[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elk - this is at least the third consecutive thread in which you posted absolutely nothing pertaining to the topic, or an honest tangent to the subject.
[/quote]
There is no topic. Jane Fonda has her own beliefs and opinions. Very few seem to agree with them or support her, be they liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If it isn’t the people that disagree with you that lack brains, is it the people that agree with you that lack brains?
Why don’t we stick to issues and leave the debate of who lacks brains to the kids.
What? Half of society seems to “lack brains”. Remember the ephedra hysteria? How about the on going failed War on Drugs that actually still gets support? Please. You can jump in your car and find out within 15 seconds that not everyone is playing with a full deck. [/quote]
I do not deny many people are misinformed and do not pay attention. Some people are downright stupid or insane.
I was pointing out to vroom that calling people that don’t vote your way brainless is a weak tactic.
Both parties are filled with morons.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever had the displeasure of running into. You call people names and then accuse them of it among many other things you cry incessantly about.
To respond to your request about the topic I feel about Jane Fonda the way I feel about you and jerffy, she is a pathetic, ignorant, opportunist, dumbass. [/quote]
Who’s crying? And who’s the hypocrite? If you will notice, oh PMSed one, I usually attack in the context of the topic. Just like in your ‘friend’ vroom’s case. I attacked him, but it was in the context of the topic, or at least a decent tangent.
There is absoultely no way to do the same for you because you never post on topic. You attack with estrogen-filled out bursts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and everything to do with your female like irritablity.
Please quantify my ignorance, or even my opportunism for that matter. Oh…wait…your just making some more pointless and baseless attacks.
Have you seen a doctor about your moodiness? Can you at least be a little more creative in your girly little name calling outbursts? Honestly, you are as predictable as my wife’s menstrual cycle.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Elk - this is at least the third consecutive thread in which you posted absolutely nothing pertaining to the topic, or an honest tangent to the subject.
There is no topic. Jane Fonda has her own beliefs and opinions. Very few seem to agree with them or support her, be they liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
[/quote]
So, are you then saying that this thread, since you don’t seem to think that there is a real topic, is nothing more than post filled with personal attacks?
I disagree. There have been several decent points brought out. Firstly that Fonda is far left, just like Dean. There was discussion on that. Then there was the point brought up by Pookie that questioned whether the 1st Amendment applied to her, since people wished her silenced.
Not so with elk - he only attacks because he like a little scared chihuahua trapped in the corner. He’s to scared to do anything other than sound way bigger and tougher than he really is. And staying on topic for him is like getting a little infant baby to pay attention - I’ve never seen it happen.
Oh - I’ve seen a small baby stare intently at an object, but to say that he is paying attention is like saying elk could ever post anything remotely pertininet to a topic. There is the exceptional time when he’ll insist that everyone that voted for Bush should join the military, but that is eerily like a baby staring intently at a key ring - It happpens all the time, and means absolutely nothing, unless you are the parents.
And what the hell have you ever brought up of any relevance in your ten thousand posts? That anybody who disagrees with the war or didn’t vote for Bush is an ABBer. That everyone hates Bush.
You are like a monkey that is trained to pick a lock and then does the same trick ad nauseam!
Talk about acting like a tough guy… you are the one who starts fights with women and children. Your entire life revolves around screaming “you hate Bush you vagina” over the Internet.
Rainjack, I don’t care how many tattoos you get, you still don’t own the place or actually uphold the ideals of the place. As you are quick to point out, I am stating my opinion… blah blah blah.
–
[quote]However, you had more to say. Especially the slam on republican
mischaracterization. It’s not a mischaracterization to point out the fact that they are both ultra liberal in their political views.[/quote]
Zeb, you are playing stupid again. No, that is not a personal insult. You know damned well that nobody thinks characterizing Michael Moore or Jane Fonda as extreme is a mischaracterization.
When you try to brand me as ultra-liberal, though I don’t share many, if any, views with those clowns, that would represent a mischaracterization.
–
Zap, open your eyes. I told you before and I’ll tell you again, I wasn’t referring to republican voters. Go sit down, shut up, and think about it for a minute before chastising me about it yet again, please.
Another thread shot to hell by pointless bickering.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I was pointing out to vroom that calling people that don’t vote your way brainless is a weak tactic.
Zap, open your eyes. I told you before and I’ll tell you again, I wasn’t referring to republican voters. Go sit down, shut up, and think about it for a minute before chastising me about it yet again, please.[/quote]
Please enlighten me then? If you weren’t referring to Republican voters and you likely are not referring to Democratic voters, who is brainless?
The non-voters? I will agree with that one, but they don’t decide elections. Those that actually show up to the polls do that.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
And what the hell have you ever brought up of any relevance in your ten thousand posts? That anybody who disagrees with the war or didn’t vote for Bush is an ABBer. That everyone hates Bush.[/quote]
I guess according to you I haven’t. But one has to remember that you are incapable of staying on topic in any thread in which you poast, so I would have to say that you are not qualified to make a judgement call that requires objectivity.
But that’s one smart damn monkey. Too bad your trainers only taught you to shit your pants and whine real loud.
What woman did I start a fight with? What “children” did I start a fight with?
Are you referring to ST’s thread? My God - what a desperate little man you are proving yourself to be. If my opinion incites anger and frustration, then so much the better - but at least I can form a coherent thought to express. Makes you just a tad jealous, doesn’t it midol-boy?
No - my life doesn’t revolve around such things. Not that you would know a goddamn thing about me, but I actually have a smokin hot wife that digs sipping on whiskey and sitting naked in a hot tub. Now where would your pussified little rants rank if you were in my shoes and you were straight?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, I don’t care how many tattoos you get, you still don’t own the place or actually uphold the ideals of the place. As you are quick to point out, I am stating my opinion… blah blah blah.[/quote]
What is it with you and midol-boy? What in the hell does my tattoo have with you being wrong? You were just as wrong in your commentary on the elections before my tattoo (BT) as you will be after (AT).
You have a right to your opinion, however, when you are outright wrong on the facts, I have the right to call bullshit. Your belief of such lies is ignorance, and as such you are a dumbass for spouting such bullshit.
On another note - since when did bringing up one’s tattoos become standard debate practice? Does that mean I use you pathetically pale body against you in the future? Not that I would stoop as low as you and midol-boy have, but you never know.
As for you telling me what I do or don’t represent - who elected you judge? Your school yard taunts don’t scare me, nor do they give me pause to reconsider what I am doing, or what I believe. But if it makes you feel better to call me out for being un T-manlike - then go ahead.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
…
I actually have a smokin hot wife that digs sipping on whiskey and sitting naked in a hot tub…
[/quote]
Need pics.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Elk - this is at least the third consecutive thread in which you posted absolutely nothing pertaining to the topic, or an honest tangent to the subject.
There is no topic. Jane Fonda has her own beliefs and opinions. Very few seem to agree with them or support her, be they liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
So, are you then saying that this thread, since you don’t seem to think that there is a real topic, is nothing more than post filled with personal attacks?
I disagree. There have been several decent points brought out. Firstly that Fonda is far left, just like Dean. There was discussion on that. Then there was the point brought up by Pookie that questioned whether the 1st Amendment applied to her, since people wished her silenced.
[/quote]
Ok, there may be some legitimate issues that were brought up in this thread. But I think the orignal post was baseless. To me, all it was was a bait to try to associate liberals with Jane Fonda. Doesn’t seem that many share her views or respect her. The complementary purpose was get people on this board who consider themselves liberal to defend and support Jane Fonda and her actions so they could be attacked. Accept none of them did or do.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, you are playing stupid again. No, that is not a personal insult. You know damned well that nobody thinks characterizing Michael Moore or Jane Fonda as extreme is a mischaracterization.
When you try to brand me as ultra-liberal, though I don’t share many, if any, views with those clowns, that would represent a mischaracterization.[quote/]
vroom,
I did not bring your name up relative to you being an “ultra liberal” in this thread.
I was speficically referring to Dean, Fonda and Moore. I think that was very obvious.
Since your specific political leanings were not at all in the mix your comments below have to be questioned. Why would you even bring up “mischaracterazation” if you indeed agree that the three people above are in fact ultra liberals?
It seems you want to steer this thread back toward something that it is not.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Elk - this is at least the third consecutive thread in which you posted absolutely nothing pertaining to the topic, or an honest tangent to the subject.
There is no topic. Jane Fonda has her own beliefs and opinions. Very few seem to agree with them or support her, be they liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
So, are you then saying that this thread, since you don’t seem to think that there is a real topic, is nothing more than post filled with personal attacks?
I disagree. There have been several decent points brought out. Firstly that Fonda is far left, just like Dean. There was discussion on that. Then there was the point brought up by Pookie that questioned whether the 1st Amendment applied to her, since people wished her silenced.
Ok, there may be some legitimate issues that were brought up in this thread. But I think the orignal post was baseless. To me, all it was was a bait to try to associate liberals with Jane Fonda. Doesn’t seem that many share her views or respect her. The complementary purpose was get people on this board who consider themselves liberal to defend and support Jane Fonda and her actions so they could be attacked. Accept none of them did or do.
[/quote]
rain, you’re a loudmouth nutless sack of shit. You know of a way to settle our differences, I’m all ears.
jsbrook, thanks for pointing that out. The whole purpose of the original post was juvenile and small. Then you have the resident wearers of the holy and moral robes (you know who you are) chime in like two wailing nuns… “The unholy degradation of this thread is killing my tender sensibilities”.
There pretentious nature gets old.
jsbrook wrote:
“Ok, there may be some legitimate issues that were brought up in this thread. But I think the orignal post was baseless. To me, all it was was a bait to try to associate liberals with Jane Fonda.”
Pray tell, my friend, given Hedo’s post showing her donations, who do you think she represents? Do you conted that the dems haven’t met with her and thanked her. Going to contend that she doesn’t represent the feelings of a portion of democrats.
It’s going to be hard to convince anyone that she is representing ANY component of the Republicans.
“Doesn’t seem that many share her views or respect her. The complementary purpose was get people on this board who consider themselves liberal to defend and support Jane Fonda and her actions so they could be attacked. Accept none of them did or do.”
Who do you think are going to line the roads cheering for her? Who cheered her in that room when she made the announcement?
Do you think ANY OF MY MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES: Jeffr/Cream/Rainjack/Hedo/Vegita/Nephorm/GeorgeBushRules etc… is the target audience?
Nope. It’s the lovers of liberalism!!!
It was a nice try, however.
You can look at this in another way if you wish. There hasn’t been outright denunciation of her mission by my friends on this board either.
You can bet your paycheck that if the leader of the clan was starting a bus tour in favor of W., I’d be pissed and would denounce him immediately.
What do we hear from the dems:
silence.
JeffR
The Whiskey
And the Hot Tub
I have to apologize to liftus, he is a democrat who did announce he’s not a fan of her. Sorry about that.
"Now that I think about it I wouldn’t want to be considered a liberal if she were part of our constituency.
I’d like to see where this discussion goes when no one has anything respectable to say about 'ol Jane."
Let me also post some support from a liberal, wreckless:
"I love her. Not that I love here, but I love her for being hated by every Republican pig that expresses his patriotism by being in favor of the war in Vietnam then and now in Iraq, but is to chicken to actually get out there. Dubious comes to mind.
I mean, they drop their cover when she’s around, don’t they? And then you can whack them with the truth."
So far, one of my liberal friends against her tour.
Interesting.
JeffR
Push
Good post and analogy.