10
   

CNN: Giffords to Resign from Congress

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:00 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

I believe that in this case, at least, Roger speaks for most of us, not just himself.


However, all you are authorized to claim is that Roger speaks for you, so how bout you stick to that MKay?
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:09 am
@hawkeye10,
I think you will find that if you check the approval ratings on the various posts on this thread that the majority of the posters here -- and probably a few a browsers as well -- seem to be in agreement and don't think very highly of any of your self-serving prattle. There are quite a number of negative responses to your posts here.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:17 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

I think you will find that if you check the approval ratings on the various posts on this thread that the majority of the posters here -- and probably a few a browsers as well -- seem to be in agreement and don't think very highly of any of your self-serving prattle. There are quite a number of negative responses to your posts here.


AND? Proof that I am wrong would matter, a negative emotional response to my claims does not. I care where your appetite is when I am trying to sell you food, not when I am trying to find out what the truth is by way of making an assertion and seeing if you or anyone else can prove me wrong.

Kindly take off the dress Andrea, let's see if you are right and I am wrong.
Lustig Andrei
 
  7  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:22 am
@hawkeye10,
Stop this ****. You're just changing the subject again. Proof of whether you're right, wrong or in the middle is completely irrelevant to what we were just talking about, viz. that Roger is speaking for more than just himself or just himself and me. That's what we were talking about. Nobody said that a negative response to your rants means anything more than . .. a negative response. You're good at muddying the waters sometimes, but please stop that crap here.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:27 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Proof of whether you're right, wrong or in the middle is completely irrelevant to what we were just talking about, viz. that Roger is speaking for more than just himself or just himself and me. That's what we were talking about


It is not possible for him to be speaking for more then himself unless he has been authorized to speak for others. Until and unless that authorization is presented he is in fact not speaking for anyone but himself. There is nothing to debate here.
RABEL222
 
  6  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:51 am
@hawkeye10,
I dont say this often but in this case Roger is speaking for me. I have to admire her for hanging in there and trying to do her job which is more than most politicians do.
dlowan
 
  5  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:59 am
@Lustig Andrei,
I am very sad to hear that she has had to do this, but very happy for her that she is actually able to speak at all after such a terrible head wound.

I hope her life from here is a story of recovery and joy. If anyone can recover to the utmost possible I think a woman with her intelligence and strength is the one who will do it.

I hope her recovery outdoes the most optimistic informed predictions.

As to other less important things raised on the thread, I'm with da Rat.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:05 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I have to admire her for hanging in there and trying to do her job which is more than most politicians do.


What did she try to do? Reports that I have seen indicate that her office called her once a week to attempt to tell her what they were doing in her name, but that she had no participation in what are normally considered to be the duties of the job.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:16 am
to be clear, what I object to here is the bias in favor of victims clouding our judgment to the point that we ignore the obvious truth that sits right in front of our face. I am not anymore impressed with our current bias in favor of victims than I am of our former bias in favor of men or the former bias in favor of whites.
dlowan
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:26 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Stop this ****. You're just changing the subject again. Proof of whether you're right, wrong or in the middle is completely irrelevant to what we were just talking about, viz. that Roger is speaking for more than just himself or just himself and me. That's what we were talking about. Nobody said that a negative response to your rants means anything more than . .. a negative response. You're good at muddying the waters sometimes, but please stop that crap here.


Generally, that's what he does. Why do people continue to enable him?

Frankly, Hawkeye, I just don't GIVE a damn.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:35 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
Frankly, Hawkeye, I just don't GIVE a damn.

Likewise, victim culture promoters like you are done, just most of you are too dumb to know it.
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:42 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Frankly, Hawkeye, I just don't GIVE a damn.

Likewise, victim culture promoters like you are done, just most of you are too dumb to know it.


Cool. Frankly my dear, I just don't GIVE a damn what you think.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:47 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
Cool. Frankly my dear, I just don't GIVE a damn what you think.


Given your poor performance in the arena of ideas I am not shocked that you now avoid the whole exercise, and talk about cats and other fluff so that your ignorance does not hobble you. You were in on the lobby trying to push Robert towards writing code to make A2K more like Facebook and silencing the heretics right? You lost, so sorry.
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 01:51 am
@hawkeye10,
Cool. Frankly, Hawky, I just don't GIVE a damn.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 04:12 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

roger wrote:

No, you have deliberately misunderstood my comment. Now you prefer to change the subject.

To put it in simple words, you don't need any coloring because you have already established your reputation. We needn't do it for you.

Clear now?


Is that the royal "we"? Do you have a mind meld with the rest of the A2K membership?

No, we are not clear here.


You can ******* talk you hypocritical ****. For the record the only person on A2K I've come across who doesn't think you're a self-centred arsehole is slobbery Bill, and he's a nonce like you.
http://able2know.org/topic/180781-68#post-4870254

What's important to point out is, that you're so stupid, you don't even realise when you contradict yourself.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 05:24 am
@izzythepush,
Great catch, izzy. No, I won't be the one to tell him.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 05:52 am
@roger,
It's hardly difficult to catch him out, like shooting fish in a barrel. You can tell him if you want but it's not going to make any difference. Everything that he experiences goes through some huge egocentric filter, that tells him he has won the argument, he is a freedom fighting hero and is being persecuted by the thought police.

When someone is that deluded it's impossible to convince them of anything. Evidence is not as powerful as mania.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  7  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 11:20 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I believe that in this case, at least, Roger speaks for most of us, not just himself.


However, all you are authorized to claim is that Roger speaks for you, so how bout you stick to that MKay?


And yet you insist you are authorized to speak for not only the constituents in Gabby Giffords' district, the people of Arizona and all the people represented on a national level in Congress.

Have you looked in a mirror lately?
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 11:25 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

failures art wrote:

That's not how it works.

Your representative is yours to appeal to. You can't demand that other congressional districts also represent your wishes. If you really cared, you could have wrote to your CR and they could have taken it under consideration along with the other wishes of your district on how they wished to proceed. You don't actually care, and it's still not your business.



The House polices itself, the leadership had the authority to declare the seat empty, but refused to exercise it. I am not exactly shocked that you are so ignorant of how our Government works, but kindly go get educated so that I dont have to watch you make such an ass out of yourself.


My point still stands, if they had a problem with it, they could do something about it. They didn't, and it's none of your business.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2012 12:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
our we our our our


got a mouse in your pocket again?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.31 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 03:42:36