Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

Still waiting for your definition. Thanks. :corn:

Yes, I'm sure you are.

But like said... in this post, you said...

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

And I don't believe I've EVER said that. You insisted again that I said that in this post.

So please, oh great one... I'll happily tell you who "has the money" if you point out where I said that people "should" distribute their stuff to other people.

I've asked you few times and yet... you seem to be more interested in talking about... other things.

what a conundrum.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

I'm sure I can find websites that detailed why he voted against it for several other reasons ie. economic, etc.

OK... and I think 50 was the number you said you could find.

So... where are they?

Don't let your mouth write checks that your brain can't cash. C'mon, big man... show us those sites. All 50 of 'em.

Even just a few?

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Still waiting for your definition. Thanks. :corn:

Yes, I'm sure you are.

But like said... in this post, you said...

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

And I don't believe I've EVER said that. You insisted again that I said that in this post.

So please, oh great one... I'll happily tell you who "has the money" if you point out where I said that people "should" distribute their stuff to other people.

I've asked you few times and yet... you seem to be more interested in talking about... other things.

what a conundrum.

You truly are a piece of work. Multiple and multiple posts complaining about the "people with money" yet you won't define your stance or what you mean. That's fine...guess you don't even fully understand what you mean...just spewing out your Democratic views without a thought?

So is lying during impeachment trials an acceptable lie? Let's try this one you stated. :corn:

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I'm sure I can find websites that detailed why he voted against it for several other reasons ie. economic, etc.

OK... and I think 50 was the number you said you could find.

So... where are they?

Don't let your mouth write checks that your brain can't cash. C'mon, big man... show us those sites. All 50 of 'em.

Even just a few?

Big man? Are you serioulsy that mentally challenged that you need to insult people. :? Please. :fp:

Prince Of Dorkness

I'm more interested in if you think it's OK to lie about what someone said on the Pearl Jam forum so you can look like less of a fool.




And I'm taking it as a "yes," you think that.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Still waiting for your definition. Thanks. :corn:

Yes, I'm sure you are.

But like said... in this post, you said...

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

And I don't believe I've EVER said that. You insisted again that I said that in this post.

So please, oh great one... I'll happily tell you who "has the money" if you point out where I said that people "should" distribute their stuff to other people.

I've asked you few times and yet... you seem to be more interested in talking about... other things.

what a conundrum.

And the communist russia thing I said. I never said you said it. You truly do need a reading comprehension course. I used the word like...I neversaid you said it. Wow...just wow. :fp:

Still waiting for any of your answers. :corn:

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I'm more interested in if you think it's OK to lie about what someone said on the Pearl Jam forum so you can look like less of a fool.




And I'm taking it as a "yes," you think that.

Try reading it again or have someone explain it to you. Seriously. You can try and manipulate waht people say all you want...but then again you won't answer two simple questions without trying to spin shit around so I really wouldn't expect anything less.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

And the communist russia thing I said. I never said you said it.

Um... yeah... you did.

The direct quote...

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

So... wait... what did you mean by saying "you brought up the ridiculous point..." then?

OH...

you were talking to the other voice in your head.

Sorry.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And the communist russia thing I said. I never said you said it.

Um... yeah... you did.

The direct quote...

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

So... wait... what did you mean by saying "you brought up the ridiculous point..." then?

OH...

you were talking to the other voice in your head.

Sorry.

Talking with you is seriously like talking with a child who doesn't get their way. Just answer me this. WHat do you consider to be the "people with the money" and is lying during an impeachment hearing is aan cceptable lie. Please answer these questions? I'm truly dying to know. Please enlighten me. :corn:

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

you won't answer two simple questions without trying to spin shit around so I really wouldn't expect anything less.

This from the guy who refuses to link to articles he says he could "easily" find or a post where I said people "should" give what they don't need to other people.

We can do this all day, bud. I'll gladly tell you what I mean... but you know... I did kinda ask you first.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

Just answer me this.

Nope. sorry, but not letting you change the subject again.

Look, you should really not try to argue on the internet... you're really bad at it.

you just got your butt handed to you by someone with an "alternative lifestyle."

(and like I said, I realize that you're trying to snipe at me saying that but it says a lot more about you than it does about anything else.)

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Just answer me this.

Nope. sorry, but not letting you change the subject again.

Look, you should really not try to argue on the internet... you're really bad at it.

you just got your butt handed to you by someone with an "alternative lifestyle."

(and like I said, I realize that you're trying to snipe at me saying that but it says a lot more about you than it does about anything else.)

I guess you won't answer the two simple questions because you don't know. You just spew what is fed to you. That's ok. A lot of people are like that. And me spinning it around?? You truly make me laugh and personally I can care less what lifestyle you are...but you keep insisting on bringing that stuff up and posting videos of yourself. :? I didn't know your sexual orientation until YOU SAID IT!! And that wasn't even until late last night?! This discussion has been going on for almost a week so how can I be taking shots at you about that? And about "internet arguing"...I don't argue on the internet...I discuss. SOmething that you are clearly not able to do since you won't answer two simple questions about your stance because you don't know. That's apparent.

Prince Of Dorkness

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not interested in debating with someone who changes the subject every time they paint themselves into a corner.

Nor do I really give a toss about debating with someone who uses phrases like "alternative lifestyle" while getting upset at being caled "big man."

carolinabeerguy

Can you two take this to PMs? Geez.

Johnny Abruzzo

So, the old phenomenon of blaming Democrats for big deficits in spite of all facts is in full swing. "Deficit hawk" Paul Ryan voted for bills that contributed to well more than half of the national debt. :roll: He never had a problem with the deficit as long as, you know, there was a Republican president in office.

gimmesometruth27

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

So, the old phenomenon of blaming Democrats for big deficits in spite of all facts is in full swing. "Deficit hawk" Paul Ryan voted for bills that contributed to well more than half of the national debt. :roll: He never had a problem with the deficit as long as, you know, there was a Republican president in office.

does anyone remember the republican outrage when bush wasted the surplus, attacked a country that was not involved in 9/11 that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and significantly increased the debt all while increasing the deficit through trillion dollar tax cuts???

that's right....there wasn't any...

:fp:

Prince Of Dorkness

...and let's not forget voting against the debt ceiling. That didn't mean not spending any more money, it meant, essentially, paying for what you already spent. Which lead to the interest rates explosion and the near collapse of the US economy.

And they still have the nerve to scream that people are blaming GW Bush for things he... Like... Did.

prism

borrowed from a friend's fb....

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not interested in debating with someone who changes the subject every time they paint themselves into a corner.

Nor do I really give a toss about debating with someone who uses phrases like "alternative lifestyle" while getting upset at being caled "big man."

Changing subjects and painting myslef into a corner?! You make me laugh...you really do. You discuss issues like a five year old. You have the I'm picking up my toys and going home mentality.


I'm still waiting for you to answer the two questions I have posed. Then again, you truly can't and won't. Any point now that I bring up you just paint yourself as a victim even though I wasn't aware of your "lifestyle"...(is that a proper term?) until well into our discussion. Can you say "easy out" and "grasping for straws"?

Prince Of Dorkness

prism wrote:

borrowed from a friend's fb....

And with this, we've discovered how social networking can be the answer to the hundreds of millions from the Koch brothers.

When things are spelled out that clearly... And we all have a few hundred "friends" on Facebook and twitter (I think my current follower number is about 7600), we can spread the word and get it out without the hundreds of millions given by the handful of billionaires determined to spread their vitriol.