We Come In Peace
-
Posts
807 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by We Come In Peace
-
-
Yeah. Even the serious threads I start, are about me being right. They never contain any ?s only
sYet, 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.
-
Ahem (coughing loud enough to get local attention, but not loud enough to distract the entire room)
In whisper voice: The topic at hand is in fact Obama's gun control failure and why it failed. I mean...the title of the thread has "Kitchen Utensils" in it. (giggle)
Now, by all means, carry on...
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.
-
Hehehee....yeah, that's what's happened.
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.
-
Yeah...somebody posted a mirror for you( and is pissing me off by doing that btw, so cut it out you are going to ruin it), but I am the one who is in "too deep".
You don't think....there's anything to what I've posted and how...over the last .5 hour?
Considering you got your ass handed to you in pretty much every thread today, you're talking a lot of smack.
-
(Psst. The topic IS the reason why Obama's gun control gambit failed.)
Ok, now you can go back to operating per normal.
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.
-
Hey, don't ruin it.
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.
-
Is there a word for beyond ironic ? ?
Here you go WCIP.............
I always admit when I'm wrong. And I hardly, if ever, write anything that's incoherent.
-
What was the purpose for the event? Was Bush sitting at his desk? Was he raising money? What was he doing there? As I specifically said, of course there was politicization of it, or stupidity or both.
Actually, you didn't. What you said was:
He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool.
But on May 1st, 2003 he certainly DID use Iraq as a political tool. And that's just one example.
But, why was he there?
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?
I'd love to see you try to identify the root cause of "why did the Democrats get their ass kicked in 2010". I imagine you'd end up with: "because Republicans lied".
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.
Really? You really don't see the difference. I "invented" Obama's 2014 strategy now?
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.
Yes, I will remember that it was I who invented the fundraising, the sequester-fail, and of course, I made the Senate Democrats vote against the gun control bill.
Dig, dig, dig, maybe one day you'll emerge back on topic.
This is really hilarious now.
It is. But everyone is laughing AT you.
-
You just don't get it at all. Edit: see my edit above.
Simply stated: you don't act like that much of a tool around here. So, I have less to work with. The amount of bad behavior is directly porportional to not only what I say, but most definitely, how I say it, length of post, and absolutely the tone in which I say it.
But keep talking smack...I'm sure I will find something to use eventually. And, do you really think I give a crap about the cooking thing? Jesus...are you going to tell me that you can't interpret the emoticons now....because I use too many of them?
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.
-
They guy was trying to welcome troops home. That is why he was there.
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?
That was the "event". If somebody either
1. didn't realize that saying mission accomplished would be extrapolated by the craven
2. wanted to try and benefit poltiically from it
is f'ing irrelevant, because Bush didn't go to the event for the single purpose of making Democrats lose elections.
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.
Obama's Gun control, sequester approach, ALL OF IT, AND WHY HE IS DOING IT...is for political gain. There is no other objective. The only reason he is pushing on these various issues is to try and put House Republicans in a tough spot, and hope he can gain from that. The reason is: to make Republicans lose elections.
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 !@#$.
-
You clearly don't know him very well. Expect the longest, most self-serving, emoticon record setting post in PPP history in 3, 2, 1
Sorry to disappoint.
You clearly don't know me either. You have no idea, in fact. I suppose I could troll the hell out of you for the next 2 weeks, and you'd think it was about what I was saying, and not because I was just F'ing with you. Edit oh, and for clarity: using what you post, and more importantly how you post it...as the template. You haven't picked up that when I post long...it's in response to long posters...when I am self-serving, it is in repsonse to the most self-serving posters? Really?
Nailed it, Jauranimo.
-
So yes, you don't see the difference. That's hilarious. You think a single, clearly F'ed up event = a President's entire 2nd term agenda, and an entire election strategy
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:
He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool.
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.
But, for me? I've already seen the beneft of your idiocy.
It takes big balls for someone to call someone else an idiot when they can't spell simple words like 'benefit'.
-
-
So you disagree with my argument that objects are morally neutral, and the difference between kitchen utensils and guns is not one of moral relativism. And you disagree with me by pointing out that we should put no focus on the object itself but the use, which is exactly what I just said. And you proceed to call the absolute lack of any moral criteria inherent in an object "moral relativism".
And thus having completely misunderstood the term "moral relativism," and disagreed with me by agreeing with me, you think I'M the idiot? Are you high?
He is on an epic roll of idiocy. It's become embarrassing for him.
Expect OC to go into hiding in 3, 2, 1....
-
So...you really don't understand the concept of a "political tool", do you? The above? That's not a political tool. That's a guy who was trying to do one thing = congratulate homecoming sailors, and albeit stupidly, him or more likely his staff, not realizing the larger political ramifications of what he was doing, or that saying "mission accomplished" for a ship...would be crassly distorted into "mission accomplished" in general, by a bunch of tools.
Bush walked into it. That is the opposite of a "tool" that you set up and use against other people. You
In contrast, Obama's ENTIRE agenda is the 2014 elections, and, since it is an "agenda" it involves all sorts of activities...and not a single speech. The agenda is to force votes and the hope is to gain politically from that.
How is the above even remotely similar to that? Which Democrat(s) was targeted to lose his seat, as a result of the above.
Such an unmitigated moron.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.
-
Only here can a thread about Barney Frank and the Boston bombing turn into an argument of braising vs smoking.
Beantown. Frank. Frank and beans. How to prepare meat.
It's not that far of a leap.
-
Thank god that POS Phillip is gone. He was horrible. I literally just started watching within the last 2 years because if my fiancé an I can say I hated this guy more than anyone on this show. Was nice watching him lose control of the group at the end. Malcolm and th other tall dude are the new ring leaders now and will take the other guy and probably his little blonde girlfriend with then all the way to the end where she is systematically removed. And I think Malcolm wins it all because of the move he pulled last week by stealing an idol when he already had one. Well played by him dumb on the other guy. If it comes down to them at the end, that's what wins it IMO. Well played move.
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.
-
Bush wasn't trying to play political games with most of his issues. He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Yeah, Bush never used Iraq as a political tool.
You are an asshat.
-
I would second this. B/c it wasn't just this thread...it was a summer of lunatic posts all 1000 words long about how stupid everybody was and how smart he was. About how he "looked at the data" and he "knows how to do that" and we should pat attention to him b/c it's clear somehow that the GOP angle on the polling is right. So we should pin it. Do it mods.It's not even partisan. Romney supporters on this board didn't go nuts in mass about things like "polls"...OC did. And it was hilarious.
-
Soo...all of that...and you still won't admit that you got caught being stupid initially? Please.
That's one interpretation of it. It's wrong, but I guess it's on par with the rest of your reasoning.
Your entire premise is: if they were married, then this wouldn't be happening. Those are your words. 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.
Now 3, 2, 1 pages later you are telling us "oh I know that all of those thigns could be true as well". Yeah, that's not what you said to begin with.
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.
I am done with this. My point has been made, you are backpedaling now(as evidence by tiresome word parsing), and therefore my objective has been met.
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.
you are backpedaling now(as evidence by tiresome word parsing), and therefore my objective has been met.
Backpedaling is what you're doing. You got eviscerated in this thread and are still digging a hole.
-
I have a question: why?
Money.
-
Seems like Barry did a good job of that.
Without question.
-
Damn you're big on this gay thing. Just do it. I don't care.
Clearly, you don't have any feelings at all about the matter.
-
Oh Jesus Christ the old if we let them have guns does that mean tanks should be legal argument. I know you're smart enough to see through that logic yet you still use it.
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?"
Kitchen utensils kill people
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
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.