Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yawn. To play stupid as shizz with IT2002 or to pick lint from betwix my toes? What to do what to do.I make a joke and this is your response?
Weak.
Before you tie Gabriel to me, why don't you tell me what you think my stance is. Perhaps while you do that you can answer how exactly they plan on bringing more accountability which you failed to do.
Oh look at you and Gabe running concentric circles around each other as you continue to poor perfume on your pig of a bad stance pose strut. Must be some kind of pay off you are getting out of all that furious intellectual effort.:monkey
As long as you want to keep acting the fool and thanking me for noting it, I'm glad to assist!
View attachment 67112124
I did that out of facetiousness. Anyone who reads the thread could tell that accept maybe you?
I posted that out of facetiousness. Anyone who reads the thread could tell that accept maybe you?
Based upon your demonstrated grasp of matters, you can call it whatever you wish and it will still be recognized for the fly festooned intellectually childish dung cake it is. Probably better get back to the YewtOObs "arguments" that have served you so well so far. Oppps, they really haven't now have they?:roll:More .. whatever it is you call it. I call it bull****.
Based upon your demonstrated grasp of matters, you can call it whatever you wish and it will still be recognized for the fly festooned intellectually childish dung cake it is. Probably better get back to the YewtOObs "arguments" that have served you so well so far. Oppps, they really haven't now have they?:roll:
It will probably help your pose strut peacock act if while you whine pedantic about insults, you don't actually fling them every other post. Of course there is nothing that will help your intellectually dishonest and vacuous YewtOOb based "arguments" but I suspect you have not the slightest clue as to why. Go ahead, "prove" me wrong some more. :2wave:More insults and zero substance. Your mom must be proud.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yawn. To play stupid as shizz with IT2002 or to pick lint from betwix my toes? What to do what to do.
I posted that out of facetiousness. Anyone who reads the thread could tell that accept maybe you? Did you find a way out of your intellectual vacant morass yet? Do send up an oinck oinck when you do. Boy you and It2002 sure demonstrated my points very well. Can you help out in that regard much more than you have? Inquiring minds want to know:roll:
Moderator's Warning: |
Perhaps you should re-read the thread chronology? You chose to respond to my stance, not vice versa. My stance was about the arguments and then ultimately the ridiculous material being used in this thread. Something about a lack of intellectual honesty in the irrational and frankly rather childish arguments that were being put forth. I've already directly responded to your stance, your questions and really could care less what your stance is supposed to be. Except of course to note that you also ended up calling out the intellectually dishonest and rather pathetic yewtOOb "argument" that was being offered.:roll:Your condescension and avoidance didn't answer the question. What do you think my stance is?
Why? Because they aren't like all the other channels who lie and make dishonest claims about the Tea Party? Please, the left wing media has never said anything positive about the Tea Party and has only asked dishonest agenda driven questions. I'm glad the Tea Party has at least 1 honest news media outlet that isn't bent on their destruction.
Perhaps you should re-read the thread chronology? You chose to respond to my stance, not vice versa. My stance was about the arguments and then ultimately the ridiculous material being used in this thread. Something about a lack of intellectual honesty in the irrational and frankly rather childish arguments that were being put forth. I've already directly responded to your stance, your questions and really could care less what your stance is supposed to be. Except of course to note that you also ended up calling out the intellectually dishonest and rather pathetic yewtOOb "argument" that was being offered.:roll:
I really can't work up the effort to be bothered that those who try to take things up smart ass lane get all butt hurt when they arrive there and find I'm quite familiar with the place and more than willing to give them a tour. In fact I've noticed that a lot of DP posters who decide to try and play smart ass and make lil jokes, jibes and goads get their suddenly delicate little feelings hurt when I follow suit and give 'em right back what they thought they wanted to engage in.:devil:
Indeed a review of the thread does reveal that I have answered your questions and here you are going about revisionist history within the thread? You go right ahead and post our interactions as concisely as you wish to try to keep spinning them. They are right here in chronological order. That you don't like my answers or they were not what you wanted to hear is really not a problem I'm worried about. Likewise launching into theoretical explorations about what you "think" I was "thinking" and what you theorize I was "trying to make you look like" (which I believe you claimed was crazy) is just, well crazy. My stance is quite clear and has in fact been very thoroughly confirmed and illustrated. You started ducking my stance and the question I put to you about it in #46. You sure you are actually aware of what my stance is? That concise review you offered should alleviate the matter you are so muddled about. I've not blamed you for a single thing (there is that crazy aspect again!) and frankly all you really seem to want to do is go on about me.:think:Listen man, I don't know what changed your attitude so abruptly, but I assure you that it wasn't my fault.
I asked how you how "more accountability" would be realized. You made that claim that the tea party had more accountability as a goal. Then when I asked for specifics. You then claimed that you weren't a member and in the same breath condescendingly acted like I was the negligent one for not knowing. I said that no one is a member as it isn't a party (their claim). Then you pretended that I was going nuts about the tea party. I made a post that had the same sentence twice. I took your response to that as a joke, but now it appears that you were laughing at me and not with me. I made a joke in response and you got bent out of shape and started pretending that Gabriel and I were posting the same things and I was the one who started being a smartass.
You are the one who needs to read the thread again. Your revisionist version isn't even close to the truth.
I asked for clarification on your stance and you couldn't do it, blamed me for not doing it for you, and then tried other deflection games like guilt by association.
If you need, I can post our interactions in the thread in a concise format.
Indeed a review of the thread does reveal that I have answered your questions and here you are going about revisionist history within the thread? You go right ahead and post our interactions as concisely as you wish to try to keep spinning them. They are right here in chronological order. That you don't like my answers or they were not what you wanted to hear is really not a problem I'm worried about. Likewise launching into theoretical explorations about what you "think" I was "thinking" and what you theorize I was "trying to make you look like" (which I believe you claimed was crazy) is just, well crazy. My stance is quite clear and has in fact been very thoroughly confirmed and illustrated. You started ducking my stance and the question I put to you about it in #46. You sure you are actually aware of what my stance is? That concise review you offered should alleviate the matter you are so muddled about. I've not blamed you for a single thing (there is that crazy aspect again!) and frankly all you really seem to want to do is go on about me.:think:
Interesting time to get worried about derailing the thread. As I suspect your list addresses not for one second a single point of mine, the initial "stance" I took, which you inadvertently seconded with a similar admonition of your own, and is just more bitching about me, enjoy your list in whatever locale you enjoy masterbaiting in.:2wave:In order to not derail this thread, I have posted the list in an area where we may speak freely.
They don't want a big deficit nor do they want higher taxes.
Accusations do not mean they are true. Better than the left wing media who tried to hide the story all togetherFox has owned up to their mistake instead of trying to cover over it and justify it. The biggest mistake was made by the White House anyway. But regardless, this thread isn't about any of that.
I think Fox is more honest than MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc... Other news networks have only tried to demonize the Tea Party movement and pain them all as racists. They went so far as to use vulgarity to define them in a joking manner (calling them "teabaggers.") Show me where the liberal media has said anything positive about the Tea Party. They are out to lie and attack the movement.
The Tea Party is non partisan and is centered around 2 major issues. One being government spending and the other being taxation. They don't want a big deficit nor do they want higher taxes.
Yeah, we'll see just how devoted they are to those mantras when Republicans take back congress and eventually the whitehouse whenever those tides turn. I'll be curious to see how many protests there are when Republicans treat those deficits like they did last time they were in charge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?