Animal MSNBC doubles down on stupid

[Quantum Windbag]

Sigh.

As always, here comes your daily dose of Kryptonite:

Link to what? Your lack of outrage over something? Can you point to a single example of you ever being outraged about anything that didn't include someone claiming you said something, or didn't say something, which is a new one, on this board?

Didn't think so.

"Link to what"? What do you think??

Knowing you, you probably want me to prove that you didn't say that the Earth is orange, why the fuck do you think I asked?

What a sleazy weasel you are. And I hesitate to say 'weasel' since it's possible you may be legitimately dense enough that you don't see what you're doing. You made the claim I'm "not outraged", declaring in your narcissistic smugness that not only do you see what's in my heart but what's not in there as well. The level of blatant arrogance in that can't even be expressed in written language.

You are the pompous ass that is constantly making post that you later claim have nothing to do with what you actually think, how the fuck does that make me a narcissist?

The burden of proof is yours, not mine. You'll need to comb through every one of my posts to find your own disproof, and even then you'll have only what I've posted here, which is in no way a basis for self-satisfied psychobabble about what's in somebody else's head. Remember to go every time you come across one of these.

Excuse me?

I happen to think the FDA is a waste of money, yet you want to blame me because the government, which I oppose categorically, works exactly the way governments always work?

How the fuck does that work in your head?

But doing your research for you because you're too damned lazy to get off your ass and find a basis for your own point ain't my job. And the idea that other people "owe" you some kind of explanation for your own wackadoo strawmen displaying what His Smugness considers an approved level of outrage, assent, dissent or anything else, makes me want to puke in its bombastic self-absorbed egomania. What the fuck are you, the Wizard of Emotions controlling the world? Who the fuck died and made you Arrogant Arbiter of how other people must express themselves??

Seriously?

You aren't anti gun, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271576-concealed-carry-versus-real-world-a-study.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/273253-nra-vows-to-stop-tucson-from-desecrating-its-gods.html

You are anti government, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/280488-ten-gun-myths-and-memes-shot-down.html

Izzat "outraged" enough for your pompous ass?

You are fake outraged that I called you on the fact that your claims for your position does not mach your actual posts?

Tough fucking shit.

So again... link?

So, again, to what?

Authoritarians ... SMH

Tell me something, oh he of the fake outrage, why is it that the idiots always label the guy who is anti government as an authoritarian? Is it because they get confused by the idea that I want to get rid of the government completely, and they think this means I want to run the universe?

On the other hand, I could have fun and post that stupid smiley you always throw up and demand you find a single link to me ever posting a pro authoritarian position of any type, but my guess is that you wouldn't appreciate the joke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In that sense "progressive" could mean "one who approves of progress". Who doesn't.

I'll say again until it sinks in -- without a definition it's still a meaningless hack term.

This is off the topic anyway.

Poor baby.

Your definition of liberal doesn't include anyone in the Democratic Party, or even you yourself, yet you continue to use it like it means something because you like the fact that it makes it seem like you care about freedom.

Nothing I posted in that exchange was about the Democratic Party, except to correct the name thereof. Once again you're jumping in to somebody else's conversation and inserting your own content. Seems to be all you do.

Nothing in your post was about anything other than your delusion that progressives don't actually exist, what's your point?

 

[Pogo]

OH NO, THE EVIL KOCH BROTHERS.

If you can't handle the answer, maybe you shouldn't pose the question. YA THINK?

The Koch brothers have gone out of their way to spend money in ways that actually makes it harder for them to do business, why the fuck do you think Harry Reid hates them? If they are the best examples of people who are lining their own pockets at my expense you really got less than nothing.

But thanks for making my point for me, as usual.

I think I may see your problem. "Guilt by association". I haven't even mentioned "Democrats" or "Harry Reid".

Do you mine your own Stupid, or do you hire undocumented workers?

Yet you parrot Harry Reid's attack on the Koch brothers because, well...

Frankly, I have no idea, unless I happen to be right about you being a fucking hack.

Not only did I not bring up Harry Fucking Reid, I'm not even aware of anything Harry Reid has said about the Kochs. Are you trying to make me like the guy? Sorry, but once again you'll need a link.

But I suppose to the simpleminded, any idea one doesn't like may be pinned on one's favorite demon who shared that idea as a gateway drug to Guilt by Association. The Alinsky Syndrome.

"Do you like dogs? Know who else liked dogs? Hitler! That means you're Hitler, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah."

Childish crap.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As victimhood tantrums go, that's somewhat boring. You'll need to inject some more specific and detailed kookery into your victimhood tantrums if you want more of that attention that you so badly crave.

Which is easily explained by the fact that it had nothing to do with being a fucking victim, asshole. I don't take the victim status, I get the fuck up in your face and make you out to be an asshole whenever you try to put me down, just like I did when I got up in Pogo's face with this post. The proof of how successful I was is that he now wants me to prove he didn't say something.

Any other stupid attempts to make yourself look enlightened, oh he who is flabbergasted by the truth?

And you define that as "success"...

The bubblicious babble-world of the self-absorbed...

I do not define that as success, the world does. I set a goal, I accomplished it, end of discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Utter bullshit. Not a request, an observation of what you just did. Strawman in red.

Btw there's no such entity as the "Democrat Party". I looked it up -- doesn't exist. But it does tell me where you buy your strawmen.
Your pseudo-definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism.

liberal (ˈlɪbərəl; ˈlɪbrəl)
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream.
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation.
7. (Education) of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
n
8. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
[C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]
ˈliberally adv ˈliberalness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

(via Freedic)

And FWIW HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so if you want to call him a liar Sean Hannity will be all over you.

If you are actually a liberal, and thus support individual freedom over government every single time, why do you keep asking "What are you deprived of?" whenever someone raises the issue of government regulations taking away liberty? Why do you support the government mandating safety regulations over individual choice?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ing-fda-to-ban-trans-fats-15.html#post8162109

If you always support individual freedom over government why do you support raising the minimum wage?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...crease-of-the-minimum-wage-3.html#post6928081

Is it because you aren't really a liberal, but that you are a person who supports government intervention in society with the goal of making life better for everyone, aka progressive?

There is no "liberty" issue in the FDA thread. What, the "liberty" to sell food with poisons in it?

Again, I will not accept "progressive" without a definition. PERIOD.

And I haven't even been in the minimum wage thread (or any others on that topic). Once again you've pulled a sumption out of your ass instead of researching your own point. Now look where you are.

Nothing like "success" huh?

There is no liberty issue? You decided that all by yourself, did you? Don't worry though, the fact that you cannot find the liberty issue in no way changes the fact that I am the authoritarian.

By the way, if you haven't been in that thread how did I link to your post in that thread? Is it magic? Or are you just a pathetic liar?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Agreed. And as noted above from the video quote, the TV talking head said the same thing.

So?



Easily done. You need but ask.

By their flags ye already know them:

Is that enough? Say the word.



No, you no stupid. Orwell stupid, you no stupid.



You keep saying that. Then I keep challenging you to prove it. Then you keep running away. Lather, rinse, repeat, yip yap.



I made no reference to myself or how smart anybody is. You did that with your pointless ad hom obsession. On the contrary I don't see how it takes smarts to see the obvious. But I suppose given your challenges there is a threshold.

I made no reference to Stalin either. Silly me, I'm not locked into the rigid idea that an allegorical novel must apply only to one historical story and anything other application of the same moral is just something to go all over.

If you are mentioning those who were lovey-dovey with mass murderer Joseph Stalin, don't forget to mention Democrat icon, the liberal mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who called his bosom pal "Uncle Joe" and unleashed 40 years of Cold War by sucking Stalin ass.

The point wasn't "who was lovey-dovey with Stalin", nor was it his murders. It was answering the request "point to the idiots in your imaginary oligarchy who are talking about looking out for you while fighting a revolution that will give them all the power" -- and the pertinent party in that picture was Fred Koch, not Stalin. It just happened to be handy as I had just used that graphic elsewhere.

So that was the topic; if you'd like to plug FDR into that connection, be my jest. You might start with the MIC and make it an 'intelligent design' kind of story.

You can leave out the ass-sucking part though, thanks

Except you neglected one little detail, actual evidence that Koch is doing what you claim.

Not that anyone that has read any of your posts actually expects you to do anything but scream about links at this point.

 

[Pogo]

<incoherent yammering snipped>

You aren't anti gun, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271576-concealed-carry-versus-real-world-a-study.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/273253-nra-vows-to-stop-tucson-from-desecrating-its-gods.html

Once again, putting words in others' mouths. I would never in a million years use a facile blanket generalization like "anti-gun". Define your term. Here's an idea: take it from something I've actually posted rather than something you pull out of your ass.

Your links above are to a video and an article, both submitted to the respective threads for discussion by all in the context of what was under discussion at the time. I god damn sure don't need your approval to post them, sorry to burst your narcissistic bubble. I didn't write or produce either one, a distinction that seems lost on you intellectual knuckledraggers. Same is true of the next one coming:

You are anti government, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/280488-ten-gun-myths-and-memes-shot-down.html

Number one, once again, where did I claim to be "anti-government"?
Number two, that article ISN'T EVEN ABOUT government. DUH?

Izzat "outraged" enough for your pompous ass?

You are fake outraged that I called you on the fact that your claims for your position does not mach your actual posts?

:::whoosh::: no, I'm saying to the idea that you think I owe you research on your own points. You go do your own; it's YOUR POINT to make, dumbass.

Tough fucking shit.

I suppose it can be, I've never tried it. Keep that kinky stuff to yourself.

So again... link?

So, again, to what?

Authoritarians ... SMH

Tell me something, oh he of the fake outrage, why is it that the idiots always label the guy who is anti government as an authoritarian? Is it because they get confused by the idea that I want to get rid of the government completely, and they think this means I want to run the universe?

"Authoritarian" is used broadly there, applied not to government but to this medium; describing a hapless busybody who can't function without injecting himself into other people's exchanges and injecting his own content into what they didn't say. It is here synonymous with "control freak" -i.e. a narcissist who sees himself as some sort of Message Board Dictator.

Hope this helps.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you can't handle the answer, maybe you shouldn't pose the question. YA THINK?

The Koch brothers have gone out of their way to spend money in ways that actually makes it harder for them to do business, why the fuck do you think Harry Reid hates them? If they are the best examples of people who are lining their own pockets at my expense you really got less than nothing.

But thanks for making my point for me, as usual.

I think I may see your problem. "Guilt by association". I haven't even mentioned "Democrats" or "Harry Reid".

Do you mine your own Stupid, or do you hire undocumented workers?

Yet you parrot Harry Reid's attack on the Koch brothers because, well...

Frankly, I have no idea, unless I happen to be right about you being a fucking hack.

Not only did I not bring up Harry Fucking Reid, I'm not even aware of anything Harry Reid has said about the Kochs. Are you trying to make me like the guy? Sorry, but once again you'll need a link.

But I suppose to the simpleminded, any idea one doesn't like may be pinned on one's favorite demon who shared that idea as a gateway drug to Guilt by Association. The Alinsky Syndrome.

"Do you like dogs? Know who else liked dogs? Hitler! That means you're Hitler, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah."

Childish crap.

Let me get this straight, you live in the 21st century, have some type of computer and access to the Internet, regularly post on a political message board, but want me to believe you are a complete idiot who is totally unaware of everything.

If you insist.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Nobody watches MSNBC anyway.

I use my DVR to record MSNBC and FNC programs and watch them at my leisure.

In every segment in every program on both networks I look for balance, in other words, look for views opposed to those of the network and/or host.

If I find it, I watch and enjoy. If not I skip over that particular segment and look for balance in the next.

Needless to say, one could say that in fact I do NOT watch MSNBC, because one can only take so much of listening to the choir singing to themselves.

FNC almost always features a liberal point of view.

You mean the shill Combs? You could have just said I'm a Fox "News" sheep and I hate liberals.

 

[Pogo]

If you are mentioning those who were lovey-dovey with mass murderer Joseph Stalin, don't forget to mention Democrat icon, the liberal mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who called his bosom pal "Uncle Joe" and unleashed 40 years of Cold War by sucking Stalin ass.

The point wasn't "who was lovey-dovey with Stalin", nor was it his murders. It was answering the request "point to the idiots in your imaginary oligarchy who are talking about looking out for you while fighting a revolution that will give them all the power" -- and the pertinent party in that picture was Fred Koch, not Stalin. It just happened to be handy as I had just used that graphic elsewhere.

So that was the topic; if you'd like to plug FDR into that connection, be my jest. You might start with the MIC and make it an 'intelligent design' kind of story.

You can leave out the ass-sucking part though, thanks

Except you neglected one little detail, actual evidence that Koch is doing what you claim.

Not that anyone that has read any of your posts actually expects you to do anything but scream about links at this point.

You said "point to". So I did. Now you're whining that when you said "point to", I didn't "link to" an entire treatise on Kochroaching.

I can do that, or we can open up a can of whoopass in its own thread, but it wasn't what you asked for. I pointed to mass media too. I've never been shy in posting on that.

Some people, you can give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

<incoherent yammering snipped>

You aren't anti gun, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271576-concealed-carry-versus-real-world-a-study.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/273253-nra-vows-to-stop-tucson-from-desecrating-its-gods.html

Once again, putting words in others' mouths. I would never in a million years use a facile blanket generalization like "anti-gun". Define your term. Here's an idea: take it from something I've actually posted rather than something you pull out of your ass.

Your links above are to a video and an article, both submitted to the respective threads for discussion by all in the context of what was under discussion at the time. I god damn sure don't need your approval to post them, sorry to burst your narcissistic bubble. I didn't write or produce either one, a distinction that seems lost on you intellectual knuckledraggers. Same is true of the next one coming:

You are anti government, but you post crap like this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/280488-ten-gun-myths-and-memes-shot-down.html

Number one, once again, where did I claim to be "anti-government"?
Number two, that article ISN'T EVEN ABOUT government. DUH?



:::whoosh::: no, I'm saying to the idea that you think I owe you research on your own points. You go do your own; it's YOUR POINT to make, dumbass.



I suppose it can be, I've never tried it. Keep that kinky stuff to yourself.

So, again, to what?

Authoritarians ... SMH

Tell me something, oh he of the fake outrage, why is it that the idiots always label the guy who is anti government as an authoritarian? Is it because they get confused by the idea that I want to get rid of the government completely, and they think this means I want to run the universe?

"Authoritarian" is used broadly there, applied not to government but to this medium; describing a hapless busybody who can't function without injecting himself into other people's exchanges and injecting his own content into what they didn't say. It is here synonymous with "control freak" -i.e. a narcissist who sees himself as some sort of Message Board Dictator.

Hope this helps.

A link to something that you actually said? Like the link to the post in the minimum wage thread you claimed you never posted in after I linked to your post in that thread? Or perhaps the post where you claimed you are so fucking ignorant that you have no idea that Harry Reid has been ragging on the Koch brothers for months?

Or would the facts just confuse your poor pathetic brain?

 

[mamooth]

Capitalism as defined by economists, not as defined by idiots who post drivel on message boards. Roughly, that would be "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I defy you to show me how that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

That part comes when I show you one of those failures of capitalism you asked for.

For example, in our capitalist system, nobody wants to manufacture vaccines, because there's no profit in it. Would that be a failure of capitalism, or is it due to our system being Not True Capitalism?

Funny, I don't recall making that argument, mostly because works of literature are not written with the idea them being interpreted in a certain way. Writers tell stories, they don't set out to put hidden meanings into their work to confuse idiots who end up studying literature because they can't handle the real world. So, please, feel free to interpret any work of literature any way you like, it amuses the people who wrote them to no end.

I do, however, recall making the argument that Orwell deliberately wrote Animal Farm as something other than a work of literature. He had a specific goal, and he accomplished it, and pretending that you can reinterpret his work simply because you were born after him just makes you look pretentious.

So you're defining some works as "literature" and some works as "not literature". That's ... interesting.

Can you give us the specific criteria concerning how to distinguish literature from not-literature? I just ask because this is the first time I've seen somebody declare that Animal Farm isn't literature. You're sort of like the Minister of Culture in your own Soviet state, issuing proclamations about what is and isn't literature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point wasn't "who was lovey-dovey with Stalin", nor was it his murders. It was answering the request "point to the idiots in your imaginary oligarchy who are talking about looking out for you while fighting a revolution that will give them all the power" -- and the pertinent party in that picture was Fred Koch, not Stalin. It just happened to be handy as I had just used that graphic elsewhere.

So that was the topic; if you'd like to plug FDR into that connection, be my jest. You might start with the MIC and make it an 'intelligent design' kind of story.

You can leave out the ass-sucking part though, thanks

Except you neglected one little detail, actual evidence that Koch is doing what you claim.

Not that anyone that has read any of your posts actually expects you to do anything but scream about links at this point.

You said "point to". So I did. Now you're whining that when you said "point to", I didn't "link to" an entire treatise on Kochroaching.

I can do that, or we can open up a can of whoopass in its own thread, but it wasn't what you asked for. I pointed to mass media too. I've never been shy in posting on that.

Some people, you can give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.

I was unaware that I was talking to a guy that had no access to modern technology when I issued that challenge. On the other hand, at least you didn't point to the tooth fairy.

 

[Pogo]

The Koch brothers have gone out of their way to spend money in ways that actually makes it harder for them to do business, why the fuck do you think Harry Reid hates them? If they are the best examples of people who are lining their own pockets at my expense you really got less than nothing.

But thanks for making my point for me, as usual.



Yet you parrot Harry Reid's attack on the Koch brothers because, well...

Frankly, I have no idea, unless I happen to be right about you being a fucking hack.

Not only did I not bring up Harry Fucking Reid, I'm not even aware of anything Harry Reid has said about the Kochs. Are you trying to make me like the guy? Sorry, but once again you'll need a link.

But I suppose to the simpleminded, any idea one doesn't like may be pinned on one's favorite demon who shared that idea as a gateway drug to Guilt by Association. The Alinsky Syndrome.

"Do you like dogs? Know who else liked dogs? Hitler! That means you're Hitler, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah."

Childish crap.

Let me get this straight, you live in the 21st century, have some type of computer and access to the Internet, regularly post on a political message board, but want me to believe you are a complete idiot who is totally unaware of everything.

If you insist.

Trust me, I hardly think of Harry Fucking Reid as "everything". That equivalence is beyond dishonest, and again the same smug arrogance that demands expectations from others simply on your say-so. Again to that: FUCK YOU.

No, I'm not interested in what Harry Fucking Reid says, no I'm not impressed by it, and no I don't search it out. That would be a waste of time. The fact that you piss away your time on it, find some common ground with something I posted and then conclude a causal relationship 'twixt the two speaks volumes about your intellect which I'm sure must include more than a passing experience with lead paint.

And the day a politician comes up with an idea that activist citizens didn't first drag him to is the day pigs fly over frozen Hades.

 

[Pogo]

Capitalism as defined by economists, not as defined by idiots who post drivel on message boards. Roughly, that would be "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I defy you to show me how that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

That part comes when I show you one of those failures of capitalism you asked for.

For example, in our capitalist system, nobody wants to manufacture vaccines, because there's no profit in it. Would that be a failure of capitalism, or is it due to our system being Not True Capitalism?

Funny, I don't recall making that argument, mostly because works of literature are not written with the idea them being interpreted in a certain way. Writers tell stories, they don't set out to put hidden meanings into their work to confuse idiots who end up studying literature because they can't handle the real world. So, please, feel free to interpret any work of literature any way you like, it amuses the people who wrote them to no end.

I do, however, recall making the argument that Orwell deliberately wrote Animal Farm as something other than a work of literature. He had a specific goal, and he accomplished it, and pretending that you can reinterpret his work simply because you were born after him just makes you look pretentious.

So you're defining some works as "literature" and some works as "not literature". That's ... interesting.

Can you give us the specific criteria concerning how to distinguish literature from not-literature? I just ask because this is the first time I've seen somebody declare that Animal Farm isn't literature. You're sort of like the Minister of Culture in your own Soviet state, issuing proclamations about what is and isn't literature.

He seems to issue a lot. I think whatever issue he's reading has its pages stuck together.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Capitalism as defined by economists, not as defined by idiots who post drivel on message boards. Roughly, that would be "An economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I defy you to show me how that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

That part comes when we show you one of those failures of capitalism you asked for.

For example, in our capitalist system, nobody wants to manufacture vaccines, because there's no profit in it. Would that be a failure of capitalism, or is it due to our system being Not True Capitalism?

I must have missed the actual examples you are talking about, can you point out when it was that no one manufactured vaccines because there was no money in it? After you do that, you can explain why I need to view that as a failure of the free market.

Funny, I don't recall making that argument, mostly because works of literature are not written with the idea them being interpreted in a certain way. Writers tell stories, they don't set out to put hidden meanings into their work to confuse idiots who end up studying literature because they can't handle the real world. So, please, feel free to interpret any work of literature any way you like, it amuses the people who wrote them to no end.

I do, however, recall making the argument that Orwell deliberately wrote Animal Farm as something other than a work of literature. He had a specific goal, and he accomplished it, and pretending that you can reinterpret his work simply because you were born after him just makes you look pretentious.

So you're defining some works as "literature" and some works as "not literature". That's ... interesting.

Can you give us the specific criteria concerning how to distinguish literature from not-literature? I just ask because this is the first time I've seen somebody declare that Animal Farm isn't literature. You're sort of like the Minister of Culture in your own Soviet state, telling us what is and isn't literature.

Yes, I can.

Shakespeare is literature, Twitter is not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not only did I not bring up Harry Fucking Reid, I'm not even aware of anything Harry Reid has said about the Kochs. Are you trying to make me like the guy? Sorry, but once again you'll need a link.

But I suppose to the simpleminded, any idea one doesn't like may be pinned on one's favorite demon who shared that idea as a gateway drug to Guilt by Association. The Alinsky Syndrome.

"Do you like dogs? Know who else liked dogs? Hitler! That means you're Hitler, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah."

Childish crap.

Let me get this straight, you live in the 21st century, have some type of computer and access to the Internet, regularly post on a political message board, but want me to believe you are a complete idiot who is totally unaware of everything.

If you insist.

Trust me, I hardly think of Harry Fucking Reid as "everything". That equivalence is beyond dishonest, and again the same smug arrogance that demands expectations from others simply on your say-so. Again to that: FUCK YOU.

No, I'm not interested in what Harry Fucking Reid says, no I'm not impressed by it, and no I don't search it out. That would be a waste of time. The fact that you piss away your time on it, find some common ground with something I posted and then conclude a causal relationship 'twixt the two speaks volumes about your intellect which I'm sure must include more than a passing experience with lead paint.

And the day a politician comes up with an idea that activist citizens didn't first drag him to is the day pigs fly over frozen Hades.

This is hardly the first time you declared complete ignorance of a subject, remember Boko Haram?

 

[Pogo]

Let me get this straight, you live in the 21st century, have some type of computer and access to the Internet, regularly post on a political message board, but want me to believe you are a complete idiot who is totally unaware of everything.

If you insist.

Trust me, I hardly think of Harry Fucking Reid as "everything". That equivalence is beyond dishonest, and again the same smug arrogance that demands expectations from others simply on your say-so. Again to that: FUCK YOU.

No, I'm not interested in what Harry Fucking Reid says, no I'm not impressed by it, and no I don't search it out. That would be a waste of time. The fact that you piss away your time on it, find some common ground with something I posted and then conclude a causal relationship 'twixt the two speaks volumes about your intellect which I'm sure must include more than a passing experience with lead paint.

And the day a politician comes up with an idea that activist citizens didn't first drag him to is the day pigs fly over frozen Hades.

This is hardly the first time you declared complete ignorance of a subject, remember Boko Haram?

Feel free to link to where I've ever claimed to KNOW EVERYTHING, Dickbag.

Failing that, as you will, feel free to explain how my disinterest in Harry Fucking Reid translates to parroting whatever it was he said, which we still haven't seen.

Idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trust me, I hardly think of Harry Fucking Reid as "everything". That equivalence is beyond dishonest, and again the same smug arrogance that demands expectations from others simply on your say-so. Again to that: FUCK YOU.

No, I'm not interested in what Harry Fucking Reid says, no I'm not impressed by it, and no I don't search it out. That would be a waste of time. The fact that you piss away your time on it, find some common ground with something I posted and then conclude a causal relationship 'twixt the two speaks volumes about your intellect which I'm sure must include more than a passing experience with lead paint.

And the day a politician comes up with an idea that activist citizens didn't first drag him to is the day pigs fly over frozen Hades.

This is hardly the first time you declared complete ignorance of a subject, remember Boko Haram?

Feel free to link to where I've ever claimed to KNOW EVERYTHING, Dickbag.

Failing that, as you will, feel free to explain how my disinterest in Harry Fucking Reid translates to parroting whatever it was he said, which we still haven't seen.

Idiot.

Right after you point out where I said you made that claim.

By the way, how does it feel being out argued by a guy so drugged that he cannot legally operate a motor vehicle? It must make you feel like a total idiot, given how you like to think I am dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[mamooth]

Can you give us the specific criteria concerning how to distinguish literature from not-literature? I just ask because this is the first time I've seen somebody declare that Animal Farm isn't literature. You're sort of like the Minister of Culture in your own Soviet state, telling us what is and isn't literature.

Yes, I can.

Shakespeare is literature, Twitter is not.

Noted, how you don't seem to know the difference between "criteria" and "examples".

The longer this goes on, the less you seem able to understand basic English.

Rather than all of this embarrassing yourself by digging deeper into your alternate reality, wouldn't it have just been easier to admit your OP was off the mark?