter how much obfuscation, you know damn well you supported this whole gay marriage thing as one more "look at my post, I am superior" masturbatory charade. Look At My Liberal Superiority = the same premise every other post you have ever made on this part of the board. Weak. The funny part is: you don't realize, because you aren't here enough, that we shot down this whole "being on the left makes me better" notion...years ago. The consistent lefties here know that. You don't. You can't respond because there's nowhere to go. I have accurately described the events as they happened. You have done everything to distract from, obfuscate, and distort the truth. Hysterical. Hysterical that you think ANYBODY considers you to be winning this "discussion", or that anybody thinks less of me for whipping your ass in it. How many boxes of thin mints can I mark you down for?
OCinBuffalo Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 How many boxes of thin mints can I mark you down for? I hate girl scout cookies. I am not a pederast(What's a pederast, Walter? STFU, Donnie). And I have zero interest in skinny black guys unless they can also run a 4.3 and aren't afraid to run routs in the middle of the field, and are willing to play for "cash to the cap" money. So, your point?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I hate girl scout cookies. I am not a pederast(What's a pederast, Walter? STFU, Donnie). And I have zero interest in skinny black guys unless they can also run a 4.3 and aren't afraid to run routs in the middle of the field, and are willing to play for "cash to the cap" money. So, your point? I don't know. It seemed appropriate to punctuate the excessively verbose bickering in this thread with something purely meaningless. I was going to take it further, but how could I after such a well-placed Lebowski reference?
OCinBuffalo Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I don't know. It seemed appropriate to punctuate the excessively verbose bickering in this thread with something purely meaningless. I was going to take it further, but how could I after such a well-placed Lebowski reference? The Urban Dictionary comes in handy sometimes. When all else failed, I looked up thin mint As far as the "bickering", look back through this thread and the following pattern emerges: 1. I say something accurate 2. D-bags name call and refuse to refute it...because they can't 3. I set them up for failure 4. They fail 5. I laugh at their petty attempts at taking the high ground they already tried to sell, for votes. I also remind them that this tactic not only failed to get them votes(see the current house membership) but is now gaining votes for moderate Republicans = the diametric opposite outcome that they intended. The intent of this entire issue was to go after moderate House Republicans in swing districts. I will not allow them to lie and tell us it was all about "gay rights". Horseshit. They, in their naivete and stupidity, may have even believed it, but the people in charge didn't. To what end? A 63 seat ass whipping later, the absolute annihilation in the state houses, in a census year no less, and I'd say they pretty much failed miserably. The net effect of this is that Republicans will pick up an additional 8-10 seats on redistricting alone. Hysterical. Perhaps these craven fools should have been focusing their efforts since 2006 on the economy, and not on phony moral superiority, and wedge issues. But honestly, what else should we expect from these people? How many more examples do we really need? Again, when you want something done: put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite.
DC Tom Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I don't know. It seemed appropriate to punctuate the excessively verbose bickering in this thread with something purely meaningless. I was going to take it further, but how could I after such a well-placed Lebowski reference? That might be the funniest thing OC ever posted.
Delete This Account Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) Obfuscate much? You can't refute a thing I say, so, as usual, you pretend you know me, attribute something to me that you "know" because you "know" me, and then criticize me for your attribution. Pathetic. You don't like the definitions of words...so you change them. Sorry, in the only world that matters, the real one, words mean things. For example: You are on the left. Period. No matter how much wriggling you do, no matter how much obfuscation, you know damn well you supported this whole gay marriage thing as one more "look at my post, I am superior" masturbatory charade. Look At My Liberal Superiority = the same premise every other post you have ever made on this part of the board. Weak. The funny part is: you don't realize, because you aren't here enough, that we shot down this whole "being on the left makes me better" notion...years ago. The consistent lefties here know that. You don't. You can't respond because there's nowhere to go. I have accurately described the events as they happened. You have done everything to distract from, obfuscate, and distort the truth. Hysterical. Hysterical that you think ANYBODY considers you to be winning this "discussion", or that anybody thinks less of me for whipping your ass in it. rather than respond with more hate, let me offer some compassion to one who appears to need some with a few kind words: jesus, allah, buddah, or whomever you might worship, still loves you. jw Edited August 6, 2011 by john wawrow
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2011 Posted August 6, 2011 rather than respond with more hate, let me offer some compassion to one who appears to need some with a few kind words: jesus still loves you. jw But let's be realistic here, it's not like he has a choice. He's Jesus, for cryin' out loud.
Delete This Account Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 But let's be realistic here, it's not like he has a choice. He's Jesus, for cryin' out loud. good guy, i hear. according to Paul Westerberg, however, "he never buys any smokes." (a line from one of my favorite Mats' songs: "Can't Hardly Wait") ... hope he buys a round or two. i'm in need of a good drink. jw
OCinBuffalo Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 rather than respond with more hate, let me offer some compassion to one who appears to need some with a few kind words: jesus, allah, buddah, or whomever you might worship, still loves you. jw Buddy, you can't respond rationally to any of it, because it is the truth. Hate, Love, That Not so Fresh Feeling, or any other emoting doesn't change that. But let's be realistic here, it's not like he has a choice. He's Jesus, for cryin' out loud. "You said it man, nobody Fs with the Jesus"!
Gary M Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 You can't force a Church to marry anyone. They are a religious institution, any such statute would quickly fall in court. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-same-sex-weddings-west-points-catholic-chapel-says-military-archdiocese The Military thinks they can.
LeviF Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-same-sex-weddings-west-points-catholic-chapel-says-military-archdiocese The Military thinks they can. Can you read?
3rdnlng Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Can you read? The article is somewhat ambiguous. "Archbishop Broglio, meanwhile, has denounced directives issued last week by Under Secretary of Defense Clifford Stanley and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson clearing military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings in military chapels. “The Pentagon's new policy, as outlined in these two memos, appears to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law 15 years ago and remains in effect,” Broglio said in a statement released last week."
Gary M Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Can you read? The Archdiocese is going to refuse a "couple" and a lawsuit with ensue, and the DOJ with side with the "soldiers".
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) The Archdiocese is going to refuse a "couple" and a lawsuit with ensue, and the DOJ with side with the "soldiers". And I will be proven right, again. And the assclowns in this thread will be proven either stupid or naive, again. Go ahead and look at the other threads on this subject. I have consistently and specifically said that the NYS law had to be written the way it did PRECISELY because if it wasn't idiots WILL abuse laws intended to be limited to resolving inequities only....and instead turn them into political and/or anti-religion weapons. And, where oh where will the usual d-bags here be then? Answer: still trying to make it about me...instead of owning up to their "my little pony" school-girl level naivete. Edited October 5, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Gary M Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 And I will be proven right, again. And the assclowns in this thread will be proven either stupid or naive, again. Answer: still trying to make it about me... But it's okay when you do it?
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 But it's okay when you do it? Oh...really? Want some homework? Go back and look at every thread on this subject since 2007 when the Democrats decided to try and make this a wedge issue. I have been called every name in the book for simply pointing out that fact, never mind being right about the reasons why it was done, and being right about the outcomes that resulted from this poorly considered and cynical political tactic. The assclowns then were talking in terms of "attacking religious zealots"....the assclowns now are talking in terms of "civil rights". It's pathetic, and inexcusable. Civil rights was never the issue until now, and it still isn't for most of the elected Democrats. They tried to take the moral high ground, for the expressed purpose of selling it for votes.... So spare me. I am calling people "assclown" based on bad behavior. They have been calling me "bigot" for stating facts, telling them the truth in spite of their lame attempts to intimidate and character assassinate me(as if) and because they are upset that I have been right about this issue, every step of the way, since 2007. Yeah, that's the same.
Gary M Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Oh...really? Want some homework? Go back and look at every thread on this subject since 2007 when the Democrats decided to try and make this a wedge issue. I have been called every name in the book for simply pointing out that fact, never mind being right about the reasons why it was done, and being right about the outcomes that resulted from this poorly considered and cynical political tactic. The assclowns then were talking in terms of "attacking religious zealots"....the assclowns now are talking in terms of "civil rights". It's pathetic, and inexcusable. Civil rights was never the issue until now, and it still isn't for most of the elected Democrats. They tried to take the moral high ground, for the expressed purpose of selling it for votes.... So spare me. I am calling people "assclown" based on bad behavior. They have been calling me "bigot" for stating facts, telling them the truth in spite of their lame attempts to intimidate and character assassinate me(as if) and because they are upset that I have been right about this issue, every step of the way, since 2007. Yeah, that's the same. Sorry I was just busting on you. I know where you are coming from.
Recommended Posts