I too found his remarks reprehensible and childish!!
Blacksheep wrote:
I normally ignore the rank crap that brian spews but this is so childishly stupid, so sophomoric, like some 13 year old boy experiencing puberty, that I have to speak up for BigMac. What a worthless thing to say, what a moronic and pointless attack and how totally off topic. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
ginnyt wrote:
If you can not attack the message, attack the messenger. How is that working out for you?
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
************
Ginny, I see you are reading your revised Saul Alinsky handbook for right wing troglodytes.
Me? I don't live my life by Saul Alinsky. My Jewish heroes are Phillip Roth and Larry David.
On a happier note, how is your Sukkot going? Are you dining outside
or inside. Did you serve tsimis with brisket or make a special kugel??????
As for my dining habits, I see no correlation between my consumption or where I dine and Obama calling his wife Michael.
I do not really care who you elevate to hero status.
I have read Alinsky rules for radicals, how can you be for or against something if you do not know what they wrote? That to me is just ignorance and being unprepared if an individual uses those techniques to dispute or hijack a topic. Such as when you hijack a topic with calling others names.
Brian Devon wrote:
************
Ginny, I see you are reading your revised Saul Alinsky handbook for right wing troglodytes.
Me? I don't live my life by Saul Alinsky. My Jewish heroes are Phillip Roth and Larry David.
On a happier note, how is your Sukkot going? Are you dining outside
or inside. Did you serve tsimis with brisket or make a special kugel??????
ginnyt wrote:
As for my dining habits, I see no correlation between my consumption or where I dine and Obama calling his wife Michael.
I do not really care who you elevate to hero status.
I have read Alinsky rules for radicals, how can you be for or against something if you do not know what they wrote? That to me is just ignorance and being unprepared if an individual uses those techniques to dispute or hijack a topic. Such as when you hijack a topic with calling others names.
***********
Who really gives a rat's a*s, if our president called his wife Michael. People have all kinds of pet names and inside jokes when they are married.
You sore losers are desperate and grasping at straws, like when Rush Limbaugh called out the first lady because she was encouraging people to drink more water.
The GOP should merge with the company that manufactures the board game, "Trivial Pursuit".
You dumb semi-literate goobers just provide never ending free comic material on late night TV for Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, John Oliver, and the cast of Saturday Night Live.
Brian Devon wrote:
***********
Who really gives a rat's a*s, if our president called his wife Michael. People have all kinds of pet names and inside jokes when they are married.
You sore losers are desperate and grasping at straws, like when Rush Limbaugh called out the first lady because she was encouraging people to drink more water.
The GOP should merge with the company that manufactures the board game, "Trivial Pursuit".
You dumb semi-literate goobers just provide never ending free comic material on late night TV for Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, John Oliver, and the cast of Saturday Night Live.
*********** br br Who really gives a rat's a*s, i... (
show quote)
Why is it the cons who quote alinsky every chance they get while the rest of us ignore what he wrote? Nice reply to her even she won't get the big picture. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Of interest, your friend Brian is the one who brought up Alinsky, not I. I simply responded to him. That is what civil people do. And it was not me, but Brian that dipped so deep into name calling.
And you say that his reply was "nice." I fail to see that he added anything to the post in scraping the bottom of his insult bag to call me names. Is this the intelligence that the Liberals regard so highly?
The big picture, as you put it. Wow, if I disagree with a Liberal, somehow I develop tunnel vision. I believe that is those who are more narrow minded that needs to expand their view. Perhaps stepping out of your comfort zone and defending everything or action of Obama, a wider view of his lack of leadership should be examined, his lies to the citizens of the nation, and yes perhaps his lies about his personal life style. If a person will lie about one thing, can you really trust them to be truthful about anything else? So, if indeed he is married to a man, and has lied....what else will he lie about?
Retired669 wrote:
Why is it the cons who quote alinsky every chance they get while the rest of us ignore what he wrote? Nice reply to her even she won't get the big picture. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Retired669 wrote:
Why is it the cons who quote alinsky every chance they get while the rest of us ignore what he wrote? Nice reply to her even she won't get the big picture. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
***********
Retired,
There are real reasons they gravitate to using Alinsky to explain their electoral failures. Without this rationalization, that the Democrats, are using some sneaky master plan, they have to accept the obvious. The obvious is that the Democrats, at the national level, are winners---able to pull together the winning coalition of women, millenials, minorities, and liberal baby boomers.
The GOP brand, aimed at an ever shrinking, aging white rural and suburban base---is just not going to cut it in terms of recapturing the White House.
Alinsky is just a pathetic rationalization they use------it's like the old losing baseball teams that forever were exclaiming---"WE WUZ ROBBED!" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Brian Devon wrote:
**********
Big Mac, when you spurt, you call that the "truth". I suppose that's as good an excuse as any, when your wife complains about you being a "minute-man".
Brian
There you go again . . . You cannot resist the childish temptation of inserting an insult into your post.
It is time for you to go back to wearing diapers.
Snoopy
ginnyt wrote:
Of interest, your friend Brian is the one who brought up Alinsky, not I. I simply responded to him. That is what civil people do. And it was not me, but Brian that dipped so deep into name calling.
And you say that his reply was "nice." I fail to see that he added anything to the post in scraping the bottom of his insult bag to call me names. Is this the intelligence that the Liberals regard so highly?
The big picture, as you put it. Wow, if I disagree with a Liberal, somehow I develop tunnel vision. I believe that is those who are more narrow minded that needs to expand their view. Perhaps stepping out of your comfort zone and defending everything or action of Obama, a wider view of his lack of leadership should be examined, his lies to the citizens of the nation, and yes perhaps his lies about his personal life style. If a person will lie about one thing, can you really trust them to be truthful about anything else? So, if indeed he is married to a man, and has lied....what else will he lie about?
Of interest, your friend Brian is the one who bro... (
show quote)
How often do you hallucinate?
With all due respect it is you righties that bring up alinsky 9 times out of 10. Thanks for showing what tunnel vision is with the rest of your post! Got to hand it to you, you complain about others doing the very same thing you just did.
Read the thread, when was Alinsky brought up and by whom was it introduced in this thread?
I do not hallucinate, never see ghosts, spirits, never taken any drugs that have that effect. How about you?
Retired669 wrote:
How often do you hallucinate?
With all due respect it is you righties that bring up alinsky 9 times out of 10. Thanks for showing what tunnel vision is with the rest of your post! Got to hand it to you, you complain about others doing the very same thing you just did.
ginnyt wrote:
Read the thread, when was Alinsky brought up and by whom was it introduced in this thread?
I do not hallucinate, never see ghosts, spirits, never taken any drugs that have that effect. How about you?
Cute avatar Ginnyt. :thumbup:
Thank you. I love the eyes!!!
cant beleve wrote:
Cute avatar Ginnyt. :thumbup:
:D :D :D
Everybody by now knows that we have a faggot for pres. It is no wonder that the U.S. is in such bad shape! Assoon as the Reps. take the Senate in Nov., they need to start impeachment proceedings, before little queer boy destroys the rest of our(real Americans) country!
I agree with you 100 percent. But, I have my doubts about impeachment. Not that he has not destroyed America's reputation, encouraged racial divide, is known throughout the world as a liar, not because he has done so much harm to our economy, not that he is a perfect example of nonleadership, and not because he is an utter failure. I do not believe that they will impeach because it is late in the game and he will be only a figure head without the support of the Senate and House. His mighty pen will be put into his pocket where he should have kept it. And his telephone will be used to call Michael to see what is for dinner. He will be told to go play, like that is not what he does constantly, with his little friends while adults manage our nation.
jackbooley wrote:
Everybody by now knows that we have a faggot for pres. It is no wonder that the U.S. is in such bad shape! Assoon as the Reps. take the Senate in Nov., they need to start impeachment proceedings, before little queer boy destroys the rest of our(real Americans) country!
:thumbup: :thumbup:
jackbooley wrote:
Everybody by now knows that we have a faggot for pres. It is no wonder that the U.S. is in such bad shape! Assoon as the Reps. take the Senate in Nov., they need to start impeachment proceedings, before little queer boy destroys the rest of our(real Americans) country!
*********
The Democrats are the real Americans. There will never be a removal of the president by congress. The GOP may pick up a few seats in the senate, but they will never muster the 67 senators needed to convict and remove a sitting president.
Even if the GOP does well in the elections, they will still be at least 14 senate votes short for removal.
Almost, only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
Your side lost. Get over it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.