Question for Teabaggers, Why Obama?

Dr Kynes said:
Orwell was very much a classic liberal
Click to expand...

images
 
Dr Kynes said:
no. they are not. you would love to drag them into every discussion since you believe they are the perfect foils, but they have an agenda and do NOT hide it. they are outspoken in their sup;port for various ideas.
Click to expand...

and you love them because they love the birchers.
 
TheGreenMaester said:
I am just curious as to why the Teabagger movement got so mobilized when Obama came into office? Where were the outcries for personal freedom when Bush was illegally wiretapping people? What about his starting the renditions and Guantanamo Bay? Why were they not calling for hearings about the intelligence failures that lead up to 9/11 as they are for the Benghazi attacks? Where was the concern about the economy as Bush destroyed it? Why weren't they worried when he just invaded countries and put it on credit? What about the allegations of cronyism with Halliburton getting government contracts and their ties to Cheney? Why didn't they ask to see the college transcripts of Bush?

Why didn't they rise up and politically attack Clinton? Or Reagan? Or Carter? What is so different about Obama? Why all teh concern for his birth certificate and place of birth? Why weren't they concerned about Mitt Romney whose family hated the USA and our family values they fled to drug cartel infested Mexico to practice their unGodly and un-American religious practices? Why didn't the Teabaggers demand his birth certificate and his transcripts? What is so different the them? What are your thoughts?

What is so different about Obama? What makes Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. different than Obama? I mean they are all men who went to good schools and rose to the presidency. I don't know what makes Obama so unique that the GOP and Republicans hate him so much? Why do they talk about the good old days and use flags from early on in US history when we were a slave owning misogynistic poor hating nation? It seems as if they think those were the good ol' days and reminisce about them and they try to emulate them while forgetting the horrors our nation inflicted upon the poor, women, blacks, and native peoples.

Either way I am rambling, but can any of the Conservatives shed some light on what makes Obama so terrifying to the GOP? Why do they use such vitriol when it comes to talking about him versus previous presidents (both Democrat and Republican because the Teabaggers are populists and not aligned with any political party according to many of them, which still doesn't explain why they all ran as Republicans in the recent elections). So why Obama?
Click to expand...

CLINTON started the rendition program, Clinton....
 
Nutes and Nugs said:
Alrighty then.
If you love the government controlling your life so much, please move to China or Russia.
You sound like a whinny child that isn't old enough to be posting here.
Click to expand...
Why? It seems like they control it less. Why are so many corporate persons moving to China for the lack of big gub'mint regulations? Isn't it ironic they have more freedom there? What about Somalia? It seems like a Teabaggers paradise.
 
TheGreenMaester said:
Why? It seems like they control it less. Why are so many corporate persons moving to China for the lack of big gub'mint regulations? Isn't it ironic they have more freedom there? What about Somalia? It seems like a Teabaggers paradise.
Click to expand...



china is becomeing MORE free, and giving it's people MORE control over their lives (and trying to get companies to move to china with all their money) while the US is doing the opposite\

you may think the assholes leading the charge into totalitarianism are the mythical "Right People" who will finally create a socialist system "That Works" but i disagree and so do many others. if you love the Brahmin in Chief so much, go volunteer for his Hope N Change army, put on some gold spray painted boots and learn to "step dance" and chant inanities



[video=youtube;-aBgPtXJppg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aBgPtXJppg[/video]
 
Dr Kynes said:
Orwell was very much a classic liberal
Click to expand...

George orwells thoughts on capitalism , socialism and fascism.
from The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius



What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism. War, for all its evil, is at any rate an unanswerable test of strength, like a try-your-grip machine. Great strength returns the penny, and there is no way of faking the result............................................ .........


Socialism is usually defined as ‘common ownership of the means of production’. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it................................................ .

In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.............

However, it has become clear in the last few years that ‘common ownership of the means of production’ is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class-system. Centralized ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. ‘The State’ may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.
But what then is Fascism?

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races,............................................ .............................................

However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.
All through the critical years British capitalism, with its immense industrial plant and its unrivalled supply of skilled labour, was unequal to the strain of preparing for war. To prepare for war on the modern scale you have got to divert the greater part of your national income to armaments, which means cutting down on consumption goods. A bombing plane, for instance, is equivalent in price to fifty small motor cars, or eight thousand pairs of silk stockings, or a million loaves of bread. Clearly you can't have many bombing planes without lowering the national standard of life. It is guns or butter, as Marshal Goering remarked. But in Chamberlain's England the transition could not be made. The rich would not face the necessary taxation, and while the rich are still visibly rich it is not possible to tax the poor very heavily either. Moreover, so long as profit was the main object the manufacturer had no incentive to change over from consumption goods to armaments. A businessman's first duty is to his shareholders. .......................................



But one thing gives hope – the visible swing in public opinion. If we can survive this war, the defeat in Flanders will turn out to have been one of the great turning-points in English history. In that spectacular disaster the working class, the middle class and even a section of the business community could see the utter rottenness of private capitalism. .................................................. .


The difference between Socialism and capitalism is not primarily a difference of technique. One cannot simply change from one system to the other as one might install a new piece of machinery in a factory, and then carry on as before, with the same people in positions of control. Obviously there is also needed a complete shift of power. New blood, new men, new ideas – in the true sense of the word, a revolution.......................................





The fact that we are at war has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country is in danger. War is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war brings it home to the individual that he is not altogether an individual. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering life as of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people England who really want to see their country conquered by Germany. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2,000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto.

But do I mean that there will no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind. There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro – in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. Morrison for Home Secretary – a few yards forward, Priestley shoved off the air – a few yards back. It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinion can group itself.
I suggest that the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines.
4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over.
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented.
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.
 
ginwilly said:
For me personally I didn't vote for him but really did buy into his rhetoric a bit and thought well at least he has a chance to work across the isle and all this partisanship will take a back seat. Boy was I wrong. I liked the transparency promises but the very first bill he signed he broke his promise of all bills being up on a website for a few days before voting takes place and I thought damn, that was fast.

Then the stimulus happened....... Most of us with any Austrian based reading were amazed at the stupidity of this. Btw, we were more right about it than the Keynesian. It showed us how clueless this administration was when it comes to economic principles. Aggregate demand is something children might fall for. After the stimulus didn't do what he said he's passed 18 jobs bills that hasn't worked all while saying he can't get anything done because of the republicans.

He was given a chance, it's just that within a month of taking office he doubled down on the stupid shit Bush was doing, pissed on our heads and told us it was raining. I don't trust him, he lies, he doesn't know what he's doing, and he keeps doing it.

After all these bills have passed and not done near what he claimed they would, after he failed to close Gitmo, after it's been proven that Obamacare is not what they claimed, after doubling down on wars, after adding cell phones to the Patriot act instead of repealing it, I don't understand how he got re-elected. People aren't paying attention or are lying to themselves to keep from admitting they were wrong. I've watched him continue Bush's policies that everyone bitched about and they give Obama a pass.

I don't understand the support. I do however, understand how it was easier to vote against Romney, so maybe that's the majority of it.
Click to expand...

I agree! You didn't mention his attacks on MMJ states while all the time people thought he was a progressive. Now we've learned he's just Bush 2.0 but who could vote for Rmoney? This system sucks putting up with the lessor evil. Now, you got the right just doing everything they can to affect the 2014 and 2016 elections screaming all this BS only to sway voters next year and three years from now. Can't the lazy rich assholes do anything? All of DC should flushed after us pee-on's piss on all of their faces. I have no feelings for Rmoney, he's just an object but Obama? I hate that fucker. He sent many peaceful weed people to prison and I will not forget that.
 
abandonconflict said:
George orwells thoughts on capitalism , socialism and fascism.
from The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius



What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism. War, for all its evil, is at any rate an unanswerable test of strength, like a try-your-grip machine. Great strength returns the penny, and there is no way of faking the result............................................ .........


Socialism is usually defined as ‘common ownership of the means of production’. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it................................................ .

In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.............

However, it has become clear in the last few years that ‘common ownership of the means of production’ is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class-system. Centralized ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. ‘The State’ may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.
But what then is Fascism?

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races,............................................ .............................................

However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.
All through the critical years British capitalism, with its immense industrial plant and its unrivalled supply of skilled labour, was unequal to the strain of preparing for war. To prepare for war on the modern scale you have got to divert the greater part of your national income to armaments, which means cutting down on consumption goods. A bombing plane, for instance, is equivalent in price to fifty small motor cars, or eight thousand pairs of silk stockings, or a million loaves of bread. Clearly you can't have many bombing planes without lowering the national standard of life. It is guns or butter, as Marshal Goering remarked. But in Chamberlain's England the transition could not be made. The rich would not face the necessary taxation, and while the rich are still visibly rich it is not possible to tax the poor very heavily either. Moreover, so long as profit was the main object the manufacturer had no incentive to change over from consumption goods to armaments. A businessman's first duty is to his shareholders. .......................................



But one thing gives hope – the visible swing in public opinion. If we can survive this war, the defeat in Flanders will turn out to have been one of the great turning-points in English history. In that spectacular disaster the working class, the middle class and even a section of the business community could see the utter rottenness of private capitalism. .................................................. .


The difference between Socialism and capitalism is not primarily a difference of technique. One cannot simply change from one system to the other as one might install a new piece of machinery in a factory, and then carry on as before, with the same people in positions of control. Obviously there is also needed a complete shift of power. New blood, new men, new ideas – in the true sense of the word, a revolution.......................................





The fact that we are at war has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country is in danger. War is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war brings it home to the individual that he is not altogether an individual. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering life as of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people England who really want to see their country conquered by Germany. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2,000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto.

But do I mean that there will no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind. There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro – in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. Morrison for Home Secretary – a few yards forward, Priestley shoved off the air – a few yards back. It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinion can group itself.
I suggest that the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines.
4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over.
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented.
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.
Click to expand...


copy/paste noted.

Orwell is still not an anarchist, or even a socialist except in the anachronistic manner in which those words were used in that time.

Orwell is also still not a marxist. democratic socialism is, as you have repeatedly asserted, NOT marxism in your view (nor in mine, though it can be used as a slippery slope into fascism)

many persons who are Democratic Socialists are NOT Fascists, are NOT Communists, and are NOT True Marxists. they may want slightly more Socialism in their mix than i do, but they do not want the elimination of all capitalism, unlike yourself who feels that no-body should be able to own a fucking shovel or a seed.

unlimited capitalism = bad
limits on capitalism = good
limits on socialism = good.
unlimited socialism = North Korea.

when you accept that some capitalism is good, then maybe a few people might suspect youre not just a looney tunes Marxist with dreams of Kim Il Sung style dictatorship.
 
Dr Kynes said:
why dont you TALK to some of them and L<ISTEN rather than just sucking rachel maddow's cock and licking ed schult'z cunt?
Click to expand...

He doesn't listen and you don't read. When someone calls you out on your silliness, do you always resort to vulgarity and homophobia? Do you mix it up and copy and paste walls of texts you have taken from other sites? Anything to get the post count up, it seems. I wish the world was as simple as you seem to think it is. Democrats are ruining the world. Everything was so great with a Republican at the helm.

What sort of vulgarities will you hurl at me now? What woman's penis will you tell me to suck? Should I insult you first? The book you took your screen name from is boring. If you took it from the movie, that wasn't any good either. How about your location? How I Met Your Mother isn't funny. That show has a prominent gay actor. How does your homophobia reconcile that? Do you only hate gays in the political arena? Did you have to take the day off from bullying potheads to guard under your bridge?
 
wheelt01 said:
He doesn't listen and you don't read. When someone calls you out on your silliness, do you always resort to vulgarity and homophobia? Do you mix it up and copy and paste walls of texts you have taken from other sites? Anything to get the post count up, it seems. I wish the world was as simple as you seem to think it is. Democrats are ruining the world. Everything was so great with a Republican at the helm.

What sort of vulgarities will you hurl at me now? What woman's penis will you tell me to suck? Should I insult you first? The book you took your screen name from is boring. If you took it from the movie, that wasn't any good either. How about your location? How I Met Your Mother isn't funny. That show has a prominent gay actor. How does your homophobia reconcile that? Do you only hate gays in the political arena? Did you have to take the day off from bullying potheads to guard under your bridge?
Click to expand...

meh you dont even have the skills to rustle my jimmies.

a wall of stammered comments and imprecations cleverly disguised by placing a question mark at the end does not bolster your credibility, nor does it enhance your status and the voice of reasoned debate.

a quick perusal of my collected comments (readily available to all) will easily refute most of your "scathing" commentary, and your opinion on frank Herbert's works, Dino DeLaurentis' cinematic vision, and the comedic value of How I Met Yor Mother are irrelevant to me.

you assume im a homophobe (lol, i guess my dislike for brussels sprouts would make me a cruciphobe. my dog allergy makes me a caniphobe, and my disdain for fake pretentious political stances makes me an anarchophobe, such logic you have there) despite no knowledge of whether i' riding the Dude Train or not.

i often resort to vulgarity and silliness when addressing dolts, dimwits, aand fools like greemaester, who, i have it on good authority, is in fact an unapologetic practicing extrovert, and a closet philatelist. i have strong evidence that you are an oenophile and the child of a suspected septuagenarian with close ties to some lepidopterist organizations!

you should both be ashamed.


in breif, go be butthurt at somebody else, i have no interest in arching you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mephisto666
Shutdown 2024
Replies
18
Views
1K
topcat
topcat
NICK72690
Plants stunted and sick in ffof, but exploded with growth in nectar number 4, why?
Replies
3
Views
401
Fallguy111
Fallguy111
hanimmal
Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
13K
compassionateExotic
compassionateExotic
hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
740
hanimmal
hanimmal
BB Boomer
How to mix RO water with potassium bicarbonate and calmag
Replies
4
Views
515
Lou66
L
Back
Top