The Big Cat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 He performed beyond competently in an acting role, showing a lighter side by playing a caricature of himself. This is definitely worthy of a rhetorical argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 ...just Maybinning the pile four seconds after the whistle? Big surprise. First Cain. Then Maybin. Man, you guys really hate black people. No idea you were so racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't think anyone's questioning that, but thank you. So that's the definition of a jackass to you? Would you also use a video of him reciting Shakespeare to point out how much of a jackass he is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So that's the definition of a jackass to you? Would you also use a video of him reciting Shakespeare to point out how much of a jackass he is? That is not what he said, and you know it! Well, that is what he said, but you're just such a partisan that you're incapable of interpreting his contradiction. Big Cat is very complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 That is not what he said, and you know it! Well, that is what he said, but you're just such a partisan that you're incapable of interpreting his contradiction. Big Cat is very complicated. It's not that he's complicated, it's just that you fail to comprehend the understanding that to uncomplicate the complicated, your contradictions should not, from a contradictory standpoint, fly in the face of of faceless flyers who know what they shouldn't know when faced with untangling the complicated web of faceless contradictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 That is not what he said, and you know it! Well, that is what he said, but you're just such a partisan that you're incapable of interpreting his contradiction. Big Cat is very complicated. I don't like Cain because I'm a partisan hack. I like Cain because he made his money selling pizza!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 That is not what he said, and you know it! Well, that is what he said, but you're just such a partisan that you're incapable of interpreting his contradiction. Big Cat is very complicated. From now on, I'm not even reading his posts unless he shows me ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So that's the definition of a jackass to you? Would you also use a video of him reciting Shakespeare to point out how much of a jackass he is? Yes, in order to determine that Cain's appearances on the Daily Show do irreversible harm to his credibility--such that he has no leg whatsoever to stand on when crying about a "coordinated" smear campaign against him--we must FIRST define jack ass. At this point, you guys have done wonders to illustrate its definition, so I'll just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Yes, in order to determine that Cain's appearances on the Daily Show do irreversible harm to his credibility--such that he has no leg whatsoever to stand on when crying about a "coordinated" smear campaign against him--we must FIRST define jack ass. At this point, you guys have done wonders to illustrate its definition, so I'll just leave it at that. So that's how you define irreversable harm? Damn man, you're working with a whole different dictionary over there aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 So that's how you define irreversable harm? Damn man, you're working with a whole different dictionary over there aren't you. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. You ladies sure do get technical when someone says something mean about your GOP golden boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. You ladies sure do get technical when someone says something mean about your GOP golden boys. Wrong. People tend to get technical when someone says something asinine and provides evidence which seems to undermine the initial asinine argument, and then backtracks, and then reiterates the original asinine argument and then claims that's not what he said despite the fact hes said it twice before declaring total victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. But that's not what you said. You ladies sure do get technical when someone says something mean about your GOP golden boys. Getting technical? I seemed to have missed your link of Obama cracking wise on SNL and calling him a jackass. And Cain cannot be our golden boy. He's black. Edited August 28, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Wrong. People tend to get technical when someone says something asinine and provides evidence which seems to undermine the initial asinine argument, and then backtracks, and then reiterates the original asinine argument and then claims that's not what he said despite the fact hes said it twice before declaring total victory. I really do regret that, of the people here capable of having a rational discussion, so many are conservative. I'd rather we had more liberals capable of discussing something rationally. Sadly, Big Cat could be one of them, if he tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I really do regret that, of the people here capable of having a rational discussion, so many are conservative. I'd rather we had more liberals capable of discussing something rationally. Sadly, Big Cat could be one of them, if he tried. Except for the fact that I'm an idealogical agnostic. I know I don't like Republicans and that Democrats drive me nuts. PPP just presents far too many opportunities to poke at the otherwise unimpeded circle jerk. I'm up for a rational discussion once the majority of the right-bangers are, too. But you know damn well it's jut a big ole GOP pile on. I fully acknowledge taking the low road. At least it gives me a chance to sharpen my zings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Except for the fact that I'm an idealogical agnostic. I know I don't like Republicans and that Democrats drive me nuts. PPP just presents far too many opportunities to poke at the otherwise unimpeded circle jerk. I'm up for a rational discussion once the majority of the right-bangers are, too. But you know damn well it's jut a big ole GOP pile on. I fully acknowledge taking the low road. At least it gives me a chance to sharpen my zings. Please. The last time you tried to have a rational discussion, you ended up telling me you agreed with me even though I wrong. You can't get more essentially irrational than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Except for the fact that I'm an idealogical agnostic. I know I don't like Republicans and that Democrats drive me nuts. PPP just presents far too many opportunities to poke at the otherwise unimpeded circle jerk. I'm up for a rational discussion once the majority of the right-bangers are, too. But you know damn well it's jut a big ole GOP pile on. I fully acknowledge taking the low road. At least it gives me a chance to sharpen my zings. Zings? What zings? You've pretty much failed at everthing you've posted here. Tell us once again how my imaginary son would have a better chance in life because he was white vs the son of a crack addicted homeless insane person...errrrr I mean black woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts