Come see the new Social Issues Wiki over at (Link)Social Issues Wiki. You can create your own pages, report and discuss pal drama and feuds, leave messages for friend and foe alike. I think if all goes well, it will be a lot of fun. See you there.
JC
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pages
Posts
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(143)
-
▼
January
(13)
- WE ONLY SPY ON TERRORISTS...AND PROTESTERS
- DROWNING IN THE BILE
- THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TODAY
- THE RESULTS
- MOTHERS WARMING UP
- IF THINGS WEREN'T SCARY ENOUGH
- BUSH FLIES SOLO WHILE BOXER TAKES AIM
- SOCIAL ISSUES WIKI
- WOW
- MY FIRST POST OF 2007
- YES, FORD AGAIN
- HAPPY NEW YEAR
- Religious Legaleeeeezzzzzzzzz
-
▼
January
(13)
Powered by Blogger.
Ratttler Stats
Labels
- 911wiki (1)
- abby_1312 (4)
- AbettyHRH (1)
- Abortion (1)
- abouishak95 (1)
- ACLU (2)
- ACTA (1)
- Adolyn (1)
- africa (1)
- ALFIE-00 (4)
- Amon1937 (1)
- Angela Corey (1)
- anti-piracy (1)
- appeal (1)
- aras_986_1 (1)
- archeology (1)
- auntykate_1 (15)
- Beach7 (1)
- biggotry (1)
- bigmac_2008 (14)
- Bill of Rights (4)
- Birth Control (1)
- blacknblue_2 (1)
- Boaz Frankel (2)
- Bobby Boom Boom McGee (3)
- Bought A Dog From Walmart (1)
- Brutelogic (3)
- Budblunt (1)
- Buddy_Romance (1)
- buds33 (1)
- Burnieknee (1)
- Bush (2)
- Bush's third term (1)
- calliekittyinator_3 (2)
- Cancer (1)
- Capitol Hill (1)
- Carmen_ (5)
- CISPA (1)
- civil liberties (1)
- civil rights (2)
- Classicmfree (10)
- Clubed_Seal (1)
- cLumpmeister (2)
- Communism (1)
- congress (5)
- conservatives (1)
- ConservativeVoo (1)
- Constitution (2)
- Corporal Pork Rind (1)
- Cyndy_UK (1)
- d a r i (1)
- Dan0034 (2)
- DangerRus (1)
- daniel_england_00 (3)
- danny_gitar77 (1)
- Dawood Abdullah (1)
- debt (1)
- Democrats (1)
- dezpurado4u (1)
- dlshad_zaxoi (1)
- DommieGoddess (7)
- DonChicago48 (1)
- drclean (2)
- Drink_Soda (1)
- due process (1)
- Dushan29 (1)
- Dusty_44 (1)
- economy (1)
- election (2)
- enemy combatant (1)
- Evil Canadian (1)
- falsehood (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Flip Flopping (1)
- Florida (1)
- FlushBush (1)
- flynn62 (1)
- fnthngs (1)
- Founding_Fathers (1)
- frank_rizzo_1 (1)
- Fransen (1)
- free speech (1)
- freedom (2)
- freedom of speech (1)
- friendship (1)
- garania (1)
- Gary (1)
- gay marriage (1)
- gay marriage ban (1)
- George Zimmerman (1)
- gizmo_210 (1)
- God (2)
- gogo-guy (1)
- goldfingers_7 (1)
- government (2)
- grief (1)
- Halie (1)
- happy_854 (1)
- Health (1)
- heater13 (1)
- High Falutin24 (4)
- hillary (2)
- hillarypaul2008 (4)
- homophobia (1)
- House of Representatives (1)
- HR 347 (2)
- humanity (1)
- Hungry_Heart_7 (1)
- ignorance (1)
- ilan_1_2 (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Internet (1)
- IQ (1)
- isabellah-1 (8)
- itsmejane_1 (1)
- jaNesaw massacre (1)
- jeelybean (1)
- Jesus Claus (6)
- Jewel 41 (1)
- jobs (1)
- Judge (1)
- Judicial System (1)
- justblove (3)
- Kenonwes (1)
- KermieLegs (4)
- kingkong62 (2)
- law (3)
- laws (1)
- leilani_helepololei2003 (3)
- limeybuster1949 (1)
- LittleBitNotAlot (4)
- Lively Oak (1)
- lively_oak (7)
- LocMuir_8 (2)
- Lord Jay 156 (1)
- lordhawhawhaw (3)
- LordMercifulVoo (17)
- lordofeuchre (1)
- loss (1)
- LUMINOL (1)
- MagnumPotent (1)
- mancrush (1)
- mark6403 (2)
- McCain (2)
- McCainVSHussein (1)
- Megasone (2)
- meritman (1)
- Mitsuk (5)
- MJ-GA (1)
- ModCon (1)
- ModConman (1)
- Moderate Conservative45 (2)
- ModerateConservative (1)
- MORE AID 4 ISRAEL (1)
- morning gory (1)
- MothersNaTiVE (8)
- mourning (1)
- Mr Conman (1)
- Mr Conservative (1)
- MS RUBY2 (1)
- msvlj703 (1)
- MusLimah_1973 (1)
- mylady_arwen_1 (6)
- Mystic Sea Maiden (4)
- naldrvr (1)
- natasha007x (1)
- National Debt (1)
- National Defense Authorization Act (1)
- NDAA (2)
- NDAA 2012 (1)
- NoCheese4_MOTHERS (1)
- nonac_1980 (1)
- Obama (2)
- ononotagain (1)
- paleoconservative (2)
- Paltalk (3)
- peppermint1172 (1)
- Pepsiman_CR (1)
- Persian-man_ (1)
- Petition (1)
- petitions (1)
- PIPA (2)
- Police (1)
- politicians (1)
- politics (7)
- pookie_gin (1)
- President Bush (2)
- President Obama (3)
- Presidential Election (2)
- Prestly (1)
- Privacy (1)
- protect IP (1)
- Protest (1)
- PuzziePhartLib (1)
- racism (1)
- rainbase (1)
- Raisin Cane (1)
- Red1dogg2008 (1)
- Republican (2)
- Republicans (2)
- resources (1)
- roissywenche (1)
- S_LINK90 (8)
- Saint Casey of NY (3)
- satire (3)
- science (1)
- sciurus (1)
- Seante (1)
- search4liberalhonesty (1)
- Senate (1)
- Shooterz (2)
- shyann_4 (1)
- sillyfandango (5)
- Sir Riverwind (1)
- Skymiles (1)
- smear (1)
- Social Issues (1)
- socratico84 (1)
- SonnyMUC(pal-editor) (1)
- Sonya_b_2003 (2)
- SOPA (4)
- sophia_175 (1)
- southerncapricorn (1)
- spanky_6 (1)
- Special Prosecutor (1)
- spending (1)
- spin (1)
- SpiritoftheRuins (1)
- State of the Union address (1)
- str8ghtup (1)
- Stunt_man_Mike (1)
- Surpreme Court (1)
- SuzanneFl (2)
- Sword of the Amish (1)
- sxsw2006 (1)
- Sylvia_Lovejoy (2)
- Tawk Soup (1)
- Tent cities in USA (1)
- terrorism (2)
- terrorist (1)
- ThatGuy222 (1)
- The Constitution (1)
- The White House (2)
- The_Oricle (1)
- TheAssignedMod (1)
- theists (1)
- tinyone_6 (2)
- Tn_Pokerstars_Player78 (3)
- Tokun (1)
- tommyjohnson44 (16)
- tonesisalibertarian (1)
- tosca_puccini (2)
- treasury (1)
- Treyvon Martin (1)
- trg33813 (1)
- TripleNickel (1)
- tucherb (4)
- tung fu (1)
- tung_fu (1)
- tyclip_1 (2)
- unclebob_1 (1)
- unconstitutional (1)
- United States Constitution (2)
- Unlawful combatant (1)
- unpredictable02 (1)
- US Constitution (1)
- USA (1)
- Variable224 (1)
- vegetarian fascist (1)
- Veto (1)
- victoria_atmosphere (1)
- vixee (3)
- Waiting_for_Godot (1)
- war (1)
- War on Women (1)
- weetbix101 (1)
- White House (1)
- wolfchat (3)
- WorthyOfUrAttn (2)
- XN-TricK (1)
- xxxmwxxx (1)
- yahoo news (1)
- yukondon (1)
- ZASTO4U (1)
- ZenFriendly (2)
- zuma girl (1)
47 comments:
ok I just clicked the link and I will now contact Paltalk to let them know you are using their registered trademark without their authorization. An action that deceives the visitor into thinking this is a verified Paltalk endorsed website. I'm sure once Paltalk checks it out, their people will contact wikispaces people and the site will be shut down soon afterwards. It's perfectly fine to make light or demean someone on your own blog or website, but this gives the visitor the false impression that Paltalk condones and is part of said acts upon it's paying subscibers. Only an idiot (Jesus Claus) would've used their trademark.
WHAT A WHINEY ASS BABY...GO TELL YOUR MOMMY TOO, YA DUMBASS!
Anonut, maybe you don't know this but anyone can download a paltalk logo from paltalk.com. Hell you can even get a code to put on about any website, blog myspace, etc..
In fact paltalk likes for people to do so, why you ask because in their logos is also the link to go download pal.
Now you make sure to let's all know how your little complaint went. LMAO
SMH, some people
I'm not really certain, but I think I can probably live without more Paltalk crap in my life.
I clicked the site and it looks like more boring ramblings from isabellah. I give it 3 weeks and it's deader than the cockroaches in her trailer
Quote of the month .... isabellah-1: He's not MY President WaitingForGodot: isa you voted for him TWICE
Booooooooo-ring
Claus, get a life. Get a job. Get over your obsession with Paltalk already!
We love being obsessed with you JC. We come here for guidance. We are lost with out you. We just can't admit it. We also cannot admit we are envious of your relationship with Isa. We want you all to ourselves. Please please post more so that we can follow you about. You are our mentor, our hero! Most of us don't have a job either, that is why we hang here and yearn to see you post something, anything to make us feel you care about us! hehehe
You know what happens when you've fried most of your brain cells, have a low paying job or no job at all, and you've lost all respect for yourself?
You become a Rattler contributor
Or you become an anonymouse poster!
Besides, a disclaimer has been added to the wiki site. lmfao
Muse, I don't know how crrect you are on legal grounds, but I am confused, and April's mentioning of a disclaimer may deal with this open question, as I would assume that a banner from any company such as PalTalk is intended to solely be used as an ad banner which links to their services, not as any form of implied endorsement. I wouldn't interpet a right to use the company logo in any such way beyond personal page endorsement of the company.
Interesting that you have a cast of characters page. Well, I'm not really one for bothering to learn how to use Wiki. Let people say as they will. I hope any mocking is with some wit, even if in bad taste. My ego awaits my page. I suggest long winded bore with superiority complex.
Once again I've kicked JC's ass. I see wiki and Paltalk DID get together and forced you to add a disclaimer. I would say I'm sorry to spank your ass in front of your bitchwhore isabellah, but I'm NOT sorry. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You went down faster than Jim Baker in a fetal position. ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Is it just me, but ...Eff you get on my fucking nerves. You are the worse double talker I ever read on this blog. It must be nice to play both sides of the coin. Ya wanker.
"Is it just me, but ...Eff you get on my fucking nerves. You are the worse double talker I ever read on this blog. It must be nice to play both sides of the coin. Ya wanker."
Is this in reference to Boxer? If so, please explain to me the flip flop. If you are refering to Boxer and my comments on her's, I suggest you read more carefully or ask me to clarify what I said. I see nothing in what I said to evidence, let alone proof, senses about me.
What, in fact I did say, when my comments are read together with competency, is that I don't have a personal issue with Boxer; think most of her scrutiny was ok, but that her most controversial statement was not very intelligent, revelant, and so on. I am not terribly offended by it mainly because I am used to it, so I have the feeling that it is overblown, but I still don't see much, if any, merit in her statement.
Have I addressed your perception?
*prove not proof.
"Her attempt at further emotionalizing the issue and trying to eiher instill guilt or score political points was childish."
Are you saying that the powers that be have no conscience? That BB's attempt at trying to make this an emotional issue is falling on deaf ears? That is what I am getting from this statement. I am also assuming that Eff is a typical neocon that cares nothing about the families that have lost loved ones for this conflict. Nor does Eff care that future Americans, allies, and Iraqis will be sacrificed. So, you know what Eff, why don't you just fuck off. You are just as bad as Jay. Your ass is not on the line, so you can simply state "Her attempt at further emotionalizing the issue and trying to eiher instill guilt or score political points was childish." You make me sick too! Go put your ass in Iraq too, they need civillian workers. Let's see when you are killed if your family feels loss. If they lose a parent, brother, or a sister. Until then, don't spew shite about over emotionalizing this situation. You are a coward. It has been proven that everything that comes out of Rice's mouth during Senate hearings are lies. What Boxer did was pretty much say...we are not listening to you anymore Rice, and account for your lies. That is not being overemotional. It is called accountability. Do you know what that is Eff? When humans are gone, they are gone. You can't bring them back. This administration views Americans as pawns and Iraqis lost as collateral damage.
"Her attempt at further emotionalizing the issue and trying to eiher instill guilt or score political points was childish."
"Are you saying that the powers that be have no conscience?"
I'm now saying that your question doesn't make sense unless you mean to ask me if they should have a conscience.
"That BB's attempt at trying to make this an emotional issue is falling on deaf ears? That is what I am getting from this statement."
You need better reading skills, or enough humility to properly ask for clarification, not that my tone is always saintly.
"I am also assuming that Eff is a typical neocon that cares nothing about the families that have lost loved ones for this conflict. Nor does Eff care that future Americans, allies, and Iraqis will be sacrificed. So, you know what Eff, why don't you just fuck off. You are just as bad as Jay. Your ass is not on the line, so you can simply state "Her attempt at further emotionalizing the issue and trying to eiher instill guilt or score political points was childish." You make me sick too! Go put your ass in Iraq too, they need civillian workers. Let's see when you are killed if your family feels loss. If they lose a parent, brother, or a sister. Until then, don't spew shite about over emotionalizing this situation. You are a coward. It has been proven that everything that comes out of Rice's mouth during Senate hearings are lies. What Boxer did was pretty much say...we are not listening to you anymore Rice, and account for your lies. That is not being overemotional. It is called accountability. Do you know what that is Eff? When humans are gone, they are gone. You can't bring them back. This administration views Americans as pawns and Iraqis lost as collateral damage."
8:04 PM
Not only do you assume wrong, you brazenly lie to make me look bad. I am pretty sure that I said I was ok with most of BB's questions. I also never commented on anything Rice said. I specifically singled out BBs comment about personal sacrifice as being lacking in intellectual value. I may consider giving my opinion as to why another time, but I doubt some one as immoral as you, thus proven by your willingness to resort to distortions to attack the character of others, will pay attention.
Here's a newsflash for you: You don't have the evidence to support your assumption, and you likely know it, but I have more than enough evidence, by the weight of your last comments toward me, to contend that you are the true evil fraud. Try your tactics on someone else. I am not a supporter of the Iraq war, have more liberal than conservative views, and was commeting on the debate value of BB's question. Apparently you are like many on PalTalk who will take the flimsiest bit of evidence, so bad it shouldn't be called evidence, and use it to beat people over the head with it. I'm glad for your idiotic attention, for what could be a better example of luck? Please don't hesitate to call me worse than a neocon, you know, based on whether or not I agree with you in everyway down to your choice of music.
I wish you anonymouses would get names here, or use the other feature. I'd hate to confuse you for an anonymous that has an intelligent critcism of me.
"Most of what Boxer said was fine. Her attempt at further emotionalizing the issue and trying to eiher instill guilt or score political points was childish. While it may not have been the most common statement in the Congress (the argument is quite old and has little merit so far as answering the more pertinent issues of viability and necessity, with the latter being the formost, when it comes to the matter of war), it's been said for years, and effects me little. It's an argument best suited for the playground. "
Sorry Eff, your statements prove that you are no liberal. It also proves that you , like Rice, have no emotional attachment to the Iraqi situation. I say..you are the fraud and you are precisely what is the popular view of the blog at the moment. In other words, you are a flip flopper. I total disagree with what you are stating. We need a human face to these deaths. We need to be aware of the human impact of Bush's war. We need to see the loss, so that people will stand up and realise that these soldiers and civillians are not just statistics. So, don't come to me crying that you are a liberal, you are not a liberal!
"Sorry Eff, your statements prove that you are no liberal. It also proves that you , like Rice, have no emotional attachment to the Iraqi situation. I say..you are the fraud and you are precisely what is the popular view of the blog at the moment. In other words, you are a flip flopper. I total disagree with what you are stating. We need a human face to these deaths. We need to be aware of the human impact of Bush's war. We need to see the loss, so that people will stand up and realise that these soldiers and civillians are not just statistics. So, don't come to me crying that you are a liberal, you are not a liberal!"
Most of my views are liberal by common asociation. My comments on the disputed parts of BB's questions to Rice aren't exclusively liberal or convervative, and I never attached them to a philosophy. They are my own.
You need to check your enormous ego, which is what it is if you think you have the right to conclude someone's philosophy through your chosen litmus.
You can speak all you want about adding a face to the war, but that won't change my contention that the purpose for BB's comments, despite her protestations to the contrary, are to instill a further sense of guilt in Rice and impress people, apparently those such as yourself.
If anything, I am a rationalist on the issue.
Supposing Rice does have kids, would that invalidate any idea she defends or proposes? It certainly wouldn't. That's not how invalidation works.
Oh, and you still haven't proven your assertion. Maybe if it dawns on you that a person can have nuance in their views, or that I have the right to independent thoughts, you could see what an arse you're being. I was tempted to be more amiable after your apology, even though it appears insincere, though I don't know which anonymous you are, so I can't be sure of who I would have been apologizing to, but the rest of your post proves clear enough that you have horrid reasoning skills and could careless about truth and fairness.
I have never made assumptions about your life situation, whomever you are, nor have I made that an issue. I seem to understand that it shouldn't affect your right to speak.
Oh, and why don't you try inquiring as to how often I have flip-flopped on here? Normally, as most anonymouses have attacked the blog writers here, I have sided with the blog writers, with some difference, normally politely stated. To be fair, I wouldn't expect you to know that, but I would expect you to consider the possibility that your weakly based assumption is wrong.
This isn't PalTalk, so please, I plead with you, stop trying to debate me like some badgering middle school brat.
"I am not a supporter of the Iraq war, have more liberal than conservative views, and was commeting on the debate value of BB's question. "
nuff said there.
I have read this blog a long time and eff, you are a flip flopper. You have not "mostly" sided on the part of the contributors, on the contrary, you have moved from side to side on issues. Mostly trying to restate your position over and over to retards. But, there have been a few times when the "liberals" on the blog have made some very valid points. Guess what! Not only do they have to contend with wankers, but then they have to contend with you giving your neoconservative views. Which only spurs the idiots on. To be quite frank, I really don't give a shit what you think. But, I care what the criminals in office are thinking. Your total self absorbtion, shown with your lack of support for Boxer, shows me that you are not only fake, but you are part of the collective ignorant in this nation. Your behavior is more like Paltalkian ways than mine. You are the typical flip flopper, plain and simple. Live with it!
P.S. I was not really sorry about anything I said. That was a sarcastic beginning of my sentence.
Nice infactual and infantile rebuttal.
It really bothers you to be so inept at reason, huh? Sorry
i didn't fall for your little game and cry with immense guilt.
I don't move from side to side, I clarify, and concede to mistakes. I'm sorry you are too dense to get that. Really, you're disgusting. Have you ever tried making sense, or do you enjoy idiotic ranting?
Here's another clue. If I say something "neocon" and you can't rebut it other than to throw out emotion obfuscations, and yes I am being too tolerant of you, maybe you ought to consider that that position might be reasonable.
I really should be able to receive compensation for this. I may see what other horse manure you spit out later. No doubt there's more I can tear apart in what you'vve said so far.
Honestly, what the hell is wrong with you? If you're a liberal, the founders of it must be crying. Stop corrupting it.
Eff, people like you are what corrupts liberalism. Make up your mind before you open your mouth. You are trying to take human rights out of the equation. Human rights are being violated all over the world by the USA. It needs the attention of the media and especially in Congress. So, I still stand, your views on Boxer are outrageous. Again, I say, this is a common attitude in the USA...place human rights last and corporate greed first.
"Eff, people like you are what corrupts liberalism. Make up your mind before you open your mouth. You are trying to take human rights out of the equation. Human rights are being violated all over the world by the USA. It needs the attention of the media and especially in Congress. So, I still stand, your views on Boxer are outrageous. Again, I say, this is a common attitude in the USA...place human rights last and corporate greed first."
Human rights? And do you think getting booted in a chatroom is akin to Fascist oppression? I never tried to suspend a discussion of human rights. Boxer didn't need to inject Rice's and her personal life situation to instill a point about human rights. Don't you get the repressive nature of it? Suppose Boxer didn't intend to say what she did as it came across, fine, but intent is hard to know. It still remains that the purpose for bringing in someone's life sitatution as regards his self interest in the issue he has affect on, is usually to contend his views must be illegitimate. It's an old tactic; not fair; inconsistent with democracy,; nor very intelligent. Boxer could just have easily spoken with compassion on the issue without mentioning Rice's family.
And your corruption is that you want to kill reason for the sake of brownie points with whomever. And I am frankly tired of it. Time and again, as soon as someone doesn't take the exact road, walking in lockstep, people like you, with egos unrivaled, start latching on and exaggerate things way out of proportion, with ommisions, conflations, distractions, and so on, in order to sully the character of the person.
Take a breath and think for a moment. Further emotionalizing an issue can negatively affect the logic of a solution proposed. But my earlier statement on Boxer's further emotionalizing was concerning her specific method thereof. I don't mind that she brought up the suffering of soldiers' families, I don't like her method of doing it. Now you sit on your seat of pomposity to pronounce to me my feelings on human rights. You have no idea what views I have on justice, human rights, use of military force; and where they don't agree, you imply to me that you could care less about defeating them with reason, or respectfully disagreeing. There's no death to a discussion on human rights being sought here. really, what is the point of a discussion with you? You really don't care what I say. I like munster cheese. There. Distort my taste in cheese to contend my cruelty towards something.
Would you like a list of my thoughts on things America has done, though I admit to not being well educated on the subject? Ok, please, find the myriad neocon elements.
I think too few people were punished for Abu Ghraib.
I think we owe reparations to Iraq.
I think we have failed the Afghani people and am ashamed of us.
I don't like saber rattling Iran.
I think we should do more to help the world in economic aid.
I respect Bono.
I believe in corporation being regulated.
And I might be able to think of more later.
Yes, on certain parts of those I might not agree with every liberal position on them, but that doesn't change my overall conclusions, which most accord with liberals. I'm not a neocon, or whatever label, maybe fascist, because I don't agree with some supposed uber liberal like you. I thought the war was wrong as a matter of not being necessary, and thuse inhumane as an abuse of power. But I suppose I must be a neocon to you if I don't say it was about oil, or Zionist expansion of Israel.
On and on with people like you.
HAHAHAHAHHA I made the wiki site put up a disclaimer ... BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The POWER of ME !!!!!!!
I WON!!!!!!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
WELLLLL isabellah whatcha gotta say about THEM APPLES
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Eff, it is fair when you are dealing with a lieing sociopath like Condi Rice. She has been proven a liar over and over again. The treatment she got is what she deserved. She should already be on trial for her corruption. Why let her finish any statements at all? She lies and more lies and more lies and more lies.
Anyways, thank you for expressing your views. This has been very enlightening. If I in anyway got you frustrated and angry, I am happy for that. People need to take the time to reflect on what they truly believe. You may think of me as a shit stirrer, but I do not think as myself this way. You have to be responsible for the positions that you take. Even if it is in Paltalk or this blog. People that flip flop do not have my respect. All the best to you Eff(wink).
"Eff, it is fair when you are dealing with a lieing sociopath like Condi Rice. She has been proven a liar over and over again. The treatment she got is what she deserved. She should already be on trial for her corruption. Why let her finish any statements at all? She lies and more lies and more lies and more lies.
Anyways, thank you for expressing your views. This has been very enlightening. If I in anyway got you frustrated and angry, I am happy for that. People need to take the time to reflect on what they truly believe. You may think of me as a shit stirrer, but I do not think as myself this way. You have to be responsible for the positions that you take. Even if it is in Paltalk or this blog. People that flip flop do not have my respect. All the best to you Eff(wink)."
I didn't know it was Boxer's job to try to prevent Rice from speaking. Well, the end result is that I summarily defeated you. You have my sympathy. I am curious as to why your respect should be valued since you aren't even honorable, being that character is of so much importance. Still eer so arrogant, stll incapable of a real argument.
Me: Boxer was out of line.
You: Neocon inhumane pig! Wahh!!!
Me: Prove it.
You: What you say is proof.
Me: Explain.
You: You're heartless and flip flop, and steal candy.. and and..
Me: You have no evidence to validate this.
You: Just admit it, you mean bastard.
Me: No, because it isn't true.
You: Of course it's true. I said so. I enjy harrassing people with my incessant manner.
Me: Obviously.
Ok Eff, if you think you defeated me, so be it. I didn't know it was a contest. But! I have to say your dialogue is much more childish than the observations you made of Boxer. Off base and somewhat chaotic. At least you did put your reply in the right blog this time. Well done!
Childish I'll concede to, but it's from frustration over you and otghers lying about me and using poorly defined terms meant to demonize my character. Oh, and comments to me were in both blog posts. Of course there's an underlying contest, that's inherent. It could have been a dialogue, but that wasn't meant to be, now was it. It's not becoming to take the high road now.
Pardon grammar. The point is, you never wanted nor tried to argue. You just made stupid assertions and hoped I'd role over against them. I know tactics like yours, and non of them work on me. To say that you did well, by virtue of angering me is true for your somewhat sadistic nature, but it doesn't prove your arguments. The fact remains, you are an egregious person, and I am fully entitled and bragging over having defeated you, if only to get the absurdity of your thought process to be realized by you.
Eff, I didn't lie, I observed and expressed exactly what I observed. I am not personally out to get you. Just trying to make you think about what "liberal" truly means. People in this country seem to think they can simply flip flop to one side or the other without consequences. The consequences of those actions is precisely what I am trying to attempt to convey to you. There is a human side to this conflict, not just monetary. So while people are wrapped up in the debate whether we should pull out of Iraq or if we should not financially support the invasion, there are humans dying. Right now they are dying. We do not have time for all this Congressional bullshit and speaking to a woman who is a known liar. It is also not about whether Boxer treated Rice unfairly. Rice got the type of treatment that she gives others. As I said before..she is a liar and the future will show not only is she a liar, but an accessory to crimes ranging from 9/11 to Iraq. If it takes the passions of one Congressperson to get media attention to Rice's outright lies, so be it. Boring, yada, yada crap will sit right where it is at...on the floor. Nothing is becoming about this topic. I grant you full bragging rights be my guest, since I am nothing more than an anonymouse.
You weren't just making observations asif to only say I seem to be a certain way to you, you were asserting with little to no evidence, if that litle you could cite can be qualified as evidence. You may not have knowingly lied, but the fact remains that you persist in using vague phrases like "flip flopper" with no substantive backing for them, thereby your words are dishonest in their basis, regardless of what you believe. It's as if you make up terms, or latch onto any one that you think remotely matched your notions of others. You didn't just ask me to think more humanely, you characterized me, calling me things you had no objective right to say, only the right of what can be afforded under freedom of speech and your own arrogance. Your last comment to me was possibly the most respectful yet. You may have a fair point in saying what's more important, but I still chose what I chose to comment on, and having done as I did doesn't prove your claims about me. I'm not unique in what you did. I just, unlike too many others, refused to let you get away with it without a fight.
Look at it this way, I gave you something to fill up or waste your time. As the title holder of your bragging rights, you now have the full privilege to exercise those rights in Paltalk or on the Rattler. Enjoy!
Smugness doesn't become you, especially since you have no right to it.
If you feel inferior to me that is no fault of my own, that is placed on your doorstep. I gave you full power to treat this meeting as you wish. It can be a useful or useless. That is entirely up to you, not me. What I got out of the experience was neither sadistic or a success. I claim no smugness rights.
That's about as subtle as a drunk clown.
I admit that your avoidance tactics are becoming endearing.
There. I submitted an application to that wiki. K.
LordMercifulVoo got arrested!!!!
http://www.nbc10.com/news/10761790/detail.html
Anonymous said...
Once again I've kicked JC's ass. I see wiki and Paltalk DID get together and forced you to add a disclaimer. I would say I'm sorry to spank your ass in front of your bitchwhore isabellah, but I'm NOT sorry. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You went down faster than Jim Baker in a fetal position. ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
2:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Another...
Anonymous said...
HAHAHAHAHHA I made the wiki site put up a disclaimer ... BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The POWER of ME !!!!!!!
I WON!!!!!!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
WELLLLL isabellah whatcha gotta say about THEM APPLES
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
7:32 PM
_____________________________
Yet again retard, you are filling your own ego full of flatulance. I posted the disclaimer on Wiki, without ANY actions from PalTalk or Wikipedia so as to avoid any headaches caused by wussie pain in the asses like you. So, the only thing that you won was about 1 minute of my time. What a huge victory for you! LOL *smh* @ whiners.
Jesus H Christ....your all going fuckin nuts! The rattler has copy- pasted NOVELS now for threads. This comment section is da,mn near a novel...way to fuckin long to read if your like me. Work, have a life, etc. Come in rarely and see this entire page upon page of dribble. If there is anything of importance in this, no one will know. It's too fuckin long to read! Then you want people to go to some other new blog for MORE? This is enough already!
WHAAAAAAAAAAA FUCKING WHAAAAAAAAAA
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN, DONT READ IT NUMBNUTS! FUCK OFF
Is Jesus here again? wow that guy really gets around! Or was that Lord Bush. ehehehehehehehe bwhahahahahahahahahah
Jay! FINALLY WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU! YOU GOT RAN OVER BY A BUS! YOU ARE THE BIGGEST RETARD ON THIS BLOG!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Post a Comment