Limpbaugh wants to own an NFL team :0) - Won't happen

blackascoal said:
In other words, your punk-ass lied AGAIN and it is YOU running the fuck away.

:0)

Not a surprise .. I knew your punk-ass would run when I challenged you.

What a fucking coward you are.
Click to expand...
LOL Beating you over the head with your own card is "running way". In your 'hood maybe but not in mine. :D
 
LOL Blackie neg-reps me for saying this: "These same liberals who toss the race card at Rush will defend Robert Byrd and Obama for saying worse, obviously racist, things. "

What a fucking pussy. LOL
 
Southern Man said:
LOL Beating you over the head with your own card is "running way". In your 'hood maybe but not in mine. :D
Click to expand...

My "hood" has Mercedes in the driveways .. two of them in mine.

I expect your hood has chickens and junk cars in the driveways and on the lawns .. or what passes as a lawn.

You're a moron and you don't discuss issues .. just other posters .. especially men .. with dicks. :0)

AND you're a coward and I proved that .. fuck you.

:0)
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Now they want me to start writing epic porn stories on teh interwebs too! I say no to you. Wanting to see into my Epic Dreams... You will have to just fill in the gaps yourself.
Click to expand...

Cripes Damo. You're getting all revved up just talking about it. Easy on the uhhhh....ummmm... keystrokes, k Daddy? I say just take a lil ol' break and go to the men's room. Stop at the hand lotion dispenser.

The only thing I want to see is you get some uhhh...relief, for that errr...affliction. :eek:


LIHOM
 
Damocles said:
The response would likely be the same. I am happy in my marriage, thanks for the offer, but no thank you...

:D
Click to expand...

Yes, to be sure since it's lame-o damo.

You started out trying to say Rush used the excuse "he did it first"~~~there are at least 4 posters in this thread who have read your words and have the same conclusion. You switched up after 20 or so more posts and acknowledged that Rush played the song to show the hypcrisy, hatred, and racism that exists on the left...you claim Rush is a leader of the R party, after all the left say he is~~~you are part of the conservative problem...moderate fence post sitter with a finger in the political wind.
 
So much fun watching them eat their own.

Is Damo a RINO .. or is he just a free-thinker?

It appears that free-thinkers have no place in the Republican Party.
 
blackascoal said:
So much fun watching them eat their own.

Is Damo a RINO .. or is he just a free-thinker?

It appears that free-thinkers have no place in the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
I'm most certainly not a RINO. Although many of the social issues of the party are, IMO, what should be at the bottom rather than the top of the priorities list.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yes, to be sure since it's lame-o damo.

You started out trying to say Rush used the excuse "he did it first"~~~there are at least 4 posters in this thread who have read your words and have the same conclusion. You switched up after 20 or so more posts and acknowledged that Rush played the song to show the hypcrisy, hatred, and racism that exists on the left...you claim Rush is a leader of the R party, after all the left say he is~~~you are part of the conservative problem...moderate fence post sitter with a finger in the political wind.
Click to expand...
Pointing out the rationalization does not assign motivation. They rationalized it would be considered okay, apparently correctly, by their listeners because it was "just a parody" and therefore that was why they could do it, and get away with it. It doesn't speak to their motivation, the motivation doesn't matter. IMO, they clearly knew that it would be considered as it is by those who do not or would not listen usually, but it didn't matter to them because their regular listeners (the target audience) would find it okay "because."

It is my opinion that each and every person who heard it laughed a bit and then had a reaction like "oh boy, this isn't going to look good at all"... and instead of saying something to the people who crossed that line about maybe being a bit more considered before publishing they decided to start digging trenches to build the defensive line that would be necessary in the future. It is my argument that they should instead have said something rather than deciding to go ahead and start defending. That it is time to start being the color blind party that so many say we are when talking about something like Affirmative Action.

Just like my child in my analogy thought it would be "okay" if they were just making fun of the other kid to do what they knew was wrong when the other did it. Whatever their motivation "to make the other kid feel bad" maybe, or "to make other people know what they did and why it was bad"... It is the action she'll be in trouble for regardless of the motive. Saying that when I got her home, if she used the excuse that it was okay because she was mocking the other child, it wouldn't fly and it doesn't here... it doesn't assign motive, nor would I care what the motive was.
 
Damocles said:
Pointing out the rationalization does not assign motivation. They rationalized it would be considered okay, apparently correctly, by their listeners because it was "just a parody" and therefore that was why they could do it, and get away with it. It doesn't speak to their motivation, the motivation doesn't matter. IMO, they clearly knew that it would be considered as it is by those who do not or would not listen usually, but it didn't matter to them because their regular listeners (the target audience) would find it okay "because."

It is my opinion that each and every person who heard it laughed a bit and then had a reaction like "oh boy, this isn't going to look good at all"... and instead of saying something to the people who crossed that line about maybe being a bit more considered before publishing they decided to start digging trenches to build the defensive line that would be necessary in the future. It is my argument that they should instead have said something rather than deciding to go ahead and start defending. That it is time to start being the color blind party that so many say we are when talking about something like Affirmative Action.

Just like my child in my analogy thought it would be "okay" if they were just making fun of the other kid to do what they knew was wrong when the other did it. Whatever their motivation "to make the other kid feel bad" maybe, or "to make other people know what they did and why it was bad"... It is the action she'll be in trouble for regardless of the motive. Saying that when I got her home, if she used the excuse that it was okay because she was mocking the other child, it wouldn't fly and it doesn't here... it doesn't assign motive, nor would I care what the motive was.
Click to expand...

You're so utterly full of shit. Everyone sees it. Just give it up.
 
Damocles said:
I'm most certainly not a RINO. Although many of the social issues of the party are, IMO, what should be at the bottom rather than the top of the priorities list.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that.

It would actually make your party relevent .. but voices farther to the right than you are dominate your party.

Moderates in the GOP have become a bad joke.
 
Damocles said:
Pointing out the rationalization does not assign motivation. They rationalized it would be considered okay, apparently correctly, by their listeners because it was "just a parody" and therefore that was why they could do it, and get away with it. It doesn't speak to their motivation, the motivation doesn't matter. IMO, they clearly knew that it would be considered as it is by those who do not or would not listen usually, but it didn't matter to them because their regular listeners (the target audience) would find it okay "because."

It is my opinion that each and every person who heard it laughed a bit and then had a reaction like "oh boy, this isn't going to look good at all"... and instead of saying something to the people who crossed that line about maybe being a bit more considered before publishing they decided to start digging trenches to build the defensive line that would be necessary in the future. It is my argument that they should instead have said something rather than deciding to go ahead and start defending. That it is time to start being the color blind party that so many say we are when talking about something like Affirmative Action.

Just like my child in my analogy thought it would be "okay" if they were just making fun of the other kid to do what they knew was wrong when the other did it. Whatever their motivation "to make the other kid feel bad" maybe, or "to make other people know what they did and why it was bad"... It is the action she'll be in trouble for regardless of the motive. Saying that when I got her home, if she used the excuse that it was okay because she was mocking the other child, it wouldn't fly and it doesn't here... it doesn't assign motive, nor would I care what the motive was.
Click to expand...

That's not racism by the songwriter; its selective sensitivity of those who disagree with him politically. The songwriter is being purposefully insensitive, and in this case its not racist because the die was already cast by a journalist who was being insensitive but not racist.
 
Southern Man said:
That's not racism by the songwriter; its selective sensitivity of those who disagree with him politically. The songwriter is being purposefully insensitive, and in this case its not racist because the die was already cast by a journalist who was being insensitive but not racist.
Click to expand...
Right, and my daughter in my analogy shouldn't be in trouble because she was only saying it to underline how wrong the other girl was.

Again, the motivation doesn't make it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top