Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -O'Brien
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. -Leno
Q: What's t
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners. -Letterman
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America ! -Fallon
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. -Kimmel
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" progr
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. -Letterman
Keep smiling...we can ALL use a laugh these days...Z
xx
110 comments:
I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
-- Adlai Stevenson
"Both President Obama and Dick Cheney will give competing speeches tomorrow on national security and terrorism. It's kind of like 'American Idol' except one of them got voted off months ago." --Jimmy Fallon
"But the speech went over pretty well. I mean, Cheney was interrupted five times by applause and 50 times by people screaming, 'Stop! I'll tell you everything! What do you want to know? Just stop, please! Don't go on!'" --David Letterman
"In competing speeches today, President Obama said the U.S. went off course with practices like waterboarding. Cheney retaliated by saying he doesn't regret any of the decisions he made, and if he had to do it all over again, he would order President Bush to do exactly the same thing. And then he ate a baby." --Jimmy Kimmel
"Dick Cheney, the former vice president, said that President Obama went too far with the jokes at the correspondents' dinner. By too far, does Cheney mean like waterboarding a guy 183 times?" --David Letterman
"The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to carry guns...When the decision was read, it created pandemonium in the court. Justice Scalia had to fire two warning shots to settle people down. And then at the White House, just for fun, Dick Cheney went out on the lawn and peppered a buddy with some birdshot." –David Letterman
"Are you folks worried about the economy? Stock market crumbling. Everybody's crazy about this. Don't worry. George W. Bush says he's got something in mind to give it a shot in the arm. And if that doesn't work, Cheney is going to give it a shot in the face." --David Letterman
Hey. Does that photo of BHO remind you of the donkey in Schrek?
Psi, the real success of comedy is that there is often truth in it. Take this for example:
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -O'Brien
Explain how this is not real close to the truth.
Death panel? I was told by our Dear Leader that they are no such things! Humm....... Low income, uninsured and homeless will just HAVE to die... there will be NO MEDICAL TREATMENT for YOU!
They're good jokes but I tried posting them at a liberal site and was told they're falsely attributed to those comedians. I then looked up the jokes at Google and found them at a number of sites not attributed to anyone. I didn't find a discussion of the false attribution on my brief look-through, but you might want to see what's out there on that. In any case it appears at this point that those comedians didn't come up with those jokes.
Thanks for the laughs, Z. We need to laugh or we will cry, and crying messes up the makeup!
Maybe that is why Pelosi never cries.
Z, these are funny!
I guess the comics decided there's too much good material from the WH to ignore, and to heck with political loyalty.
After all, business is business, and low poll nos. are low poll nos.
I especially like the first one from Leno. Did he really say that?
Go Jay!
They better watch out, there may be a Fairness Doctrine for late nite comics or a dead fish from Rahm Emanuel. Too funny!
Pris
Faith, I'm not sure anybody can tell what joke comes from whom...they slip them in so fast during a routineI can't imagine every one's recorded.
And, it's the joke I was presenting and don't really care who said them!
The Left has to nag on attribution because it's typical of their "Kill the messenger" If they don't like a fact from the Right from someone like Coulter, they'll rag on her persona because they can't attack the fact.
If they're offended by a joke, they'll say OUR SIDE DIDN'T SAY THAT!! We know they have no humor.
Typical, but who cares, really? :-)
These were all so funny and I mean them in a humorous vain so we can all cheer up a bit as our country's sliding into the unrecoverable abyss with Obama......so, please let's just 'stay here' with the jokes; we need them!
I have a wonderful video coming up this afternoon, another nonpolitical, nondisgusting, nonfrightening piece to cheer us up with. Oh, except for the lefties, it's pretty patriotic, that's scary.
Well, Z, it didn't take long for the Obamazombies to show up... The same ones that called Bush everything but a white man.
What, no satire allowed now that a Dem is in office?
I thought they were very funny. :)
I really do not care who they are attributed to, they ring so much truth that they are almost not funny. Posted them on my blog last week.
I think G we must really think alike:)
I think my favorite is the one, if O and P were in a sinking boat, who would be saved? (Paraphrased)
They're funny of course but our left-wing comedians said them? That's a hopeful sign.
Gramma....AMERICA, right?:-)
What do you get when you cross Obama with an argument against his health care plan?
A accusation of racism.
---
Why does Obama stash $48 in each tire of the presidential limo?
Because it says "inflate to 32 pounds."
---
Why doesn't Barack Obama wear an American flag lapel pin?
So Bill Ayers doesn't stomp on him and set him on fire.
---
Why does Obama keep Liquid Paper in the White House rest room?
To leave notes for the Liquid Plumber.
---
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
That's three jokes in one, y'all.
Great Jokes - we needed a chuckle today!
Chuck: Psi, the real success of comedy is that there is often truth in it. Take this for example:
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -O'Brien
Explain how this is not real close to the truth.
There is never anyone behind me paying for my meal, Chuck. Could I be in the wrong line? Or is this an appealing rightwing exaggeration?
It may be that your sense of humor, such as it is, is not bipartisan. All of the jokes I cited had a basis in truth. Here’s another one:
"Dick Cheney was on the news this week, and he said that it would be a mistake for the Republicans to moderate their policies. He said they should remain true to their core principles: gay bashing, war profiteering and torture." --Bill Maher
Here are a couple more to try on for laughs, Chuck:
"George W. Bush, who was our president before Barack Obama, recently signed a deal to write a book for $7 million. In the book, Bush will discuss his 12 toughest decisions, like 'should I heed Al Roker's warnings about Katrina?' That would be one tough decision. 'Should I let Cheney carry a loaded shotgun?' That would be another." --David Letterman
"President Barack Obama has also signed an executive order officially banning torture in the United States. There goes Dick Cheney's retirement, huh? What is he supposed to do now?" --Jay Leno
"There is never anyone behind me paying for my meal, Chuck"
Apparently you don't live in CA, the beacon of leftist ideas and free money for people sitting at home. Isn't your beloved Pelosi from here?
Thanks for the grins.
psi bond: "There is never anyone behind me paying for my meal, Chuck".
Frog: Apparently you don't live in CA, the beacon of leftist ideas and free money for people sitting at home. Isn't your beloved Pelosi from here?
So someone behind you is paying for your meals, Frog? Obama did that for you? Well, it’s not happening where I live, is all I'm saying.
Thanks for the grins.
You’re welcome, cube.
"So someone behind you is paying for your meals, Frog? Obama did that for you? Well, it’s not happening where I live, is all I'm saying."
Psi are you a dumb ass? People like Obama and you, and their ideology, lead us to failure. Get it?
psi bond: "So someone behind you is paying for your meals, Frog? Obama did that for you? Well, it’s not happening where I live, is all I'm saying."
Frog: Psi are you a dumb ass? People like Obama and you, and their ideology, lead us to failure. Get it?
I know you’re not making a joke, Frog, but that’s a self-serving self-unnerving apocalyptic rightwing opinion.
The only time someone was paying for my meals was when I served this country in the U.S. Army.
Get it, Frog?
I'd like to thank PsiBond for the laughs as well. Without his tireless efforts, Z's blog would be absent one living breathing example of leftist imbecility on rampant display.
It’s funny, but I honestly and really did suspect beamish would snap at the baited line I laid out for him above.
I’d like to thank beamish for extravagantly embodying for real on Z’s blog the obsessed, single-minded demonizer of liberals known mostly from silly comic books and dark tyrannical regimes.
"I know you’re not making a joke, Frog, but that’s a self-serving self-unnerving apocalyptic rightwing opinion."
It's not an opinion. It's a F-A-C-T. Look at stats across Europe and democratic states like Michigan, California, etc...
psi bond: "I know you’re not making a joke, Frog, but that’s a self-serving self-unnerving apocalyptic rightwing opinion."
Frog: It's not an opinion. It's a F-A-C-T. Look at stats across Europe and democratic states like Michigan, California, etc...
It’s your mistaken opinion, Frog, that it’s a “F-A-C-T”.
First, economic conditions in Europe are not Obama’s doing.
Second, stats are snapshots of fluctuating conditions, not conclusions of direction in and of themselves
Third, an analysis of stats is dependent on their trustworthiness and comprehensiveness and the analyst’s assumptions and opinions.
Fourth, no stats can prove the point in question — that someone is behind me paying for my meals.
Get it, Frog?
"First, economic conditions in Europe are not Obama’s doing."
Did I say that? Like any good lefty, you are intellectually dishonest and are putting words into my mouth.
"Second, stats are snapshots of fluctuating conditions, not conclusions of direction in and of themselves"
That's right. An average between 8-10% of unemployment in my native land since 1976 is a snapshot. You need to go back to school. Another lefty way of dismissing F-A-C-T-S.
"Fourth, no stats can prove the point in question — that someone is behind me paying for my meal"
Did I say someone was paying for your meal? I am paying for a lot of people's meals in CA. Not yours. But with 35% of welfare cases in CA, I'm paying for those people. And that's the results of lefty policies.
So you're another moron. Get it?
It's true PsiBond. You have mind control over me. I'm already considering a lobotomy to facilitate my conversion to leftism.
beamish: It's true PsiBond. You have mind control over me.
No, it’s not mind control, beamish — it’s only your predictability.
I'm already considering a lobotomy to facilitate my conversion to leftism.
Please don't, beamish — you're a priceless asset to liberals such as you are.
Besides, a lobotomy would just make you an ideal Fox News viewer.
"First, economic conditions in Europe are not Obama’s doing."
Frog: Did I say that? Like any good lefty, you are intellectually dishonest and are putting words into my mouth.
You declared it was your view that people like Obama and me are leading us to failure, then you bring up stats in Europe, as if they were somehow germane to your opinion.
Proclaiming specious broad generalizations about the left seems to be your modus operandi.
"Second, stats are snapshots of fluctuating conditions, not conclusions of direction in and of themselves"
That's right. An average between 8-10% of unemployment in my native land since 1976 is a snapshot. You need to go back to school. Another lefty way of dismissing F-A-C-T-S.
An average of stats is not a snapshot. To continue with the photography metaphor, an average is more like a time exposure — it will blur the details of movement. An average of unemployment stats over a long period of time, like the 34 years since 1976, indicates little or nothing about highs and lows and plateaus and their duration.
Interpretations of purported F-A-C-T-S are not themselves F-A-C-T-S.
[Third, an analysis of stats is dependent on their trustworthiness and comprehensiveness and the analyst’s assumptions and opinions.]
Apparently, an average between 8-10% of unemployment in your anonymous “native land” since 1976, is sufficient indication of “failure”, according to the assumptions and opinions and a definition of the term that you adhere to. Other stats may lead to different conclusions, and they cannot necessarily be assumed to be applicable to America.
(In my humble opinion, it is a hopeful sign, that, while the U.S. voted down a comparable atom smasher as unaffordable, Europe has pumped in billions of dollars over the last fifteen years to build the Large Hadron Collider, which is poised to conduct experiments that are expected to reveal much about the nature of the universe.)
"Fourth, no stats can prove the point in question — that someone is behind me paying for my meal"
Did I say someone was paying for your meal? I am paying for a lot of people's meals in CA. Not yours. But with 35% of welfare cases in CA, I'm paying for those people. And that's the results of lefty policies.
I’m aware that many rightwingers don’t believe in supporting the deserving poor or even the unemployed looking for work, but the issue that you joined in disputing was whether someone was paying for my meals — and vigorous discussion of sundry other issues, as you have done here, is just disingenuous changing of the subject.
So you're another moron. Get it?
So you have proven nothing, Frog. Get it?
Psi Bond, no offense, but you disgust me and that's why I rarely respond anymore...there's no humanity, no shred of kindness in any of your comments and so you're easier to avoid and I'm pleased to do so.
But, when you say "I’m aware that many rightwingers don’t believe in supporting the deserving poor or even the unemployed looking for work," it's clear you follow the Olbermann school of leftwing stupidity and unthinkingness that I couldn't sit by for anymore.
You are quite a person, psi bond.
Sometimes, I actually think you have some intelligence, and are just deeply misled and ideological, and then you go to this kind of remark while slamming FrogBurger with this?....."Proclaiming specious broad generalizations about the left seems to be your modus operandi." Hilarious.
I don't read your comments anymore but decided to see what's going on that's keeping this thread alive so many days after publication and it was well worth it!!
psiko psiko psiko bonG
I said "Look at stats across Europe and democratic states like Michigan, California, etc..."
Where do you see I mention a direct cause-effect relationship between Obama and Europe? You're either an intellectually dishonest little fascistic mind or plain dumb. I opt for the first one.
What I am saying is that overall lefty policies lead to failure. They have in Europe and Obama is doing the same while hoping to get different results.
"An average of stats is not a snapshot. To continue with the photography metaphor, an average is more like a time exposure — it will blur the details of movement. An average of unemployment stats over a long period of time, like the 34 years since 1976, indicates little or nothing about highs and lows and plateaus and their duration."
You're right. But look at the the trends. Check this chart out Mr. Dumbass.
What happens in 1976 in France (centrist government)? Social programs are drastically increased to counteract the oil crisis. 1981, Mitterrand, socialist, gets elected. Unemployement goes up crazy. 1986, cohabitation with Chirac and Raymond Barre as the Finance minister (center right). Unemployement goes down mostly thanks to Barre. And through some miracle, unemployement has been going down under Sarkozy.
"I’m aware that many rightwingers don’t believe in supporting the deserving poor or even the unemployed looking for work"
Oversimplifying to prove your point since your intellect is WEAK. As someone who spent 3 years, his time, and moeny, as a big brother for a disenfranchised child, I am allowed to respond to your accusation by a big: FUCK YOU.
In my humble opinion, attacking the intelligence of a political opponent is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
Don't worry, Z, I am not offended by your abundance of ad hominem unkind remarks.
I realize that's the best you can do, and that you cannot help feeling that folks who don’t believe as you do are misled and — unlike you — are ideological.
Knowing you will always feel that way, I get more intellectual stimulation from discussions with other rightwingers here, and helping to correct where possible their misperceptions if any.
Frog: psiko psiko psiko bonG
Try harder to make sense, Frog.
I said "Look at stats across Europe and democratic states like Michigan, California, etc..."
Where do you see I mention a direct cause-effect relationship between Obama and Europe? You're either an intellectually dishonest little fascistic mind or plain dumb. I opt for the first one.
Where do you see, Frog, that I mentioned that you claimed a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Many rightwingers, however, do argue furiously as if there were one or a straightforward comparison. And, of course, rational people tend to think that if you mention Obama and Europe together in an argument, an important relationship is suggested.
What I am saying is that overall lefty policies lead to failure. They have in Europe and Obama is doing the same while hoping to get different results.
Arguing from broad fuzzy generalizations about a class of people leads to failure.
I don't believe that Obama is doing exactly the same, as you say. That is a convenient oversimplification that is unlikely to be true
"An average of stats is not a snapshot. To continue with the photography metaphor, an average is more like a time exposure — it will blur the details of movement. An average of unemployment stats over a long period of time, like the 34 years since 1976, indicates little or nothing about highs and lows and plateaus and their duration."
You're right. But look at the the trends. Check this chart out Mr. Dumbass.
What happens in 1976 in France (centrist government)? Social programs are drastically increased to counteract the oil crisis. 1981, Mitterrand, socialist, gets elected. Unemployement goes up crazy. 1986, cohabitation with Chirac and Raymond Barre as the Finance minister (center right). Unemployement goes down mostly thanks to Barre. And through some miracle, unemployement has been going down under Sarkozy.
I haven’t looked at the Mr. Dumbass chart-out to which you refer, but I doubt that all the simplified relationships you liberally mix together here are direct cause-and-effect relationships, as you seem to pretend. What if anything they imply about the Obama administration remains unclear.
"I’m aware that many rightwingers don’t believe in supporting the deserving poor or even the unemployed looking for work"
Oversimplifying to prove your point since your intellect is WEAK. As someone who spent 3 years, his time, and moeny, as a big brother for a disenfranchised child, I am allowed to respond to your accusation by a big: FUCK YOU.
It’s not an oversimplification, but a personal observation confirmed over many years.
There is plenty of evidence available online and on this blog for this point that irks you and Z. But it is not meant personally, as you seem to interpret it in your response. I wish there were ideologically nonpartisan big brothers like you for everyone in need of one, but I fear this is not so and that a lot more than that is needed on the national scale. I am afraid, too, that big brothers don't have deep enough pockets for the disenfranchised children and older folks as well as for their own deserving families.
Bless you, Frog!
Psi Bond...this was exactly my complaint about you; I'm glad you were able to regurgitate it.
"I realize that's the best you can do, and that you cannot help feeling that folks who don’t believe as you do are misled and — unlike you — are ideological."
The problem is that you can see I have others who disagree here and we have some quite good chats back and forth. With you, it's never that way. I'd guess that's your problem. And, I'd be right because I've been around you for long enough to know you never change...just keep being ugly.
I'm very sorry for you.
And leave it to you to argue with someone who really knows personally about a situation, like FrogBurger...that's rich, psi bond.
Z: Psi Bond...this was exactly my complaint about you; I'm glad you were able to regurgitate it.
What is your complaint about me, Z? Why don’t you regurgitate the context? My complaint here is that your context-free response is needlessly obscure.
psi bond: "I realize that's the best you can do, and that you cannot help feeling that folks who don’t believe as you do are misled and — unlike you — are ideological."
I am “ideological” and you are not — as you would say, Z, that's rich. Misled by their solipsism. the self-righteous ones come and go.
The problem is that you can see I have others who disagree here and we have some quite good chats back and forth. With you, it's never that way. I'd guess that's your problem..
I would guess, Z, that it's your peculiar individual reaction to me that’s the problem here. Rightwingers tend to get angry with my liberal views, and you get disagreeable and ugly in an ad hominem way — like, to hear you tell it, I had no redeeming human qualities: That unsavory sort of conduct cannot lead to a good chat. My suggestion to you, Z, is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or don't read my comments anymore.
Frankly, I'm disgusted with having little chats with you about my alleged personal inadequacies and supposed lack of humanity. I'd rather talk to other people here.
And, I'd be right because I've been around you for long enough to know you never change...just keep being ugly.
Right, I keep on trying to discuss ideas and issues and,unfailingly, you keep right on pulling it all down to an insulting personal level, attacking my intelligence, my decency, and other personal qualities.
I'm very sorry for you.
I’m sorry you cannot respond to my sincere efforts at intellectual discussion with rational rather than hostile uncalled-for personal remarks.
And leave it to you to argue with someone who really knows personally about a situation, like FrogBurger...that's rich, psi bond.
So, Frog is a qualified expert concerning who pays for my meals? That's rich, Z.
He inadvertently gives evidence that making necessary distinctions between actual facts and radically partisan judgments is a problem for him. Perhaps, some part of your difficulty with me is that I do not share your inflated opinion about who is an impeccable pundit on whether this our country is failing.
The U.S. is on the verge of a demographic, economic and social revival, built on its historic strengths.
— David Brooks, April 6, 2010
I find it hilarious that PsiBond rolls up his sleeves for a ::cough cough:: "sincere effort at intellectual discussion" in a thread about jokes, defending in his usual pedantic way his imbecilic back and forths with Frogburger.
Stand up PsiBond, before you suffocate.
I find it hilarious that PsiBond rolls up his sleeves for a ::cough cough:: "sincere effort at intellectual discussion" in a thread about jokes [it is more than meets your I], defending in his usual pedantic way his imbecilic back and forths with Frogburger.
I expected that the phrase you quote, beamish, would extract from you, being you, a sanctimoniously outraged response, as it has in the past.
Contrary to misguided reports, Frog is not God.
Please, beamish, sit down, so I can stop laughing.
PsiBond,
Nobody is claiming nor has ever claimed "Frogburger is God."
There are no such "reports," misguided or otherwise to be contrary about, though I understand that your leftism ideologically requires that you target, isolate, and destroy any viscious rumors that you might conceal a capacity for rational thought, even pre-emptively before such a ludicrous smear upon you occurs.
Stand all the way up, PsiBond. Your rectal cavity is still blindfolding you.
beamish, apocryphal reports come to light here now and then that Frog really knows about things.
No one wants to be blasphemous, but there are folks who carry on as if Frog were God, not meaning it literally, of course, but giving the vigorous impression that daring to disagree and argue with his misrepresentations is sacrilegious, even acting extravagantly S hocked — Shocked that any mortal should do so.
Frog is not the messiah.
Don't suffocate in your gauchely muted vulgarity, beamish; liberals need you to be what you are.
Of course leftists / "liberals" need me to be what I am. If there were no intelligent people walking the earth, leftists / "liberals" would have no opposites to distinguish themselves from with vigorous pedantic imbecility.
Maybe you do hallucinate that Frogburger is considered God by people who have a very firm, experiential grasp on the fact that you're a twit.
Maybe you even believe Cube was thanking you personally for making her grin.
Regardless, it's very apparent that your leftism ideologically drives you to dispel any notions that you're capable of intellectual discussion. You certainly seem to have a vested interest in convincing people that you are an imbecile. Even when you've succeeded, you keep trying.
beamish: Maybe you even believe Cube was thanking you personally for making her grin.
You’re kidding me, but it is not entirely impossible you seriously believe that.
No one has said he is, but Frog is not qualified to be president of the U.S.
I just said it above — and I’ll say this, too: I don’t believe America is failing or in decline because homosexuals are not jailed or stoned for their sexual orientation, or because the working poor are given affordable access to quality health care by a congressional act.
Maybe you do hallucinate that Frogburger is considered God by people who have a very firm, experiential grasp on the fact that you're a twit.
No, people here believe God is an American native-born.
It is true that liberals need extreme rightwing ideologues that are solipsistically persuaded that they alone are “intelligent”. For liberals advocating tolerance require a pre-existing opposite to give meaning to their cause, i.e., people — like you — who, to promote useful intolerance, rely on the political abuse of a concept, imprecise in popular usage, such as “intelligence”, to rebuild barriers of exclusiveness.
Twitter as you will, beamish, but your Olympian judgments of who is or is not “intelligent”, though full of drive and fury, signify nothing.
I suspect you are acutely aware of that — hence your inexorable urge to bark fiercely as if it were not true.
Thank you, beamish, for being what you are.
Z does it, too, but you stand out.
Thank you, again.
Wind 'em up and watch them go.
"I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?"
PsiBond truly is a disciple of the Pee Wee Herman School.
Remember, folks, PsiBond's here for intellectual discussion, bwhahahahaha.
Go find your bike, PsiBond Alinsky
Thank you, beamish.
You embody and confirm what I've previously said. In the absence of coherent opposing ideas, you vilify the messenger and regress to childish behavior, as if only you know what is right and what is true.
In repeating your juvenalia, beamish, you betray yourself.
If you truly were interested in an intellectually honest and respectful discussion, you wouldn't dispute and nitpick obvious things like the fact that you're a moron.
If you were intellectually inclined and honest, beamish, rather than radically partisan, you would freely admit that your statement above is indefensible childish nonsense.
Calling you a moron is defensible in the light of every post you make, PsiBond. You take the ubiquitous leftist trait of abundant imbecility and parade it everywhere you go.
Maybe it's a further stock of evidence of your stupidity that you take my insightful words as insult.
Rest assured, if I were calling your mother a rat-faced whore, that would be "indefensible childish nonsense" that I could freely admit to have engaged in.
But, I'm simply asking you to give a sign that you're willing to discuss honestly by ceasing your own absurd objections to the readily demonstrated fact that you're a blithering idiot.
I mean, you blither, and you're an idiot, so what's the problem here?
beamish: Rest assured, if I were calling your mother a rat-faced whore, that would be "indefensible childish nonsense" that I could freely admit to have engaged in.
Rest assured, had I accused your mother, beamish, of being little more than a rat-faced whore,
I would be fully aware it’s a grownup’s insult, and would freely admit that that is so.
The problem, beamish, is that your opinion concerning what you are conceptualizing as the “intelligence” of myself and that of all “leftists” — something you frantically politicize and which you are evidently enthusiastic in blathering about at any length — is just your personal childlike judgment. In strictly objective terms, it is indefensible, and it signifies nothing but your extreme rightwing zealotry and totalitarian proclivities for creating categories to justify intolerance.
beamish: Intolerance?
Intolerance is a form of egoism.
I tolerate your stupidity just as much as you do [mine?]. I'm merely honest enough to point it out.
You are not honest since you refuse to admit that your blanket assertion that "leftists" are idiots is just extreme intolerance.
In fact, when I need an example of stupidity to point out, you faithfully deliver and I truly appreciate it.
By doing so, you unwittingly underscore your fanaticism.
I'm always quick to point out to people that you're incapable of rational thought when they foolishly expect it of you.
I always point out to people that those who think "leftists" are incapable of rational thought are prey to a totalitarian mode of thought.
Intolerance? Hell, I'm in your corner and you don't even realize it, PsiBond.
Blithely denying the acute intolerance you have of "leftists", you don't realize how foolish you appear, beamish.
Lots of progress in discussions here could be made if people would just accept your efforts to convince them that you're an imbecile.
No progress at all can be made toward intelligent discussion with persons like you who irrationally believe all "leftists” are imbeciles, thereby effortlessly proving themselves intolerant.
Why is it even disputable that all leftists are imbeciles? All of them, including you PsiBond, complicate the lack of capacity for rational thought with a distinct lack of reading comprehension skills.
Take for example the word "tolerance." One can tolerate a differing or opposite view on a subject without adopting or subscribing to the veracity of that differing or opposite view.
I tolerate leftist political and philosophical imbecility because there is no substance to the myth that leftists are actually capable of rational thought.
I don't like crab meat, but I don't mind that Chinese restaurants serve it. I tolerate Chinese restaurants serving crab.
I'm very tolerant, in the correct usage of the term.
There is nothing "totalitarian" about liberating the correct usage of words from the stupid.
Why is it even disputable that all leftists are imbeciles? All of them, including you PsiBond, complicate the lack of capacity for rational thought with a distinct lack of reading comprehension skills.
To rational persons, it is a rationally indefensible proposition that “all leftists are imbeciles”. It’s like saying all adherents of Judaism are imbeciles. You have never proved that all leftists “complicate the lack of capacity for rational thought with a distinct lack of reading comprehension skills” — that is a blanket prejudice, not an independently verified observation.
Take for example the word "tolerance." One can tolerate a differing or opposite view on a subject without adopting or subscribing to the veracity of that differing or opposite view.
That much, of course, is true. However, one tolerates an opposing point of view by not vilifying or demonizing those who hold it. One recognizes that, although it is not what he believes, it is based on principles that are valid for the respectable people who do believe it.
I tolerate leftist political and philosophical imbecility because there is no substance to the myth that leftists are actually capable of rational thought.
That is not tolerance. One does not tolerate African-Americans if one believes, as many did in an earlier age, that they are all incapable of rational thought. One does not tolerate a philosophy if one aggressively promotes, like you, the canard that it has no rational content in any valid mode of thinking.
I don't like crab meat, but I don't mind that Chinese restaurants serve it. I tolerate Chinese restaurants serving crab.
But you haven’t called crabmeat eaters imbeciles — such hostility is what is understood to be intolerance.
I'm very tolerant, in the correct usage of the term.
You are an Orwellian misleading and confusing in your convenient redefinition of the term.
There is nothing "totalitarian" about liberating the correct usage of words from the stupid.
There is a lot that is totalitarian thinking about relentlessly demonizing all Americans who support liberal candidates and causes.
Do you believe the vote should be taken away from those whom you judge to be imbeciles by virtue of “leftist” leanings?
Do you believe those who are imbeciles in your judgment should be permitted to serve in Congress, the president’s cabinet, or the White House?
You have never proved that all leftists “complicate the lack of capacity for rational thought with a distinct lack of reading comprehension skills” — that is a blanket prejudice, not an independently verified observation.
That you're willing to suggest that my saying "all leftists are inbeciles" is equivalent to saying "adherents of Judaism are imbeciles" when there are both non-imbecilic Jews and non-leftist Jews shows adequately the extreme difficulty you have with linear logic and reading comprehension.
Building strawmen will not defeat the premise at hand. All leftists are imbeciles, as I've said.
The totalitarian thinking is yours, in believing the correct identification of leftists such as yourself as imbeciles is some sort of demonization or call to prevent you from participating in a democratic system, when that is the farthest thing from my mind.
Truthful identification of imbecility likely earns as many votes for imbeciles from imbeciles as it persuades imbeciles to not vote for an imbecile. I fail to see what dishonesty about leftist imbecility will gain beyond soothing the more over-sensitive imbeciles of the left, such as yourself.
Crying foul does nothing to reduce your imbecility either.
You have never proved that all leftists “complicate the lack of capacity for rational thought with a distinct lack of reading comprehension skills” — that is a blanket prejudice, not an inde/pendently verified observation.
That you're willing to suggest that my saying "all leftists are inbeciles" is equivalent to saying "adherents of Judaism are imbeciles" when there are both non-imbecilic Jews and non-leftist Jews shows adequately the extreme difficulty you have with linear logic and reading comprehension.
That there undoubtedly are non-imbecilic Jews serves to show the senselessness of imputing imbecility to a large group of diverse individuals, as you absurdly do.
Saying all adherents of leftism are imbeciles makes no more sense than saying all adherents of Judaism are imbeciles. Just as it is logically true there are Jews who are not imbeciles, so, there are leftists who are not imbeciles. Imbecility, defined psychologically rather than politically for partisan purposes, is an individual trait. Logically, it is not a trait that can be attributed to a person by virtue of his membership in some heterogeneous group.
The totalitarian thinking is yours, in believing the correct identification of leftists such as yourself as imbeciles is some sort of demonization or call to prevent you from participating in a democratic system, when that is the farthest thing from my mind.
Totalitarian thinking thrives on such exclusiveness as you promote.
If imbecility, hysterically redefined by you as a political trait, does not stigmatize a person in your mind and should not prevent him from fully participating in public life, why do you spend so much energy calling people imbeciles? If it has no effect on your respect for a person, why say it emphatically as you do? If crying imbecility does not disqualify one in your mind from holding public office, no more, say, than having blond hair — i.e., if you have no problem with “imbeciles” governing you — then what is your motive for making a big deal of it, I wonder?
Your bullying behavior here doesn’t bother me personally, but the young, who commit most of the hate crimes, should not be taught in the public schools that all leftists are imbeciles, that Jews are Christ killers, or similar incendiary smears — they should be taught tolerance.
Identifying imbecility is a service to the identified imbecile, who's leftist incapacity for rational thought and lack of reading comprehension skills may be hampering or preventing honest self-identification.
Which goes back to how this all started.
If you, PsiBond, were truly interested in honest intellectual discussion, you'd stop crying foul over being identified positively and indisputably as an imbecile, because you are an imbecile.
Hence, beamish, were I to declare that all rightwingers are callous-minded, it would be a public service for rightwingers. I would be enabling them to recognize that it is callousness to countenance or take part in making jokes or insults about Americans who die of treatable illnesses because the cost of treatment exceeds their income and their coverage has been denied or suspended. And it is a service to rightwingers to identify as a totalitarian strategy maniacal promotion of the opinion that all “leftists” are imbeciles, the intent of which is to eliminate “leftists” from serious public discourse.
No rational person accepts as true that all “leftists” are imbeciles. Anyone falling for that absurd proposition definitively eliminates himself from rational discourse and intellectual respect.
PsiBond,
Given that your participation in this thread serves as an example of leftist imbecility, it is you yourself that eliminates yourself from serious public discourse, if not your inherent imbecility.
You took the opportunity provided by a joke thread to attempt to engage in partisan rebuttal, and then after being easily overwhelmed by your intellectual betters here, you began sobbing that "Frogburger is not God" (because obviously only God can prove you're an idiot...)
Your inane, egotistic, pathetic imbecility is part of your charm, PsiBond. You make it inarguable that leftists are imbeciles.
I thank you again for it.
Given your endless whining, bullying, pleading, and wild misrepresentation of this thread, beamish, all in maniacal promotion of the illogical proposition with which you are obsessed, your claim to a rational person’s intellectual respect is indeed a joke.
As a matter of fact, I should thank you for vividly demonstrating how foolish a hard-core ideologue can actually be.
Ohhhh, my God! It just came to me via holysome e-mail: Frog IS God! In Frog we trust.
I’m OK now. Thank McFrog.
The thread is here for all to read.
Claiming that I have mischaracterized this thread when anyone with reading comprehension skills can read you whining that "Frogburger is not God" and hallucinating that anyone ever suggested that because you're unable to compete in an intellectual exchange, when there's in fact a far more logical explanation to why you always lose here at Z's. That explanation is that you're an imbecile.
That you can't even characterize this thread in a way that even resembles what anyone can clearly read here is just added evidence of your lack of reading comprehension skills. Coupled with your unhinged ravings about Frogburger not being God as if Godhood were necessary to showcase your intellectual inferiority even better than you do yourself merely highlights the two traits common to all leftists - irrationality and illiteracy.
You're a sport, PsiBond, for performing up to specifications.
I'm a good sport: If you stop telling lies about "leftists", beamish, I'll stop telling the truth about you.
Frog is not the messiah. He's a silly bully like you.
Ah yes, we naughty bullies, indulging morons just enough to make them frantically tick off personal affirmations and counting to ten and shit.
who stole your bike, PsiBond?
You shouldn’t talk like that, beamish, if you want to be taken seriously.
Only imbeciles feel "bullied" by people they don't take seriously.
Only imbeciles continue to reply to people they don't take seriously.
Again, I thank you PsiBond, for being such a nice lab rat.
Only bullies promote phony postulates.
I'm fairly convinced your imbecility is genuine, PsiBond.
I'm fairly convinced your imbecility is genuine, PsiBond.
Which is why I'm fairly convinced your self-deception is genuine, beamish.
If I'm decieved into believing you to be an imbecile, PsiBond, it is you who decieved me, and everyone else here at Z's.
I don't feel deceived. You've worked very hard to vanquish any notions that you might even be capable of intellect.
Your imbecility is genuine, PsiBond.
As your compulsive behavior illustrates here, BeaMish, those on the right who think in sync show a propensity for similar reinforcing self-deceptions, which they work very assiduously at propagating, like it’s holy gospel, to credulous folks.
Unwittingly, you have furnished ample documentation on this blog that you’re a genuinely silly bully, BeaMish.
Ah yes, I forgot. We're the dunces and you're the genius whom only God can challenge.
How bully of me to forget.
Hah! How embarrassing for you!
Your flawed reading comprehension skills deceive you. Never stooping to your level, BeAmish, I did not say what you try to insinuate I said. It is the unconscious sense of inferiority that a bully carries within him that is speaking to you, putting words in my mouth.
Anyone who is not just a relentless bully is welcome to challenge me on the issues of the day. Of course, I cannot dispute anything with God or other reticent folks who do not make their views known online.
It's quite clear that you opted for a "Frogburger is God" excuse for why he quite easily squashed you in debate over even a joke, rather than the far more obvious explanation that you're an imbecile, PsiBond. Frogburger really didn't do anything spectacular as even a bowl of oatmeal dwarves your intellectual skills.
The fact that you're disputing the clear evidence of your imbecility is itself further evidence of your imbecility.
Don't weep, PsiBond. Leftists like you are just ill-equipped to handle anything intellectually sharper than a bowling ball.
Let's go demonstrate your stupidity in a newer thread, shall we?
As for "subconscious sense of inferiority," no, I'm very conscious of the fact that you're intellectually inferior to most doorknobs. As with all leftists, you are absolutely, vehemently opposed to demonstrating possession of a capacity for rational thought. You won't let anyone presume you're intelligent long enough to regret being thoroughly mistaken about you.
You're dishonest as well. You claim to be seeking honest, respectful debate that doesn't devolve into false accusations and denials of truths, yet you won't admit or even acknowledge the well established fact that you're an imbecile, PsiBond.
I find your lack of seriousness to be a waste of time. It's like you're arguing that the sky is orange just to be contrary.
Man up. Let's start fresh with an honest perspective, that you're an imbecile. Like window licking moron dumb.
How can we debate any of the complex issues of the day when your awareness doesn't even extend to the fact that you're a blithering idiot?
Stop clowning around. Admit you're an imbecile so we can move on to more disputable matters.
Forget it, BeAmish; I have as much interest in an intellectual discussion with a dishonest relentless bully like you or Frog, as with a growling dog. Contrary to prevailing opinion here, Frog is not the Messiah; he likes to claim spurious cause-and-effect relationships where they cannot be straightforwardly demonstrated, and, like you, can only sustain an argument by means of bullying, cowardly, personal attacks. Unquestionably, you have knocked yourself out here, BeAmish, but you have proven not anything denigrating about my intelligence, but that the Internet helps armchair bullies find the courage to act out.
Can you read, BeAmish? It really seems not. Or else you are fond of drawing conclusions from nonsense you’ve made up.
I'm not the one hallucinating about "prevailing opinions" or pompously gauging that only a God or a Messiah can show you to be an imbecile, when even a mirror can do that.
I did not say "prevailing opinions", and I did not declare "only a God or a Messiah can show [me] to be an imbecile." You counterfeit facts shamelessly and hallucinate with them blissfully.
And now PsiBond denies his own posts, yet won't dismiss them as the obvious product of an imbecile that they are.
I'd ask "who's prevailing opinion are you contrary about," PsiBond, but you'd be just as dishonest about that as you've been about confessing your lack of intellectual capacity.
You're just not tall enough for this ride, kiddo.
I do not deny any post; show me where I said what you have assumed above I said.
The prevailing opinion expressed by Z is that it is unthinkable or perhaps unconscionable to contest Frog's pronouncements.
You just lack the honesty and human decency to be taken as a serious person, bully BeAmish.
Actually Z holds no such opinion, "prevailing" or otherwise, that Frogburger's views are uncontestable.
I'd say the only "prevailing opinion" around here is that you are an imbecile, an observation readily and easily demonstrated to be true every time you post, PsiBond.
Frogburger's points are not refuted because he's the Messiah. Frogburger's points are not refuted because no one possessing intellectual firepower has challenged them.
Again, a serious sign that you're willing to discuss honestly can be succintly advanced by your admission of imbecility.
BeAmish: Actually Z holds no such opinion, "prevailing" or otherwise, that Frogburger's views are uncontestable.
In Z’s post to me on April 7, 2010 8:42 AM, she said:
And leave it to you to argue with someone who really knows personally about a situation, like FrogBurger...that's rich, psi bond.
The insinuation in Z's words is that it is unthinkable to contest with Frog what I did. As if his word about a situation must be considered undeniable and indisputable, indeed comparable to the words of a messiah or of a god.
It is an insinuation you inadvertently confirm in the artless words of your last post, BeAmish:
Frogburger's points are not refuted because he's the Messiah.
By the way, you did not answer me concerning your previous insinuation, BeAmish — let me repeat for your benefit: I do not deny any post; show me where I said what you have assumed above I said.
I'll add, for gratuity's sake.
If we lived in a universe in which you were actually capable of rational thought, PsiBond, you might have responded to Frogburger or to Z that would have asked for further evidence of his assertions beyond the anecdotal. It wouldn't have bolstered your counter-argument much, but it would have gotten it a little further off the ground than your hot air.
But, we live in a universe where you are indisputably imbecilic.
BeAmish: I'm under no obligation to answer spurious questions from an inferior debater that will not even show the courtesy and courage of being honest about his imbecility. You can read your own posts, but if you're demanding I recognize your lack of reading comprehension skills affects even your own postings, I'm going to have to demand you give up your absurd objections to being honestly identified as an imbecile.
Thereby, with yet another grandiose act of haughty hand-waving, you expose your strategy. That is, you want me to grant you a handicap admitting bogus inferiority so you may then dismiss as imbecilic any questions asking you to account for your fraudulent assertions. You have found no evidence you can cite of any lack of reading comprehension skills.
Note the way you adamantly demand to be recognized as an imbecile by demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills to quote me incompletely to attempt to alter what I said.
On the contrary, it is not my reading comprehension skills that are at fault but your faulty communication skills.
Frogburger is not refuted because he is the Messiah. Rather he is not refuted because he's only been challenged by an imbecile ill-equipped to participate in intellectual exchanges.Frogburger is not refuted by your imbecility. No one is.
That is not exactly what you said. The sentence I cited was quoted verbatim, with no modification.
What you said, BeAmish, is this: Frogburger's points are not refuted because he's the Messiah. Frogburger's points are not refuted because no one possessing intellectual firepower has challenged them.
The second sentence suggests no earthly intellectual firepower can challenge him.By rewording and revising the second sentence, you inadvertently indicate that you are aware of your deficient communication skills on view here.
You're an imbecile, PsiBond. No shit. I wouldn't lie to you.
Although you may not be lying to me that that is your opinion of me, you are lying about your opinion's status as some kind of fact. It is, in fact, your partisan opinion, and it means nothing to me. Repeating it again and again just makes it identifiable as a passionately propagated Big Lie.
Faux shocked at my temerity, Z insinuated that Frog’s purportedly unassailable knowledge of French politics is straightforwardly applicable to the U.S. situation. Assuming you can actually read, BeAmish, you will find that I did, in fact, indicate the necessity for valid evidence that his bunch of French statistics were relevant, not that that would have much helped his intellectually weak ad hominem argument.
BeAmish: But, we live in a universe where you are indisputably imbecilic.
The reality is: We exist on a blog where you can constantly lie about me without accountability, like a lunatic-fringe rightwinger — and thus lower the level of discourse here.
I don't want you to "grant me a handicap," you do that inherently by being significantly less intelligent than most bowls of oatmeal even as you childishly and pettily mispel my screen name and whine that I'm a "bully" for continuing to point out your imbecility. I merely want you to acknowledge that you are in fact an imbecile. You have already, in a fashion, but I want you to stop being discouraged about it. The cat's out of the bag. You're an imbecile, you know you're an imbecile, so let's move on, imbecile.
Again, the thread above has you "faux shocked" that your obvious imbecility is an inescapable conclusion, even for you. Your "intellectual arsenal" (as it is) exhausted itself trying to soothe your ego with sarcastic quips about Frogburger being the Messiah for thoroughly crushing your counterpoints, when (no dismissal of Frogburger intended) anyone with intellect can and regularly does crush your arguments, Frogburger included. Which invariably leads you into Pee Wee Herman "i know you are but what am I" mode, along with snarkily fishing incomplete quotes and arguing in vain from your absurd sense of English syntax. All this instead of acknowledging your daily overwhelming defeats and seeking to improve your intellect in direct blasphemy against your leftist ideological need to prove once and for all that you're an imbecile.
In short, you're an idiot, PsiBond. You know it. I'm just a "bully" for continuing to embarrass you about it.
Don't forget to come back for more now, y'hear?
BeAmish: I don't want you to "grant me a handicap,"
You inadvertently make it clear that your pleading for what you deny is a handicap is to enable you to dismiss any argument on any issue as imbecilic.
… you childishly and pettily mispel my screen name
You childishly misspell “misspell”. Furthermore, there is no misspelling of your screen name here. I use the very same letters in the same order; I’ve just started putting a couple of letters in upper case, as you do with my screen name, which you consistently misspell, since you leave out the space within it.
You don’t embarrass me, BeAmish. Rather, although you don’t know it, you embarrass yourself. Especially with your hysterical hissy fit above. And with desperately trying to rehash a weeks-old argument with someone else (Frog), misrepresenting my ideas to suit your petty purpose, insisting you know what I think, and by trying to paper over your pitiable communication skills by whining incongruously about “syntax” — to be more honest, BeAmish, try “poor word choice”.
It is already well established, BeAmish, that you’re a bully who regularly lowers the level of discourse here with your cowardly, bleating, relentless, repetitive ad hominem attacks on me. Although doing so would involve embarrassment for you, you could drop this ridiculous crusade and move on. My bet, however, is riding on the expectation that you’ll come back to show us just how nasty a silly bully you can be — but, still, I’d be delighted to see you prove me wrong about that.
Hissy fit? You're the one going on and on about how I'm bullying you because you won't acknowledge that you're an imbecile. It's not like I'm asking you to acknowledge something that isn't true.
You want honest discussion? Quid pro quo. Be honest and admit you're an imbecile.
Too many opportunities for good, respectful dialogue between us are being lost every time you sidetrack discussions to object to the well-established fact that you're an imbecile.
You otherwise never hesitate to champion imbecilic viewpoints. I find it quite curious that you object to being labelled appropriately.
I knew I had a sure bet.
It is your hissy fit; I’m an innocent observer here. You’re the one going on and on, bleating one day into the next, with this ridiculous marathon crusade, consisting of nothing but recycled, absurd, bullying personal attacks on me that embarrass and demean only yourself. Although you show evidence of being in need of one, I will not grant you a handicap — so stop asking for that which you disingenuously deny is a handicap.
I don’t believe a political forum is for the pathetic circus you have made of it here. Most here, unlike you, make their points without crippling reliance on ad hominem attacks, and without claims that personal opinions are facts. Just grow up.
Now come back and show us with your pretzel illogic that you cannot behave sensibly and discourse reasonably.
Still haven't graduated Pee Wee Herman's school, huh?
I call you an imbecile, PsiBond, because you are an imbecile. That is a undeniable fact apart from and wholly different from my opinion of you (which is rather low because you continue to attempt to squirm from the truth of your imbecility.)
You claim to want respectful, honest debate, yet you won't man up and admit you're a drooling moron.
Your lack of sincerity speaks volumes.
I'm not worried that you'll ever convince anyone that you're not an imbecile, as much as your posts practically demand to be recognized as imbecility.
I just wish you would show that you really do care about intellectual discussions even as you're ill-suited to participate in them, by at least letting people you are discussing with know that you also realize as they do that you're an imbecile.
The independent observations of many here of the fact that you are an imbecile didn't collate as some grand conspiracy to bully you, PsiBond. You really are an imbecile.
You should be as proud of your imbecility as you are in posting it for all to see.
Imbeciles sprout like mushrooms in your imagination.
Don't twist my words. I never called you a mushroom, despite how in the dark and feeding on shit you present yourself.
I'm pretty sure I'd imagine some neato sci fi "limited interactive heuristics imbecile simulating textbot" over "mushroom" as an alternative explanation for the reality of you posting your imbecility for the world to see.
Are you all right?
I'm doing good, PsiBond. You?
So tell me, why is it you deny being an imbecile yet go out of your way to post imbecilic things?
Misreadings sprout like mushrooms in your imagination.
Right on cue. That's exactly the sort of imbecilic posting I'm refering to.
Is it that you can't help but post something imbecilic, PsiBond? I mean, I really do appreciate the weight of evidence you provide to my premise that all leftists are imbeciles. You've been one of the most reliable providers of evidence of leftist imbecility I've ever encountered on the internet, and that's saying something. You make stupid look easy.
I just don't get how you claim to want honest, respectful debate, yet won't readily confess, perhaps even forewarn people that you're an imbecile.
The “evidence” you have, BeAmish, is comprised of hyped vociferous disdain for anything I’ve said — not of any factually rooted, established foolishness. Thus, your claim of wanting honest, respectful debate is a bully’s disingenuous pretense — a childishly relentless, foolish one, which succeeds in making you look stupid without really trying.
Not true. I'll be the first to say you haven't posted something imbecilic, if you ever get around to doing so. Thus far, you haven't, which lends itself to a belief that you can't because you are an imbecile.
Several independent observers here have reached and reported the same conclusion about your imbecility without coincidence or conference.
You're just an imbecile, plain to see.
BeAmish: Not true. I'll be the first to say you haven't posted something imbecilic, if you ever get around to doing so. Thus far, you haven't, which lends itself to a belief that you can't because you are an imbecile.
Not true. You'd be the last to say your hyped partisan judgment of me was erroneous. The truth is: In no instance have you presented a solid fact-based argument that something I have said is imbecilic. Declaration is not substantiation.
Several independent observers here have reached and reported the same conclusion about your imbecility without coincidence or conference.
None who is not passionately rightwing has done so. Several independent posters have also said President Obama is an imbecile — so I consider myself to be in good company.
You're just an imbecile, plain to see.
You are just a silly bully, really, as any independent observer can plainly see from your childish behavior here.
All right, BeAmish; I present below an easy chance for you — by solving an uncomplicated mathematical problem — to make some sort of claim for intellectual superiority:
Consider this sequence of seven distinct letters: ‘beamish’. If each rearrangement of these letters is taken to be a distinct sequence, and each letter when upper case is part of a sequence distinct from the one in which it is lower case — how many different sequences are there?
Now you're trying to use your lack of reading comprehension skills as a defense against noticing in this very thread your concoctions that there are "prevailing opinions that Frogburger is the Messiah," which were ruled imbecilic. And there in lies the position you can't extricate yourself from.
You provided all the evidence required to correctly identify you as an imbecile.
All these bizarre denials on your part and attempts to segue into a discussion of math bolsters that assessment.
You are not an honest debater, and you are not interested in honest debate. If you were, you'd readily identify yourself as an imbecile after all of your efforts at securing that identification for yourself through pedantic word-twisting games and hallucinations.
Address the subject at hand. Why do you deny being an imbecile when you are in fact an imbecile?
For the record, though Obama is an imbecile, being so novice that he can't write his own books or the absolutely idiotic things he reads off of a teleprompter, I find that you PsiBond might actually be smarter than Obama by a tiny, but noticeable amount.
Now you're trying to use your lack of reading comprehension skills as a defense against noticing in this very thread your concoctions that there are "prevailing opinions that Frogburger is the Messiah," which were ruled imbecilic. And there in lies the position you can't extricate yourself from.
Your poor reading comprehension skills, BeAmish, betray you yet again: What I indicated is that prevailing opinion here seems to be that Frog ought to be esteemed as if he were the Messiah or even a god. You also continue to misquote me. I did not speak of "prevailing opinions”, for a rational person knows that the plural form of this phrase makes no sense in a particular context. And your ruling as imbecilic what I have said about Frog is infinitely hilarious as supposedly damning evidence of any kind. That is, your purportedly decisive evidence is an exploited misreading.
You provided all the evidence required to correctly identify you as an imbecile.
You provide abundant evidence for any rational person to positively identify you as a silly bully.
All these bizarre denials on your part and attempts to segue into a discussion of math bolsters that assessment.
Your repetitive, digressive whining fails to conceal your inability to solve the simple mathematical problem above.
You are not an honest debater, and you are not interested in honest debate. If you were, you'd readily identify yourself as an imbecile after all of your efforts at securing that identification for yourself through pedantic word-twisting games and hallucinations.
If you were an honest debater, BeAmish, you would confess that all this pointless huffing and puffing and endless silly bullying of yours is a juvenile game that would not be permitted in a reputable political forum.
Address the subject at hand. Why do you deny being an imbecile when you are in fact an imbecile?
Here is the real question, which you won’t answer honestly:
Why do you continue behaving as an asinine bully, BeAmish, when you know you will not get what you stupidly demand?
The point here, BeAmish, is not whether you are one of those that, “for the record”, espouses the belief, for whatever delusional reasons, that Obama is an imbecile — or even whether you believe I am by an infinitesimal amount smarter than him. The point is that both he and I have been called imbeciles by extreme rightwingers on this blog, and, though I realize that such partisan judgments and name-calling are not anything to be taken seriously, I nonetheless feel honored to be classed with him.
You don't take being called an imbecile seriously? You're just coming back to this thread daily to make sure no one can draw a conclusion other than the fact that you're an imbecile?
I should have enumerated these proofs of you imbecility you consistently and reliably provide.
I check this thread periodically to observe how vicious a bully you will prove yourself to be.
I suppose that's one way for you to avoid ceasing to be an imbecile.
I suppose that's what you'd suppose, not that it matters to me.
If honest discussion mattered to you, Blemish, you wouldn't persist with this imbecilic nonsense.
But it's not like you have a track record of honesty.
Post a Comment