So yeah. fuck you.


for balance, i demand that deviousj must reply at least once to every single damn topic on this board no matter what.

I understand. It's frustrating being wrong all of the time. That's why it's always you whacko liberals who protest everything.

post a response

http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64928

It's frustrating being wrong all of the time.

That's why you rarely catch a glimpse of the elusive W or Veep in the White House habitat.

If the intelligence is wrong, how is the right still thinking they're right?

Originally posted by Donkey
post a response

http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64928

he doesn't want to show weakness. plus he has a tiny penis.

Originally posted by Donkey
post a response

http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64928

He ignores all points he can't argue. That's always been his style, and why I ignore anything he says because in no way does he even consider anything but his own views.

He never saw Obama's speech, but said it sucked. He never saw Moore's movie, yet argued how invalid it was.

So I'm like the Ceci of Forum 37?

Originally posted by DeviousJ
So I'm like the Ceci of Forum 37?

yes, please.


bitch. (didn't i tell you i've given up the civil thing)

Originally posted by sppunk
He never saw Obama's speech, but said it sucked. He never saw Moore's movie, yet argued how invalid it was. Are you REALLY a reporter? Because here's where you show your true colors, as a reporter - you might as well go work for the NY Times, since they like their writers to make up facts and stories.

#1 - I said I saw the speech.
#2 - I never said the speech "sucked." Fuck, I never commented on the speech itself <i>at all.</i> Go back and read the topic again before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

Originally posted by Donkey
post a response

http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64928 Yes, I usually ignore threads that are started by aliases and trolls. Oh, boo hoo.

What most of you seem to miss is that someone can be against the Liberals and *not* for GWB. But of course, most of you are brainwashed into the two party system, which is just how they want it.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Are you REALLY a reporter? Because here's where you show your true colors, as a reporter - you might as well go work for the NY Times, since they like their writers to make up facts and stories.

#1 - I said I saw the speech.
#2 - I never said the speech "sucked." Fuck, I never commented on the speech itself <i>at all.</i> Go back and read the topic again before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

What are my "true colors?"

Hey, why don't you cite me three sources about the NY Times making up facts (aside from Boy Blair). In fact, why don't you go ahead and cite where the NY Times doesn't play both parties fairly in its reports outside of columns. I urge you, beg you and plead for you to cite those. Thanks.

And, I know ... my problem is you saying he has no "right" to speak and he only spoke because he's black.

I guess I just found it odd that it mattered to you the fact he had the title of Keynote speaker. That title doesn't mean anything, does it? You could tell me who all the GOP and DNC keynote speakers were, and I wouldn't care what their political titles were. In fact, why isn't the background diverse? Like a GOP scientist, or a DNC professor? Why do they have to be professional politicians at all?

Originally posted by sppunk


What are my "true colors?"

Hey, why don't you cite me three sources about the NY Times making up facts (aside from Boy Blair). In fact, why don't you go ahead and cite where the NY Times doesn't play both parties fairly in its reports outside of columns. I urge you, beg you and plead for you to cite those. Thanks.

And, I know ... my problem is you saying he has no "right" to speak and he only spoke because he's black. I was obvoiusly referring to Blair.

In the future it would be wise if you quoted me. I never said he had "no right" to speak. I said it was obviously a ploy by the Democrats to pander to the black constituency.

Let me put it this way: do you think Ron Reagan would have been given a speech if he weren't the son of a former GOP President? Of course not. I feel the same way about Obama.

So far you've accused me of saying that I didn't see the speech (when I did), of saying that the speech sucked (when I never commented on the speech at all) and saying he had "no right" to speak (which of course I didn't - check the thread).

Are you trying to play the role of badgering reporter to my Heinz-Kerry, or what?

Originally posted by homechicago
why isn't the background diverse? Like a GOP scientist, or a DNC professor? Why do they have to be professional politicians at all?

because they would make the politicians look dumb and predictable

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I was obvoiusly referring to Blair.

In the future it would be wise if you quoted me. I never said he had "no right" to speak. I said it was obviously a ploy by the Democrats to pander to the black constituency.

Let me put it this way: do you think Ron Reagan would have been given a speech if he weren't the son of a former GOP President? Of course not. I feel the same way about Obama.

So far you've accused me of saying that I didn't see the speech (when I did), of saying that the speech sucked (when I never commented on the speech at all) and saying he had "no right" to speak (which of course I didn't - check the thread).

Are you trying to play the role of badgering reporter to my Heinz-Kerry, or what?

Of course Reagan wouldn't.. I believe the same thing and I didn't speak .. but to speak you have to have a name for yourself. Duh.

You never said you saw his speech the first time I said it. It was later you said that, and I never implied further that you missed it.

I don't know why I said sucked, I just didn't want to rehash the nonense you are saying about him speaking soley to pander. I'm sorry, but that's idiocy if nothing else. And you did say he had no right in so many words - you said he only spoke because he's black.

And, back to the Times, how about not slamming it then since you have no merit to? Blair was a fuck-up. Your office, my office, Bush's cabinet, etc. has them. You find them, fire them and move on. That's what they did.