You can't make this shit up

[asterism]

I'm glad you have been able to read that back. Now what does that have to do with Donovan - the subject of this thread?

You're slow aren't you?

You really don't understand that, do you?

Wow. Sad.

I was comparing the instances where the GOP is making bad decisions, relating that the decision to run Donovan is just as bad as the GOP's decision to keep Scalise in the no. 3 position of the GOP in the HOR, because both decisions send TERRIBLE messages to minorites in the USA, minorities that the GOP must win over if it wants to be viable in presidential cycles.

I am so sorry that discernment is not your thing. I didn't realize that you need people to spoon-feed you everything, that the simple connection from point A to point B is simply not possible with you. Ok, noted for the future.

But at least you do now realize that I was indeed specifically referring to Steve Scalise for a reason and with the sentence where I have now bolded and put in size 7 the part of the sentence that you obviously missed, you realize now that you trolled for no reason, right? All you had to do was to go back and actually read the ENTIRE content, and you would have known.

So, you see, you called me "confused", but I was not, not in the slightest. You obviously were, because you missed a critical part of a text. If you are going to quote something, you should read it first.

This is part of why I laugh at so many Righties. They misread, they get all defensive, they attack personally (as you tried with me) and then, when confronted with their fuckup, they just kind of sulk.

This is fun.

I graciously accept your concession.

You can claim whatever you want, but it really looks like you're again trying to either cover for your confusion or that you are conflating one person with another for effect. I have not been defensive in the slightest, it is you who took a simple query about your geography and did your best to give me a "slap-down" and then demonstrated your lack of ability to discern who has been posting on this longer than whom.

Generalizing intelligence based on perceived political affiliation is another error, but I suspect your suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from seeing your mistake.

It's all trivial at this point anyway, race-baiting is the last refuge of a failed platform so you've got that going for you.

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

Silly Statistdickhead, you enjoying your stupidity being discussed makes it that much funnier.

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

 

[Statistikhengst]

You really don't understand that, do you?

Wow. Sad.

I was comparing the instances where the GOP is making bad decisions, relating that the decision to run Donovan is just as bad as the GOP's decision to keep Scalise in the no. 3 position of the GOP in the HOR, because both decisions send TERRIBLE messages to minorites in the USA, minorities that the GOP must win over if it wants to be viable in presidential cycles.

I am so sorry that discernment is not your thing. I didn't realize that you need people to spoon-feed you everything, that the simple connection from point A to point B is simply not possible with you. Ok, noted for the future.

But at least you do now realize that I was indeed specifically referring to Steve Scalise for a reason and with the sentence where I have now bolded and put in size 7 the part of the sentence that you obviously missed, you realize now that you trolled for no reason, right? All you had to do was to go back and actually read the ENTIRE content, and you would have known.

So, you see, you called me "confused", but I was not, not in the slightest. You obviously were, because you missed a critical part of a text. If you are going to quote something, you should read it first.

This is part of why I laugh at so many Righties. They misread, they get all defensive, they attack personally (as you tried with me) and then, when confronted with their fuckup, they just kind of sulk.

This is fun.

I graciously accept your concession.

You can claim whatever you want, but it really looks like you're again trying to either cover for your confusion or that you are conflating one person with another for effect. I have not been defensive in the slightest, it is you who took a simple query about your geography and did your best to give me a "slap-down" and then demonstrated your lack of ability to discern who has been posting on this longer than whom.

Generalizing intelligence based on perceived political affiliation is another error, but I suspect your suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from seeing your mistake.

It's all trivial at this point anyway, race-baiting is the last refuge of a failed platform so you've got that going for you.

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

Silly Statistdickhead, you enjoying your stupidity being discussed makes it that much funnier.

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

 

[asterism]

You can claim whatever you want, but it really looks like you're again trying to either cover for your confusion or that you are conflating one person with another for effect. I have not been defensive in the slightest, it is you who took a simple query about your geography and did your best to give me a "slap-down" and then demonstrated your lack of ability to discern who has been posting on this longer than whom.

Generalizing intelligence based on perceived political affiliation is another error, but I suspect your suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from seeing your mistake.

It's all trivial at this point anyway, race-baiting is the last refuge of a failed platform so you've got that going for you.

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

Silly Statistdickhead, you enjoying your stupidity being discussed makes it that much funnier.

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

Are you accusing me of being gay and using that as a negative trait?

Now I know you're fuming.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

Silly Statistdickhead, you enjoying your stupidity being discussed makes it that much funnier.

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

Are you accusing me of being gay and using that as a negative trait?

Now I know you're fuming.

Why? Do gay people blow bells? Is that what you think they do? Oy!

Wow, you are really a very interesting troll. Batshit crazy, but nonetheless interesting. You will be an outstanding playtoy for me.

Proceed, Governor, proceed.

 

[asterism]

Silly Statistdickhead, you enjoying your stupidity being discussed makes it that much funnier.

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

Are you accusing me of being gay and using that as a negative trait?

Now I know you're fuming.

Why? Do gay people blow bells? Is that what you think they do? Oy!

Wow, you are really a very interesting troll. Batshit crazy, but nonetheless interesting. You will be an outstanding playtoy for me.

Proceed, Governor, proceed.

You keep calling me a troll. I'm not sure you know what that means. You're clearly now just flailing and it's funny.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, when you lose a point (and this time, you lost big time, as the record will clearly show), you get all personal. Ok, got it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

Are you accusing me of being gay and using that as a negative trait?

Now I know you're fuming.

Why? Do gay people blow bells? Is that what you think they do? Oy!

Wow, you are really a very interesting troll. Batshit crazy, but nonetheless interesting. You will be an outstanding playtoy for me.

Proceed, Governor, proceed.

You keep calling me a troll. I'm not sure you know what that means. You're clearly now just flailing and it's funny.

Hey, Sancho Panza, it's a message board. And yes, you are trolling. But you already know that.

And now, back to the OP:

You can't make this shit up

Do YOU think that the GOP decision vis-a-vis Grimm's old seat is a good decision, or a bad one?

 

[asterism]

You can dish it out but you can't take it "stallion?"

Sure, when I've earned it. This is not one of those times...

I am thinking that you think you blow the bell curve. Well, maybe you do, but I bet it leaves a weird taste in the back of your mouth.

Are you accusing me of being gay and using that as a negative trait?

Now I know you're fuming.

Why? Do gay people blow bells? Is that what you think they do? Oy!

Wow, you are really a very interesting troll. Batshit crazy, but nonetheless interesting. You will be an outstanding playtoy for me.

Proceed, Governor, proceed.

You keep calling me a troll. I'm not sure you know what that means. You're clearly now just flailing and it's funny.

Hey, Sancho Panza, it's a message board. And yes, you are trolling. But you already know that.

And now, back to the OP:

You can't make this shit up

Do YOU think that the GOP decision vis-a-vis Grimm's old seat is a good decision, or a bad one?

troll

verb

1. (angling)
   1. to draw (a baited line, etc) through the water, often from a boat
   2. to fish (a stretch of water) by trolling
   3. to fish (for) by trolling
2. to roll or cause to roll
3. (archaic) to sing (a refrain, chorus, etc) or (of a refrain, etc) to be sung in a loud hearty voice
4. (intransitive) (British, informal) to walk or stroll
5. (intransitive) (homosexual slang) to stroll around looking for sexual partners; cruise
6. (intransitive) (computing, slang) to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board

You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.

As to your question, I answered it already, you even responded to it!

This really shouldn't be difficult.

 

[squeeze berry]

the lefties are afraid the electorate might decide an election

Not at all. I applaud the decision by republicans in this area to nominate the man who failed to hold NYPD accountable for using an expressly forbidden tactic that resulted in the death of a black man for a minor offense.

It makes it very clear who those Republicans are, and what their party stands for, and I always appreciate people who don't play games about such things.

What's interesting is that none of the republicans in this thread are critical of that decision to nominate this man as a candidate for congress.

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

 

[pillars]

Desperate thread alert.

Does seem little tone deaf and shooting yourself in the foot... I dont know the guy but even a newbie analyst ought to be able to see whatever message no matter how good will be drowned out by 24 hr Garner.........

This would be my point. How could republicans on staten island not think that this is going to go catastrophically sideways with the media, not to mention voters? If I were Reince Priebus, I'd be furious, particularly with all the stuff about Boehner going on right now.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Desperate thread alert.

Does seem little tone deaf and shooting yourself in the foot... I dont know the guy but even a newbie analyst ought to be able to see whatever message no matter how good will be drowned out by 24 hr Garner.........

This would be my point. How could republicans on staten island not think that this is going to go catastrophically sideways with the media, not to mention voters? If I were Reince Priebus, I'd be furious, particularly with all the stuff about Boehner going on right now.

From what I read, both sides agree the racist monster is going to win.

 

[pillars]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

 

[Carib Gyal]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

You don't, but they do. Then again, all they do is win. You, not so much.

 

[squeeze berry]

asterism - to clear up your confusion, here is the posting where you quoted me and asked about the Neo-nazi thing:

You can t make this shit up US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Please notice the text that you quoted last. That text was from me:

Sad, isn't it.

Now, let's see:

A neo-nazi sympathizer as GOP majority whip in the HOR, replacing the only Jewish GOPer who had been in congress. Wow, that's change that elephants can believe in!

And now, after cops choked a black man to death and they got off for it, the dude who enabled their "free get out of jail" card is running for a VERY competitive house seat. LOL. This is gonna be fun.

And the GOP crazy train just keeps on chugging along....

Now, tell me, Asterism, who is the GOP majority whip in the HOR?

That is the person to whom I was referring, not Donovan.

I'm glad you have been able to read that back. Now what does that have to do with Donovan - the subject of this thread?

You're slow aren't you?

You really don't understand that, do you?

Wow. Sad.

I was comparing the instances where the GOP is making bad decisions, relating that the decision to run Donovan is just as bad as the GOP's decision to keep Scalise in the no. 3 position of the GOP in the HOR, because both decisions send TERRIBLE messages to minorites in the USA, minorities that the GOP must win over if it wants to be viable in presidential cycles.

I am so sorry that discernment is not your thing. I didn't realize that you need people to spoon-feed you everything, that the simple connection from point A to point B is simply not possible with you. Ok, noted for the future.

But at least you do now realize that I was indeed specifically referring to Steve Scalise for a reason and with the sentence where I have now bolded and put in size 7 the part of the sentence that you obviously missed, you realize now that you trolled for no reason, right? All you had to do was to go back and actually read the ENTIRE content, and you would have known.

So, you see, you called me "confused", but I was not, not in the slightest. You obviously were, because you missed a critical part of a text. If you are going to quote something, you should read it first.

This is part of why I laugh at so many Righties. They misread, they get all defensive, they attack personally (as you tried with me) and then, when confronted with their fuckup, they just kind of sulk.

This is fun.

I graciously accept your concession.

You can claim whatever you want, but it really looks like you're again trying to either cover for your confusion or that you are conflating one person with another for effect. I have not been defensive in the slightest, it is you who took a simple query about your geography and did your best to give me a "slap-down" and then demonstrated your lack of ability to discern who has been posting on this longer than whom.

Generalizing intelligence based on perceived political affiliation is another error, but I suspect your suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from seeing your mistake.

It's all trivial at this point anyway, race-baiting is the last refuge of a failed platform so you've got that going for you.

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

meanwhile you are playing with your
Ken dolls dressing them in Barbie outfits

 

[pillars]

You don't, but they do. Then again, all they do is win. You, not so much.

While I appreciate DJ Khaled as much as anyone, that seat was held by democrats from 1881--2013, with one exception during WWII, when the seat was redistricted. So, putting the wrong, polarizing person in that spot can definitely result in it being turned back over to the Democrats.

 

[asterism]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

 

[Carib Gyal]

You don't, but they do. Then again, all they do is win. You, not so much.

While I appreciate DJ Khaled as much as anyone, that seat was held by democrats from 1881--2013, with one exception during WWII, when the seat was redistricted. So, putting the wrong, polarizing person in that spot can definitely result in it being turned back over to the Democrats.

But no one is predicting it will be by running this Donovan guy. Perhaps being a drama queen isn't going to change that.

 

[pillars]

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

Absolutely: You can t make this shit up Page 20 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's relatively easy to win one election against a weak opponent. The difficulty lies in maintaining the victory.

That's one thing about both parties that frustrates me; both seem repeatedly to make short-sighted decisions that allow them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[pillars]

But no one is predicting it will be by running this Donovan guy. Perhaps being a drama queen isn't going to change that.

Some things are extremely predictable...this will cause a media firestorm; this will keep the Eric Garner scenario stirred up rather than allowing it to die down and be replaced by some other news story; this will give the impression to many voters (and this is a traditionally Democratic area) that the party affirms what happened in the Garner case and is rewarding the prosecutor.

 

[squeeze berry]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

Sorta like the GOP needing to worry about "the black voters"

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Liberals are so pissed they don't get to personally control the grand jury process.

Funny stuff