Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Media Weiner Roast Fries Politician's Career!

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 5:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Media Weiner Roast Immolates a Politician's Career!

Well, Anthony, the Weenie, Weiner has succumbed to the politicotainment media's sensationalism and resigned in tragic-comic infamy, and quite soon his little pseudo-sex scandal will be passé, old news, and superseded by some new story of a politician's private sordidness or sordid privates. The question of the moment that we're left to ponder, however, is why? No, I don't mean why did former Congressman Weiner engage in the risqué and risky behavior that provided gossipy grist for the politicotainment media's salacious and exploitative mill, that question is between troubled Tony and his therapist – and perhaps his wife, if she chooses to remain in their marriage. The more incisive and intriguing question that I have in mind is the one that should actually be of keen and focal concern to the rest of the public.

That is, why did the whole affair, which did not clear-cutly even involve an affair per se, rapidly and sleazily snowball into a full-blown, overblown, outré scandal? And, furthermore, why, pray tell, have the arguably more authentic sex and ethics scandals of certain wingnut-leaning others in Congress in recent years not become the same big, disgraceful, career-destroying deal as the Weiner mess.

Okay, let me begin my attempt to answer these questions by clarifying something, I call it the Weiner mess, as opposed to scandal, because I think that in standard English parlance the word "scandal" usually refers to a story of public humiliation with more meat to it (not that representative Weiner's photos don't reveal that he has some meat, so to speak), i.e. one that involves the sort of sexual misconduct that entails bodies actually coming into carnal contact with one another. The Weiner mess, of course, doesn't involve any such illicit intimate relations. The Weiner mess is really more of a media-generated circus than a scandal in the proper sense of the word, a media-generated circus right down to a crude & lewd "correspondent" for the moronically crass Howard Stern Show attending Weiner's resignation press conference just to shout profane rhetorical questions.

What's a real scandal then? Oh, perhaps a righteously right-wing and of course anti-gay senator propositioning a stranger in an airport restroom to engage in anonymous homosexual intercourse, or another family-values touting conservative senator using the services of prostitutes to pleasure himself in ways that apparently his wife wasn't into. These two examples, and others include both actual, in-person libidinousness , and the commission of an illegal emission, shall we say. Yet in all of these cases the sexual shenanigans of the naughty boys in question did not, I repeat did not receive the kind of intense and relentless scrutiny from the titillation-peddlers of today's tawdry fourth estate that the Weiner mess has received, and did not lead to any resignations from office.

So, what's up with this, with the vastly disproportionate coverage of the Weiner story vis–à–vis other more genuinely and feloniously scandalous episodes of sexual impropriety? And what's up with the apparent double standard favoring those on the right side of the political aisle when they now and then literally get caught with their pants down? Shouldn't the fact that conservatives like to portray themselves as staunch protectors of society's moral fiber cause them to be viewed as even more egregious hypocrites when their unvirtuousness is exposed? So why should concupiscent conservatives fare better than more progressive public servants? Hmm?

Well, to answer my first question first, one reason why Weiner was mercilessly roasted by the mass media, a reason having nothing to do with politics, was of course the photos. In the case of a Republican politician (Jim Kolbe) who was exposed for his sexual advances against male pages there were no pictures, likewise in the cases of conservatives who've committed adultery with hookers and mistresses. In the Weiner case, on the other hand, there were those smutty pics that he twittered to his female followers. These images were like blood-oozing chum for the tabloidized media, sending it into a veritable frenzy of sensationalistic and squalid reportage. The Weiner "scandal" quite simply became a media farce that his dignity and career couldn't survive.

This being said, there is however something more to the explanation of why Anthony Weiner was rendered politically defunct by his indiscretions, and why conservatives have buoyantly weathered and rebounded from their own ignominies. Here it goes.

To be blunt here, conservatives are more like aggressively dedicated Bolsheviks, ideologically committed to the cause of implementing their program and enforcing it upon society. Mm-hmm, they're militantly partisan pushers of their pro-big business, anti-social welfare, anti-minority, moralistic, anti-tolerance agenda. And because of this, because of their sense of being fighters in a holy war to control the political apparatus of the country and impose their policies, conservatives have more of a sense of the importance of making common cause with one another, of publically having each other's backs for the greater good of their party's war effort. In times of personal crisis this serves conservative sinners well. Rather than feeding and caving into media pressure, conservatives stand by, or at least refrain from censuring their fallen-from-grace comrades.

Conservatives certainly don't readily jump on the media-driven bandwagon to bring down one of their own, the way Democrats have in the case of now former Congressman Weiner. Consequently, caught-in-the-act conservatives in government don't feel the same heat to resign, they're shielded by the political firewall their party puts up to keep them in office. So, voilà, a conservative can be the subject of a scandal of a much, much more serious nature than the Weiner mess, he can be guilty of significant ethical infractions, and remain in Congress to keep fighting the bad fight to empower the rich, and disenfranchise the working class and groups such as people of color and gays.

Ironically, conservative Republicans play the game of realpolitik to win in a frequently more effective fashion than their Democratic opponents because they are idealists, and have the solidarity and strength that comes of being uncompromisingly, dogmatically devoted to their particular brand of idealism. Unfortunately for the rest of us though, not all idealism is of the socially and humanistically enlightened variety, conservatism is in fact dangerously benighted right down the line on all of the issues it takes an interest in. But be this as it may, being stalwart and mutually-supportive ideologues does enable conservative officeholders to take the blow of a personal morals scandal and remain standing.

Moreover, when their political opponents are experiencing a scandal conservatives certainly know how to play realpolitik effectively. They know the exact and most effective strategy to put into effect. They begin taking the righteous position that so-and-so must go because his personal troubles are becoming a "distraction" from his ability to give 100% of himself to serving the public. Never mind that conservatives don't recognize this to be the case when it's one of their own bogged down in dealing with embarrassing personal issues, they certainly know what the right thing to do is when it's someone on the other side of the ideological spectrum who's "distracted". "He's too distracted" becomes the monotonous conservative mantra, which is droned into the ears of Democrats until they can't help but chant along and pressure their embattled fellow party member to save face for them by self-sacrificingly leaving his position.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 5:48:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

So not only do conservatives enjoy a double standard, they play it for all it's worth, and the upshot for our society is that we have conservative individuals in government who've practiced really wretched hypocrisy and broken the law, i.e. anti-gay types who've been outted by scandal, moralists who've been revealed to be adulterers and whoremongers, and even those suspected of illegal conduct with minors – while progressives who might have done some good for society get railroaded out of office for behavior that isn't criminal or even technically adulterous! Alas, this is how the particular double standard in question seems to usually work out for the people.

This is just one more affronting aspect of the fact that American politics is a big ole PR train carrying a massive load of BS, it originally left the station of history way back in 1776 and every now and then puts in a stop to unload some of its fecal freight on the public – you know, whenever there's a new scandal, or election, or attempt to cut taxes on the fat cats, or to pass some legislation that favors the fat cats, or to launch another war to profit the fat cats, etc. The Weiner mess is just the latest whistle-stop of the political poop choo-choo, and it certainly won't be the last, perhaps not even the last this week.

Yep, American politics is as dishonest as the proverbial three dollar bill, no one can justify, with a straight face, Representative Anthony Weiner being forced from office for at worst a quasi-sex scandal when the sanctimonious sleazoids of the conservative camp repeatedly get away with the real and disgusting deal. Did Weiner do wrong, sure he did. But does he deserve his tragic fate, not if the ethical bar was set as low for him as it is for Republicans. Weiner is truly yet another victim of political injustice and another unemployment statistic caused by the wrongful and wanton ways of conservatives.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 6:41:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I actually got about half way through before deciding that it was absolutely rediculous. What do you mean, that Democrats are more willing to go against their scandelous colleagues? There was a similar case in which a Republican was caught having sent a picture of himself in his underwear on some dating website or something of the sort. The Speaker of the House told him to resign by sundown, and he did. How is that shielding him? By the time people heard of the scandal, it was over. The main difference here is that Weiner brought in the press, lied to the world repeatedly, then when it was so obviously hopeless, he finally admitted to it.

And if you really think Democrats aren't partisan in adminsterring justice, just look at Charlie Rangel.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 9:47:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.

Precisely, read these posts,
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 9:48:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 9:47:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.

Precisely, read these posts,
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Are you going to respond to my paragraph?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2011 10:22:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 9:48:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 6/17/2011 9:47:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.

Precisely, read these posts,
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Are you going to respond to my paragraph?

My response to your criticism is given in some detail in the two previous posts at the links provided.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2011 11:22:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/18/2011 10:22:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 9:48:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 6/17/2011 9:47:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.

Precisely, read these posts,
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Are you going to respond to my paragraph?

My response to your criticism is given in some detail in the two previous posts at the links provided.

The "broken window" fallacy. You don't answer his question at all. You just prove that certain "conservatives" act in this way. He's asking about the whole, not several parts. Actually answer questions DIRECTLY for once.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 5:59:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/18/2011 10:22:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 9:48:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 6/17/2011 9:47:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/17/2011 6:55:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that, in two whole posts, you never actually mentioned any adulterous conservatives, almost as if you're trying to make it less of the individual problem that it is and more the fault of an entire group.

Precisely, read these posts,
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Are you going to respond to my paragraph?

My response to your criticism is given in some detail in the two previous posts at the links provided.

No it wasn't.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:37:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems like Charles does his level best to be the world's biggest hypocrite, as if the media and the Left hasn't sensationalized or exploited every rightwing faux pas known to mankind. You made a lot of good points, but you have this terrible habit of blaming everything on conservatives and libertarians. That's the central theme within all of your rants. Since you seem to not care a whit about objectivity or reality, you have zero credibility. It's all suspect.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 10:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:37:54 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It seems like Charles does his level best to be the world's biggest hypocrite, as if the media and the Left hasn't sensationalized or exploited every rightwing faux pas known to mankind. You made a lot of good points, but you have this terrible habit of blaming everything on conservatives and libertarians. That's the central theme within all of your rants. Since you seem to not care a whit about objectivity or reality, you have zero credibility. It's all suspect.

Oh, I'm quite sincere, and I think that I make somewhat of a prima facie case that the the core of conservatism is a benighted, backward, and belligerent alpha male-female mentality, as I like to call it. I'm sorry if you find this to be insulting on a personal level, I certainly derive no malicious pleasure from leaving conservative individuals feeling insulted, I aim to be critical, not insulting. There's a quite clear difference, you may simply not subjectively appreciate it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 10:20:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 10:03:23 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:37:54 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It seems like Charles does his level best to be the world's biggest hypocrite, as if the media and the Left hasn't sensationalized or exploited every rightwing faux pas known to mankind. You made a lot of good points, but you have this terrible habit of blaming everything on conservatives and libertarians. That's the central theme within all of your rants. Since you seem to not care a whit about objectivity or reality, you have zero credibility. It's all suspect.

Oh, I'm quite sincere, and I think that I make somewhat of a prima facie case that the the core of conservatism is a benighted, backward, and belligerent alpha male-female mentality, as I like to call it. I'm sorry if you find this to be insulting on a personal level, I certainly derive no malicious pleasure from leaving conservative individuals feeling insulted, I aim to be critical, not insulting. There's a quite clear difference, you may simply not subjectively appreciate it.

You're a "selective-evidence", "selective-response" kind of guy. A total fake.

Get your ostentatious speech out of here.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 8:31:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, you have no sources, no statistics, no evidence. Why should we believe you when you claim that conservatives are more immoral than liberals? Given that you only ever seem to criticize conservatives, and never liberals, you appear to have a bias against conservatives that makes us doubt just about every fact you claim to be true.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 8:12:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/20/2011 8:31:34 AM, mongeese wrote:
charles, you have no sources, no statistics, no evidence. Why should we believe you when you claim that conservatives are more immoral than liberals? Given that you only ever seem to criticize conservatives, and never liberals, you appear to have a bias against conservatives that makes us doubt just about every fact you claim to be true.

Charles' debates are not backed by any means of logic, none at all, he is just expressing his own objective argument. Of which, these arguments (normally 2 posts long) seem completely pointless.
turn down for h'what
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 7:25:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/20/2011 8:12:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Charles' debates are not backed by any means of logic, none at all, he is just expressing his own objective argument. Of which, these arguments (normally 2 posts long) seem completely pointless.

As opposed to what, the derivative and schoolboy-formal arguments of my opponents (yes, J.Kenyon, I have you in mind) that, for instance, are utterly and insistently oblivious of the empirical nature and pathologies of capitalism off the pages of Hayek and von Mises? Hmm, what's really the point of such anally libertarian arguments, to intellectually masturbate into logic-chopping ejaculations of ideological apologies for capitalism? Oh my, anal ejaculating libertarians, I hope this isn't getting too homoerotic for any Stiffly Stifferson conservatives here!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 7:51:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/20/2011 8:12:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Charles' debates are not backed by any means of logic, none at all, he is just expressing his own objective argument. Of which, these arguments (normally 2 posts long) seem completely pointless.


As opposed to what, the derivative and schoolboy-formal arguments of my opponents (yes, J.Kenyon, I have you in mind) that, for instance, are utterly and insistently oblivious of the empirical nature and pathologies of capitalism off the pages of Hayek and von Mises?

If you want to prove anybody wrong, I suggest you actually source your arguments. Nobody is going to trust your claims at face value without something more reliable backing them up.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 8:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
My beliefs are incompatible with logic.

Too bad. That's reason to not believe you.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 8:39:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/20/2011 8:12:13 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Charles' debates are not backed by any means of logic, none at all, he is just expressing his own objective argument. Of which, these arguments (normally 2 posts long) seem completely pointless.

As opposed to what, the derivative and schoolboy-formal arguments of my opponents (yes, J.Kenyon, I have you in mind)

Translation: I'm still butthurt because I lost. You really need to get over yourself. You're a pretentious fuckwit and an incompetent hack of a writer. Even your socialist buddyGeorge Orwell thinks you're an idiot: http://www.resort.com... You're the literal embodiment of Polonius' character in Hamlet: too stupid to comprehend the extent of your own stupidity. When confronted with this reality, your psychological defense mechanisms kick in. You cope by making little pointed jabs throughout posts like these insinuating that your opponents are rationalizing or disconnected from reality. I guess this is just evidence that at the heart of the liberal mentalité is a mushiness of character and and fundamental inability to successfully deal with the hardships of life, trollolololololol!

that, for instance, are utterly and insistently oblivious of the empirical nature and pathologies of capitalism off the pages of Hayek and von Mises?

Here's an example of your idea of an empirical argument:

"The economic success of the First World would have been impossible without its exploitation of Third World resources and peoples during the age of colonialism, and without the continuation of that exploitation in the form of "neo-colonialism" and "globalization". And domestically, well, go survey the millions of working poor in America and ask them how "humanitarian" they find our system, how well it's working to promote their welfare and happiness. Or is theory all you care about, and the real impact of that theory on real people's lives matters not at all to you?"

You don't bother to source anything; we're just supposed to take it for granted that everything sucks and capitalism is to blame. It's the shallowest, most superficial analysis I've ever seen. Then, you cherry pick examples of "successful" socialism like Norway, as if this constitutes an actual argument. It's basically trolling, and I can probably out troll you if I feel like it, as Sieben did here: http://www.debate.org...

So please, spare us the bullsh­­i­t. If you want to debate "Capitalism empirically leads to bad outcomes," send me a debate challenge. If you want to avoid doing any actual thinking that might force you to reconsider your worldview, by all means, keep trolling on the forums.

Hmm, what's really the point of such anally libertarian arguments, to intellectually masturbate into logic-chopping ejaculations of ideological apologies for capitalism? Oh my, anal ejaculating libertarians, I hope this isn't getting too homoerotic for any Stiffly Stifferson conservatives here!

...says the guy who basically takes everything wrong with the world, calls it capitalism, and then faps to how bad it is. Fu­ck off.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:29:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 8:39:10 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Translation: I'm still butthurt because I lost.

Really J., "but*hurt", is that where you like to hurt people?! That's A-OK, I'm all for same-sex marriage and all that, being a progressive.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:02:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The selective guy strikes again! Charles, go back to left-wing forums and sputter your nonsense there. I doubt half of them will even agree with you.

You probably got rejected from many, so you come here instead.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:09:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 8:02:03 AM, rarugged wrote:
The selective guy strikes again! Charles, go back to left-wing forums and sputter your nonsense there. I doubt half of them will even agree with you.

You probably got rejected from many, so you come here instead.

Then you acknowledge that I don't just sequaciously tow the standard leftist party line, that I'm quite the leftist freethinker?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.