Why Kavs was right to lie....

[michael anderson]

"boof? Sure. It's a reference to butt fucking. It was an inside joke amongst our little circle of friends. Like a lot of popular 17 year old guys, when we hung out we partied, drank, had pretty girls over and tried to fuck them, talked about it, etc. It was just guys being guys. We joked about anal sex, all fucking the most attractive girls in the area, eskimo brother shit. We worked hard and played hard, and many of us became very successful. But in the context of this, being 17 year old guys, there was a lot hyperbole at times too. It took on an animal house vibe related to those inside jokes about anal and threesomes and endless alcohol, but that doesn't mean much of the more over the top stuff was true. It was just a bonding experience to joke about. When you got down to it we were typical 17 year old guys who were always thinking about pussy and alcohol when we werent busy with varsity sports and getting into yale. But we sure as hell didn't rape anyone, and only a dumbass like yourself would there there is any connection between such inside jokes in our hs yearbooks and sexual assault"

we all know thats what they were like in hs. But he cant say that. The dem senators would have a field day...would have continued to take this process even farther into the dumpster and towards something even less relevant.

[Futbol Phan]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> "boof? Sure. It's a reference to butt fucking. It was an inside joke amongst our little circle of friends. Like a lot of popular 17 year old guys, when we hung out we partied, drank, had pretty girls over and tried to fuck them, talked about it, etc. It was just guys being guys. We joked about anal sex, all fucking the most attractive girls in the area, eskimo brother shit. We worked hard and played hard, and many of us became very successful. But in the context of this, being 17 year old guys, there was a lot hyperbole at times too. It took on an animal house vibe related to those inside jokes about anal and threesomes and endless alcohol, but that doesn't mean much of the more over the top stuff was true. It was just a bonding experience to joke about. When you got down to it we were typical 17 year old guys who were always thinking about pussy and alcohol when we werent busy with varsity sports and getting into yale. But we sure as hell didn't rape anyone, and only a dumbass like yourself would there there is any connection between such inside jokes in our hs yearbooks and sexual assault"
>
> we all know thats what they were like in hs. But he cant say that. The dem senators would have a field day...would have continued to take this process even farther into the dumpster and towards something even less relevant.

I thought Kav was cool and you weren't. Sounds to me like you'd have fit right in.

[michael anderson]

just because I have a sense of what cool people thought and did doesnt mean I was cool

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:

> "boof? Sure. It's a reference to butt fucking. It was an inside joke amongst our little circle of friends. Like a lot of popular 17 year old guys, when we hung out we partied, drank, had pretty girls over and tried to fuck them, talked about it, etc. It was just guys being guys. We joked about anal sex, all fucking the most attractive girls in the area, eskimo brother shit. We worked hard and played hard, and many of us became very successful. But in the context of this, being 17 year old guys, there was a lot hyperbole at times too. It took on an animal house vibe related to those inside jokes about anal and threesomes and endless alcohol, but that doesn't mean much of the more over the top stuff was true. It was just a bonding experience to joke about. When you got down to it we were typical 17 year old guys who were always thinking about pussy and alcohol when we werent busy with varsity sports and getting into yale. But we sure as hell didn't rape anyone, and only a dumbass like yourself would there there is any connection between such inside jokes in our hs yearbooks and sexual assault"
>
> we all know thats what they were like in hs. But he cant say that. The dem senators would have a field day...would have continued to take this process even farther into the dumpster and towards something even less relevant.

We? Our? The closest thing you came to consensual sex involved $50-100.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:16:14 PM UTC-7, michael anderson wrote:

> we all know thats what they were like in hs. But he cant say that. The dem senators would have a field day...would have continued to take this process even farther into the dumpster and towards something even less relevant.

That's the problem, though. This is what you elected Trump to codify.

Why the fuck are you even holding hearings if you have the votes, because you can just tell the country this is what you all did, and what the fuck are you going to do about it?

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:00:42 PM UTC-7, Futbol Phan wrote:

> I thought Kav was cool and you weren't. Sounds to me like you'd have fit right in.

Find out how many girls he raped in high school -- that'll tell you whether mia was cool.

Mike

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:39:33 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:

Some of us believe in allowing the opponent a chance. It's usually
pretty easy to beat most people one-on-one in most anything (well,
more when I was young).

If Ford loses she had her chance. Close to half the cards were stacked
against each.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:

Seems to me that would tell if he was hot. Cool is limp.

Hugh

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:13:42 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> Some of us believe in allowing the opponent a chance. It's usually
> pretty easy to beat most people one-on-one in most anything (well,
> more when I was young).

I think you should question the willingness of most parties to allow it to be one-on-one in just about anything.

> If Ford loses she had her chance. Close to half the cards were stacked
> against each.

Ford already has rendered herself permanently unemployable for fucking The Power.

Mike

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:13:42 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Some of us believe in allowing the opponent a chance. It's usually
>> pretty easy to beat most people one-on-one in most anything (well,
>> more when I was young).
>
>I think you should question the willingness of most parties to allow it to be one-on-one in just about anything.

I already understand that. Idiocy comes in numbers, intelligence
doesn't need numbers. Misery and losers want company.

>> If Ford loses she had her chance. Close to half the cards were stacked
>> against each.

>Ford already has rendered herself permanently unemployable for fucking The Power.

I may not agree. If she is qualified in her area of expertise it would
be foolish not to give her the chance to excel. But she might need a
chaperone if she plans to attend any more drunken parties that result
in failing memory.

Hugh

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:45:03 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> I already understand that. Idiocy comes in numbers, intelligence
> doesn't need numbers. Misery and losers want company.

True, but unlike what you believe, that is NOT limited to the Left.

> >> If Ford loses she had her chance. Close to half the cards were stacked
> >> against each.
>
> >Ford already has rendered herself permanently unemployable for fucking The Power.
>
> I may not agree. If she is qualified in her area of expertise it would
> be foolish not to give her the chance to excel. But she might need a
> chaperone if she plans to attend any more drunken parties that result
> in failing memory.

Of course it would be foolish. You're presuming I don't believe most Americans to be abject fools who need to be saved from themselves!

Mike

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:

> "boof? Sure. It's a reference to butt fucking. It was an inside joke amongst our little circle of friends. Like a lot of popular 17 year old guys, when we hung out we partied, drank, had pretty girls over and tried to fuck them, talked about it, etc. It was just guys being guys. We joked about anal sex, all fucking the most attractive girls in the area, eskimo brother shit. We worked hard and played hard, and many of us became very successful. But in the context of this, being 17 year old guys, there was a lot hyperbole at times too. It took on an animal house vibe related to those inside jokes about anal and threesomes and endless alcohol, but that doesn't mean much of the more over the top stuff was true. It was just a bonding experience to joke about. When you got down to it we were typical 17 year old guys who were always thinking about pussy and alcohol when we werent busy with varsity sports and getting into yale. But we sure as hell didn't rape anyone, and only a dumbass like yourself would there there is any connection between such inside jokes in our hs yearbooks and sexual assault"
>
> we all know thats what they were like in hs. But he cant say that. The dem senators would have a field day...would have continued to take this process even farther into the dumpster and towards something even less relevant.

It's never OK to lie to get a seat on the SCOTUS.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 15:46:30 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:45:03 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> I already understand that. Idiocy comes in numbers, intelligence
>> doesn't need numbers. Misery and losers want company.
>
>True, but unlike what you believe, that is NOT limited to the Left.

I agree - but I believe in me. I don't answer to the left or right.

>
>> >> If Ford loses she had her chance. Close to half the cards were stacked
>> >> against each.
>>
>> >Ford already has rendered herself permanently unemployable for fucking The Power.
>>
>> I may not agree. If she is qualified in her area of expertise it would
>> be foolish not to give her the chance to excel. But she might need a
>> chaperone if she plans to attend any more drunken parties that result
>> in failing memory.
>
>Of course it would be foolish. You're presuming I don't believe most Americans to be abject fools who need to be saved from themselves!

So neither of us stand in line. The problem is how to save them. It
was done better 70 + years ago. And I make no presumptions about you
other than I think you need help.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 15:47:51 -0700 (PDT), unclejr
<wats...@gmail.com> wrote:


>It's never OK to lie to get a seat on the SCOTUS.

When is it ever okay to lie?

Hugh

[Some dued]

When you put quotes around it apparently.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:01:37 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>When you put quotes around it apparently.

That's not lying you sorry stupid sack of shit.

A lie is a statement. It is not an opinion, or belief - or quote of
another person.

And, when you and the other shit for brains, Fut, calls a quote a lie
that is your lie.

What a pity that you two are given the chance to miseducate anyone in
this country. You make darkstar and his remedies sound more advisable
than ever. I can't stop laughing at y'all long enough to consider the
possibility.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

Miseducate. LOL. You're the one who has repeatedly posted false information (and then falls back on the flimsy, "I didn't lie, it was someone else who did it" excuse). If that isn't miseducation, I don't know what is.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Miseducate. LOL. You're the one who has repeatedly posted false information (and then falls back on the flimsy, "I didn't lie, it was someone else who did it" excuse). If that isn't miseducation,

It's not an excuse - it's proving you a liar.

>I don't know what is.

You sound like Ford's friend.

When I started posting quotes I presumed a person who blustered about
earning a PhD was intelligent enough to read, comprehend and make his
own decisions. I am sorry I overrated your mental capacity.

But when you call my quotes my lie, you have demonstrated an ignorance
beyond hope for improvement. darkstar shows far more intelligence but
more bitterness.

Your problem is that you are too stupid to counter the quotes and that
leaves you with no other recourse than to lie about it. I am honorable
enough to admit the quotes were in error when they are proved so. You
are a dishonorable shit for brains.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 2:32:51 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Miseducate. LOL. You're the one who has repeatedly posted false information (and then falls back on the flimsy, "I didn't lie, it was someone else who did it" excuse). If that isn't miseducation,
>
> It's not an excuse - it's proving you a liar.

This is Trumpian-- because I point out that you repeatedly post false information I am a liar. Yep, that sure makes sense.

>
> >I don't know what is.
>
> You sound like Ford's friend.
>
> When I started posting quotes I presumed a person who blustered about
> earning a PhD was intelligent enough to read, comprehend and make his
> own decisions. I am sorry I overrated your mental capacity.

Blustered? Please find even a single poast I have made when I have blustered about a degree I have.

>
> But when you call my quotes my lie, you have demonstrated an ignorance
> beyond hope for improvement. darkstar shows far more intelligence but
> more bitterness.

When you poast unattributed (i.e., plagarized) information that is blatantly untrue you are claiming it as yours. Maybe your education didn't teach you that. Did you really receive an education beyond the elementary years?

>
> Your problem is that you are too stupid to counter the quotes and that
> leaves you with no other recourse than to lie about it. I am honorable
> enough to admit the quotes were in error when they are proved so. You
> are a dishonorable shit for brains.

I'm too stupid to counter 'quotes'. I have repeatedly countered your 'quotes'. That's what makes me dishonorable, have you forgotten?


>
> Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 2:32:51 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>This is Trumpian-- because I point out that you repeatedly post false information I am a liar. Yep, that sure makes sense.

No shit for brains. You say I lie when I post a quote that is later
proven incorrect or false. I say you lie (or you are a complete idiot)
when you do that.

I don't disagree that I post quoted info that is often proven false. I
receive most of it from former executives and senior military - I
don't create the info in the quotes. I trust them until someone proves
them false. But that is not me lying - it's me quoting someone else.
If you quote K and he is lying then you, by the same logic, are the
liar.

If we talk sex, politics and religion here I will probably do my best
to irritate liberals and certain sex practices unacceptable to me but
I won't condemn most major religions.

>> When I started posting quotes I presumed a person who blustered about
>> earning a PhD was intelligent enough to read, comprehend and make his
>> own decisions. I am sorry I overrated your mental capacity.
>
>Blustered? Please find even a single poast I have made when I have blustered about a degree I have.

I'm not your clerk. Both you and Some said you were in some post.
There was a discussion at the time. I was prepared to accept except
you have proven yourself unworthy of the degree compared to PhDs I
have known and worked with.

>When you poast unattributed (i.e., plagarized) information that is blatantly untrue you are claiming it as yours. Maybe your education didn't teach you that.

pla·gia·rize
'plaj??riz/Submit
verb
take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's
own.

So obviously you never heard of Joe Biden and you are too stupid to
use a dictionary to learn the meaning of words.

A quote is not plagiarized and I don't pass it off as my work - just a
quote. I add "Posted by...

ob·tuse
?b't(y)o?os,äb't(y)o?os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent,
ignorant, simpleminded, witless;

You are obtuse and that's not a quote - it's a statement.

>Did you really receive an education beyond the elementary years?

I suspect I have chaired more groups (local-international) with a BS
degree than you could ever hope to lead unless they were treasonous
socialists.

>> Your problem is that you are too stupid to counter the quotes and that
>> leaves you with no other recourse than to lie about it. I am honorable
>> enough to admit the quotes were in error when they are proved so. You
>> are a dishonorable shit for brains.
>
>I'm too stupid to counter 'quotes'. I have repeatedly countered your 'quotes'. That's what makes me dishonorable, have you forgotten?

No shit for brains you have shown many to be false. You have never
offered an intelligent difference of opinion, counter, excuse or
justification. You are just not that intelligent.

Forgotten? I suspect my memory is at least equal to your's - it's the
rapid recall where you might beat me at my age.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>
> I don't disagree that I post quoted info that is often proven false.

ok....often. Does that tell you to accept those emails you get or does it tell you to be suspicious. Do you ever think "this might be inaccurate" or "this might be a lie"?

> I receive most of it from former executives and senior military - I
> don't create the info in the quotes.

apparently their being former execs or senior military doesn't make them truthful. I think you respect their positions/accomplishments to the point where you won't think critically. Most people, I believe, would note that their emails have been flawed to the point where there is no longer a reason to pass them on.

> I trust them until someone proves them false.

but if they're "often proven false" why would you trust them?

> But that is not me lying - it's me quoting someone else.

if you know they're often false and yet you persist in posting these without checking whether they're true then you might not be a liar but you would be a dupe. Is that any better?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>

>>=20

>> I don't disagree that I post quoted info that is often proven false.
>

>ok....often. Does that tell you to accept those emails you get or does it t=
>ell you to be suspicious. Do you ever think "this might be inaccurate" or "=

>this might be a lie"?

...some accurate, some suspicious, some lies. I quote because I want
the anti-liberal message communicated however and whenever I can. We
are at war - liberals vs. Americans.

In no way do my quotes prevent anyone from defending as best they can.
If liberals don't like my methods I'll respond in Southern Russian -
Tough Shitski, Y'all.

It's easy for a person with even average intelligence to see the
difference between a quote and a statement by me. Unfortunately an
idiot like Fut doesn't have the mental capacity to comprehend that. He
doesn't even comprehend the word "plagiarize" - and apparently doesn't
know how to browse the internet for a dictionary.

>> I receive most of it from former executives and senior military - I
>> don't create the info in the quotes.
>

>apparently their being former execs or senior military doesn't make them tr=
>uthful. I think you respect their positions/accomplishments to the point wh=

>ere you won't think critically.

Not true. Everyone has faults. In comparison with many people I read
on the Newsgroups the people I quote are leaders and most here are
clerks. Having money does not change that. My point is to damage the
liberal position any way I can legally.

Actually they don't create those posts - they are almost always quotes
from someone else to be forwarded around the country. Who knows the
author. I am pleased to help. Your disapproving of my methods fuels my
continuance. Calling me a liar makes my fire burn even brighter - and
a few here can't comprehend that.

>Most people, I believe, would note that the=
>ir emails have been flawed to the point where there is no longer a reason t=
>o pass them on.

I don't expect a socialist to believe anything real Americans say -
some appear to place thier faith in unsubstantiated accusations at the
moment.

I depend on people coming and going - reading rsfc and giving
consideration to what I quote. I hope they go away before any quote is
disproved. It's little different from you paying unentitled welfare
for votes - which I think you do - under the lying guise of being a
Good Samaritan.

>if you know they're often false and yet you persist in posting these withou=
>t checking whether they're true then you might not be a liar but you would =

>be a dupe. Is that any better?

You can think that. But I do it FOR A PURPOSE - and it worked, along
with other methods you don't like, the last election. You are the dupe
for being a liberal. If socialism comes you will dance on the strings
of stronger people. I don't dance very well.

Hugh