Texas Says

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, in case you missed it, as happens in most threads, other issues were discussed.[/quote]

Is that your best? I’m in a particularly feisty mood this week, and if you aren’t going to bring anymore to the fight than that - you should seriously take my advice and scurry back to your thinking tree.

Ah - but you were the one that said that the religous should be shunned by the politicians. If you don;t want me calling you on your elitist bullshit opinions, don’t air them out in a public forum - especially in one that is talking about Texas politics.

And let you have all of the angery fun? I don’t think so. There is no reason for about 63.5% of the shit you say on here - but that hasn’t seemed to stop you. I only reacted heatedly to your idiotic post, and to Ron69 - ask AZ if I am being a hothead. Just because you command it to be does not makie it so - FYI

I liek the way you know my moods - the only one you should be familiar with is the one that exudes utter disdain for just about anything you have to say. But great job with the name calling - you are proving to be as kneejerk as Ron69. But I think most of the folks that have a functioning brainstem have already figured that out about you.

Now run along and think some more. I’m sure you will have another epiphany shortly - just make sure to flush when you finish.

62

[quote]vroom wrote:
How about giving us a break every now and then, we aren’t here so we can be your support group. [/quote]

You got a fucking mouse in your pocket? This is a free site - you are free to leave at any time if you don’t like my presence here.

Now - away with you. Go back to your tree.

63

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Rainjack, in case you missed it, as happens in most threads, other issues were discussed.

Is that your best? I’m in a particularly feisty mood this week, and if you aren’t going to bring anymore to the fight than that - you should seriously take my advice and scurry back to your thinking tree.

In particular, the topic of separating strongly held religious beliefs from the notion of conservatism had come up. It was in fact raised by someone of an apparent conservative bent.

Ah - but you were the one that said that the religous should be shunned by the politicians. If you don;t want me calling you on your elitist bullshit opinions, don’t air them out in a public forum - especially in one that is talking about Texas politics.

Whether or not you like me discussing such tangential issue, is immaterial. Stop being such a riled hothead when there is no reason for it.

And let you have all of the angery fun? I don’t think so. There is no reason for about 63.5% of the shit you say on here - but that hasn’t seemed to stop you. I only reacted heatedly to your idiotic post, and to Ron69 - ask AZ if I am being a hothead. Just because you command it to be does not makie it so - FYI

Try to keep up with the program Mr. angry ingnorant republican. Strange how you aren’t even happy when you are “winning”.

I liek the way you know my moods - the only one you should be familiar with is the one that exudes utter disdain for just about anything you have to say. But great job with the name calling - you are proving to be as kneejerk as Ron69. But I think most of the folks that have a functioning brainstem have already figured that out about you.

Now run along and think some more. I’m sure you will have another epiphany shortly - just make sure to flush when you finish.

[/quote]

Wait…he’s ron69? But I thought I was hairyass69.

You could not be more of a child.

“69”…(shakes head while smirking).

64

See, that explains it Redneck, I mean Rainjack, you are here to fight.

I’m not.

I don’t suppose you’d ever consider letting people who aren’t actually interested in getting into a pissing match with you go on about having a reasonable conversation?

What is nice is to realize that you are patting yourself on the back for ‘winning’ against people that aren’t even trying to ‘fight’ with you.

Loser.

65

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Wait…he’s ron69? But I thought I was hairyass69.

You could not be more of a child.

“69”…(shakes head while smirking).

[/quote]

HA! I was mark69 long before either of you pretenders came along.

66

[quote]vroom wrote:
See, that explains it Redneck, I mean Rainjack, you are here to fight.

I’m not.[/quote]

Then why do you keep responding to my posts? You say the things you do - especially regarding shunning groups you disagree with - and you expect me to sit there like a good little boy? I think you are just pissed that I won’t just swallow your drivel without challenge. You are not above being called out. You should know that by now.

I’m all for it - but when you feel the need to name call, and call for people to be shunned, you relinquish any right to call what you are doing reasonable.

[quote]What is nice is to realize that you are patting yourself on the back for ‘winning’ against people that aren’t even trying to ‘fight’ with you.
[/quote]

I didn’t realize I was patting myself on the back. Hacking on you for your idiotic posts is not a proclamation of victory. If you are referring to Prop 2 being passed - doogie and I are different sides. The side I was on had more votes than his side did. That is the definition of winning. It was a fight whether you think it was or not .

You coming out and calling for people to be shunned because of how they voted is fighting words. You started the fight when you opened your mouth. If you don’t want to fight - quit saying shit to start them.

Now run back to your thinking tree and try to think of a more original name to call me. I’ll be here. Waiting for your next premature ejaculation of idiocy.

67

[quote]mark57 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Wait…he’s ron69? But I thought I was hairyass69.

You could not be more of a child.

“69”…(shakes head while smirking).

HA! I was mark69 long before either of you pretenders came along.

[/quote]

There is enough 69’s to go around for everyone. No need to get jealous.

68

[quote]mark57 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Wait…he’s ron69? But I thought I was hairyass69.

You could not be more of a child.

“69”…(shakes head while smirking).

HA! I was mark69 long before either of you pretenders came along.

[/quote]

This is the funniest post on this thread.

69

[quote]vroom wrote:
Is that your best? I’m in a particularly feisty mood this week, and if you aren’t going to bring anymore to the fight than that - you should seriously take my advice and scurry back to your thinking tree.

See, that explains it Redneck, I mean Rainjack, you are here to fight.

I’m not.

I don’t suppose you’d ever consider letting people who aren’t actually interested in getting into a pissing match with you go on about having a reasonable conversation?

What is nice is to realize that you are patting yourself on the back for ‘winning’ against people that aren’t even trying to ‘fight’ with you.

Loser.[/quote]

This is a very accurate assessment.

70

Shunning groups? What groups? Please explain where you are getting this tripe. Your crud is boring and old. Your behavior is that of a troll, picking fights and adding nothing by way of useful conversation.

We know how well trolls are treated around these parts.

Congrats.

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
Shunning groups? What groups? Please explain where you are getting this tripe. Your crud is boring and old. Your behavior is that of a troll, picking fights and adding nothing by way of useful conversation.[/quote]

[i]Maybe politicians should specifically shun zealotry?

I mean, it isn’t hard to link fanatic ideologies with terrorism…[/i]

I got it from you, dumbass. You called for the shunning of those you consider zealots , which consiste of religous people that vote their convictions.

Spin out of this - I wanna see this.

Oh - is that a threat vroom? Bring it on, bitch.

For someone that just wants to be left alone to discuss freely without being bothered with things like a dissenting opinion - you sure do talk tough. Which is it going to be?

72

[quote]rainjack wrote:
[i]Maybe politicians should specifically shun zealotry?

I mean, it isn’t hard to link fanatic ideologies with terrorism…[/i]

I got it from you, dumbass. You called for the shunning of those you consider zealots , which consiste of religous people that vote their convictions.

Spin out of this - I wanna see this.
[/quote]

Rainjack, how is this different from your views that democrats need to spurn radical lefties?

I am not calling for widespread “shunning” and you know it. I’m questioning whether the radical right should be spurned by political groups.

Are you really as illiterate as you let on?

[quote]We know how well trolls are treated around these parts.

Oh - is that a threat vroom? Bring it on, bitch.

For someone that just wants to be left alone to discuss freely without being bothered with things like a dissenting opinion - you sure do talk tough. Which is it going to be?[/quote]

Bring it on, bitch? How clueless can you be. I’m suggesting that you consider how you react to trolls. How trolls are routinely removed from the site for the good of the conversing community.

The community which you are rapidly distancing yourself from.

I’m not threatening you at all you nincompoop. I’m suggesting you step back and treat these forums as something other than your own person sparring zone.

I don’t know. Maybe you own this place, so don’t have to worry about those issues.

Threats. Shunning. Fights. Dude, seriously, I think you are going over the edge…

You are routinely the meanest dog in the junkyard, which I am sure you are proud of, but you’ve gone way past that lately.

73

[quote]vroom wrote:
You are routinely the meanest dog in the junkyard, which I am sure you are proud of, but you’ve gone way past that lately.[/quote]

Only to you and a select few, vroom.

Look - if you say something, be prepared to defend it - you have been around long enough to know that by now - yet you let it go for three pages before clarifying your point. Maybe if you were a little more willing to admit that you say some offensive things, whether by accident or intentionally, a lot of this could be avoided.

I’m not going to apologize for crawling all over your ass for something as idiotic as the crap that flies off your keyboard. You have been around long enough to know me better than that. That’s what I do around here. I have for the last couple of years.

I can’t read your mind by looking at your ass. Making smartass hit and run quips don’t fly with you - why should I allow them to pass by me? If I seem worse than usual towards you - maybe I have a point.

As for the other guys - They are utter dumbasses, and you know it.

74

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
You are routinely the meanest dog in the junkyard, which I am sure you are proud of, but you’ve gone way past that lately.

Only to you and a select few, vroom.

Look - if you say something, be prepared to defend it - you have been around long enough to know that by now - yet you let it go for three pages before clarifying your point. Maybe if you were a little more willing to admit that you say some offensive things, whether by accident or intentionally, a lot of this could be avoided.

I’m not going to apologize for crawling all over your ass for something as idiotic as the crap that flies off your keyboard. You have been around long enough to know me better than that. That’s what I do around here. I have for the last couple of years.

I can’t read your mind by looking at your ass. Making smartass hit and run quips don’t fly with you - why should I allow them to pass by me? If I seem worse than usual towards you - maybe I have a point.

As for the other guys - They are utter dumbasses, and you know it.

[/quote]

Rainman, you suck in every way possible. Not entertaining, just small and angry.

Small and angry.

75

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Rainman, you suck in every way possible. Not entertaining, just small and angry.

Small and angry.

[/quote]

Coming from you, hairy ass - that means absolutely nothing.

Maybe if I actually had a shred of respect for you, I could force myself to care about anything you have to say. But that’s not going to happen.

76

Easy fellas. It’s a politics page…nothing more

77

[quote]mark57 wrote:

I don’t think the religious ceremony is the issue. No one is trying to tell churches that they will have to perform or recognize gay marriages. But the zealots are dead set on having ballot issues to make sure that states can’t recognize those unions for tax, benefit or any other purpose. And there are a lot of people screaming about separation of church and state w/r/t this issue. In fact I’d bet that at least 90% of the people who voted for it aren’t gay, but don’t believe in imposing one group’s religious values on everyone else.

[/quote]

My point is the state adopted a religious agreement, and made it a state recognized agreement.

It is total garbage in my opinion. The truth is if we set it up to where homosexuals could have the same recognized rights but not call it marriage they would still not be happy.

78

~Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt - Dec. 6, 1813

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper - February 10, 1814

~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

~Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

79

[quote]doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.

I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.

True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.[/quote]

Sure, that is until a gay couple moves in next door to you and your lovely wife and start having gay orgies in their back yard.

Funny how people of “morals” can look the other way and claim “freedom” until they actually have to see and experience the depravity themselves.

Open your eyes man!

80

[quote]mark57 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Wait…he’s ron69? But I thought I was hairyass69.

You could not be more of a child.

“69”…(shakes head while smirking).

HA! I was mark69 long before either of you pretenders came along.

[/quote]
i was dubbed mm69 by the great rainjack…I feel so honored…