Bigfatbillsfan
-
Posts
1,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bigfatbillsfan
-
-
-
Easy. The pleasure of seeing them pull out their hair and gnash their teeth over Hernandez.
I admit I go there too. For the same reason.
-
http://legalinsurrec...heory-of-guilt/
why do you not show more respect towards yourself and others and learn to self edit, spell check or research? There is being a lazy poster. I usually am. But there is also being one who is just horrible, all over the road and a mess. You are that. Put on your big girl panties. Learn to fix your game. Take yourself more seriously and we just might, too.
Picking a fight with a hornets nest is fun, ask Ryan or doggy... But when you get stung just know you had it coming. And reading your countless dribble. ... Just awful.
When I get "stung" is sure as hell won't be by 3rd grade. And no, I don't take myself all that seriously on this forum. The rest of the board? Fine. But here? I don't come here for great conversation and debate.
I will debate with a select few that I feel are here for serious debate.
When the craven shows up. I tell him to !@#$ himself. That's about what he's worth.
-
You have to understand BFBF. Every post he makes is effed up in some way, but then he attempts to try to correct others, even when he/she is wrong in doing so. He's basically becoming my discarded cat toy. If you have a lazer pointer, he's rather entertaining.
Why don't you go back on Wordnik and play with the rest of the boys and girls your own age? Humpty Dumpty will be there too.
If that doesn't sound appealing to you, why don't you go !@#$ yourself?
Think back to your grammar school days.
The SUBJECT of the sentence is the media and its propaganda,.........not Martin............not Zimmerman................not the bias you want to apply to others.
That is why.
It cannot be any clearer.
I am sorry if you are still confused, but I have no more obligation to explain easy posts to you.
.
Yes, the media are douche bags. That's a given. And no, TM was not a little cherub. We know that too.
So now what is the purpose of posting the pictures unless you are trying to make the point that what TM looked like on the night he was killed somehow justified GZ's actions?
If you make a loaded statement by posting those two pictures side by side be ready for some blowback.
-
Oh can it!
I'm tired of yours (and others) misinterpretation of a post, assuming the worst of everyone's intentions.
I responded to Unbillevable's post of an "Onion type" photo comparison with an actual comparison to show the media's folly in this and how they are adding to the problems that will arise on George Zimmerman's acquittal.
and you try and make it into some racial, "he deserved to be shot" crap.
.
What is the point of showing the difference between those two pictures unless you are trying to make a point that how he looked on the night he was shot was somehow relevant to GZ's actions.
-
Actual photo's of Trayvon that night and the media's favorite.
Oh, this changes everything. Now that I've seen a picture of him the night he was killed I can tell he deserved to be shot.
This changes nothing. We know that TM wasn't an angle. But that doesn't justify GZ's actions.
-
That limb you are walking out on is getting thinner and thinner:
Wordnik? Are you kidding me?
This is how they describe themselves:
"At Wordnik, we believe, like Humpty Dumpty, that words mean what we want them to mean"
I know that's a site you may go for word meanings in your kindergarten class, but you're talking with adults now.
It's not a word. It's a misspelling of "dismissible."
And !@#$ you for making me side with BF-squared.
Dear God, that just makes me feel dirty. I need to take a shower.
-
So, if Charles Manson shows up at your house, and you end up killing him, his character had nothing to do with it?
Still haven't found the cohones to admit you were wrong, eh? Now who's the jackass?
Here Sue:
http://en.wiktionary...iki/dismissable
dismissable
Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
English[edit]
Etymology[edit]
Adjective[edit]
dismissable (comparative more dismissable, superlative most dismissable)
Holy Christ. Wiktionary?
I must hold true to my former statement. You are a jackass.
Now please go !@#$ yourself.
-
If GZ had all those bad things on his record...
What about the suspensions for TM. The fights he got in? The drugs he dealt? The images of him smoking? Growing pot? The things he said on Facebook and Twitter? The kid was nothing to society but a little punk.
I would have to agree. If the Prosecution is going to try to use past character flaws to bolster their case, the Defense should be able to use TM's in Zimmerman's Defense.
You are so dismissable. You know, that was the second time you called me out on the spelling of a word and both times you've been wrong. Most people with at least half a brain would look up the spelling before continuing with their folly. You, on the other hand, not only highlight your stupidity, but keep posting schit to draw even more attention to it. I'm losing interest in you as my cat toy. It used to be that I had to actually do something to make you go off the deep end, but now my mere presence in a thread does it. That's why you are so dismissable.
Well then, consider yourself dismissed. Feel free to go !@#$ yourself.
-
On doing the milf senator, or on the less important abortion thing?
Dude, beat me to it. I was totally about to make that same joke.
And yes, I would.
-
And that's just this week!!!
When you empower the state to legally kill it's citizens, the state will legally kill it's citizens.
I strongly disagree with granting government this power.
With that said, Texas isn't my state, so I rightly don't have a say there.
True, but that being said, is there a time when in the most heinous of cases that we should make a statement?
Most would agree that Texas goes a little overboard but I have to admit that there are time when I think a person should be put to death. It's something I struggle with since I am mostly anti death penalty.
Sometimes I think we have to make the statement that a person is so utterly depraved that they are not fit to live in this world.
-
What dictionary are you using that has a letter "!"?
Oh, I think he knows what I mean.
-
Can you show me this, or are you just a little confused over your spelling assignment? Please do it in the proper thread though. I don't think this fine thread needs to be polluted with your false statements.
Here's an assignment for you:
Look up the following words in the dictionary. After learning what each word means put them all together in a sentence and see if you can glean some meaning from it.
Go
!@#$
Yourself
-
!@#$ AZ. Dirty cheating fascist bastards put speed check cameras on the side of the road so that when you go to the Grand Canyon you come home to a $200 ticket with a picture of you going 12 over in your rental car on the way back to Vegas. At least with a real cop in a cop car you've got a chance. These candy asses take the sport out of it. I bet the AZ state pastime is spotlight hunting.
Good, at least I'm not the only one that feels that way.
So nice to see you out BFBF. Since this thread is going along so nicely and even your words here are not "dismissable", I'd like to see what you learned from the last assignment I gave you, but not here. Meet me over in the "foreclosure" thread where we won't sully up a decent conversation.
The assignment you gave me? I believe you asked me to do something and I told you to go !@#$ yourself. That hardly seems like you handing me an assignment. So please, go !@#$ yourself.
Man, CNN just had a panel of about 45 lawyers judges random people off the street and stray animals agree unanimously that the prosecution both won the day but also was way more handsome
Are they sure they were watching the right trial?
-
What kind of tweaking? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the fact that a politician who managed to get himself elected said so doesn't really carry a lot of weight around here. What specifically needs to be changed?
The person who is claiming stand your ground should also be responsible for proving that they are not the initiator of the confrontation.
-
I don't know what state you're in, or how the case law defines the details in FL, so I won't dispute what you're saying, but generally speaking all stand your ground means is that you don't have to retreat in order to maintain your right to self-defense. I've never heard of a jurisdiction or a case where the initial aggressor retains a right to use deadly force in self-defense.
I live in Flagstaff, Arizona. Hippie capital of the universe.
In AZ all you have to do is prove you felt your life was threatened at the time you used deadly force. Nor do you have any responsibility to try to retreat from a threat.
-
Saw some clips of opening arguments on the news just now. George's lawyer has a good approach/demeanor. Looked good for him imo...based on what very little I just saw.
His lawyer looks amazing. As with you I have only seen a little bit. But the defense is making the prosecution look like a high school football team taking on a pro team.
Stand your ground defense has nothing to do with this case.
I know that the defense is not claiming stand your ground as a defense for GZ's actions but I still think that law needs to be tweaked. It's written similar to what we have here in AZ. In it's current state a person can start a fight with someone. And when that someone is kicking their ass they can pull out a gun and shoot them. It happens here all the time.
-
Look up my spelling and come back to me. It's a legitimate word meant for people like you. Although I'm right about the spelling, it's no big deal with such ignorance that you display. Regardless, is this the only way you can try to attack me? If so, you've given up on the intellectual approach. Well, maybe you never had one.
No, it's not a word you jackass.
-
Birddog's original post made the contention that BofA broke the law by not following the requirements of TARP. My point was completely relevant, as there was no such requirement, and Birddog was referring to a completely different program.
You, naturally, can't even understand that much.
No, the opening post holds the contention that BoA refused to uphold the conditions of the deal they made. And did so intentionally. It's about the actions of the bank.
I'm not an expert on finance or banking. Freely admitted. I can smell skunk when I'm near it. This smells very bad, like the day my dogs cornered one in my garage. The banks are not fulfilling their appointed obligations. That's hurting homeowners that might otherwise be spared foreclosure and thus the economy in general. Agreed?
Let me answer for Tom.
TARP is not HAMP. Therefore your point is invalid.
-
Right, I have a typo in one word. Dismissable was the right spelling for the word I used to convey my message. Cute little trick reading what Tom wrote and then predicting what Tom would write. You are a gift that just keeps on giving.
The first part of my post was originally in a quote of one of Birdog's posts. I predicted that one before reading Tom's response. Tom operates on a pretty predictable system. If Birdog gave him a redirect to the original point Tom would claim that Birdog was incapable of having the discussion with him.
And "dismissable" isn't a word you jackass.
-
It's difficult enough to understand what you are trying to say let alone decipher what that period is in the middle of a sentence, or if it really is two incomplete sentences. Im serious, your posts are sometimes hard to follow, or need to be read over again to figure out what I think you meant to say. It makes your posts more "dismissable", and trust me, you don't want to do that.
You have to read his posts over again to figure out what he's saying because you don't know how to read well. and idiots tend to dismiss what they don't understand. That's part of what makes them idiots.
You also spelled "I'm" and "dismissible" wrong you jackass.
-
Bird Dog,
Just a friendly tip. You're arguing against Tom's straw man. The main point of your opening post is that BOA signed a contract stating that they would help struggling home owners in return for a massive amount of money. They then failed to uphold their part of the deal. That's the point.
Tom is arguing that HAMP is not TARP.
I'm sure soon he'll be telling you you don't understand any of this.
Nope.
Your entire argument is built on a fundamental lack of understanding of how ANY of this works.
Check.
You have absolutely no idea how HAMP works, do you? Call your bank, and try going through the process. You'll find out how !@#$ed up it is on all levels.
Better not. Tough to clean crayon of a computer screen...
Oh no, we've entered the part of the thread where 3rd and Tom start jerking each other off.
-
So, I post a transcript asking for opinions regarding the message and specifically asking people not to attack the messenger, and what do I get? One post by one of the top five dullards here giving his usual uninspired and moronic response attacking the messenger and another post that sounds like Bill Maher high on pot with his balls in a vise, again attacking the messenger. Nice job boys.
So you post a transcript of a person who shovels **** for a living and ask people to not attack the messenger? Not to mention that I didn't even attack the messenger. Read what I said again. It sounds like one of Mr. Limbaugh's three hour mouth dumps. That's describing the transcript, not Limbaugh dumbass.
I've said before, I don't believe Obama has any plans whatsoever to step aside in 2016.....
"Who is John Galt?"
Paranoia abounds. You seem even more paranoid here than you did on the "other board"
Who is John Galt? An ass hole. John Galt is an ass hole.
They are afraid to address the message, so they can only go after the messenger. It is one of their ways to hijack a thread. Fatty's MO is to say stupid schit, get in over his head and then when challenged and asked to explain himself, he claims that he doesn't have time and that he has a life, unlike everybody else. When Conner or lyrbob side with him he then feels vindicated. (Tele)Pathetic's agenda appears to place legalizing pot at the top of the list, so you never know what you might get from him.
Holy Shcit! Are you a psychologist?
-
Without disparaging the messenger, what comments do you have pertaining to the actual message?
http://www.rushlimba...f_a_coup_d_etat
"I have to tell you when I'm listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I'm saying, "Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?" We got the IRS starting in 2010 taking action to suppress the political involvement and ultimately votes of Tea Party people and conservative Republicans. This regime, this government, on the orders of the highest level. In fact, that investigation is ongoing. We have Fast and Furious. We have Obamacare. The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day and yet in the midst of this, "Well, don't go off half cocked on this, Rush. Be very levelheaded. Nothing really to see," as though there's no context here.
It made me once again understand, folks, what you and I are up against here. There are just way too many people -- and I'm talking about on our side -- who do not want to admit what we face, who do not want to engage or admit or whatever what we really face here. It matters. This kind of stuff matters because of who the people doing it happen to be. It's one thing if Colonel Sanders would be collecting all this data, but it's not Colonel Sanders. It's Barack Obama and everybody that works for him, and we know who they are and we know what their goals are. We know what their intentions are.
Folks, here's the thing, I guess, that gets me. I mentioned Herbert Meyer. We interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter a few short months ago. Herbert Meyer was in the national security apparatus during the Reagan administration. He was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, and was instrumental in establishing Reagan administration policies that brought down the Soviet Union. The big news to him that's really noteworthy, we talked about it, is that he thinks that the world's coming out of poverty. And it is a big story, The Economist in London had a big story on it recently. We mentioned it to you, and it's a great testament to capitalism.
It's not socialism, it's not welfare, it's not compassion and it's not the redistribution of wealth. It's not high taxes that are bringing people out of poverty. It's capitalism, and none other than a leftist publication in London had to admit it. Well, Herb Meyer was the first to sound this notice some months ago. I also mentioned he wrote a piece that currently is in the American Thinker earlier this week, and it had the potential to be controversial because he used Adolf Hitler and Nazism in it, and it was his way of explaining, he made a point in the piece that nowhere, you know, people looking for a smoking gun to nail Obama on all these scandals, Herb says, "Ain't gonna be one."
He said whether you believe it or not, there is not one document linking Adolf Hitler to the holocaust. Adolf Hitler never put it on paper what he intended to do. There is no smoking gun. And yet what happened? We know that the Nazis engaged in the Holocaust. Herb Meyer's point was that the people Hitler hired didn't have to be told. They didn't have to be given instructions. All they had to do was listen to what Hitler was saying. All they had to do was listen to what his objectives were. And he said the same thing's happening here with this administration. He went to great pains to say: I'm not calling this administration a bunch of Nazis. I'm just using this as an illustration. I know people will get my point if I use something this notorious, the Nazi regime.
It's a point that I've made here about the IRS. They say, "Well, you can't link it in to Obama." You don't need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who's doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There's not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don't need a smoking gun to know where this administration's doing what it's doing.
Obama puts people in positions that mirror him. Eric Holder, you name it, they're doing Obama's bidding. Everybody. Susan Rice and Samantha Power, they are Obama, and there's a context for what's happening. Herbert Meyer, if I may quote him again, asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a million artistic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration.
He referred to it as a coup. I don't know if he used the word "peaceful," but clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs -- and they're under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that's what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d'etat... I happen to like that formulation."
There's much more to the transcript at the link.
Sounds like part of one of Mr. Limbaugh's 3 hour mouth dumps.
Trayvon Martin Case
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I have a better idea. Why don't you go !@#$ yourself?
American is progressing and beginning to move forward into the 21st century. Think of PPP as kind of like a refuge for people who are afraid of this. A place where they can be among others who feel the same way.
It's also a place where losers like 3rd grade can come and feel like their twisted opinion matters. They don't have a life in the real word. So they come to this little wild life refuge.