"How dare you call me a hypocrite! I am not giving up! It is not because I don't have the balls to admit that Im wrong or that Im egotistical.I just firmly believe in my side of things."
In other words, you believe in a news article that is not supported by fact? I can only assume that's the truth since you refused to address the comment in your post.
"And once again You have said nothing."
Funny, you're the one that hasn't been able to refute a single point I've made, but I've been able to refute more or less all of yours.
"'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measures you use, it will be measured to you.' Watch what you call people."
That's nice, dear, I'd care if I thought he wasn't talking about morally judging someone. Calling someone a hypocrite is hardly judging their moral character.
"One thing that I find strange is that during the Reagan administration and Iran-Iraq war the united states provided Iraq with chemical weapons including mustard gas. They provided these weapons even while Iraq was still on the list of countries that support terrorism. Than they come back after Sept. 11th and try to use the fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction as a reason to go to war with them. When we were the ones that helped them build thier war machine in the 70's-80's."
For one, that's old news. For two, okay seriously, only people who don't understand U.S. politics use that argument and expect it to mean something other than, "Wow, you've successfully proven the U.S. has had more than one president!" I think that's the problem here, you simply don't understand U.S. politics. One administration can be a complete 180-degree turn from another administration (Clinton to Bush isn't that far off of a good example). Do you really think Reagen and numerous other presidents who have given aid to "questionable" people think to themselves: "Now let's see, twenty years down the road after I'm either dead or dying, someone in the U.S. might piss these people off and they'll use what we've given them against us." Furthermore, Reagen, not the U.S., gave Iraq weapons, and Bush, not the U.S., is saying Iraq should no longer have weapons.
Last I checked, no one has 20/20 foresight. Does that make it right? In my opinion, no. But that's hardly an argument to be used when dealing with, you know, conspiracy theories, the U.S. government under control of the "elite", and etc.
By the way, could you please stay on topic and stop jumping to different things every time I make a point you refuse to address?
"This might interest you as well. If you think that nothing can happen to the constitution think again. The congress is trying to repeal the 22nd amendment. Which will keep Bush in office for the rest of his political career. Hmmm, can you say dictatorship? Go to the house of reps website and see it for yourself."
Guess what? Old news. Clinton and some Democrats at the time tried to overturn the 22nd Amendment. Didn't happen. Bush is even less popular than Clinton. It won't happen.
Even if it does, there's a catch... quoted as being said by the representative who introduced the bill (House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer):
"Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future."*
Might I add this hasn't been the second time people have tried to get the 22nd Amendment repealed. It's happened more than once, however, the Legislature seems to not want another FDR--however good a president people think he was.
Furthermore, might do you some good to go to Rep. Hoyer's website to read the reasoning yourself. Goes into checks and balances and basically says what I've been saying all along: presidents can be held accountable because the legislature and judicial branch have sufficient power to correct or stop any injustices by a president. http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=1028
"That's nice, dear, I'd care if I thought he wasn't talking about morally judging someone. Calling someone a hypocrite is hardly judging their moral character."
While I have not judged your moral character because, you know, the Bible says not to judge, I recently remember something you had written that is pretty damn close to judging someone's moral character:
"Bush should die anyway. Our govt. lies. I do not believe Bush is christian like he says."
Saying Bush isn't a Christian when he claims he is is kind of, you know, judging that person's moral character (and to an extent, if they're a good person or not). Damn, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to have pointed this out, yet you have offered up no other explanation other than you're judgemental--the kind that I happen to believe is a sin.
Weasel boy, thank you for your enlightening commentary. Oh did I say enlightening? Oh my, that must mean you are part of the Illuminati as well! LOL! Your reliance on the so called "facts" from men amuses me no end. And the fact that you stoop to name calling is sad because it means that you have allowed this "discussion" to get to you and anger you the releasing all kinds of bad chemicals into your body, causing your blood pressure to rise, your teeth to gnash and your nerves to jangle. These body chemicals are systemic and very corrosive to the organ systems. It is a shame you get sooooooooooo worked up over stuff like this. I must compliment you on your chosen moniker though as I believe it really fits you. Like I told the Rickster, you have said nothing and swallowed hook line and sinker what the govt would have you believe. I am assuming you have not been around long enough to see some of the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy erode. It is done with incremental politics. That is how 295 million people will be deceived! Hitler should have never happened, but he did! He deceived a whole nation in a very short time. Your faith in the checks and balances of men is naive at best! Open your eyes and see! No theory here, as it has happened and is happening. Wake up and smell the coffee! I am glad you put so much faith in the UN. Are you a world citizen or an American? If you wish to surrender the title of American and pledge your allegiance to the UN then knock your silly self out! :) You might look good in a blue "peace keeper" helmet! LOL! Bottom line is this Weaselly one, and you can guffaw and name call all you like as you are wont to do! Rick and I know the final outcome. And you know what? You could too if you knew where to look! The wisdom of men and their plans are folly and pale in comparison to the wisdom and plans found in the document I place my trust in. So go ahead place your faith in UN agenda's and constitutions and the like, I choose to place my extremely simple (so simple it it hard for intellects like yourself to understand) faith in the Bible and GOD'S word along with his only Son! By the way the outcome of this debate and all debates is found in the book of revelation.
Re: Refute this!weaselboy13June 19 2005, 21:30:49 UTC
“Weasel boy, thank you for your enlightening commentary. Oh did I say enlightening? Oh my, that must mean you are part of the Illuminati as well! LOL!”
Thank you for completely missing the point of my post(s). GG, tool.
“Your reliance on the so called ‘facts’ from men amuses me no end.”
As opposed to, what? Acting like a moron and allowing “men” to draw conclusions for me? Again, GG, tool. You and Ricky are being used by people like Ms. Savant to push their conspiracy-theory beliefs as if they were The Truth.
“And the fact that you stoop to name calling is sad because it means that you have allowed this ‘discussion’ to get to you”
Let me put something to rest here. It got to me to the extent of I pity you and Rick because I really did not believe two people could be so naively stupid, believing anything that gives you two a reason to hate Bush, and by associate, hate Bush (Bush isn’t our entire government). I did not grind my teeth, or anything-I thought my comment about soaping my precious body would show you guys that, you know, this conversation bugged me about as much as my body hair does.
“I must compliment you on your chosen moniker though as I believe it really fits you. Like I told the Rickster, you have said nothing and swallowed hook line and sinker what the govt would have you believe.”
While I thank you for thinking my handle suits me, I must point out that you two have successfully proven nothing. That means you two are either morons, or know I’m right and simply don’t want to admit it. I’d have to say you’ve contributed less to this, as while you’ve attempted to insult me with improper words (a thesaurus by itself is bad, btw, a thesaurus with a dictionary is good) without saying anything other than, “uh, ugh, OMG, like, you are so wrong!”
I’ve actually made good point while insulting you and Ricky. Again, GG tool, I successfully made you contribute nothing all. Thanks for wasting air! Cheers!
“I am assuming you have not been around long enough to see some of the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy erode.”
All I see is, “Blah blah blah, I don’t know my history or my U.S. politics! I’ve proven I know nothing about U.S. politics by comparing it to Germany!”
“Your faith in the checks and balances of men is naive at best!”
Thousands of people in government involved in checks and balances, thousands of lawyers involved in the checks process, I, and ~230 years of history would tend to disagree with you. You have, what? You, Ricky, and some conspiracy theorists?
“Open your eyes and see!”
Ricky, I think that’s directed towards you.
“No theory here, as it has happened and is happening. Wake up and smell the coffee! I am glad you put so much faith in the UN.”
Sure it’s been happening. And I never said I have faith in the U.N. Please stop making stuff up, it makes you look like a moron (I believe I said Bush probably doesn’t give two shits about what the U.N. thinks).
“Bottom line is this Weaselly one, and you can guffaw and name call all you like as you are wont to do! Rick and I know the final outcome.”
I’ll name call you all I like because you’re a moron, plain and simple. You “know” the final outcome like men want my supple body.
They don’t, fyi, and neither do you. I have more evidence that shows I’m right. You believe conspiracy theories, I believe facts. GG, tools.
“The wisdom of men and their plans are folly and pale in comparison to the wisdom and plans found in the document I place my trust in.”
Please, post this document you’ve found that you place your trust in. Hypocrite.
Continued refutingweaselboy13June 19 2005, 21:33:33 UTC
“your faith in UN agenda's”
Seriously, are you on drugs? I really do believe you’re on drugs. And you’re an idiot, but I don’t need to go over that, everyone can see all yours and Ricky’s posts basically are, “Oh shit! He proved something, quick, let’s jump to another issue! He proved the commission can’t do what the article says without being illegal… quick, let’s bring up the illuminati without bringing up the commission ever again!”
You’d fail in a debate class, miserably. I know, I’ve taken one (and that was HIGH SCHOOL debate).
“By the way the outcome of this debate and all debates is found in the book of revelation.”
Just like Revelations gives a specific number of people that will be in Heaven during the end times? Even religious scholars don’t take Revelations seriously. Your stupidity astounds me. I am stupefied. Good job. Keep basking in your ignorance and belief in something written by man (and you can’t deny it, the Bible was, in fact, written by man).
The word of the day is "supple". You fail at life. Cheers and GG!
(BTW, I might point out that while I have insulted you and Ricky, I insulted your ideas--and you two by association. By insulting my handle, you've shown you do not, in fact, have anything other to say than, "Uh, uh! I have proof though I won't show you, try to refute you, or put forth a rational comment!" You make me feel good I'm not you.)
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 19 2005, 21:42:53 UTC
The reason I'm getting progressively more insulting is because you and Ricky are getting progressively less-intelligent, at least in terms of the facts you choose not to see. I figure if I get closer and closer to your tactic if insulting people without making an actual point, perhaps you'll listen.
Or maybe not. I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason.
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 20 2005, 03:03:28 UTC
You really make me laugh. Thank you for the smiles. Your insults are pathetic and I could care less about the fact you have been in a debate class. It means nada to me. In fact you and your "esteemed" and "erudite" opinion mean less to me than whale dung in the Marianas trench. I believe you said some about my hating Bush, here is a little clue for you you pedantic bag of fetid dog shit, I happen to support Bush but not like you with a blind and pathetic allegiance. You cite 230 yrs of history. Good for you. Empires rise and fall stupid ass! Check your history. You education has left you devoid of common sense, feeling and left you blind to reality. If you have any education beyond High School it was a serious waste of time and turned you into a hyper-educated simpleton! I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason.<----This makes me laugh as well because you say you don't put "much stock in people like me to listen". Does this mean you think we might? LOL Here is a clue for you butt-brain, (is that more to your level?) I don't put one iota of stock in what you say!! Ya got that? Now I have wasted enough time with you and find you hopelessly boring. I hope you don't expect me to respond to anymore of your "well thought out and well documented" rebuttals because you and they are not worth anymore of my time. You see I choose to respond to whomever I want when I want, I am not driven by any need to defend how I feel about anything as you so obviously seem to be! Peace and happiness to you. Vaya con Dios puto madre!
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 20 2005, 08:01:03 UTC
"I believe you said some about my hating Bush, here is a little clue for you you pedantic bag of fetid dog shit, I happen to support Bush but not like you with a blind and pathetic allegiance."
I thought you said insults show a person is pissed. I guess you're pissed, unless you're a hypocrite--or both. Either way, you believe much about what I've "said", in most cases you either pulled what I "said" out of your ass, or you completely missed the point of my post. In short, what you *think* I said (for example, the U.N. comments), is not what I *mean*, and what I *mean* is only hard to understand for someone who's too stupid to listen to reason.
By the way, if I have "blind and pathetic allegiance", why am I the one checking the facts and you and Ricky are not? Why am I the one pointing out it's the system of government, not the people, that will ensure what Ricky claims will happen most probably will not. To me, it sounds like you and Ricky have a blind and pathetic allegiance to conspiracy theorists... but I don't expect you to realize that. I don't like to pull age, but you're probably too young to be able to look at yourself critically.
"I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason."
So, what, you expect me to listen to someone who cites only Revelations as their source of information? What I find funny, is I'm the one presenting reason, yet I don't listen to it? Um... okay, can you explain to me how that works?
GG.
"Now I have wasted enough time with you and find you hopelessly boring. I hope you don't expect me to respond to anymore of your 'well thought out and well documented' rebuttals because you and they are not worth anymore of my time."
I'm sorry I don't believe a part of a book that is most likely figuratively-written is a source of "facts". Oh, by the way, because you seem to believe Revelations has all the answers, who are the 144,000 people who are going to be in Heaven during the ends times? I bet it won't be you or me, given 144k out of how many trillions+ people there have been in the existence of the earth.
I'm glad you think this is a waste of time, because someone who insults someone who insults a person on the grounds they insult is a waste of time. Mine, at least (if you haven't noticed--which you haven't) have put forth facts, evidence, and some of the most probable outcomes.
You and Rick have put forth, "uh, uh, but we're *right* because we've read fractions of conspiracy theories and have read Revelations!"
"I am not driven by any need to defend how I feel about anything as you so obviously seem to be!"
I am driven by a need to ensure democracy is filled with intelligent people, not morons who would let it degenerate to a pile of shit.
So tell me, where does Revelations say you are right? Since that's the only source you have cited that might be considered almost credible, I would expect you to actually use it like a source, instead of as a vague reference.
Oh, that's right, religion has no place in U.S. politics (one point of many you should, but won’t, take into account).
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 20 2005, 08:09:13 UTC
"Empires rise and fall stupid ass!"
We're not an empire "stupid ass". I see you forgot to use your thesaurus for that one. Using that phrase as evidence is retarded, you know why? It's people like you that will be the downfall of the U.S.--people who think "Empires rise and fall stupid[sic] ass" is adequate proof for... what? To say "Waaaah! The U.S. government is bad so I'm gonna blame all my problems on it". Go cry some more, intellectual noob. Neither you nor Ricky has proven a single one of my points wrong. *That's* what's the problem here. You can't prove me wrong, yet you try to say I'm wrong simply because. You tried to say that in court, or in Congress, and they'd probably laugh at you.
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 20 2005, 08:48:24 UTC
You know, something dawned on me just now. If you look at history, particularly those of empires (that one's for you, Mr. Anonymous), they usually become corrupt because people like... well, you two, did not check the facts and look at the *probable* implications. Because people like you were willing to, you know, believe in things w/o having facts and evidence to support it (what evidence have you given? Oh yes, conspiracy theories and Revelations). How have dictators come about? Relying on people who don't check the facts to not protest, or protest at the right time for the wrong reason. Dictators rely on ignorance... they rely on people who, for example, use religion to justify their position in a system where religion has no place (or vice versa.)
The difference between you two and me, is you think just because it's possible, it's probable. Well, it's possible I could shit gold coins, become a woman and have hot, greasy, lesbian sex with Keira Knightly, but it's not probable. It's possible you, Mr. Anonymous, know exactly what Revelations is saying and simply don't want to grace us with your infinite, thesaurus-derived wisdom because you're too busy insulting me because I insulted someone (GG, hypocrite). But it's not probable.
You fail at common sense, GG intellectual noob.
The phrase of the post is: "hot, greasy, lesbian sex". Cheers!
Re: Continued refutingizu3000June 21 2005, 07:10:17 UTC
you know, I find it interesting that ppl *cough cough*anony*cough cough* seem to do nothing but bash. Its almost as if you have nothing "intelligent" to insert, so you just throw in a blindly chosen durrogatory name/word/etc etc in it's place.
You know, in the time you waisted in cussing out and offending someone, you could have cited or been more gentle in expressing your opinion, making weaselboy (and myself)more open to your precption of your PoV. But instead, you come off looking like a jack ass. But wait, you just called me a jack ass, your being a hypocrite. No, I am stating a fact. and I hardly see how telling the truth is against anyone's code of ethics. lessee, how did mike put it . . . GG :)
Re: Continued refutingweaselboy13June 21 2005, 21:33:41 UTC
"lessee, how did mike put it . . . GG :)"
If I had trained you, this would have been the point where I would have said, "I have trained you well." However, what I can say is, "I see you were paying attention to something that holds no benefit but amusement." :D
In other words, you believe in a news article that is not supported by fact? I can only assume that's the truth since you refused to address the comment in your post.
"And once again You have said nothing."
Funny, you're the one that hasn't been able to refute a single point I've made, but I've been able to refute more or less all of yours.
"'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measures you use, it will be measured to you.'
Watch what you call people."
That's nice, dear, I'd care if I thought he wasn't talking about morally judging someone. Calling someone a hypocrite is hardly judging their moral character.
"One thing that I find strange is that during the Reagan administration and Iran-Iraq war the united states provided Iraq with chemical weapons including mustard gas. They provided these weapons even while Iraq was still on the list of countries that support terrorism. Than they come back after Sept. 11th and try to use the fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction as a reason to go to war with them. When we were the ones that helped them build thier war machine in the
70's-80's."
For one, that's old news. For two, okay seriously, only people who don't understand U.S. politics use that argument and expect it to mean something other than, "Wow, you've successfully proven the U.S. has had more than one president!" I think that's the problem here, you simply don't understand U.S. politics. One administration can be a complete 180-degree turn from another administration (Clinton to Bush isn't that far off of a good example). Do you really think Reagen and numerous other presidents who have given aid to "questionable" people think to themselves: "Now let's see, twenty years down the road after I'm either dead or dying, someone in the U.S. might piss these people off and they'll use what we've given them against us." Furthermore, Reagen, not the U.S., gave Iraq weapons, and Bush, not the U.S., is saying Iraq should no longer have weapons.
Last I checked, no one has 20/20 foresight. Does that make it right? In my opinion, no. But that's hardly an argument to be used when dealing with, you know, conspiracy theories, the U.S. government under control of the "elite", and etc.
By the way, could you please stay on topic and stop jumping to different things every time I make a point you refuse to address?
"This might interest you as well. If you think that nothing can happen to the constitution think again. The congress is trying to repeal the 22nd amendment. Which will keep Bush in office for the rest of his political career. Hmmm, can you say dictatorship? Go to the house of reps website and see it for yourself."
Guess what? Old news. Clinton and some Democrats at the time tried to overturn the 22nd Amendment. Didn't happen. Bush is even less popular than Clinton. It won't happen.
Even if it does, there's a catch... quoted as being said by the representative who introduced the bill (House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer):
"Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future."*
Might I add this hasn't been the second time people have tried to get the 22nd Amendment repealed. It's happened more than once, however, the Legislature seems to not want another FDR--however good a president people think he was.
Furthermore, might do you some good to go to Rep. Hoyer's website to read the reasoning yourself. Goes into checks and balances and basically says what I've been saying all along: presidents can be held accountable because the legislature and judicial branch have sufficient power to correct or stop any injustices by a president.
http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=1028
A nice attempt, but still not enough. Cheers!
*http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/3574.html
Reply
While I have not judged your moral character because, you know, the Bible says not to judge, I recently remember something you had written that is pretty damn close to judging someone's moral character:
"Bush should die anyway. Our govt. lies. I do not believe Bush is christian like he says."
Saying Bush isn't a Christian when he claims he is is kind of, you know, judging that person's moral character (and to an extent, if they're a good person or not). Damn, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to have pointed this out, yet you have offered up no other explanation other than you're judgemental--the kind that I happen to believe is a sin.
Reply
Bottom line is this Weaselly one, and you can guffaw and name call all you like as you are wont to do! Rick and I know the final outcome. And you know what? You could too if you knew where to look! The wisdom of men and their plans are folly and pale in comparison to the wisdom and plans found in the document I place my trust in. So go ahead place your faith in UN agenda's and constitutions and the like, I choose to place my extremely simple (so simple it it hard for intellects like yourself to understand) faith in the Bible and GOD'S word along with his only Son! By the way the outcome of this debate and all debates is found in the book of revelation.
Reply
Thank you for completely missing the point of my post(s). GG, tool.
“Your reliance on the so called ‘facts’ from men amuses me no end.”
As opposed to, what? Acting like a moron and allowing “men” to draw conclusions for me? Again, GG, tool. You and Ricky are being used by people like Ms. Savant to push their conspiracy-theory beliefs as if they were The Truth.
“And the fact that you stoop to name calling is sad because it means that you have allowed this ‘discussion’ to get to you”
Let me put something to rest here. It got to me to the extent of I pity you and Rick because I really did not believe two people could be so naively stupid, believing anything that gives you two a reason to hate Bush, and by associate, hate Bush (Bush isn’t our entire government). I did not grind my teeth, or anything-I thought my comment about soaping my precious body would show you guys that, you know, this conversation bugged me about as much as my body hair does.
“I must compliment you on your chosen moniker though as I believe it really fits you. Like I told the Rickster, you have said nothing and swallowed hook line and sinker what the govt would have you believe.”
While I thank you for thinking my handle suits me, I must point out that you two have successfully proven nothing. That means you two are either morons, or know I’m right and simply don’t want to admit it. I’d have to say you’ve contributed less to this, as while you’ve attempted to insult me with improper words (a thesaurus by itself is bad, btw, a thesaurus with a dictionary is good) without saying anything other than, “uh, ugh, OMG, like, you are so wrong!”
I’ve actually made good point while insulting you and Ricky. Again, GG tool, I successfully made you contribute nothing all. Thanks for wasting air! Cheers!
“I am assuming you have not been around long enough to see some of the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy erode.”
All I see is, “Blah blah blah, I don’t know my history or my U.S. politics! I’ve proven I know nothing about U.S. politics by comparing it to Germany!”
“Your faith in the checks and balances of men is naive at best!”
Thousands of people in government involved in checks and balances, thousands of lawyers involved in the checks process, I, and ~230 years of history would tend to disagree with you. You have, what? You, Ricky, and some conspiracy theorists?
“Open your eyes and see!”
Ricky, I think that’s directed towards you.
“No theory here, as it has happened and is happening. Wake up and smell the coffee! I am glad you put so much faith in the UN.”
Sure it’s been happening. And I never said I have faith in the U.N. Please stop making stuff up, it makes you look like a moron (I believe I said Bush probably doesn’t give two shits about what the U.N. thinks).
“Bottom line is this Weaselly one, and you can guffaw and name call all you like as you are wont to do! Rick and I know the final outcome.”
I’ll name call you all I like because you’re a moron, plain and simple. You “know” the final outcome like men want my supple body.
They don’t, fyi, and neither do you. I have more evidence that shows I’m right. You believe conspiracy theories, I believe facts. GG, tools.
“The wisdom of men and their plans are folly and pale in comparison to the wisdom and plans found in the document I place my trust in.”
Please, post this document you’ve found that you place your trust in. Hypocrite.
Reply
Seriously, are you on drugs? I really do believe you’re on drugs. And you’re an idiot, but I don’t need to go over that, everyone can see all yours and Ricky’s posts basically are, “Oh shit! He proved something, quick, let’s jump to another issue! He proved the commission can’t do what the article says without being illegal… quick, let’s bring up the illuminati without bringing up the commission ever again!”
You’d fail in a debate class, miserably. I know, I’ve taken one (and that was HIGH SCHOOL debate).
“By the way the outcome of this debate and all debates is found in the book of revelation.”
Just like Revelations gives a specific number of people that will be in Heaven during the end times? Even religious scholars don’t take Revelations seriously. Your stupidity astounds me. I am stupefied. Good job. Keep basking in your ignorance and belief in something written by man (and you can’t deny it, the Bible was, in fact, written by man).
The word of the day is "supple". You fail at life. Cheers and GG!
(BTW, I might point out that while I have insulted you and Ricky, I insulted your ideas--and you two by association. By insulting my handle, you've shown you do not, in fact, have anything other to say than, "Uh, uh! I have proof though I won't show you, try to refute you, or put forth a rational comment!" You make me feel good I'm not you.)
Reply
Or maybe not. I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason.
Reply
I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason.<----This makes me laugh as well because you say you don't put "much stock in people like me to listen". Does this mean you think we might? LOL Here is a clue for you butt-brain, (is that more to your level?) I don't put one iota of stock in what you say!!
Ya got that? Now I have wasted enough time with you and find you hopelessly boring. I hope you don't expect me to respond to anymore of your "well thought out and well documented" rebuttals because you and they are not worth anymore of my time. You see I choose to respond to whomever I want when I want, I am not driven by any need to defend how I feel about anything as you so obviously seem to be! Peace and happiness to you. Vaya con Dios puto madre!
Reply
I thought you said insults show a person is pissed. I guess you're pissed, unless you're a hypocrite--or both. Either way, you believe much about what I've "said", in most cases you either pulled what I "said" out of your ass, or you completely missed the point of my post. In short, what you *think* I said (for example, the U.N. comments), is not what I *mean*, and what I *mean* is only hard to understand for someone who's too stupid to listen to reason.
By the way, if I have "blind and pathetic allegiance", why am I the one checking the facts and you and Ricky are not? Why am I the one pointing out it's the system of government, not the people, that will ensure what Ricky claims will happen most probably will not. To me, it sounds like you and Ricky have a blind and pathetic allegiance to conspiracy theorists... but I don't expect you to realize that. I don't like to pull age, but you're probably too young to be able to look at yourself critically.
"I don't put much stock in people like you to actually listen to reason."
So, what, you expect me to listen to someone who cites only Revelations as their source of information? What I find funny, is I'm the one presenting reason, yet I don't listen to it? Um... okay, can you explain to me how that works?
GG.
"Now I have wasted enough time with you and find you hopelessly boring. I hope you don't expect me to respond to anymore of your 'well thought out and well documented' rebuttals because you and they are not worth anymore of my time."
I'm sorry I don't believe a part of a book that is most likely figuratively-written is a source of "facts". Oh, by the way, because you seem to believe Revelations has all the answers, who are the 144,000 people who are going to be in Heaven during the ends times? I bet it won't be you or me, given 144k out of how many trillions+ people there have been in the existence of the earth.
I'm glad you think this is a waste of time, because someone who insults someone who insults a person on the grounds they insult is a waste of time. Mine, at least (if you haven't noticed--which you haven't) have put forth facts, evidence, and some of the most probable outcomes.
You and Rick have put forth, "uh, uh, but we're *right* because we've read fractions of conspiracy theories and have read Revelations!"
"I am not driven by any need to defend how I feel about anything as you so obviously seem to be!"
I am driven by a need to ensure democracy is filled with intelligent people, not morons who would let it degenerate to a pile of shit.
So tell me, where does Revelations say you are right? Since that's the only source you have cited that might be considered almost credible, I would expect you to actually use it like a source, instead of as a vague reference.
Oh, that's right, religion has no place in U.S. politics (one point of many you should, but won’t, take into account).
Reply
We're not an empire "stupid ass". I see you forgot to use your thesaurus for that one. Using that phrase as evidence is retarded, you know why? It's people like you that will be the downfall of the U.S.--people who think "Empires rise and fall stupid[sic] ass" is adequate proof for... what? To say "Waaaah! The U.S. government is bad so I'm gonna blame all my problems on it". Go cry some more, intellectual noob. Neither you nor Ricky has proven a single one of my points wrong. *That's* what's the problem here. You can't prove me wrong, yet you try to say I'm wrong simply because. You tried to say that in court, or in Congress, and they'd probably laugh at you.
GG, you fail at intellect.
Reply
The difference between you two and me, is you think just because it's possible, it's probable. Well, it's possible I could shit gold coins, become a woman and have hot, greasy, lesbian sex with Keira Knightly, but it's not probable. It's possible you, Mr. Anonymous, know exactly what Revelations is saying and simply don't want to grace us with your infinite, thesaurus-derived wisdom because you're too busy insulting me because I insulted someone (GG, hypocrite). But it's not probable.
You fail at common sense, GG intellectual noob.
The phrase of the post is: "hot, greasy, lesbian sex". Cheers!
Reply
You know, in the time you waisted in cussing out and offending someone, you could have cited or been more gentle in expressing your opinion, making weaselboy (and myself)more open to your precption of your PoV. But instead, you come off looking like a jack ass. But wait, you just called me a jack ass, your being a hypocrite. No, I am stating a fact. and I hardly see how telling the truth is against anyone's code of ethics. lessee, how did mike put it . . . GG :)
Reply
If I had trained you, this would have been the point where I would have said, "I have trained you well." However, what I can say is, "I see you were paying attention to something that holds no benefit but amusement." :D
Reply
Leave a comment