This is what they’re reduced to.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Tea Party Protester In Obama Mask Whips Elderly
August 28th, 2009
90 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Misty Stone Is Green
- Devin Hester Pantsed On Sunday Night Football
- Video: Adam Lambert Falls At 2009 AMA
- Taylor Swift Wins Favorite Artist @ 2009 American Music Awards
- Oprah Producing Sexy Series For HBO
- Mall Cops: Mall Of America Series Coming To TLC
- 2009 WWE Survivor Series Results
- Video: Jennifer Lopez Falls On Stage At 2009 American Music Awards
- Dashawn Vasconcellos: NYPD Shot Teen 11 Times
- Disney Adapting High School Musical For China
Live News
Wow, um, they are certainly on the very fringe of the lunatic fringe!
Oh, my…. bet that could turn on Larry Craig!
That’s no average tea bagger, it’s Randall Terry. Video here, story from the Hill here. You can see Terry in the same suit at about 1 minute in on the vid.
Fox Nation commenters on the march
Don’t say Obama’s critics are racist!!
Obama’s critics are racist.
Some of Obama’s critics are racist.
Fixed.
I can give someone with no history of racist speech or behavior the benefit of the doubt for making a reference to “the great white hope” when talking about potential Republican challengers to the president, and then promptly apologizing for it.
Then there’s this.
Some of the right-wing commenters on this site like to dabble in false equivalency, but Randall Terry has taken the cake and spooged in it. This has got to be the most racist thing I’ve seen since…
Oh hell. I wish it were harder to come up with recent examples of this crap.
Correction on behalf of Paddy, whose computer is down: It isn’t Randall Terry in the video, but he did partake in the fun.
Follow Paddy’s link from the Hill.
Gracias.
Pathetic on so many levels. That’s the Party of Dennis right there.
And here’s the party of Indeed, formerly known as ed, also at the Moran town hall….
“This used to be America!”
“It ain’t no more, okay?”
Hey thanks for that Hot Air link, Dennis. I’ll click on that exactly never. But thanks anyway. Sorry it’s not Your America no more (i.e., well, you know). But you can’t fight progress.
That is disgusting…..
Just another example of a constitutionally challenged Obama supporter. No need to worry about slippery slopes.
It’s a shame so many folks are dead set against the grand experiment we started here 200 and some years back.
To be honest, giant paper mache puppets are hard to make, while whips are easy to find in many conservative households.
It’s a shame so many folks are dead set against the grand experiment we started here 200 and some years back.
Fortunately, they are out of office now, but we have a lot of damage to repair from 2001-2009. And even though they are now in the minority and shrinking, their hatred of American values still stands in the way of the public option.
It’s a shame so many folks are dead set against the grand experiment we started here 200 and some years back.
Could you please be more specific? What the hell are you (virtually) talking about?
I think it’s a shame that there seem to be people who are dead set against any changes to the United States as it was 200 and some years back (specifically: women’s rights, Civil Rights, gay rights, environmental policy, Social Security, Medicaid, and a raft of other issues right wingers have historically and vehemently opposed).
My post referred to the link provided by Dennis which detailed a black cop selectively violating protester’s first amendment rights because he appears to be offended by anti Obama opinions. Liberals, at least the ones here, have a very selective appreciation for our Constitution, with little regard for individual liberty and freedom. Their basic ignorance of our history and disdain for traditional american values creates a situation where they do not even realize what they are throwing away.
I guess the President Obama mask should have looked like Pres Reagan?
And please, oh please, don’t even try to imply that the “Grand Experiment” we started here, included any possibility that the European Socialism that bloomed in 1848 would ever reach our shores.
It’s a shame so many folks are dead set against the grand experiment we started here 200 and some years back.
What kind of non-sequitur is this?
I’m pretty sure the grand experiment was the ability to have a country with a republican form of government, rather than a king. Thankfully, we have Amused Observer to save us from the Monarchists in the Obama administration here to bring back the king.
And please, oh please, don’t even try to imply that the “Grand Experiment” we started here, included any possibility that the European Socialism that bloomed in 1848 would ever reach our shores.
That’s right, Frank, the American revolution was all about stemming the tide of (pro-republican) social revolutions in Europe that were going to come 70 years later!
“Their basic ignorance of our history and disdain for traditional american values creates a situation where they do not even realize what they are throwing away.” – AO.
Which values would those be that we are rejecting? The condemnation of torture? The importance of privacy? The value of due process? The abhorrance of violence and war? The last presidency proved to me that many conservatives lack these values, supporting a president who initiated torture, gave us a war on bogus pretenses, ignoring the rights to a fair trial and so forth. As the Book says, “Might want to take the log from your own eye first there, chief.”
Can a Republican make it through the day without thoroughly beclowning himself? Is it possible?
Abanterer,
You did not go to the link.
The short list.
1st amendment
2nd amendment
5th amendment
9th amendment
10th amendment
12th amendment
14th amendment
Oh bullshit. Bush routinely violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments (that we know of) and you little sycophants rolled over for him.
Now we have a black president who’s simply trying to fix a broken health-care system that won’t insure people who are actually sick, and you little bed-wetters cry “Traitor!”
You guys have no shame. There’s a reason your party is dying and you have to resort to thuggery and stunts like this one. You guys don’t have any real ideas.
Smaller government? Haha. Less intrusive government while wire-tapping private citizens without warrants? Haha. The Bill of Rights? Like detaining American citizens without due process? Haha.
AO, the Constitution and BoR are incredibly significant documents. Please don’t soil them with your bigotry and slavish devotion to trying to resuscitate the disastrous presidency of Bush II.
“This used to be America!”
So Henry Louis Gates deserves to be hauled off to jail for giving a little lip to a police officer at his own house, but this neo-nazi asshole’s cop-badgering makes him a first-amendment martyr?
You wingnuts are really going off the deep end.
Jaim,
Once more your ignorance is trumpted only by your arrogence. You address nothing in the post and set up an army of straw men to cover for it. What Obama supporting Constitution trampling police officers have to do with Bush is hard to see. You socialists are losing the middle, without the middle the pendulum swings back.
It’s easy to see why you can’t turn that degree into a decent job in the states. 10 minutes into an interview and you’re toast.
The link? The only link is to a video of a security guard telling him he can’t have a sign on the property. Amazingly, security cops are not members of the federal government. More amazingly, other than this sign, this man is allowed to take video and pretty much say what he wanted, regardless of the sign. It’s a pretty weak argument for the ’stifling of free speech’.
And lists of amendments don’t qualify as a ‘counter-argument’. You accused us of breaking with traditional values and history, and didn’t bother to describe which ones or how. I asked for them, and you listed amendments, as if that explained something. It doesn’t. Either be more specific, or just cede the point.
OMG wait till we send you to the reeducation camps for your lobotomies.
I know I’m veering off-topic here, but, regarding the poster of the wingnut in the video, what’s with this bizarre new meme going around conservative/libertarian circles that Obama is like “the Joker?” Even if I conceded that Obama wants “National Socialist Health Care” (and I do not), how does this tie the President to that character? Nowhere in the Dark Knight does the Joker ever advocate for NSHC. Maybe Obama is like him in other ways, and I just missed his stump speeches during the 2008 campaign where he vowed to rob banks, feed Russian mobsters to their own dogs, blow up hospitals and kill Batman, lol.
“You socialists”
LOL.
Really, that’s all you can do in the face of modern conservatism.
Tyro, you non reading anencephalic delinquent!
Go up out of the basement and ask your Mom what it means:
And please, oh please, don’t even try to imply that the “Grand Experiment” we started here, included any possibility that the European Socialism that bloomed in 1848 would ever reach our shores.
So it wasn’t stemming the tide of anything, you dolt!
Tyro’s Mommy: Please tell Tyro that what I meant was that there was no way the European Socialism that bloomed in 1848 was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. It has been trying to make inroads since then, but has been regularly rejected by the American people, because they do fully understand the tradition of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.
The Founding Fathers would have been astonished , if not appalled, by the idea of ObamaCare.
Daniel, I don’t think it’s much more complicated than Democrats/Obama = evil.
I think it’s a shame that there seem to be people who are dead set against any changes to the United States as it was 200 and some years back.
Hear, hear.
They would probably, once they had socialism described to them, recognize that since no one is recommending that hospitals and clinics are not being taken over by the government and that private practices and insurance would continue to exist that this didn’t fit a socialist definition.
The founding fathers would have also recognized the severe issues with the current health care system, especially the rate of recission. Considering the rigorous restrictions on corporations in that time after the Revolution, I doubt they would have looked kindly at them.
Did you know that in Colonial times, the mentally ill were kept in their families’ homes, and received a small stipend from the County to build a separate shelter for them, if required.
You know why?
Because they had been kept in poor houses, and it was getting too expensive as the population increased. So, if you think people like Samuel Adams and James Otis were concerned about “universal health care”, you have another think coming.
Do you remember Patrick Henry’s famous speech to the House of Burgesses?
As he gave that speech, his wife was chained to the floor in the basement – insane – because, in 1775, that was the humane thing to do.
We’ve come a long way : see The Mad Among Us: A History of the Care of America’s Mentally Ill, by Gerald N. Grob , but that in no way implies that the Founding Fathers wanted a government that took care of its citizens.
I don’t think the Founding Fathers would advocate that their nation be led by a bunch of retarded fetishists who haven’t learned anything in 230 years.
And yet — it is …
Heh.
Poor U.S. “Founding Fathers,” how unhappy they would be if they could read this! They were progressive in their epoch’s perspective, and believed in democracy so policies could continue to be adapted as technology and the needs and ambitions of the people change. Yet they seem to only ever get cited to support applying policies that may or may not have been suitable centuries ago, regardless of the current situation. Or they get refered to completely out of topic as just happened now.
So… instead of providing for a public health insurance plan that might allow people to get preventative access to health care, the government should pay a family directly to take care of sick family members? Is this a system you’re endorsing?
Because while this was something that the Founders did, it was probably because medical care was still pretty experimental; quicksilver, herbal remedies, bloodletting, unsanitary conditions were all around back then. And psychology wasn’t even a medical concept at the time. That they preferred to have the mad kept at home rather than be placed fully on the state is understandable, given the lack of treatment options.
And again, what’s being proposed is not socialist; private enterprise is allowed, and it’ll probably see a benefit with people being able to afford treatment outside of a job. Hospitals will get money from the government, not have to wrangle it from an insurance company in another state that may or may not pay for a procedure. Businesses can reduce or eliminate their own plans for lower employees, and let them sign on a public option, while keeping private plans for the upper echelon.
I frankly don’t see what the right is bellyaching about, unless they actively don’t care about the health of millions of Americans. To complain about funding and details, and what gets covered and what doesn’t is well within reasonable debate. Nay saying everything and denouncing mythical death panels, socialist conspiracies and the like aren’t helping anyone, and make the Right look crazy.
You did not go to the link.
You didn’t link anything, chief.
It has been trying to make inroads since then, but has been regularly rejected by the American people, because they do fully understand the tradition of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.
Are these the same Americans that insist that the country was founded on Christianity?
Speaking of previous rejection, we were told 60 years ago that the free market would solve all the health care problems. 60 years later, and we’re in even deeper. Seems like it’s time for Plan B.
I frankly don’t see what the right is bellyaching about, unless they actively don’t care about the health of millions of Americans.
What makes you believe they do?
They were progressive in their epoch’s perspective, and believed in democracy so policies could continue to be adapted as technology and the needs and ambitions of the people change
They were not “progressive” for their epoch – they were radical, as in “roots”, as in returning to roots. First, read Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, where he talks about why our Revolution was different from the French Revolution. Then, read the Federalist Papers, with the debates over giving too much power to the people, because they feared the demagogue. Now, who’s our President? Someone who gets television coverage Big Brother would envy. Who addresses huge audiences and tells them Doctors would rather cut off your leg to make $30,000 (itself a lie) rather than help you prevent the ravages of diabetes. Demagoguery? Who, me?
the government should pay a family directly to take care of sick family members? Is this a system you’re endorsing?
No, I am not, although in the case of the mentally ill, there are many situations where it would be beneficial.
No, this is yet another case where you lack — or pretend to lack — reading skills.
Read it in context: [families] “received a small stipend from the County to build a separate shelter for them, if required.
You know why?
Because they had been kept in poor houses, and it was getting too expensive … ”
Get the point now? That in Colonial days, even poor houses, as inhumane as they were, were considered a drain on the economy.
The major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism is that conservatives believe that are certain principles of human justice, freedom and equality which never change.
Liberals believe justice, freedom and equality change with each day’s headlines. They do not.
The major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism is that conservatives believe that are certain principles of human justice, freedom and equality which never change.
You mean things like this or this or even this?
Man, I can’t believe that apologists try to give these loons credit that they’re doing something clever! Or is it a why to try to disguise your own hate?
Two broken links out of three, Zython! 33 and one-third percent
Tsk, tsk !
Hardly a passing grade …
So, Frank first argues that the left alledgedly threatens freedom held dear to the “Founding Fathers”, then argues that those same were actually fervently opposed to democracy and progress?
Franky-boo, try not to contradict yourself within the same thread!
“Get the point now? That in Colonial days, even poor houses, as inhumane as they were, were considered a drain on the economy.
The major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism is that conservatives believe that are certain principles of human justice, freedom and equality which never change.”
Oh wait… you wrote these two paragraphs in a row. You can’t keep from contradicting yourself two sentences apart!
Two broken links out of three, Zython! 33 and one-third percent
Tsk, tsk !
Hardly a passing grade …
Ok, let’s try this: type in this URL into your browser:
http://www.pandagon.net
If that doesn’t work, the fault’s on your end, not mine.
Frank, you receive government subsidized health-care.
Why are you such a socialist?
“Liberals believe justice, freedom and equality change with each day’s headlines. They do not.”
You’ve never heard of John Stuart Mill, have you?
Zython, the link didn’t open in Opera, Google Chrome , Internet Explorer, or Mozilla FireFox. It must be my browsers.
Please, Jaim, tell me about John Stuart Mill the famous conservative — or was he a liberal? Democrat? Republican?
Tell me, I want to know.
M’sieu Dodo — It has always been a conservative argument that the Founding Fathers feared the “liberal” concept of ‘democracy’ and ‘progress’ . As I said , liberals know far less about conservatism than conservatives know about liberalism.
see here for more
I think you’re just ridiculing yourself now, poor Frankie.
I think you have nothing to say , M’sieu Dodo
Frank, in another thread you just called secularism cold, sterile and amoral. I say this in the nicest way, but I don’t think you know the first goddamned thing about liberals apart from Fox News strawmen.
Parthenon, in another thread you could have said what you just said.
I have been reading about politics with some regularity since 1970 — conservative, liberal and otherwise. I would say that that might indicate that I formed my opinions well before the existence of FOX News, or even Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
As for what I said in the other thread, I offer you a challenge: Indicate to me in the Democratic Party Platform, or a State or Local Liberal Party Platform, where there is a mention of morality, religion, or a religious principle.
Show me one place where the role of religion in everyday is respected , let alone revered.
Then I will admit I was wrong.
But liberalism has a kind of a “communism camouflaged” attribute to it. It wants the State to be God, and it views real religion as a competitor.
You should try reading Ann Coulter’s Godless — and not just the juicy bits found by the bloggers.
“Show me one place where the role of religion in everyday is respected , let alone revered.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
See page 48. You’re welcome.
“Faith
We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation,
our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless
acts of justice and mercy it inspires. We believe that change comes not from the top-down, but
from the bottom-up, and that few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues,
temples, and mosques. To face today’s challenges–from saving our planet to ending poverty—
we need all hands on deck.”
Frank DiSalle: but that in no way implies that the Founding Fathers wanted a government that took care of its citizens.
Unbelievable.
So, you’d have us believe they wanted a government that, what, harmed it’s citizens? Or, in a more middle ground fashion, ignored them?
No, promoting of the General Welfare?
Frank DiSalle: And yet — it is …
Heh.
Well, not since January.
Heh.
Frank DiSalle: The major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism is that conservatives believe that are certain principles of human justice, freedom and equality which never change.
So the poor should not be provided with attorneys and full access to the legal system?
The slaves should not have been freed?
Women should not have been given the right to vote?
Each of those was a change to the principles of justice, freedom and equality that existed at the time.
Actually, I’d agree that the principals never change, but the policies that exist often fail to live up to them. And it is the conservatives far more often than the liberals that fight against improving the policies.
Frank DiSalle: Zython, the link didn’t open in Opera, Google Chrome , Internet Explorer, or Mozilla FireFox. It must be my browsers.
All three opened in my Opera, Firefox and IE just fine. I suspect some kind of technical glitch on your end.
Frank DiSalle: Indicate to me in the Democratic Party Platform, or a State or Local Liberal Party Platform, where there is a mention of morality, religion, or a religious principle.
Actually you don’t need to get past the second page of text in the Democratic platform ((page 6 in the document Enlightened Lib’s linked to) to read:
And that is followed by pages of policy statements based on the morals cited.
I turn your challenge back on you Frank. Where is there any mention of immorality or opposition to religion? Or is anything other than full-throated promotion of religion considered condemnation in your mind?
Oh, and as for your other challenge, I’ve accepted it, Frank. Are you going to accept mine in return? The assault charge or an admission that you’re a hypocrite? Eagerly looking forward to see which you choose. (I’m guessing it will be the latter.)
I will accept a half hearted reference to faith as a mention of religion. Since it makes no reference to “faith in anything” it doesn’t acknowledge the power of individual faith.
It certainly doesn’t mention God or a Creator.
And “permanent and lasting values” does not mean 1789 socioeconomic conditions; it means that the same things that people held true and valuable throughout the centuries, are still true and valuable today.
When we became a rich and powerful nation, we could afford to call upon the government to be more helpful in doing things people alone could not do.
But we should never have let the “commerce clause” of the Constitution overpower the 9th and 10th Amendments. That moved the power to legislate on innovation from the States to Congress.
That was, and is, I believe, a mistake.
S M , you are a punk. I have accepted your challenge to prove it: “If you hit, I’ll call the cops” What a pussy.
“Show me one place where the role of religion in everyday is respected , let alone revered.
Then I will admit I was wrong. ”
???? You’ve been shown two.
Zython, the link didn’t open in Opera, Google Chrome , Internet Explorer, or Mozilla FireFox. It must be my browsers.
Well, I use Safari, and it could also be something else, either in your router or your ISP. Either way, it works for me, so it’s not on my end.
I will accept a half hearted reference to faith as a mention of religion. Since it makes no reference to “faith in anything” it doesn’t acknowledge the power of individual faith.
It certainly doesn’t mention God or a Creator.
Frank, you DO know there are other religions besides Christianity, right?
But liberalism has a kind of a “communism camouflaged” attribute to it. It wants the State to be God, and it views real religion as a competitor.
There’s a difference between “wanting the State to become God” and wanting to push people who use religion as a backdrop to hurt others for no gain out of the mainstream.
Frank DiSalle: S M , you are a punk. I have accepted your challenge to prove it: “If you hit, I’ll call the cops” What a pussy.
Oh, whine, whine.
You said you’d kick my ass if you faced me in person. I offered to tell you exactly where to find me and meet you any time. And, typical wingnut, you suddenly find an amazing array of excuses and rationalizations for not following thru.
Hypocrite. Coward. Joke.
There’s a difference between “wanting the State to become God” and wanting to push people who use religion as a backdrop to hurt others for no gain out of the mainstream.
Yes, there is: Wanting to make the State a God is intellectually dishonest and pusillanimous, while trying to force people who use religion for any reason out of the mainstream is unconstitutional and unamerican.
I see you’re a Mac user — I should have known.
Well I tried to open that site with 4 browsers in VISTA , and Mozilla FireFox in XP. Maybe my ISP or my router is trying to protect me from REALLY idiotic left wing blogs.
Aha ! It opened as http://www.pandagon.net
Yes, Zython, you know all about the Internet.
Zython, you DO know that there are religions that believe in God and / or a Creator, that are not Christianity.
What a doofus!
“Please, Jaim, tell me about John Stuart Mill the famous conservative — or was he a liberal? Democrat? Republican?”
He wrote a little book called On Liberty, which is partly the basis for modern Liberalism. The core concept is that freedom is derived from inside men, not from their kings or leaders. And that people should be allowed to do as they will as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
I learned this in high school, Frank. Pity you didn’t.
“You said you’d kick my ass if you faced me in person. I offered to tell you exactly where to find me and meet you any time. And, typical wingnut, you suddenly find an amazing array of excuses and rationalizations for not following thru.”
I think Frank and Dennis are room-mates. They sure do act like pissy-pants little babies when it comes down to it.
“Yes, there is: Wanting to make the State a God is intellectually dishonest and pusillanimous”
Who is trying to make the state God? It was the Republicans ca. 2001-2008 who kept reminding us that even though Bush was a fucking moron, he was still “our president.” Blind faith in a failed leader. That’s a hell of a lot more religious than I care to be.
But please Frank, go back to telling us how bad socialism is while you receive monthly checks from the Fed. Please, your inherent silliness is engrossing.
And “pusillanimous” doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Wow, Frank sent you that e-mail?
What a punk-ass bitch you are Frank. Fucking coward. Fucking loser.
I see you’re a Mac user — I should have known.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Aha ! It opened as http://www.pandagon.net
Yes, Zython, you know all about the Internet.
Of course you did, that’s how I made the link.
while trying to force people who use religion for any reason out of the mainstream is unconstitutional and unamerican.
No it isn’t. Having an idea become accepted by the majority of people isn’t a right. Besides, I specifically stated that I only included those that hide behind religion to hurt others. But considering that you seem to think it’s OK to “use” religion as you would a tool, I shouldn’t have expected less.
Zython, you DO know that there are religions that believe in God and / or a Creator, that are not Christianity.
What the hell’s your point? Sure there are, there are also religions that DON’T have that belief.
Frank’s main advantage is that completely absurd claims are harder to debunk than slightly flawed arguments. I don’t know if it’s his trolling style or if his mind is actually broken, but I know it’s useless to argue point by point with him: they don’t seem to make any more sense to himself than to normal people.
Only one thing I’ll tell him directly tonight: stop talking in the name of Conservatives. While I disagree with them on a political level, I know many sane and sensible ones. You seem oblivious to the Right’s actual opinions, and only reflect a disorganised and confused fringe. Speak in your own name alone.
“I don’t know if it’s his trolling style or if his mind is actually broken,”
It’s the latter. Frank meltdowns are an annual occurrence, followed by him swearing that he will never come back. I see he’s still challenging (much younger) blog posters to fights on street corners. That’s sanity for ya’
Jaim: Wow, Frank sent you that e-mail?
What a punk-ass bitch you are Frank. Fucking coward. Fucking loser.
Yes he did.
And yes he is.
Enlightened Liberal: I see he’s still challenging (much younger) blog posters to fights on street corners.
To be fair to Frank, I’ve never said my age here (or sex or orientation or …). For all he knows I’m a 76 year old woman with arthritis. And he still wimps out.
And he <a href="still wimps out.
Figures. Anyone who threatens a blog poster to a fight has a screw loose anyway. I think he’s taking advantage of the fact that no one is stupid enough to take his threats seriously. I have a feeling though that one day someone will and Frank won’t be too happy about the outcome.
Anyone who calls me a racist in a blog, knowing that they would never do so to my face, is a coward . And if you call me any other things in a blog , that you wouldn’t dare say to my face , you’re still a punk .
Say what you will about me, I couldn’t care less. You guys , as a group , have never impressed me with political acumen, historical analysis, or general education.
Why should I find your dime – store analyses of me in anyway meaningful? If IQ were dynamite, you guys couldn’t blow a BB through a stained glass window.
You can move on if you wish. Maybe you should.
Enough, please. Y’all leave Frank alone.
He’s been around here long enough for all of you to know his style. There’s no need to escalate his most ill-chosen posts into threats. If you can’t handle his most extreme moments, ignore them.
Thanks.
Frank DiSalle: Anyone who calls me a racist in a blog, knowing that they would never do so to my face, is a coward .
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/08/25/cia-documents-rebut-cheney-assertions/#comment-174474“>challenges someone to an actual in-person fight in a blog knowing they would never do so for real?
Coward and hypocrite? Thanks, for answering that for us, Frank.
Frank DiSalle: Anyone who calls me a racist in a blog, knowing that they would never do so to my face, is a coward .
So what do you call someone who challenges someone to an actual in-person fight in a blog knowing they would never do so for real?
Coward and hypocrite? Thanks, for answering that for us, Frank.
I know I’m the new guy, but because I’m new I see a lot of this is getting out of hand. I think Quaker is correct.
You all need to go to separate corners until you play nice again, lol!
“Enough, please. Y’all leave Frank alone.”
No. He actively chooses to troll this site, then goes over the top and challenges a poster to a fight. Then he immediately backs down like the sniveling little punk-bitch that he is.
I’m never going to let him forget it, not another troll here who did exactly the same thing with me.
not = nor
TFJ to Jaim.
Oh, I haven’t forgotten either, little-boy Jaim. You weaseled on an offer that wasn’t open-ended, just like you weaseled on your country.
No Dennis. I accepted your original offer (which you quickly changed, just like Francis), and you bitched out like the punk coward you are.
It’s all there to see for anyone who cares. I kind of don’t but hey, you’re the cowardly bitch here, not me.
You are what you post.
Translated Dennis: Look, over there. (At that mirage!)
Dennis, what’s whatever Jaim may or may not have done have to do with Frank’s utter wimp-hood?
Fucking cowardly chickenhawk wing-nuts. Dime a dozen. And incredibly predictable in their cowardice.
Thanks, Quaker. I stood up for you, when some idiot was messing with you. We’re even.
And, Jaim, I’m no chickenhawk. But you ARE an a**hole.
See you in a few days.
Frank DiSalle: And, Jaim, I’m no chickenhawk.
I.e., someone who calls for aggressive action but refuses to actively participate.
Nah, that wouldn’t apply to Frank.