[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Issues?
Parody - a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody - look into it.[/quote]
Vituperation — check it out
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Vituperation — check it out[/quote]
Wait - you wrote:
I would never cheat on my wife but ramming it into that bitch’s ass and making her squeal like the pig she is would be a treat.
…and you are feeling flush over my - gasp - “vituperation”?
So with candidates you don’t like, it’s a no-rules brawl, but with your candidate, the Marquis of Queensberry rules apply?
Aw, come on, Thunder. It’s Hillary for chrissakes.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aw, come on, Thunder. It’s Hillary for chrissakes.[/quote]
I think you’ve got it backwards - I never complained about the treatment of Hillary.
I rarely complain about the treatment of any candidate, even “mine.” I figure most politicians are by definition scumbags and worthy of abuse and ridicule, just some less so than others.
Queensberry Rules never apply.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
I would never cheat on my wife but ramming it into that bitch’s ass and making her squeal like the pig she is would be a treat.
[/quote]
Choosing an awfully big target, there, HH…Hardly sporting.
Well, yes. This is Hillary Clinton’s ass.
He’s a pretty big target, all right.
Still can’t decide?
Hilarious fake Huckleberry ad which ought to offend everyone.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Vituperation — check it out
Wait - you wrote:
I would never cheat on my wife but ramming it into that bitch’s ass and making her squeal like the pig she is would be a treat.
…and you are feeling flush over my - gasp - “vituperation”?
So with candidates you don’t like, it’s a no-rules brawl, but with your candidate, the Marquis of Queensberry rules apply?
[/quote]
I don’t think mine involved making a parody about children being roasted alive or a candidate standing and negotiating a rescue.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:
This from the man that feels Fred Thompson would be a much more viable choice. Nuff said.
Heh - it’s always a little funny and a little sad when Paulnuts get their feelers hurt.
And I would avoid using “Ron Paul” and “viable” in the same sentence as a defense - you can like or dislike candidates as you please, but never suggest Paul was “viable” for any national office.[/quote]
Riiight, now I’m a “paulnut” even though I may vote for Mccain at this point. But yes if you want to go there Paul is a much more viable candidate for a national office and has basically proven that for how many years in Congress now? Fred was awesome on TV and movies but let’s not fall into teh same trap that got Reagan elected.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Riiight, now I’m a “paulnut” even though I may vote for Mccain at this point.[/quote]
I assume you mean the same McCain that says he wants to uphold the Reagan Republican tradition?
Utter nonsense on its face, but to a specific point you are trying to make - winning a seat in the House is deliberately not a national affair: Representatives are supposed to represent local sections of a given state and population, not a national audience.
Get Paul out of his niche spot in Texas, and he couldn’t win anything more “national” than that - hell, he couldn’t win a Senate seat for the state of Texas.
Being in the House has nothing to do with “national” bona fides - only a small clip of your district votes for you. Important to be sure, but for different reasons, and not a sign you are a national figure.
As for his impact on national politics during that time - well, it is in rare air of Kucinich territory.
Go read Fred’s resume, if you must - but to a more important point: Reagan was no slouch as a President - even his liberal opponents recognize that - and he was also, wait for it, the beau ideal for the man you are thinking of voting for.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, for those of us “on the fence”, this brilliant, thought-provoking piece will surely provide great insights.
Seriously - when did every day around here turn into kindergarten?
Sloth wrote:
Hmm. How about a youtube video of Ron Paul saving 30 orphans single-handedly from a raging fire? What do you think, do anything for ya?
Maybe if you have one of him dropping into Pakistan and pulling out the heart of Osama bin Laden, then swooping back in to the U.S.A. and squatting ass-to-grass 1200 lbs. and pooping a gold brick… no cartoons though - live-action only.[/quote]
Ok, I’m sure if I keep looking I’ll find the video. Keep in mind that such an operation may be shrouded in complete secrecy. However, in the meantime I have this video of Ron Paul in action against the agents of punditry.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, for those of us “on the fence”, this brilliant, thought-provoking piece will surely provide great insights.
Seriously - when did every day around here turn into kindergarten?
Sloth wrote:
Hmm. How about a youtube video of Ron Paul saving 30 orphans single-handedly from a raging fire? What do you think, do anything for ya?
Maybe if you have one of him dropping into Pakistan and pulling out the heart of Osama bin Laden, then swooping back in to the U.S.A. and squatting ass-to-grass 1200 lbs. and pooping a gold brick… no cartoons though - live-action only.
Ok, I’m sure if I keep looking I’ll find the video. Keep in mind that such an operation may be shrouded in complete secrecy. However, in the meantime I have this video of Ron Paul in action against the agents of punditry.
- YouTube [/quote]
I am so embarrased for the paulnuts. This stuff is so bad it is not even funny anymore. Sad.