All Posts (Eers88)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 605 »


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Here is the definition of COMPARE:

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences:
to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.


Another agenda of the left is to redefine words/terms and pour another meaning in them. If you repeat it often enough, the word/term assumes the new meaning. I believe that is exactly what is going on here - the word/term(s) is (has been) redefined and now it's simply a matter of repeating it long enough until it assumes the new meaning.

Sorry lemms, some of us know and understand the tactics involved.


I don't know where Cliff got that definition, but it is inaccurate. I am using the traditional definitions of comparing and contrasting. He isn't. These definitions are older than we are.

The problem with trying to argue with you neo cons us (1) you won't accept facts as facts and (2) you don't try to educate yourselves before giving an opinion. You think you are entitled to your opinion even when it is absolutely 100% wrong, and provably so.

Posted on: Ystrday 7:17 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:
Nope. You compared guns to swimming pools. I merely showed that your comparison was flawed. As for the English language, there is a difference between comparing and contrasting. When someone compares two items in an argument, the way to refute that argument is to contrast the two things. "On the other hand" is a method of showing a contrast, not a comparison.


A contrast is a negative comparison. While I may have compared the two, that is immaterial to the fact that you also compared the two. So for you to deny comparing the two things is incorrect.

Here you can read up on contrasts and comparison.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gr ... british-grammar/contrasts


First, you apparently didn't even read your link. Your link reads:

Contrasts
from English Grammar Today
There are several common expressions for making contrasts in English. They include on the one hand … on the other hand, on the contrary, in comparison, by comparison, in contrast, by contrast.

On the one hand … on the other hand
We can use on the one hand and on the other hand when we contrast two different things or two different ways of thinking about something. We often use them to present a balanced argument in which both sides must be considered:

On the one hand, mobile phones are very useful and can save lives. On the other hand, people seem to use them for the most pointless and unnecessary calls.

We often use on the other hand on its own in the second part of a contrast, without on the one hand:

It’s a chaotic and disorganised country, but on the other hand it’s a very friendly and beautiful place. (Both things are true about the country.)

Not: … but on the contrary …



Your link says that the expression I used is a method of showing a contrast.

Your link doesn't define either contrast or compare. It simply identified some expressions that are used to contrast. The actual definition of contrast is:

contrast
The verb contrast means to show a difference, like photos that reveal how much weight someone lost by contrasting the "before" and "after" shots.
You probably know contrast in its relation to compare. To contrast something is to look for differences among two or more elements, but compare is to do the opposite, to look for similarities. It's easy to tell the difference if you remember that contrast comes from the Latin root contra, and means "against." Contrast is also a noun meaning basically the same thing — you might notice the contrast of a dark tree against a snow-covered hill.


Thus, contrasting shows differences between two things, and comparing shows similarities. There is no such thing as a "negative comparison." As the definition shows, contrasting is, in fact, the opposite of comparing. You are actually arguing that to do the opposite of something is in fact doing that something. You are wrong. Let it go. I didn't compare them. You did. I simply contrasted them to show you were wrong to compare them.

Posted on: 6/29 12:28 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
The fact of the matter is, the citizens of the United States of America have natural and inalienable rights. The founders of this country felt that 10 of those rights were important enough to specifically identify and protect. One of those rights is of the people to keep and bear arms.


We can agree that there is a Bill of Rights without going into whether they are inalienable or not. They also protect freedom of speech, assembly, the press, religion, the right to vote, and other rights. Moreover, the right to bear arms isn't first and foremost in a hierarchy of rights. They are all rights with different applications to our lives. None of them are absolute.

Quote:
In the United States, due process says you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Unfortunately, in order to prove someone is guilty of a horrible act, the act has to occur first.

This isn't the Minority Report. We don't have a "PreCrime" unit. We can't know when someone is going to do something before they do it.


Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal prosecutions. Due process, which is required before the government denies life, liberty or property, typically requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. That is it. And the amount of "process" that is "due" depends on the circumstances. For example, if a teacher in a public school sees a student spit a spitball, the teacher can take the student into the hall and say "I saw you spit a spitball. What do you have to say for yourself?" That is notice and an opportunity to be heard given that the punishment is likely something like staying after school to clean blackboards or erasers or something. If it was expulsion it may require more. With regard to the terror watch list, if someone is put on the watch list, is told they are on the watch list, and has an opportunity to refute that they should be on the watch list, then due process is met. I don't know if that is how it works or not, but I wouldn't be in favor of denying the right to possess a gun based on inclusion on the list without that protection. It may not work that way now, especially if inclusion on the list doesn't automatically limit someone's life, liberty or property because the government wouldn't be required to provide due process without infringing on any of those elements.

Also, you can be guilty of a crime before you commit a violent act if you conspire with others to do it. For example, terrorists who plan to bomb people or shoot people or hijack planes can be guilty of criminal conspiracy or criminal solicitation before they actually commit the violent acts. Of course, they do these things in secret so they may not be caught before they actually commit the violent act. If the government is aware, however, then they don't need to wait for the bomb to go off before arresting them.

Quote:
The thought of using an arbitrary list compiled by agencies who operate in secrecy to deny someone a right is absurd, appalling and Authoritarian.


What you describe would be appalling. But I don't know that it applies to the terror watch list. The terror watch list is comprised of people who are "known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity." Reasonably suspected means there must be sufficient evidence to form a suspicion. Reasonable is an objective standard.

Quote:
The fact that attention ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY turns to guns and gun control, and NOTHING ELSE is the very reason why "people are knee jerk opposed to any regulation". For once, why can't we try something else....ANYTHING else?


This happens in every aspect of our life. It isn't limited to guns. How do you think Amber Alerts came about? Or Megan's Law? Or any other response to a tragedy? I am not saying it is right, but the problem is gun advocates act like it is limited to guns and gun control. It isn't.

Quote:
Haven't all the recent Islamic terrorists visited the Middle East recently? How about a travel ban to countries with known ties to terrorism? Or alternatively if you want to travel to one of these countries, you have to voluntarily suspend some of your rights to do so (wire taps/gun purchase prohibition/premises may be searched without a warrant/etc...), and then follow these people very closely for a period of time?


You are just substituting other protected rights and liberties for the right to bear arms.

Quote:
How about Religion control? Anyone with any ties to Religion goes on a watch list?


I am assuming this is sarcastic.

Quote:
Maybe discuss increased security? If you own an establishment that serves over X number of people at one time, you are legally responsible for ensuring the safety of your patrons and can be held accountable for failing to do so?


This already exists based on a negligence standard. It isn't strict liability, meaning business owners don't guarantee their patrons safety. Who could afford that? And what insurance company would insure it? Moreover, why is the response of gun advocates always that everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth. (Because gun manufacturers tell them that is the answer, that's why. And who makes a profit from it? You guessed it.) Who really wants to live in that world? I own a gun, but I don't want to live in world where security means I need to have armed guards to eat a panini.

Quote:
Possibly a media ban on revealing the names of terrorists and reporting their entire lives for the next terrorist to aspire to?


Freedom of the press again. I think people should pressure news agencies not to report the names and biographies of mass shooters, but I think there would be Constitutional issues with trying to ban it by statute.

Quote:
There are LOTS of things that we can try besides ATTEMPTING to further limit access to guns. When our political leaders refuse to acknowledge and address ANY of the countless other potential solutions besides gun control, it is painfully obvious to anyone having the ability to think for themselves that these people truly and honestly don't want to prevent these attacks from happening...they only care about limiting access to guns.

What most of them don't understand is the law of unintended consequences. If access to guns is limited past a certain point, it will create a new and very ugly black market for them. Eventually the attackers won't be using semi-automatic AR-15's with 30 round magazines...they'll be using fully-automatic homebrews with 100 round drums made in some crimeboss's underground factory.


Obviously there are no easy answers. But I don't think you can blame people for wanting limited access to certain types of weapons after someone uses one to murder multiple people at a time. Moreover, why do we need to patch together some regulatory framework limiting a series of other rights and freedoms in order to avoid limiting the right to bear arms when the common denominator of mass shootings is a gun that facilitates mass shootings. This exemplifies the problem to me--the right to own a gun is sancrosanct and untouchable even though there are limits on every other right in the Constitution. The people who are in favor of gun control are not treating the right to bear arms any differently than any other right. The people advocating that their right to own a gun is absolute and without limits, on the other hand, are treating the 2nd amendment differently than any other right.

Posted on: 6/29 12:07 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

eer44fan wrote:
Quote:

83Grad wrote:
This entire thread is attempt by our leftist friends to deflect attention away from the radical Islamic terrorist who killed 49 people in Orlando.

I heard ZWaA also blamed Pearl Harbor on airplanes.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I've owned guns for 40 years and not one of them has killed anyone since I've owned them.

People die if you own a gun and are irresponsible.
People die if you own a car and are irresponsible.
People die if you own a swimming pool and are irresponsible.


I really hate it when cars get drunk and then go out and maim people. Damn those inanimate objects with no volition.


Please explain how denying the right to purchase a gun to a person on the terror watch list is blaming an inanimate object with no volition.

Posted on: 6/28 12:32 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

83Grad wrote:
This entire thread is attempt by our leftist friends to deflect attention away from the radical Islamic terrorist who killed 49 people in Orlando.


Then you must believe ZW has the power of precognition. Check your dates.

Quote:
I heard ZWaA also blamed Pearl Harbor on airplanes.


Again, check your dates. Why do you right wingers make up what people say? Is it because you cannot argue with what they actually say?

Quote:
Move along, nothing to see here.

I've owned guns for 40 years and not one of them has killed anyone since I've owned them.

People die if you own a gun and are irresponsible.
People die if you own a car and are irresponsible.
People die if you own a swimming pool and are irresponsible.


The point of the thread is that not every gun owner is responsible. In fact, some gun owners intend to use their guns to kill people. Yet people are knee jerk opposed to any regulation. The radical islamic terrorist that you pointed out is allowed to purchase guns legally even though he is a radical islamic terrorist because the gun manufacturers lobby owns the GOP congress.

Posted on: 6/28 12:30 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

brobison wrote:

Nice to see you have the same grasp of the English language as ever. Yes you did compare pools to guns. When you use the phrase...."on the other hand" that is a comparison phrase as in you are comparing things. Swimming pools which was the subject of the former rantings and guns which was the subject of the latter.


Nope. You compared guns to swimming pools. I merely showed that your comparison was flawed. As for the English language, there is a difference between comparing and contrasting. When someone compares two items in an argument, the way to refute that argument is to contrast the two things. "On the other hand" is a method of showing a contrast, not a comparison.
Quote:

I didn't bother reading the rest because I am pretty sure that those warnings on pools weren't regulated by the federal government they were regulated by the ambulance chasing lawyers which have sued the pool companies.

That doesn't appear to have ever stopped you before. You regularly argue with someone without having read what they say.

Quote:
There is a world of difference between design standards and LAWS.


This is correct, and we are discussing statutes, laws and regulations, not design standards.
Quote:

Next.....There is no federal law against me digging a hole in the ground and filling it with water. That would be a swimming pool.


No. It would be a hole filled with water.

Quote:
Maybe you should spend some more time thoughtfully putting together an argument that at least you understand.


How would you know? You haven't read or comprehended anything I wrote. You even admit it.

Quote:
EDIT: Also you state swimming pools VERSUS guns. Seems like a comparison to me but what do I know I am only a logical English speaker not a lawyer.


You said versus, not me. Those are your words, not mine.

Posted on: 6/28 11:20 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: WVU Football Thread for Things That Don't Need Their Own Thread

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

SicPuppy wrote:
Any idea when they might set a time for the BYU game? There's a Megabus route from Athens to DC that makes that kind of interesting, especially if its not a night game and I wouldn't need to get a hotel.


Hell, I live in VA and would like to know the time to figure out the hotel...I can't imagine how many people are in similar situations.


My unsolicited advice: Don't post from iPads using a hotspot with crappy cell reception.

Posted on: 6/28 8:29 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: WVU Football Thread for Things That Don't Need Their Own Thread

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

SicPuppy wrote:
Any idea when they might set a time for the BYU game? There's a Megabus route from Athens to DC that makes that kind of interesting, especially if its not a night game and I wouldn't need to get a hotel.


Hell, I live in VA and would like to know the time to figure out the hotel...I can't imagine how many people are in similar situations.


My unsolicited advice: Go ahead and book a room so you can party after WVU wins without having to drive down 95 afterwards.

Posted on: 6/28 8:28 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Re: Williams Signs Free Agent Contract w Milwaukee Bucks

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
All along I have been supportive of Williams and gave him the benefit of the doubt because I don't know his family circumstances. I presumed he intended to play overseas, where he can earn somewhere around six figures and playing an additional year in college wouldn't affect his pay. After reading that article, however, it seems like his family's situation wasn't so dire that he needed to leave, and that he was really trying to make the NBA. If so, I hope he makes it, but I think he may have made a huge mistake.

Posted on: 6/28 8:26 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Maybe the lawyers for Voisine and Armstrong should have argued that they aren't prohibited from owning a swimming pool. I am sure that would have turned the tide.

Posted on: 6/27 4:08 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

HookEm wrote:
Quote:

There is something that can be done...

Seems this child was accidentally killed by the lack of adult/parent supervision. Who leaves a 4 year old, and another child under the age of 4, to roam unattended around someone else's home?

The article states that the homeowner wasn't home. Assuming that the gun belongs to this person, they were either negligent for storing a gun where children would have access to it and knowing that children would be in the house, or they stored their gun knowing that children wouldn't even be in the house, let alone roaming around unsupervised.

1. Store your guns in safe places.
2. Watch your damn kids in other peoples homes.


Precisely! Who let's kids roam around another person's house when they aren't home?! If I would have done that when I was little even if the person was home I would have been whipped silly.

The number of children killed in swimming pools who are not watched dwarfs the number killed by guns BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

http://www.parents.com/baby/safety/ca ... afety-facts-and-mistakes/

How many more children were like the 2 year old that was killed when other kids set in motion an automobile because their parents were too busy to watch them.

....No......let's blame it on guns. Don't worry about the orders of magnitude MORE deaths caused by other everyday items.


And swimming pools, which aren't specifically designed to injure and kill people, are highly regulated. There are laws in every state governing pool design standards, security fencing, signs, and on and on. Guns, on the other hand, are a sacred cow. That is the point of this thread. Comparing guns to other inherently dangerous but highly regulated objects, like pools, just proves the point.


Swimming pools are "highly" regulated versus guns. That may be the worst statement I have ever heard. You seriously can not be serious!? Are there waiting periods for swimming pools? Are there mental health checks for swimming pools? Do you REALLY HAVE to be 18 to buy a swimming pool? Are there any swimming pools made that are not allowed to be owned by an individual? Please enlighten me. Show me the ban swimming pool lobby. Has Dianne Feinstein ever said that she wouldn't rest until there were no swimming pools in the country?

WOW! Talking about someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

EDIT: By the way....I have purchased both a swimming pool and a gun and to actually state the regulations of swimming pools is so great.....I think they just checked my Visa card to make sure it was good.


That isn't what I said. Nice to see you have limited your indignant "Wow just wow" shtick to "wow." Sorry to see you are still a disingenuous blowhard and cannot keep yourself from making up what people say when they show how you are completely full of ****. Stop talking about subjects that you don't know about and you won't have that problem.

I didn't compare gun and pool regulations. You compared guns to pools with regard to people placing blame for deaths related to guns and pools. I think it is safe to say that people recognize the inherent risk of pools, i.e. "blaming" pools for pool deaths, when they are regulated by both the federal government as well as all fifty states. Just because you didn't know that doesn't mean it isn't so. It just means you like to write things that you don't know **** about. This discussion is about gun regulations and how people think guns shouldn't be regulated regardless of the risk. You stepped right into it and are exhibiting the problem. How does comparing guns to pools show guns aren't inherently dangerous? it doesn't. It is the same tired ploy tried over and over. Next is the "We shouldn't regulate guns until we regulate (fill in name of dangerous item here)." These illogical arguments just prove the point.

By the way, your statements about buying a pool show that you really don't understand how statutes and regulations work. Safety regulations don't necessarily relate to the purchase of an inherently dangerous product. They can also relate to the methods of making or designing the product (e.g. regulations regarding pool drain covers, the slope and depth of a pool floor in relation to a diving board, or enclosing a pool with certain types of fencing), using the product (e.g. regulations requiring adult supervision of pools), or warning of the dangers of the product (e.g. pool warning signs). It is kind of silly to expect that the sales of pools would be regulated from a safety standpoint. Why the **** would you think that? Are pools more dangerous in the hands of a felon? Are pools more dangerous in the hands of a person on the terror watch list? That is a ridiculous argument.

Posted on: 6/26 10:54 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: New commit: receiver Michael Harley

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

RadioShark wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:


247 reported he runs a 4.38.


He's such a gifted poet too.


He is a philosophiser.

Posted on: 6/26 6:30 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: New commit: receiver Michael Harley

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090


247 reported he runs a 4.38.

Posted on: 6/26 4:31 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The "Super Awesome Responsible Gun Owners in the News" Thread....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:

HookEm wrote:
Quote:

There is something that can be done...

Seems this child was accidentally killed by the lack of adult/parent supervision. Who leaves a 4 year old, and another child under the age of 4, to roam unattended around someone else's home?

The article states that the homeowner wasn't home. Assuming that the gun belongs to this person, they were either negligent for storing a gun where children would have access to it and knowing that children would be in the house, or they stored their gun knowing that children wouldn't even be in the house, let alone roaming around unsupervised.

1. Store your guns in safe places.
2. Watch your damn kids in other peoples homes.


Precisely! Who let's kids roam around another person's house when they aren't home?! If I would have done that when I was little even if the person was home I would have been whipped silly.

The number of children killed in swimming pools who are not watched dwarfs the number killed by guns BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

http://www.parents.com/baby/safety/ca ... afety-facts-and-mistakes/

How many more children were like the 2 year old that was killed when other kids set in motion an automobile because their parents were too busy to watch them.

....No......let's blame it on guns. Don't worry about the orders of magnitude MORE deaths caused by other everyday items.


And swimming pools, which aren't specifically designed to injure and kill people, are highly regulated. There are laws in every state governing pool design standards, security fencing, signs, and on and on. Guns, on the other hand, are a sacred cow. That is the point of this thread. Comparing guns to other inherently dangerous but highly regulated objects, like pools, just proves the point.

Posted on: 6/26 3:23 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Dana Holgorsen ranked No. 49 head coach

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

juvi1624 wrote:
Quote:

TheMac wrote:

I don't know the backgrounds of every sports writer in America, apparently only you have the insight to know 75+% of them don't have playing experience.

If you'd like me to re-phrase my comments, fair enough...

Why is anybody putting merit into some article written by an unknown sports writer for one of the least respected sports media outlets. This guys caught parts of a few wvu games, while flipping through the channels, now all of a sudden people are going to use his opinion as evidence Holgs isn't good coach? You realize how dumb that is, correct?




Yes I have the insight to know that most sports writers never played the sports they write about. And I'm not saying the school should be firing Dana because someone ranked him 49th in their rankings. TBH as much as I hate on Dana, I think 49th is low. Like someone pointed out, how the hell is Jim Grobe ahead of him? That alone makes me take THIS article with a grain of sand.

However, that was not what I was saying anyway. I was saying if we, or rather you, are just going to disregard everything any writer who never played the sports says, then there's going to be very little left to read.


Reporting and op/ed are two different things. A sports reporter can certainly report on sports without having played sports at a high level. Sports reporting should be reporting about the facts--like Ryne Sandberg hit a home run in the 6th inning. Writing an opinion or editorial, however, is different and requires some expertise. Ranking players and coaches--like Ryne Sandberg is the greatest second basemen ever--requires a pretty broad knowledge of the sport. Their job isn't to "get it right." Their job is to get people to read the articles, so they have an incentive to create controversy. Even if the writer is an expert, like a former player or coach, you have to take it for what it is, which in this day and age is click bait.

Posted on: 6/26 3:17 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: UK exits EU?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
Cheers to the UK for voting to reassert control over their own politics, borders, and economy.


Slow down there bro. They still have to negotiate the terms of their exit.

What The Brexit Vote Means

Posted on: 6/24 4:10 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Dana Holgorsen ranked No. 49 head coach

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090

Posted on: 6/23 11:32 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Pot Babys Picks Thread

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
Quote:

mountie13 wrote:
Good thing you don't care enough WVishome.
I quit keeping track because apparently if I self reported a winning record I was bragging.So I just give picks and if anyone is interested enough they can do their own research.


"My girlfriend is from Canada. You wouldn't know her. We met at camp. She is definitely real though, and we definitely did it...like every night. But I can't tell people because if I self report I am bragging."

Posted on: 6/22 10:28 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: My latest Trump Theory....

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090
“How the actual **** does anyone at the RNC have standing to act shocked that Trump is not doing the basics of campaigning? You can’t elide over his utter dipshittery. No matter how much you try to act surprised, you own this. You’re covered in his stench. History will be so cruel to you. Your off the record sniping and grumbling is no substitute for moral courage. That’s so DC. You won’t escape the stain. It’s like a big, visible “No Ragrets” chest tat that will mark your careers forever. Go public. Man up. Show courage. Say what’s in your hearts; he’s insane. He’s poison. He’s doomed. He’s killing the Party. None of you are good enough to spin the unspinnable ratfuck that is Trump. None of you can say, “I was just following orders.” This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself. There is no better Trump. There is not Presidential Trump. He is a vile stain on the this Republic. Your resumes will always read “Worked for a batshit crazy crypto-fascist who destroyed the GOP”

--GOP Strategist Rick Wilson speaking of RNC staff members and Donald Trump.

Cheeto Jesus

Open in new window

Posted on: 6/22 2:33 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Pot Babys Picks Thread

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12090

Posted on: 6/17 4:32 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 605 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved