Ms. Clinton criticizes then bans the media
RichA
Interesting way of operating, Ms. Clinton;
No clear answer on who closed event to media
By DOUGLAS TURNER
News Washington Bureau Chief
6/14/2005
WASHINGTON - A major appearance by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in
Buffalo was suddenly closed to the media Monday, a week after the
senator
lambasted reporters for lacking enough "spine" to stand up to the Bush
administration.
After a day of conflicting statements, there was no clear answer
to
the question of who closed the Erie County Democratic Committee's
fund-raising event in the Buffalo Convention Center to reporters and
photographers.
Senior county Democratic officials told The Buffalo News early
in the
day that Clinton aides had told County Democratic Chairman Leonard R.
Lenihan that the senator's people wanted the event closed to the
media.
But later, Lenihan said that "it was my decision" to bar the
media
from the $1,200-a-plate event attended by about 200 supporters.
Proceeds
will go to the county committee.
Lenihan said the conflicting versions of why the media were
turned
away at the Convention Center doors was the result of a
"misunderstanding."
Vic Baker, a news producer for WIVB-TV, said, "We got a call
early
Monday inviting us over, and when we got there, we were told to wait
outside."
Rich Kellman, a reporter for WGRZ-TV, said Lenihan told him that
it
was his decision to bar reporters.
Convention Center Director Paul Murphy said that when television
crews
arrived to set up at 11:30 a.m., local Democrats told him to have them
stay
outside.
In a conference call, Clinton said:
"I did not make that decision. I am happy when I speak at
Democratic
events to have it open to the press. I guess that was a decision by
the
leadership of the Erie County Democratic Party. This is the first I've
heard
of it."
A week ago at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for her 2006
re-election campaign, Clinton combined highly charged criticisms of
the Bush
administration with an attack on the media.
"The press is missing in action, with all due respect," Clinton
said.
"Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren't they
asking
the hard questions? It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in
the
media today. They don't stand their ground.
"If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart.
I
mean, come on, toughen up, guys, it's only our Constitution and
country at
stake. Let's get some spine."
There was not that much media interest in covering the
Convention
Center event in Buffalo, said Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley. To
which
an editor at WGRZ-TV, Maria Sisti, responded: "Oh, baloney!"
Brian Bernardini
problem when Bush does it?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
RichA
<bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Oh, so you have a problem when she keeps certain folks out, but no
>problem when Bush does it?
No, but apparently Democrats do.
-Rich
trotsky
Rich, what was your take on "Jeff Gannon", male prostitute again? Just
another satisfied customer?
RichA
You never tire of, "Bu-But what about...?" As a response to
statements, do you?
-Rich
Brian Bernardini
RichA <no...@none.com> wrote:
You never tire of avoiding questions, do you?
Steve Newport
From: no...@none.com (RichA)
problem when Bush does it?>>>
No -Rich
----------------------------
I'm guessing you also approve of "protest zones" only when Repugs are in
power.
Ubiquitous
Apparently the Angry Left is still obsessed with sex to point of
distraction.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the
liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military
victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's
failing.
Ubiquitous
>>>Oh, so you have a problem when she keeps certain folks out, but no
>>>problem when Bush does it?
>>
>>No, but apparently Democrats do. -Rich
>
>I'm guessing you also approve of "protest zones" only when Repugs are in
>power.
You either mispelled "Democrat" or need to learn how to pronouce words
properly when "spelling them out loud". HTH!
jm...@msn.com
Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <C4ese.64330$xm3.9418@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
> >RichA wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:09:09 -0400, Brian Bernardini
> >> <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Oh, so you have a problem when she keeps certain folks out, but no
> >>>problem when Bush does it?
> >>
> >> No, but apparently Democrats do.
> >
> >Rich, what was your take on "Jeff Gannon", male prostitute again?
>
> Apparently the Angry Left is still obsessed with sex to point of
> distraction.
>
some paralell universe - its bizarro rightie!
Ubiquitous
jm...@msn.com wrote:
>That is one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard - its like you live in
>some paralell universe - its bizarro rightie!
Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
jm...@msn.com
Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <1118944673.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> jm...@msn.com wrote:
>
> >That is one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard - its like you live in
> >some paralell universe - its bizarro rightie!
>
> Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
> Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
You think liberals are sex obsessed? Maybe so if the context you are
referring to is that they get more. But politically speaking the right
is muuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccchhhhhhhhhh more sex obsessed. But of course
you dont see that because you are someone who thinks the worst
president in the nations history, or at least the last 85 years is
"great."
David Johnston
>Hmmm. Closer scrutiny for Bush, and none for Democrats?
>Interesting way of operating, Ms. Clinton;
>
Scolding the media for not doing their job (in her opinion) is not
scolding Bush for making it difficult for media to gain access. The
two things are separate issues.
PCK
Anybody who associates Dubya with "success" needs to pay attention to
the news. Even Fox News is having trouble whitewashing RoveCo's corruption.
FDR
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:24GdnRVwob-...@giganews.com...
> In article <1118944673.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> jm...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>That is one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard - its like you live in
>>some paralell universe - its bizarro rightie!
>
> Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
> Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
That ought to be easy, considering he isn't.
Ubiquitous
jm...@msn.com wrote:
>But of course you dont see that because you are someone who thinks the
>worst president in the nations history, or at least the last 85 years is
>"great."
Too bad for you the facts support me and not you.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Even Fox News is having trouble whitewashing RoveCo's corruption.
Ah, yes. Angry Left bogieman #5.
Ubiquitous
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
>news:24GdnRVwob-...@giganews.com...
>> Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
>> Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
>
>That ought to be easy, considering he isn't.
Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
kerwinjr
out there (and then some), but Republicans are sex obesessed? You're a
leftwing lunatic! We are simply trying to keep Democratic constituants
from raping our children and pets.
trotsky
Usenets is full of hypocrites, Rich, and you're one of the biggest.
Just admit that you don't have the balls to discuss the topic and we can
move on.
trotsky
> In article <C4ese.64330$xm3.9418@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:09:09 -0400, Brian Bernardini
>>><bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Oh, so you have a problem when she keeps certain folks out, but no
>>>>problem when Bush does it?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, but apparently Democrats do.
>>
>>Rich, what was your take on "Jeff Gannon", male prostitute again?
>
>
> Apparently the Angry Left is still obsessed with sex to point of
> distraction.
Yeah, that's a good explanation for Ken Starr's actions.
trotsky
> _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
>>news:24GdnRVwob-...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>>Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
>>>Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
>>
>>That ought to be easy, considering he isn't.
>
>
> Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
No, that is not correct.
trotsky
> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
> news:24GdnRVwob-...@giganews.com...
>
>>In article <1118944673.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>jm...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard - its like you live in
>>>some paralell universe - its bizarro rightie!
>>
>>Considering the source, yours is the funniest thing I've read today.
>>Try and get over Bush being such a great president, okay?
>
>
> That ought to be easy, considering he isn't.
I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>
>No, that is not correct.
Glad to see you're consistant with inability to differentiate reality
from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
Ubiquitous
>RichA wrote:
>> You never tire of, "Bu-But what about...?" As a response to
>> statements, do you?
>
>Usenets is full of hypocrites, Rich, and you're one of the biggest.
>Just admit that you don't have the balls to discuss the topic and we can
>move on.
Oh, the irony!
Ubiquitous
>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
Brian Bernardini
"kerwinjr" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, the Dems are so enamored with supporting every perverted lifestyle
> out there (and then some), but Republicans are sex obesessed? You're a
> leftwing lunatic! We are simply trying to keep Democratic constituants
> from raping our children and pets.
You claim Democrats are going to rape your children and pets, and
*we're* the lunatics? Somebody forgot to take his meds today.
kerwinjr
Pedophiles, but since you're so smart, prove me wrong. You know why the
Dems are called the left? Because they are never right.
Brian Bernardini
"kerwinjr" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Dems (with the help of the ACLU) regularly support Gays and
> Pedophiles, but since you're so smart, prove me wrong. You know why the
> Dems are called the left? Because they are never right.
Nobody's arguing that they support gays. Just because you have an
irrational fear of homosexuals doesn't mean they should be treated like
second-class citizens.
I think you'll find the vast majority of child molesters are straight.
kerwinjr
news story about predators on the internet.
In regards to your other point...Since when has being against something
wrong mean that somehow fear is involved. By your logic YOU have an
irrational fear of conservatives. I would go further to analyse your
fear as Bushophobia (the irrational fear of morals, values, and the
balls it takes to do something right). Your argument is assinine. But
who can blame you, your an extremist liberal.
Brian Bernardini
"kerwinjr" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are quite mistaken. Most male pedophiles seek young boys, read any
> news story about predators on the internet.
>
> In regards to your other point...Since when has being against something
> wrong mean that somehow fear is involved. By your logic YOU have an
> irrational fear of conservatives. I would go further to analyse your
> fear as Bushophobia (the irrational fear of morals, values, and the
> balls it takes to do something right). Your argument is assinine. But
> who can blame you, your an extremist liberal.
MORALS? VALUES? You seriously believe your party is a party of morals
and values? You're delusional. Completely and totally detached from
reality.
I'd post pictures of dead Iraqi children that had nothing to do with
9/11, but you'd probably just call them "ragheads" and dismiss them as
"collateral damage". That's pretty much what your fuhrer does.
Steve Newport
kerwin...@yahoo.com (kerwinjr)
involved. By your logic YOU have an irrational fear of conservatives. I
would go further to analyse your fear as Bushophobia (the irrational
fear of morals, values, and the balls it takes to do something right).
Your argument is assinine. But who can blame you, your an extremist
Your attitude toward gays is inarguably an extremist one. Even for a
Repug.
kerwinjr
pictures of the mass graves that your hero Sadam created. I'm sure if
the victims were able to speak they would agree with you that removing
a murderous dictator was the wrong thing to do. Actually they kind of
are, the libs love to have the dead vote Democrat. But your correct, if
Clinton wasn't so busy fucking the interns, we wouldn't be in Iraq
right now. Talk about furher, wasn't it Clinton and the Dems who tried
to have the two term limit removed? Clinton didn't do shit when he was
in office except donate sperm. So who the fuck are you to say anything
about this administration who did more in it's first 2 years than
Clinton did in 8, mother fucker! Clinton was the liberal golden calf of
presidents, and what does history say about him? He was a perverted old
man with a lesbo bitch wife.
kerwinjr
across the country but will you buttfuckers quit having random sex with
any fag walking down the street? Hell no! Gay rights idiots are the
MINORITY jackass. Most people, while they won't talk about it, think
that gays are perverts, in otherwords abnormal. Psycologists used to
believe that homosexuality was a mental disorder. It wasn't until they
started forming lobby groups were the doctors force to change their
policies due to a very loud affeminate group. By all measures gays are
mentally ill.
Brian Bernardini
"kerwinjr" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And yours is? Your a stark raving lunatic! Perhaps I could post
> pictures of the mass graves that your hero Sadam created. I'm sure if
> the victims were able to speak they would agree with you that removing
> a murderous dictator was the wrong thing to do. Actually they kind of
> are, the libs love to have the dead vote Democrat. But your correct, if
> Clinton wasn't so busy fucking the interns, we wouldn't be in Iraq
> right now. Talk about furher, wasn't it Clinton and the Dems who tried
> to have the two term limit removed? Clinton didn't do shit when he was
> in office except donate sperm. So who the fuck are you to say anything
> about this administration who did more in it's first 2 years than
> Clinton did in 8, mother fucker! Clinton was the liberal golden calf of
> presidents, and what does history say about him? He was a perverted old
> man with a lesbo bitch wife.
And there went your last shred of credibility. Wave goodbye!
Here's a tip. When you're losing an argument, pulling out phrases like
"mother fucker" and "lesbo bitch" usually don't help.
You might be right about one thing. I suspect more Americans were killed
by terrorists in Bush's first two years than in Clinton's 8.
I never said I didn't think Saddam should be taken out. I think you'll
find very few people on either side of the political fence thought he
should stay. But if you're going to do it, just say you're going to do
it, then do it without killing a bunch of innocent kids. Would you like
the ever-changing laundry list of reasons for going to war with Iraq?
If Bush wasn't so busy fucking the country, we wouldn't have almost
2,000 soldiers dead for no good reason.
Actually, there's been many attempts to remove term limits, under both
parties. Nice try, though.
Perverted old man? You mean like:
Richard Anthony Delgaudio
Jack Ryan
David Hager
Don Sherwood
Neal Horsley
Strom Thurmond
Carey Lee Cramer
Shall I go on? There's "perverts" on both sides of the aisle, so that's
one argument you'll NEVER win.
Brian Bernardini
"kerwinjr" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love you pro-homos, you bitch and moan about how aids is spreading
> across the country but will you buttfuckers quit having random sex with
> any fag walking down the street? Hell no! Gay rights idiots are the
> MINORITY jackass. Most people, while they won't talk about it, think
> that gays are perverts, in otherwords abnormal. Psycologists used to
> believe that homosexuality was a mental disorder. It wasn't until they
> started forming lobby groups were the doctors force to change their
> policies due to a very loud affeminate group. By all measures gays are
> mentally ill.
It's pretty amusing to watch you get all worked up as the evening goes
on. Any sense of decency goes straight out the window, doesn't it?
I think you'll find that AIDS isn't exclusively a homosexual disease. Do
try to keep up.
"Psycologists used to believe that homosexuality was a mental disorder."
People also used to believe that black people were inferior to white
people, and that people got sick because a witch touched them.
By all measures, YOU'RE mentally ill. What measures are you using, pray
tell?
David Johnston
wrote:
>You are quite mistaken. Most male pedophiles seek young boys, read any
>news story about predators on the internet.
Well I checked out one such story. It said that the most common
victim type is "13 year-old caucasian girl." The racial preference is
of course accounted for by most child molesters in North America being
themselves caucasian.
So I checked out another. It said that 1 in 6 boys will be molested
at some point and the ratio for girls is 1 in 4.
Then I looked at another which said "In fact, the largest incidence of
child sex-abuse — by far — are stepfathers, mothers' boyfriends,
uncles and other males known to the family abusing little girls. Read
the John Jay Report."
So why the impression that most male pedophiles seek young boys?
Well, it is true in the exceedingly well publicised Catholic Church
scandal, reports of molestation of young boys far outstripped
molestation of young girls (although they were dwarfed by reported
heterosexual abuse of the councilor relationship with young adult
women). This could be a simple function of opportunity or it could
be an outgrowth of the peculiar idea at one time prevalent that it was
good for a homosexual to deal with his urges by taking the. cloth.
But of course what it boils down to is this. Male homosexual rape,
even statutory rape, scares heterosexual men in general much more than
any other kind of statutory rape. So it gets more attention. It is
the fear of being raped which is at the heart of "homophobia"
RichA
So, um, why then did Ms. Clinton ban the media from the
fundraising event at the last minute?
-Rich
David Johnston
>
>So, um, why then did Ms. Clinton ban the media from the
>fundraising event at the last minute?
So far as I know, she didn't.
trotsky
> In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>
>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>
>>No, that is not correct.
>
>
> Glad to see you're consistant with inability to differentiate reality
> from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
trotsky
> In article <0bnse.57716$x96.7755@attbi_s72>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>
>
>>>You never tire of, "Bu-But what about...?" As a response to
>>>statements, do you?
>>
>>Usenets is full of hypocrites, Rich, and you're one of the biggest.
>>Just admit that you don't have the balls to discuss the topic and we can
>>move on.
>
>
> Oh, the irony!
If it's so ironic why are you desperate for me not to post a follow up
to rec.arts.tv?
trotsky
> In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>
>
> Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
subject. And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
or anything.
trotsky
> I love you pro-homos, you bitch and moan about how aids is spreading
> across the country but will you buttfuckers quit having random sex with
> any fag walking down the street? Hell no! Gay rights idiots are the
> MINORITY jackass. Most people, while they won't talk about it, think
> that gays are perverts, in otherwords abnormal. Psycologists used to
> believe that homosexuality was a mental disorder. It wasn't until they
> started forming lobby groups were the doctors force to change their
> policies due to a very loud affeminate group. By all measures gays are
> mentally ill.
That's an interesting perspective, but couldn't we just as easily say
that you're mentally ill? And be right?
trotsky
I don't know--I never saw that story. Did you post a link? And, do you
or don't you think it's fair that if you are going to comment on
Clinton's relationship with the media, you should conversely comment on
the appalling relationship the Bush administration has with the media?
Or are you afraid every time I mention the name "Jeff Gannon"?
Steve Newport
kerwin...@yahoo.com (kerwinjr)
Gay rights idiots are the MINORITY jackass. Psycologists used to believe
that homosexuality was a mental disorder. By all measures gays are
mentally ill.
---------------------------------------
Nope. Yep. Nope. You should be on display in a museum as a Neanderthal.
They don't make many like you anymore. And that's a good thing.
jm...@msn.com
kerwinjr wrote:
> Yes, the Dems are so enamored with supporting every perverted lifestyle
> out there (and then some), but Republicans are sex obesessed? You're a
> leftwing lunatic! We are simply trying to keep Democratic constituants
> from raping our children and pets.
I am a lunatic huh? Nice, real nice. Listen being tolerant and
accepting of people is not quite the same as wanting to do it yourself.
You guys are obsessed with your views of "morailty" which are all based
on where people get there pleasure from, while at the same time you
guys are corrupt to the bone and cheer at the sight of 100,000 dead
Iraqis. You have no morality.
RichA
I did. Check Buffalo news items for it.
RichA
I don't know; What can you say about a group who will go into
a public washroom, take the time to cut a hole through layers
of steel partitian, all to facillitate illicit and unsafe sexual
practices? It says something about their mental state. I think
part of the problem is that gays are more involved with illegal
drug use than the average hetero (see the CDC report on gay's criminal
behaviour) and this pre-disposes them to mental illness.
Also, even when their lives are spent within the confines and security
of gay areas (certain parts of every major metropolitan area) their
rate of suicide is much higher than the hetero population, another
indication of mental illness. So, being gay in itself may not
constitute a mental illness, but it could be a symptom of mental
illness.
jm...@msn.com
kerwinjr wrote:
> The Dems (with the help of the ACLU) regularly support Gays and
> Pedophiles, but since you're so smart, prove me wrong. You know why the
> Dems are called the left? Because they are never right.
Screw you Kerwin, no one on the left supports the illegal and
completely universally agreed upon immoral act of having sex with a
child. You can spin anything youve heard any way you like, it doesnt
make it so. Your views are so friggin far right its almost circled the
globe and come back to smack you in the face. And your use of hyperbole
in what you think is a clever little saying at the end of this post
here just shows your inability to make a coherent point.
PCK
> Yes, the Dems are so enamored with supporting every perverted lifestyle
> out there (and then some), but Republicans are sex obesessed?
Dear Idiot,
Democrats don't give a damn about your lifestyle; it's Republicans
who are always pushing for legislation to ban things that the Religious
Right says are "wrong". Get your facts straight before making such a
fool out of yourself.
PCK
> In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>
>
> Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>
How so? Aren't the deaths in Iraq part of your "great president" Bush's
legacy?
And get a spell checker, will you? Posting dumb views and looking
illiterate too is not a good thing.
trotsky
Rich, you have the credibility of a doorknob. You could explain your
position in the medical community if you want to change that, but I'd
still wonder why someone has as poor language skills as you do.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>>
>>>No, that is not correct.
>>
>> Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
>> from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
>
>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
you're SOL.
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
trotsky
> In article <0%yse.74554$xm3.71987@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not correct.
>>>
>>>Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
>>>from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
>>
>>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
>>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
>
>
> Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
> you're SOL.
No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
pretty strong case for all Bush supporters on Usenet being stupider than
a bag of dog turds. In your particular case, you're also childish, as
the weak attempts at getting follow ups to rec.test attest to. Sorry.
Warren
<"jm...@msn.com"> wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
> > In article <C4ese.64330$xm3.9418@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
> > >RichA wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:09:09 -0400, Brian Bernardini
> > >> <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>>Oh, so you have a problem when she keeps certain folks out, but no
> > >>>problem when Bush does it?
> > >>
> > >> No, but apparently Democrats do.
> > >
> > >Rich, what was your take on "Jeff Gannon", male prostitute again?
> >
> > Apparently the Angry Left is still obsessed with sex to point of
> > distraction.
> >
> That is one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard...
...which means you never listen to yourself.
Warren
<gms...@email.com> wrote:
> No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
> pretty strong case for all DemocRATSs on Usenet being stupider than
> a bag of dog turds.
And you're proof of that.
trotsky
Zzzzzz.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>
>And get a spell checker, will you? Posting dumb views and looking
>illiterate too is not a good thing.
Not nearly as bad as spelling "flames".
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>
>> Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>
>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>subject.
I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
"the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>or anything.
Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
trotsky
> In article <L1zse.75317$nG6.74852@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>
>>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>>subject.
>
>
> I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
> "the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
> in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>
>
>>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>>or anything.
>
>
> Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
What every possessed you to capitalize the word "stupid"? Do you
realize that random capitalization is a tell-tale sign of functional
illiteracy?
What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
trotsky
> In article <d8ulc4$t33$2...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>, pc...@buffalo.edu
> wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>
>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>
>>And get a spell checker, will you? Posting dumb views and looking
>>illiterate too is not a good thing.
>
>
> Not nearly as bad as spelling "flames".
How so?
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <L1zse.75317$nG6.74852@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>>
>>>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>>>subject.
>>
>>
>> I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
>> "the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
>> in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>>
>>
>>>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>>>or anything.
>>
>>
>> Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
>
>What every possessed you to capitalize the word "stupid"? Do you
>realize that random capitalization is a tell-tale sign of functional
>illiteracy?
Another spelling flame, "trotsky"? Tssk, tssk!
>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
the subject when you lose the debate.
trotsky
> In article <BSdye.132731$nG6.23880@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <L1zse.75317$nG6.74852@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>>>>subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
>>>"the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
>>>in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>>>>or anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
>>
>>What every possessed you to capitalize the word "stupid"? Do you
>>realize that random capitalization is a tell-tale sign of functional
>>illiteracy?
>
>
> Another spelling flame, "trotsky"? Tssk, tssk!
You stupid piece of shit. Learn to spell, learn to write, learn to
read. Learn some fucking thing so I don't have to point out how
motherfucking stupid you are in every post. Apparently something in
your childhood makes you long to be called stupid. What forms of
beatings did your father give you, Mikey?
>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
>
>
> In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
What are the choices, Mikey?
> Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
> the subject when you lose the debate.
What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
motherfucking stupid you are. Do your notes tell you different?
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <0%yse.74554$xm3.71987@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that is not correct.
>>>>
>>>>Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
>>>>from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
>>>
>>>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
>>>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
>>
>> Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
>> you're SOL.
>
>No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
>pretty strong case for all Bush supporters on Usenet being stupider than
>a bag of dog turds.
Only in your own deluded mind. Glad I could clear that up for you.
>In your particular case, you're also childish, as the weak attempts at
>getting follow ups to rec.test attest to. Sorry.
You're just mad because you've been falling for it consistantly for
several years now. Face it, boy. You've entered a battle of wits unarmed.
*pats "trotsky" on the head*
trotsky
> In rec.test, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <0%yse.74554$xm3.71987@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that is not correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
>>>>
>>>>>from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
>>>>
>>>>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
>>>>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
>>>
>>>Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
>>>you're SOL.
>>
>>No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
>>pretty strong case for all Bush supporters on Usenet being stupider than
>>a bag of dog turds.
>
>
> Only in your own deluded mind. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Mike Ubi, are you claiming that they aren't at least a dozen regular
posters on this group than don't think you're dumber than a bag of dog
turds? I guess when you're that stupid you can't expect to show any
self-awareness, right?
>>In your particular case, you're also childish, as the weak attempts at
>>getting follow ups to rec.test attest to. Sorry.
>
>
> You're just mad because you've been falling for it consistantly for
> several years now. Face it, boy. You've entered a battle of wits unarmed.
You go with that, Mike Ubi. I'll just continue yawning.
Elbow Baggins
trotsky wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> > In rec.test, gms...@email.com wrote:
> >
> >>Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <0%yse.74554$xm3.71987@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, that is not correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
> >>>>
> >>>>>from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
> >>>>
> >>>>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
> >>>>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less ignorant?
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
> >>>you're SOL.
> >>
> >>No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
> >>pretty strong case for all Bush supporters on Usenet being stupider than
> >>a bag of dog turds.
> >
> >
> > Only in your own deluded mind. Glad I could clear that up for you.
>
>
> Mike Ubi, are you claiming that they aren't at least a dozen regular
> posters on this group than don't think you're dumber than a bag of dog
> turds? I guess when you're that stupid you can't expect to show any
> self-awareness, right?
Look who's talking, take any hearing tests lately Trots?
What's it like to publicly make an ass out of yourself?
You must have felt like an American Idol reject.
>
>
> >>In your particular case, you're also childish, as the weak attempts at
> >>getting follow ups to rec.test attest to. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > You're just mad because you've been falling for it consistantly for
> > several years now. Face it, boy. You've entered a battle of wits unarmed.
>
> You go with that, Mike Ubi. I'll just continue yawning.
Do it on your knees in front of a gloryhole, that way you can
claim to have an excuse for being such a cocksucker.
I know, I know, you don't need any such excuse.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In rec.test, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>In article <0%yse.74554$xm3.71987@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>In article <5pnse.58929$_o.31150@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>>>Too bad the facts don't support your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, that is not correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Glad to see you're consistent with the inability to differentiate reality
>>>>>
>>>>>>from what you read in your Michael Moore comic books.
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you translate that sentence into English, please? And could you
>>>>>spell "consistent" correctly while you're at it, so you look less
>>>>>ignorant?
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, "trotsky", but this isn't alt.remedial.english.tutor, so I'm afraid
>>>>you're SOL.
>>>
>>>No, if you see my earlier response to Rich, you'll see that I made a
>>>pretty strong case for all Bush supporters on Usenet being stupider than
>>>a bag of dog turds.
>>
>>
>> Only in your own deluded mind. Glad I could clear that up for you.
>
>Mike Ubi, are you claiming that they aren't at least a dozen regular
>posters on this group than don't think you're dumber than a bag of dog
>turds?
Only in your desperate deluded mind, "trotsky".
>>>In your particular case, you're also childish, as the weak attempts at
>>>getting follow ups to rec.test attest to. Sorry.
>>
>> You're just mad because you've been falling for it consistantly for
>> several years now. Face it, boy. You've entered a battle of wits unarmed.
>
>You go with that, Mike Ubi. I'll just continue yawning.
Your continued denials aren't fooling anyone, "trotsky".
Ubiquitous
Still clueless as ever, I see.
*pats "trotsky" on the head*
--
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <BSdye.132731$nG6.23880@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>In article <L1zse.75317$nG6.74852@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>>>>>subject.
>>>>
>>>>I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
>>>>"the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
>>>>in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>>>>>or anything.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
>>>
>>>What every possessed you to capitalize the word "stupid"? Do you
>>>realize that random capitalization is a tell-tale sign of functional
>>>illiteracy?
>>
>> Another spelling flame, "trotsky"? Tssk, tssk!
>
>You stupid piece of shit.
Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you, "trotsky". Your lame attempts
at spelling "flames" instead of discussing the facts only accentuates it.
HTH!
>>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
>>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
>>
>> In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
>
>What are the choices, Mikey?
Glad to see you admit you have a very tenuous grip on reality.
>> Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
>> the subject when you lose the debate.
>
>What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
>motherfucking stupid you are. Does your notes tell you different?
Umm, no, but thanks for trying to dodge the question with a desperate
attempt to change the subject. You make it so easy to make my point.
Ubiquitous
You should know, King of the Spelling "Flame".
trotsky
> In article <2Tdye.131859$xm3.55579@attbi_s21>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <d8ulc4$t33$2...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>, pc...@buffalo.edu
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>>>
>>>>And get a spell checker, will you? Posting dumb views and looking
>>>>illiterate too is not a good thing.
>>>
>>>Not nearly as bad as spelling "flames".
>>
>>How so?
>
>
> You should know, King of the Spelling "Flame".
That's cool, as long as we agree that you're a queen.
trotsky
> In rec.test, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>In article <BSdye.132731$nG6.23880@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <L1zse.75317$nG6.74852@attbi_s22>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <%pnse.58930$_o.40260@attbi_s71>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>I wonder how many children were killed in Iraq today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the non-sequitor of the day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for showing yet again that you're too chickenshit to broach the
>>>>>>subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am treating your questioning with all the respect it deserves. Invoking
>>>>>"the chilllllldren" when you have nothing to back up your point was old
>>>>>in the 1990's. It's just beyond pathetic now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And the word is "non-sequitur", not that I think you're stupid
>>>>>>or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I'm not; Stupid people make spelling flames.
>>>>
>>>>What every possessed you to capitalize the word "stupid"? Do you
>>>>realize that random capitalization is a tell-tale sign of functional
>>>>illiteracy?
>>>
>>>Another spelling flame, "trotsky"? Tssk, tssk!
>>
>>You stupid piece of shit.
>
>
> Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you, "trotsky".
Jeez, I thought it was clear for all to see that I hate you because
you're a stupid piece of shit. Are you changing the subject?
Your lame attempts
> at spelling "flames" instead of discussing the facts only accentuates it.
> HTH!
No, you're being stupid is a fact. In fact, to a "man", all the Usenet
Bush supporters have shown a marked lack of intelligence and education.
I don't understand why you don't just admit to this. You have a
President that's dumber than a bag of dog turds, this should give you
free reign to come out of the closet about how stupid you are.
>>>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
>>>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
>>>
>>>In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
>>
>>What are the choices, Mikey?
>
>
> Glad to see you admit you have a very tenuous grip on reality.
Is there any question that you have the brains or the balls to answer?
>>>Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
>>>the subject when you lose the debate.
>>
>>What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
>>motherfucking stupid you are. Does your notes tell you different?
>
>
> Umm, no, but thanks for trying to dodge the question with a desperate
> attempt to change the subject. You make it so easy to make my point.
Another question asked, another non-answer given. Thanks for playing.
Elbow Baggins
Hummm.
Starting off with a very uninspired Ad Hominum attack.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Interestingly enough, it's also an attempt to change the subject.
As subtle as a thrown brick.
>
>
> Your lame attempts
> > at spelling "flames" instead of discussing the facts only accentuates it.
> > HTH!
>
>
> No, you're being stupid is a fact. In fact, to a "man", all the Usenet
> Bush supporters have shown a marked lack of intelligence and education.
> I don't understand why you don't just admit to this. You have a
> President that's dumber than a bag of dog turds, this should give you
> free reign to come out of the closet about how stupid you are.
This is Jackass Trotsky's idea of baiting, trying to
provoke and emotional and personal response.
Again, subtle as a thrown brick.
>
>
> >>>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
> >>>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
> >>>
> >>>In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
> >>
> >>What are the choices, Mikey?
> >
> >
> > Glad to see you admit you have a very tenuous grip on reality.
>
>
> Is there any question that you have the brains or the balls to answer?
Yeah, Jackass Trotsky disagrees with himself here,
but that's small potatoes.
Perhaps he meant '... haven't the balls..."
Whatever the case, that wouldn't have prevented him from
pouncing on such an error if the other poster had made the typo.
Jackass Trotsky is the queen of spelling flames,
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/spelling-flame.html
He is also the queen of hypocrisy.
>
>
> >>>Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
> >>>the subject when you lose the debate.
> >>
> >>What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
> >>motherfucking stupid you are. Does your notes tell you different?
> >
> >
> > Umm, no, but thanks for trying to dodge the question with a desperate
> > attempt to change the subject. You make it so easy to make my point.
>
>
> Another question asked, another non-answer given. Thanks for playing.
Yes, the poster Ubiquitous -> DID <- answer the question, but that
didn't stop Jackass Trotsky, oh no siree.
trotsky
Hey, with anonyfucks they're *all* subject changes. As if anybody even
gives a shit on an unmoderated group.
>> Your lame attempts
>>
>>>at spelling "flames" instead of discussing the facts only accentuates it.
>>>HTH!
>>
>>
>>No, you're being stupid is a fact. In fact, to a "man", all the Usenet
>>Bush supporters have shown a marked lack of intelligence and education.
>> I don't understand why you don't just admit to this. You have a
>>President that's dumber than a bag of dog turds, this should give you
>>free reign to come out of the closet about how stupid you are.
>
>
> This is Jackass Trotsky's idea of baiting, trying to
> provoke and emotional and personal response.
> Again, subtle as a thrown brick.
Who's looking for subtlety, Dildo Baggins? You? Mike Ubi and his
sockpuppet brigade? Owhattamoron? Your impassioned treatise is the
verbal equivalent of pissing in the wind, but whatever floats your boat,
Dildo.
>>>>>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
>>>>>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
>>>>
>>>>What are the choices, Mikey?
>>>
>>>
>>>Glad to see you admit you have a very tenuous grip on reality.
>>
>>
>>Is there any question that you have the brains or the balls to answer?
>
>
> Yeah, Jackass Trotsky disagrees with himself here,
> but that's small potatoes.
> Perhaps he meant '... haven't the balls..."
> Whatever the case, that wouldn't have prevented him from
> pouncing on such an error if the other poster had made the typo.
> Jackass Trotsky is the queen of spelling flames,
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> He is also the queen of hypocrisy.
So you have no rebuttal for Ubi lacking brains and balls? This is
getting too easy!
>>>>>Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
>>>>>the subject when you lose the debate.
>>>>
>>>>What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
>>>>motherfucking stupid you are. Does your notes tell you different?
>>>
>>>
>>>Umm, no, but thanks for trying to dodge the question with a desperate
>>>attempt to change the subject. You make it so easy to make my point.
>>
>>
>>Another question asked, another non-answer given. Thanks for playing.
>
>
> Yes, the poster Ubiquitous -> DID <- answer the question, but that
> didn't stop Jackass Trotsky, oh no siree.
What was the answer, Dildo? What was the question?
Elbow Baggins
Jackass Trotsky always falls back on calling posters
'anonymice' or 'anonyshits' or 'anonyanything' if they
don't post with a real sounding name.
Never mind that using your real name on the internet
is just a foolish thing to do.
By the way, 'Trotsky' is hardly Jackass Trotsky's
real name.
> As if anybody even
> gives a shit on an unmoderated group.
Red Herring,
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
moderaated or unmoderated is hardly
the point. Rapid subject changes is the hallmark
of a hack debater.
>
>
> >> Your lame attempts
> >>
> >>>at spelling "flames" instead of discussing the facts only accentuates it.
> >>>HTH!
> >>
> >>
> >>No, you're being stupid is a fact. In fact, to a "man", all the Usenet
> >>Bush supporters have shown a marked lack of intelligence and education.
> >> I don't understand why you don't just admit to this. You have a
> >>President that's dumber than a bag of dog turds, this should give you
> >>free reign to come out of the closet about how stupid you are.
> >
> >
> > This is Jackass Trotsky's idea of baiting, trying to
> > provoke and emotional and personal response.
> > Again, subtle as a thrown brick.
>
>
> Who's looking for subtlety, Dildo Baggins?
Yes, you're right Jackass Trotsky, crass and obvious
are much more suited for your 'style'.
> You? Mike Ubi and his
> sockpuppet brigade? Owhattamoron? Your impassioned
> treatise is the
Well this is new, conspiracy theory?
Congratulations on your new psychosis, have fun making
foil hats.
> osis> verbal equivalent of pissing in the wind, but whatever floats your boat,
> Dildo.
>
I kinda zoned out half way through all that
verbosity, should I go back and read it again? Nah.
>
> >>>>>>What I don't get is that you have a President that seems proud of how
> >>>>>>poorly educated he is, but all his shills are ashamed of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In which fantasy universe are you inhabiting today, "trotsky"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What are the choices, Mikey?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Glad to see you admit you have a very tenuous grip on reality.
> >>
> >>
> >>Is there any question that you have the brains or the balls to answer?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, Jackass Trotsky disagrees with himself here,
> > but that's small potatoes.
> > Perhaps he meant '... haven't the balls..."
> > Whatever the case, that wouldn't have prevented him from
> > pouncing on such an error if the other poster had made the typo.
> > Jackass Trotsky is the queen of spelling flames,
> >
> > http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/spelling-flame.html
> >
> > He is also the queen of hypocrisy.
>
>
> So you have no rebuttal for Ubi lacking brains and balls? This is
> getting too easy!
Heh, eheheheh.
>
>
> >>>>>Oh yeah, nice to see you're still in the habit of trying to change
> >>>>>the subject when you lose the debate.
> >>>>
> >>>>What was the subject, Mikey? Near as I can tell the subject was how
> >>>>motherfucking stupid you are. Does your notes tell you different?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Umm, no, but thanks for trying to dodge the question with a desperate
> >>>attempt to change the subject. You make it so easy to make my point.
> >>
> >>
> >>Another question asked, another non-answer given. Thanks for playing.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the poster Ubiquitous -> DID <- answer the question, but that
> > didn't stop Jackass Trotsky, oh no siree.
>
>
> What was the answer, Dildo? What was the question?
My god, but you are a jackass!