Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You mean -- do I get like you?He got all grumpy when he was made to work for his points.So you're abandoning your first link that made no point? Just say "I fucked up".
Not necessary for anyone to "defend" a point that was never made in the first place...
Does he get this way when people won't wipe his ass after a morning shit?
I can't wait to see how you'll weasel out of acknowledging her lies.In any event, I promised I would respond after he stated the points he was making, so I guess I'll have to go do that now.
I know what he'd do.Do you wear a bracelet saying, "What Would Sam Kinison Do?"
One of the reasons I like him, because he's a lot like me. Only with a lot more talent.
Since [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has predictably weaseled out of addressing Maddow's lies, does anyone else want to comment?Here you lazy bastards are, not that it'll do any good -- she could say water is dry and stuff falls up and you'd still defend her.
She lied about the transvaginal ultrasound requirement in the Ohio pro-life bill. The bill requires EXTERNAL ultrasounds ONLY.
She lied about Wisconsin's budget problems, saying the state was going to have a budget surplus, and that the governor was just union-busting. Even Politifact called bullshit on that.
She lied about a PA woman not having ID that meets PA's voter ID law. Of course, the woman DID have ID.
PolitiFact has quite a collection of Maddow's lies and distortions.
Do I need to summarize each and everyone one of them for you children?
I know what he'd do.Do you wear a bracelet saying, "What Would Sam Kinison Do?"
One of the reasons I like him, because he's a lot like me. Only with a lot more talent.
No, but I was drunk on HWY 89 when I fucked my girlfriends sister.You died in a car accident too?
That was tame!I just saw his first appearance on Letterman. Quite hilarious.
You spent all that time watching and posting those videos when you could have been reading the links above listing Maddow's lies -- like you said you would.That was tame!I just saw his first appearance on Letterman. Quite hilarious.
Sam talking about the Resurrection...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwG9Tojg9I]Sam Kinison - Jesus didn't have a wife - YouTube[/ame]
Sam talking about Homonecrophilia...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np67piTSAzk]Sam Kinison - Homonecrophilia - YouTube[/ame]
Sam talking about Rock Hudson...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=876pmxUFYmY]Sam Kinison on Rock Hudson, then owns a heckler - YouTube[/ame]
PinHead
Rachel Maddow Smears Racist Scalia
March 8, 2013
By Matthew Vadum
Some left-wingers cant handle it when a Supreme Court justice takes on one of their sacred cows, the blatantly racist Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Affective leftist Rachel Maddow flew into a rage of ignorant indignation, blasting Justice Antonin Scalia as a troll on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for criticizing a racist law that she supports precisely because it is racist in means and effect.
...
This tendency for such policies to continue indefinitely is very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. Its been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.
So, contrary to Maddow, Scalia never said the right to vote is a racial entitlement. The fact that certain congressional districts are drawn specifically to guarantee that black people are elected, however, is a racial entitlement, Scalia said, adding that the high court was justified in reviewing the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
Maddow put her other foot in her mouth by calling Scalia racist a second time. Carrying on the troll meme, she told Stewart, So, when were all shocked that [Scalia] said something so blatantly racially offensive were talking about the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act hes thinking, Oh, yeah, I did. Thats right.
This is what political discourse has come to in America. If you point out a law has a racial impact youre the racist.
The Voting Rights Act was in fact created to fight racism with racist means.
...
Dont bother explaining any of this to Rachel Maddow.
She wont understand any of it, and youll just get called a racist.
...
Rachel Maddow Smears ?Racist? Scalia | FrontPage Magazine
Going outside this issue, the key part that affects all our laws is that it is very difficult to get out of an undesirable law or treaty "through the normal political processes." This should be taken as proof that our political processes have always been an obstacle to moving forward. Therefore, a new system must be adopted before it is too late. The obstructive amendment process is part of the problem, so that should no longer be used as an acceptable answer.
Wow, that's some big-ass lie you found there. That's bad. Not as bad as the bill requiring ultrasounds in the first place, but bad anyway.Here you lazy bastards are, not that it'll do any good -- she could say water is dry and stuff falls up and you'd still defend her.
She lied about the transvaginal ultrasound requirement in the Ohio pro-life bill. The bill requires EXTERNAL ultrasounds ONLY.
He was union busting and would've had a surplus if he didn't administer those spending cuts.She lied about Wisconsin's budget problems, saying the state was going to have a budget surplus, and that the governor was just union-busting. Even Politifact called bullshit on that.
That's not a lie. She didn't have the right documents and under the new law, should have been barred from getting an ID, but they gave her one anyway.She lied about a PA woman not having ID that meets PA's voter ID law. Of course, the woman DID have ID.
1 out of 3 ain't bad.Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
It's not at all surprising that you'd tell lies to cover for Maddow.Wow, that's some big-ass lie you found there. That's bad. Not as bad as the bill requiring ultrasounds in the first place, but bad anyway.Here you lazy bastards are, not that it'll do any good -- she could say water is dry and stuff falls up and you'd still defend her.
She lied about the transvaginal ultrasound requirement in the Ohio pro-life bill. The bill requires EXTERNAL ultrasounds ONLY.
He was union busting and would've had a surplus if he didn't administer those spending cuts.She lied about Wisconsin's budget problems, saying the state was going to have a budget surplus, and that the governor was just union-busting. Even Politifact called bullshit on that.
That's not a lie. She didn't have the right documents and under the new law, should have been barred from getting an ID, but they gave her one anyway.She lied about a PA woman not having ID that meets PA's voter ID law. Of course, the woman DID have ID.
1 out of 3 ain't bad.Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
But hey, try again, maybe your luck will change.
Since [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has predictably weaseled out of addressing Maddow's lies, does anyone else want to comment?Here you lazy bastards are, not that it'll do any good -- she could say water is dry and stuff falls up and you'd still defend her.
She lied about the transvaginal ultrasound requirement in the Ohio pro-life bill. The bill requires EXTERNAL ultrasounds ONLY.
She lied about Wisconsin's budget problems, saying the state was going to have a budget surplus, and that the governor was just union-busting. Even Politifact called bullshit on that.
She lied about a PA woman not having ID that meets PA's voter ID law. Of course, the woman DID have ID.
PolitiFact has quite a collection of Maddow's lies and distortions.
Do I need to summarize each and everyone one of them for you children?
[MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
[MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]? Oh, wait, you pretended my other post same subject didn't exist, too, even after multiple mentions.
[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]?
Anyone? Anyone?
How in the world did you ever get the ridiculous idea that you're an intelligent human being?Since [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has predictably weaseled out of addressing Maddow's lies, does anyone else want to comment?Here you lazy bastards are, not that it'll do any good -- she could say water is dry and stuff falls up and you'd still defend her.
She lied about the transvaginal ultrasound requirement in the Ohio pro-life bill. The bill requires EXTERNAL ultrasounds ONLY.
She lied about Wisconsin's budget problems, saying the state was going to have a budget surplus, and that the governor was just union-busting. Even Politifact called bullshit on that.
She lied about a PA woman not having ID that meets PA's voter ID law. Of course, the woman DID have ID.
PolitiFact has quite a collection of Maddow's lies and distortions.
Do I need to summarize each and everyone one of them for you children?
[MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
[MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]? Oh, wait, you pretended my other post same subject didn't exist, too, even after multiple mentions.
[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]?
Anyone? Anyone?
"@Pogo", whoever that is, addressed your first link and found it devoid of meaning, as already noted. @ then got bored and left while [MENTION=21685]Dave[/MENTION] declared his own victory.
Here's your problem, Dave. Not really that complex.
How in the world did you ever get the ridiculous idea that you're an intelligent human being?Since [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] has predictably weaseled out of addressing Maddow's lies, does anyone else want to comment?
[MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]?
[MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]? Oh, wait, you pretended my other post same subject didn't exist, too, even after multiple mentions.
[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]?
Anyone? Anyone?
"@Pogo", whoever that is, addressed your first link and found it devoid of meaning, as already noted. @ then got bored and left while [MENTION=21685]Dave[/MENTION] declared his own victory.
Here's your problem, Dave. Not really that complex.
Because you're not.
You even fucked up the MENTION tags. My username is not Dave.
But it's okay. I know you'd rather eat glass than admit that one of your fellow progressives is a liar. Because to admit that might make you question your beliefs, and there's no way in hell you'd ever do that.
Yes. And I said it was a ridiculous idea. Because you're not.How in the world did you ever get the ridiculous idea that you're an intelligent human being?"@Pogo", whoever that is, addressed your first link and found it devoid of meaning, as already noted. @ then got bored and left while [MENTION=21685]Dave[/MENTION] declared his own victory.
Here's your problem, Dave. Not really that complex.
I didn't say that. You just did.
My mind is made up. You're definitely stupid.Make up your mind and stop toying with my affections.
You don't use MENTION tags?You even fucked up the MENTION tags. My username is not Dave.
I don't use mention tags. "Dave" is a diminutive. Out of "Dave" and "man" I chose the more likely.
You seemed to figure out who was being addressed.... hey, maybe you can be an intelligent human being someday, just like me! Want to?
It won't bite at all, because I didn't commit that logical fallacy.
But it's okay. I know you'd rather eat glass than admit that one of your fellow progressives is a liar. Because to admit that might make you question your beliefs, and there's no way in hell you'd ever do that.
I don't know about all that; what I do know is I put a link down and you didn't touch it.
Go ahead, it won't bite. Much.
Yes. And I said it was a ridiculous idea. Because you're not.How in the world did you ever get the ridiculous idea that you're an intelligent human being?
I didn't say that. You just did.
My mind is made up. You're definitely stupid.
You don't use MENTION tags?
Dumbass.
It won't bite at all, because I didn't commit that logical fallacy.
But it's okay. I know you'd rather eat glass than admit that one of your fellow progressives is a liar. Because to admit that might make you question your beliefs, and there's no way in hell you'd ever do that.
I don't know about all that; what I do know is I put a link down and you didn't touch it.
Go ahead, it won't bite. Much.
Can you find a link that describes the one you committed? You know, where you halfheartedly dismiss one piece of evidence and then declare they're all invalid?
No. You're a dumbass for USING mention tags, then claiming you didn't.Yes. And I said it was a ridiculous idea. Because you're not.I didn't say that. You just did.
My mind is made up. You're definitely stupid.
You don't use MENTION tags?
Dumbass.
It won't bite at all, because I didn't commit that logical fallacy.I don't know about all that; what I do know is I put a link down and you didn't touch it.
Go ahead, it won't bite. Much.
Can you find a link that describes the one you committed? You know, where you halfheartedly dismiss one piece of evidence and then declare they're all invalid?
I'm a "dumbass" for not using mention tags??
My goodness, but you're a dishonest little child, aren't you?Still can't handle the link? You know it's a fallacy but you can't figure out how to apply it to your own cherrypicking?
PLOT SPOILER ALERT:
You have no point, Dave. What you're trying to push here is a fallacy of a biased sample.
Your point wasn't made to me anyway; when you started whining that nobody was paying attention I looked in to see why, and found that there was no denouement in the video. You sent us on a wild goose chase. There was no there there.
Now you're nitpicking little events that may or may not be errors (I didn't bother to vet them) in an effort to make a biased sample point.
Tell me why I should waste my time on that.
This may sound blasphemous to your values but... I'm just not that interested.
MSNBC under fire after pressuring news anchor Rachel Maddow to lose 25 pounds
Tuesday, March 14, 2017 | By Susan Miller
Us Weekly News Tuesday, March 14, 2017
(Us Weekly News) –(CNN Health) - Rachel Maddow has struggled with weight all her life. Two years ago MSNBC told her to "Shape up or shape out", she either needed to lose 25 pounds or find a new network to work for.
What happened?
Maddow, who wore a size 16 then, watched the pounds melt away. At her heaviest she weighed 185 pounds, after trying Atkins, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and a slew of other weight loss programs without any success, she fell into depression and her marriage almost fell apart. She couldn't risk undergoing surgery and didn't know what to do next, until she saw Doctor Oz talk about Pure Life Garcinia™. Rachel decided to give it a try, thinking she had nothing to lose. That day changed her life forever. Now others are following her lead.
Rachel after her weight loss.
(now she looks like a snowflake/crybaby ...)
...
Us Weekly | Rachel Maddow At The Center Of Latest MSNBC Scandal
