Cunning Runt

Actually, Hawkeye 10, the source is the website called "Canada Free Press". It is a conservative site and may not be as accurate as one would like. Nevertheless, it can equal the probity of such garbage cans as Moveon.org and/or The Huffington Post quite easily.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk

Quote:

are you sure?

of course it was humour Laughing

...humorous how Genoves posts fantasy news

0 Replies

@genoves,

genoves

Quote:

Laurel and Hardy are dead!!

No **** sherlock! I'm overjoyed. Now I don't have to worry about being sued by their estate for comparing you and waterboy to them.

1 Reply

@panzade,

You must forgive me, Panzade. When you wrote "Laurel and Hardy" proclaim themselves the winners" I was not certain that you knew they were dead. They could hardly proclaim anything after death so your sentence was erroneous unless you meant to make a comparison. But your writing is so poor that the attempt at comparison fell flat.

0 Replies

You may be correct, Panzade. Barring any real evidence or documentation it may very well be fantasy news. We'll just have to wait to see whether there are other reports which corroborate the CanadaNews site.

But, I am hopeful that your label of "fantasy news" could, like the Kantian Imperative, be applied to all other sites such as Moveon.org and/or Huffington Post. If you are in agreement with this, I will be glad to label the posting from CanadaNews as fantasy news.

You are aware, of course, of the ridiculous and libelous lies told by MoveOn.org over the last five years concerning George W. Bush. Please do not attempt to make any distinction between MoveOn.org and CanadaNews. If your logic is to be followed they are both fantasy sites and can be ignored>

0 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

And so...another debate on A2K ends...the victors, Laurel & Hardy proclaim themselves the winners...move along folks...there's nothing to see but burnt Liberal carcasses...move along now...

uh-huh. and so it goes...

0 Replies

Only if you let it, Don't Tread on Me.

0 Replies

Uh, their "Bureau Chief Hugh Betcha"? Sound like a real person? You betcha, if you're gullible. Or if you have a Canadian (or Alaskan) asccent. That CanadaNews "news" article is about as reliable as The Onion. Fantasy. Not comparable at all to MoveOn, which does deal in facts.

And if you're in a congressional hearing, protocol is to use congressional protocol, by which Senator Boxer should be addressed as "Senator". She was perfectly correct.

"This whole "controvery" is typical right wing drivel. If there's nothing substantive, pick a nit and use a pile driver on it, to obscure the fact that you have nothing cotr4uctive to contribute, but only invective.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Uh, their "Bureau Chief Hugh Betcha"? Sound like a real person? You betcha, if you're gullible. Or if you have a Canadian (or Alaskan) asccent. That CanadaNews "news" article is about as reliable as The Onion. Fantasy. Not comparable at all to MoveOn, which does deal in facts.

And if you're in a congressional hearing, protocol is to use congressional protocol, by which Senator Boxer should be addressed as "Senator". She was perfectly correct.

"This whole "controvery" is typical right wing drivel. If there's nothing substantive, pick a nit and use a pile driver on it, to obscure the fact that you have nothing cotr4uctive to contribute, but only invective.

nice.

0 Replies

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

What in hell are you talking about? Nothing ends as long as someone has something intelligent to say. Try reading some good books, Panzade and you may very well be able to read a post and rebut it with your own insight and evidence. As a clown, you are poorly informed about two of your forebearers. Laurel and Hardy are dead!!

The intelligent part was hilarious.

This thread started in a ridiculous manner and has ended the same way.

You clowns were good for a laugh, but you soon become tiresome.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Having heard the sound bite on radio, I believe I heard a degree of petulance in her voice, while she was explaining something about how she worked hard to get to that position. I personally think that if it was petulance I heard it was inappropriate. There is also a tone to a voice that is very telling, I believe.

Perhaps, some women might commiserate with the efforts Senator Boxer went through, to achieve her senatorship; however, one might think that a percentage of her male constituency might ask the old schoolyard question, "Are you bragging or complaining?" In otherwords, too many ladies, senators or otherwise, in my opinion, seem to turn conversations around to themselves for my not taking them as as seriously as many men that keep a focus on the topic without interjecting their feelings (especially about themselves).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

She appears to be a classic case of an overcompensating short person. Add to that an inflated sense of self-importance and a strong vindictive streak and you have a rather thoroughly obnoxious character.

0 Replies

Re: Intrepid (Post 3682903)
Quote:
You have a problem with power, Geno boy
Hawkeye 10 wrote:
Power should be respected. Boxer is smart, does OK for herself, and I don't have any major beef with her. But in this case she was not nice, kinda snotty actually.

0 Replies

Re: genoves (Post 3682833)
genoves wrote:
The anal rape of Josef Goebbels? Do you have a link?

Contrex wrote:
You evidently don't know what function the word "might" performs.

********************************************************************

Oh- It is a fantasy then. Something like the fantasy that Barbara Boxer is really the sister of the Stepford woman--Nancy Pelosi.

No wonder the State of California is going down in flames and financial ruin.

Three power hungry, emotionally twisted, left wing feminists--

Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Finestein.

2 Replies

@genoves,

What is your purpose for the copy and paste of everybody's posts? Are you just bored? Do you actually have a purpose? Do you realize it makes you look like an idiot? Just trying to help.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

Oh- It is a fantasy then.

I guess I'll have to explain since you appear to be as dumb as a sack of rocks. (That much was plain already). I was being disobliging to you by suggesting that you were not born of woman (ie from a vagina) but rather that you could have been shat out of Josef Goebbels' backside. That is to say that you are in many ways (value, attractiveness, aesthetically) comparable to a literal, actual "piece of ****". The unflattering aspect was strengthened by the notion that you were a turd anally sired by the proprietor of Der Stürmer (where your views and their level of originality and overall value would fit nicely) and crapped out by someone who even the Nazis called "Wotan's Mickey Mouse" or "The Fuehrer's poison dwarf".

You appear to so thoroughly lack any appreciation of metaphor or simile or indeed the capacity for any kind of abstract or figurative thought, and your moronic insistence is so dogged, that I seriously wonder if you were born with some kind of cerebral or neurological condition?

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Yes, Intrepid. I have a purpose. I choose to replicate those posts which I believe have important ideas relevant to the main point. I do not realize that it makes me look like anything. You do know, of course, that you need a license to be a sidewalk pyschiatrist.

Now, I do not like Ad Hominems. They are not useful but since you think that we must engage in name calling instead of exchanging ideas, I will respond to your slur that I look like an idiot with the following:\

The idiot is clearly the person in the picture next to your name. Have you ever thought of seeing a neurologist?

Now, I hope that you understand that name calling and Ad Hominems are unproductive. You may wish, if you have the ability and the inclination, to try to gather evidence and/or documentation to rebut statements with which you disagree.

1 Reply

Contrex wrote:

I guess I'll have to explain since you appear to be as dumb as a sack of rocks. (That much was plain already). I was being disobliging to you by suggesting that you were not born of woman (ie from a vagina) but rather that you could have been shat out of Josef Goebbels' backside.
********************************************************************
Oh my---Another Ad Hominem!!!

I am very much afraid that you have me mixed up with Herr Walter Hinteler. He is the only one on these threads who could have possibly been involved with Goebbels. If you need evidence, read his posts. I think you may agree.

And as for not being born of a woman, beware, Macbeth, for Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.

It is obvious that you do not know that people do not have to be born (from a vagina). May I suggest some reading on basic obstretics?

1 Reply

@genoves,

not bad... better than I expected... but still stupid.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Not bad but still stupid says Contrex. I think that your inability to understand that men and women do not have to be born from a woman's vagina but, indeed, may be born by Caesarean section, renders any judgment of yours as being equal to the braying of a donkey.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know