We Come In Peace

You have yet to answer one of my questions. Instead you dodge by asking bull **** ones of your own. That's not trolling. That's not debating. That's not bringing anything new to the table. That's called being an asshat.

Yet, you've never once owned up to being wrong. About anything. You dig. And dig. And dig. And then pass it off like you're some master troller who designed every response when in reality you're a tiny man with a tiny intellect who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to man up and admit when he's wrong. In other words, you're an asshat.

Actually, the topic at hand is a joke thread about banning Kitchen Utensils in the wake of the bombings. Still not what you and I are talking about, we're talking about your complete ignorance on a specific topic that you brought up.

Oh, honey. It really is what happened. I know you have a disconnect from reality, but you are getting owned by so many people it's not even a fair fight. You've cut and run in every one when all you need to do is just admit that you're an asshat and yes, yes, you are WRONG about stuff from time to time. It's really easy.

Considering you got your ass handed to you in pretty much every thread today, you're talking a lot of smack.

And yet, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you and I have been talking about in this thread. Good try. Don't you get tired of being wrong? Just admit you're an asshat, it will make life easier.

There's no saving you now, OC. You're in too deep. You continue to be wrong about everything. You continue to deny that you're wrong about anything. And you continue to be really, really, really, bad at this.

I always admit when I'm wrong. And I hardly, if ever, write anything that's incoherent.

Actually, you didn't. What you said was: But on May 1st, 2003 he certainly DID use Iraq as a political tool. And that's just one example. For the press, the soundbites, the imagery, and to boost his own political capital heading into his re-election campaign. Why else does a commander in chief land a !@#$ing jet on an aircraft carrier on live TV if not for the political benefits of looking like a warrior leader? Gee. Look at this! OC is bringing up a completely different topic and trying to shoe-horn into this one. I wonder why? Because he's an asshat or because he can't admit he was wrong about anything. Ever? Probably both. Twice in one thread he's inventing things now. Again, the key is the use of an emoticon after he makes something up. It's a dead give away EVERY time. Dig, dig, dig, maybe one day you'll emerge back on topic. It is. But everyone is laughing AT you.

No, he's saying he can't interpret your ramblings because they're incoherent, logically flawed, completely hyperbolic and that's when the posts just aren't straight out lies. The emoticon thing is your weird tick that entertains you for some reason.

Ohhhhh, so it's not that you're stupid. It's that you're naive. Gotcha. Question. If Bush and the administration's only purpose during that event was to welcome folks home, then why the jet stunt landing, the speech that was carried live by all the major networks, and the banner purposefully positioned to be in every shot? There was no political agenda there for the Bush administration? Do you really want to argue that? Or would you rather just admit that you were wrong, again, about pretty much everything? You argued Bush never used Iraq as a political tool, which is the notion I'm shooting down, and now you're saying that him wanting to benefit politically from it is "f'ing irrelevant"? In other words, your statement was shown to be wrong but instead of admitting it, you completely invent a scenario in which you argue an imaginary point. Ass. Hat. See? Inventing a scenario that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing, then distorting it to a point where it seems to fit your argument. But it doesn't. Because you're an asshat who can't tell his elbow from his !@#$.

Nailed it, Jauranimo.

Wow. Now you're backpedaling on your backpedaling and you're not even getting that right. I never said it was his entire second term agenda, you did. By the way, you can always tell what **** you make up in your posts because you always follow it up with an emoticon. It's the worst tell I've ever seen. What you originally said was: When in fact Bush did try to use Iraq as a political tool, May 1st 2003 specifically. Just because Bush's Mission Accomplished speech was proven to be a failure for him politically, does not mean that the entire event wasn't originally designed to be a political tool by the administration. You don't land a jet on an aircraft carrier, assemble the entire press pool, deliver a speech carried by all the networks in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" by accident. You are wrong. Again. And again you prove yourself to be an asshat. It takes big balls for someone to call someone else an idiot when they can't spell simple words like 'benefit'.

He is on an epic roll of idiocy. It's become embarrassing for him. Expect OC to go into hiding in 3, 2, 1....

The unmitigated moron is the one who claims a commander in chief landing a jet on an aircraft carrier, delivering a speech in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" is anything BUT a political tool. You know nothing.

Beantown. Frank. Frank and beans. How to prepare meat. It's not that far of a leap.

I'm rooting for Malcom or Cochran to win it -- but Malcom, Eddie and Reynolds aren't out of the woods yet. All three are huge physical threats, they're still out numbered and there's only one immunity necklace to go around (not counting the possible 2 idols that could be back in play). Reynolds is gone the first chance they get, dude is an unreal athlete compared to everyone else. Malcom is one of the best athletes to play the game but I have to think Reynolds had a huge edge coming in fresh whereas Malcom went right from his last survivor experience with little time to recover or get back in physical shape.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Bush never used Iraq as a political tool. You are an asshat.

That's one interpretation of it. It's wrong, but I guess it's on par with the rest of your reasoning. Oops. Those weren't my words. Ever. Nor were they my intent but I'm the one backing away from being stupid? That's more hilarious than you claiming over and over again how wrong Nate Silver was. Maybe if you break it down in a pie chart you can explain it better. If you're going to be an asshat at least be an honest asshat. I'm not telling you those things three pages later, I said them up front. Which is the point. You're wrong. Again. Over and over in this thread and in life. You're horrible at this. If your point was to show what a ginormous toolbag you are and how completely disingenuous you are then yes, yes you did meet your objective quite successfully. Backpedaling is what you're doing. You got eviscerated in this thread and are still digging a hole.

Money.

Without question.

Clearly, you don't have any feelings at all about the matter.

How many on the right use the same logic to defend against gay marriage? "if we let them get married then what about a guy marrying his horse or dog?"