user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
No.
Why is this poisonous woman given air time? She's a bad seed. Sounds like she should be in a mental institution.
by mojo on Sun Feb 20, 05 2:12pm
[+]
Ann Coulter's view of a free society is one where all dissenters are killed.
by mojo on Sun Feb 20, 05 2:23pm
[+]
It amazes me that someone so obviously psychotic is given any air time at all. She belongs in a mental institution in a straightjacket doing the thorazine shuffle.
What Cranky, no choices again? LMAO! Going to take some more of Ann Coulter's words that were obviously meant as a joke and twist them around? LMAO!
The reason Cranky didn't make "other choices" available to us is that he doesn't want anyone else's opinion to be heard but HIS and his little pinheaded friends. He only believes in free speech when it's HIS free speech that is involved.
Hey Cranky? You left ballot #67560 and never bothered answering my questions. I decided to see if I could get you to do it over here.
Ready? Here we go:
For the 4th or 5th time -
Before the election were you telling people that George Bush was planning on bringing back the draft? Well?
Cranky? If you want the "truth" to be heard on your ballots and don't just intend for them to be used to spread your far-left lberal propaganda, why do you not allow people to list other choices?
Why do you follow me around and continually place your anti-Bush remarks on ballots of mine that have nothing to do with politics? And as if that not immature enough you then go back and vote multiple times to produced the results YOU want to see!
Do you think this kind of behavior makes you look good and helps get across your point of view?
Cranky? Do you still assert that Ann Coulter was fired from NRO even after hearing NRO's Editor Jonah Golberg's words saying this?:
"SHE'S (Ann Coulter) called the shots from the get-go. It was ANN who decided to sever her ties with National Review — NOT the other way around."
OK Cranky. If it were NOT Ann Coulter that was "calling the shots" why did Jonah Goldberg say it was? Was she lying?
If it were not Ann Coulter that decide to "sever the ties" why did Jonah Goldberg say it was? Was she lying again?
Why did Jonah Goldberg "specifically" state that it was NOT "the other way around" when speaking as to whom got rid of whom first? Why? Was she just lying again and again and again? Please explain to us what she meant about each comment above. We are all ears.
Here's how Cranky speaks of those that he disagrees with:
Speaking of Ann Coulter:
"The poor, little, rich bitch just can't keep a job.
...or a man. Isn't it a little suspicious that a 40-something woman, drooled over by conservatives (with low standards, obviously, has never been married?
By her own admission, she has never had even one long-term relationship with a man?
Classy post, Cranky!
There's a word for that.
Maybe she should join a dating service and go on welfare.
Name calling, personal attacks and insults are his "M.O" and he does not want other people to be heard.
Hey folks - Before I even had made a comment on ballot 67560 you and your little fellow far-left liberals had misquoted Ann and gone on to call her a war monger for wanting to go after the people responsible for 911 and those that cheered about the results, accused her of saying "shit" about Canadians without being specific, actually called her Satan, a man in drag, a swine, a drunken clown, said she needed a good ass kickin, claimed to have "done" her, called her an anorexic bitch, a nutty bitch, called her sexist against her own sex and accused her of not wanting women to be in the military. Just look at the class you and your ilk display when you do not agree with someone's opinions.
Nice work Cranky!
Cranky - Yep. All the time in the world, my friend. It's great to be a free man. One day you might get to try it, but somehow I doubt it. It's funny how when you can't sustain your petty little arguments with facts against people you have to resort to insulting them and their family in multiple ways. Before I even had made a comment on this ballot you and your little fellow far-left liberals had misquoted her and gone on to call her a war monger for wanting to go after the people responsible for 911 and those that cheered about the results, accused her of saying "shit" about Canadians without being specific, actually called her Satan, a man in drag, a swine, a drunken clown, said she needed a good ass kickin, claimed to have "done" her, called her an anorexic bitch (nice one Aya), a nutty bitch, called her sexist against her own sex and accused her of not wanting women to be in the military. Just look at the class you and your ilk display when you do not agree with someone's opinions.
That kind of heated rhetoric against someone is exactly why our nation is as divided as we are right now. It's the old your team vs our team at all cost mentality. It's also why the majority of Americans are turning "red" and beginning to see through the far-left, extremist liberal point of view. You and your ilk have now lost control of both the House and Senate and continue to lose seats with every passing election and 3 of the last 4 Presidents have been conservative Republicans. And in Clinton's first win, he became the only American President to ever be elected to the office with less than 50% of the vote. Had Perot not run (whom I voted for), Clinton would never have seen the White House. Your "team" is getting it's butt kicked and all you have to do is open your eyes to see why. But you people just don't get it. When you come onto a thread like this and not just debate the "facts", but rather start in with personal attacks against someone's character you begin to lose credibility even if your arguments have some merit. When someone of a different point of view comes here and tries to express a different point of view, you and your ilk hit "attack" mode and attempt to silence them. Isn't it funny that when I simply ask for Cranky to leave his anti-Bush and anti-conservative remarks off MY ballots that are not politically based, he can't even agree to do that? He is soooo consumed by his anger for George Bush that he apparently can't control himself. That's what is wrong with Cranky and his gang and way so many people are now turning against the far-left. The average American looks at people like Cranky and see someone that always screams for FREE SPEECH when it's his opinion he wants people to hear, but when it's time for the other side to speak, suddenly he and his gang can't control themselves and start attempting to silence them with personal attacks on them, their likes and dislikes, their lifestyle, their income and even their wife and kids get brought into the fray.
I came onto this ballot to simply state that I believed that Ben had misquoted Ann's remarks and low and behold we found out that he had. No one, including Cranky himself is even disputing the fact that he got her words wrong in his quote. We can debate and perhaps even should debate what she may have meant, but the fact is I was correct in my statement that she had been misquoted. No newspaper in the USA that wanted to have any credibility would have printed Ms Coulter's quote in the manner that Ben did. Just would not have happened in a responsible publication. "Words" are important when you are quoting people and if you want to be taken seriously you need to take proper care to be accurate when using them to quote someone.
In the process of making MY points, I have repeatedly offered to apologize if I were proven to be wrong in my assertions. I have yet to see one single offer of the same from Cranky and his gang. No apology for getting Ann's words wrong and No apology for incorrectly accusing me of being the first to bring "wives" into this debate. Hell - Cranky even made a big deal about some trivial mistake I had made on another unrelated ballot about referring to the Germans in both WWI and WWII as being Nazis. OK - Fine. What did I do even though it was obviously an innocent mistake? I apologized for the error. That is what honest people do. That is what fair people do. That is what real men do. They own up to their mistakes and move on. Where is this sign of character from Cranky and his gang? Where's Ben at least admitting that he got Ann's quote wrong? Where's Cranky at least admitting he was wrong about his accusation that I was the first to bring "wives" into this debate?
When Cranky went into his deal about my inaccurate description of the Germans I responded immediately with an acknowledgment that I was wrong even though it had nothing to do with this ballot. When I question him over whether or not he was one of those people running around screaming that George W. Bush was going to reinstate the draft right after the election was held, what did he do? He basically answered that he wasn't going to answer because it had nothing to do with this ballot. See any difference in the way HE handles himself and the manner in which I handle myself. I addressed the problem straight up and apologized, he made a whinny assed little excuse and STILL will not answer the question. Anyone have any guesses why? I'm guessing that is exactly what he was doing right before the election. Spreading that rumor around to scare and mislead people right before the election. Well, it didn't work. C'mon Cranky, come clean! Try to be a man! Were you telling people that George Bush was planning on bringing back the draft? It's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked. Care to give us an honest answer finally?
Care to be man enough to apologize for wrongly accusing me of being the first to bring our wives into this debate when it was, in fact, YOU that had done that? Well?
Now, all people of good faith can argue and debate what Ann Coulter may have meant with her rather terse words 2 days after the 911 attacks. We can all state our opinions and make our points, but they need to at least make sense if you want anyone to take your position seriously and aren't just preaching to the choir. With that being said and without any heated rhetoric let me ask Cranky this:
Can you please explain what the NRO's Editor Jonah Goldberg meant when she said this:
"SHE'S (Ann Coulter) called the shots from the get-go. It was ANN who decided to sever her ties with National Review — NOT the other way around."
OK Cranky. If it were not Ann that was "calling the shots" why did Jonah Goldberg say it was? Was she lying?
If it were not Ann Coulter that decide to "sever the ties" why did Jonah Goldberg say it was? Was she lying again?
Why did Jonah Goldberg "specifically" state that it was NOT "the other way around" when speaking as to whom got rid of whom first? Why? Was she just lying again and again and again? Please explain to us what she meant about each comment above. We are all ears.
I must give you a bit of credit for at least attempting to have a minimal amount of courage and character when you tried so very hard to confess that you had been wrong when you finally admitted you had been wrong with these somewhat ambiguous words:
"you'll see that NRO is simply stating that nutcase Annie simply jumped before she got pushed."
So, in-other-words, Ann DID quit and she, like Jonah Goldberg clearly suggests in her comments, was "calling the shots" and the one that decided to "sever the ties"! See - It ALL makes sense now doesn't it? When you finally admit the truth with your statement that "Annie simply jumped before she got pushed.", it all begins to fall into place. Well of course Jonah Goldberg was telling the truth when she said that Ann "was calling the shots" and that Ann was the one that decided to "sever the ties", because ANN was the one that DID just that!
You see Cranky - When you break it all down like that it all begins to add up to one thing.
You were once again WRONG! And the funny thing is that you even indirectly admit it with your own words about "Annie simply jumped before". The hard part for you seems to be admitting that you were wrong. It's starting to remind me of the character "Fonzy" on the old hit show Happy Days. The man could simply NOT say he was "wrong" about anything. He would start to say it and perhaps get half the word out, but he just couldn't handle saying it all the way. Kinda like when you admitted it indirectly, but still have yet to say those magical words "I WAS WRONG"!
I understand that the Fonz went onto to grow up and become a really fine and successful man. Perhaps that might even be possible for you?!? Want to take this opportunity to make your first steps towards actually becoming a man, Cranky?
Were you at any time running around telling people that George W. Bush planned to reinstate the draft after the election?
Were you wrong when you accused me of being the first to bring wives into this debate?
Please explain why Jonah Goldberg made her comments indicating that it was ANN that was "calling the shots" if she in-fact was not!
Please explain why Jonah Goldberg said it was ANN take decided to "sever the ties" and NOT the other way around, if in-fact that were not the case.
C'mon Fonzy - It's really not that hard. Here I'll go first:
"I was wrong when I referred to the Germans of WWI as Nazis. I AM SORRY!"
OK - Your turn!
Let's make a comparison between the manner in which someone of maturity addresses a person with another point of view and the way Cranky addresses me. Here's some of Cranky's last words to me:
"Feel a little insecure about not earning your living? Get pushed out from the airlines, so now you're the equivalent of a consultant? At your age, it's tough find a decent job. I honestly sympathize. I've known a number of middle-aged men who would like to be productive members of society, but there just doesn't seem to be a place for them in society anymore. Seriously, I do sympathize. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard-hearted towards you. Maybe you are as pathetic as you seem."
Anyone see any difference? Notive all the facts that he brings up to support his arguments. LMAO!
If Cranky wants to address the facts and debate the issues in a truthful manner, why does he feel the need to attack people when he can't answer their simple questions about the issues? If he wants a truthful debate why can't he let everyone make their choices on an open ballot? Hell - He sure likes to take advantage of EVERYONE else's ballots that allow HIM to post HIS choices now doesn't he?
Just a few question for those of you out there that are reasonable people and have the right to hear the truth!
Hey Cranky -
"Hey, Daddy,
I thought you were going to stay away from my ballots, if I agreed to stay away from yours. Here's what you said: "Please do me a favor and refrain from posting your anti-Bush and anti-conservative BS on my ballots. I'll stay clear from yours! OK?"
That is EXACTLY what I said Cranky and this is exactly what YOU said in response:
"I'm afraid I can't promise not to bash everyone's favorite demon on your ballots. Most of the time I don't pay much attention to whose ballot it is and don't much care. If you want to hammer my ballots, be my guest. I don't take them THAT seriously."
Damn that has to hurt! OUCH! I took you at your word (probably a mistake, eh) that you intended on continuing your immature behavior so, here I am taking you up on your offer to hammer your ballots. What's wrong Cranky? You can dish it out but, can't handle it coming back at you?
Care to reconsider my offer to stay of my ballots and I'll stay off yours? Well?
ROTFLMAO! Well, I see I got your attention Cranky! I asked you as a gentleman to stay off my "nonpolitical" (post all you want on my political ballots) ballots with your anti-Bush, anti-conservative BS posts and YOU said you could NOT promise to do that. Then when I show up at one of your VERY political ballots and make comments, YOU decide to try to make me look like a hypocrite by using my words (out of context) offering you a truce of sorts. Of course you totally fail to show people YOUR response to my offer of a truce. LMAO! This is a typical Cranky and His Gang tactic. I'm just so happy to be the one pointing it out to others.
OK Cranky - I'll make you the same offer again. You can post all you want on my ballots that are political in nature, but please stay off my nonpolitical ballots with all your anti-Bush and anti-conservative BS and propaganda. I will in return stay off your nonpolitical ballots if I can manage to find any. Deal?
Cranky - Are you going to answer my questions? Well?
Were you running around before the last election telling people that Bush was planning to reinstate the draft? Well?
Are you willing to apologize to me for being the first to bring a "wife" into our last conversation and falsely accusing me of doing that? Well?
Care to admit that Ben's quote of Ann Coulter was inaccurate?
Care to answer my questions about Jonah Goldberg's comments that CLEARLY state that it was ANN that "severed" the ties first and NOT the other way around? Well?
C'mon Amigo. We all want to hear YOUR version of the truth! Well?
14 posts in a row!!!!
LOL.
But answer me this, Dad: Are you trying to get in touch with LCD to whine to him about me?
Dad:
Hellooooooo. Daaaaaaad.
Ann Coulter is a bitter fraulein indeed.
Zig - hey Amigo! I believe that Ann Coulter can be a bit "hardcore" with her comments and should probably tone down her rhetoric a bit, but she is a human being like the rest of us and has the right to her opinions. She also should be given at least a minimal amount of respect and have her words quoted accurately and NOT in the manner that Cranky has repeatedly done in the past and now with this ballot. Ann was obviously being "tongue-n-cheek" with her comments about blowing up the NY Times and Cranky knows it. Have we all lost our sense of humor? C'mon people! If you don't like Ann Coulter - Fine! But let's give her a fair shake and NOT just slaughter her with this kind of BS. Good grief! I would expect this out of Cranky but, I would hope that the rest of the reasonable people on this Site might actually demand better of themselves and not jump in and participate in this kind of biased rhetoric. Am I wrong for hoping for that?
Say, Dad:
Are you trying to get in touch with LCD so you can whine to him about me?
Another perspective on Coulter's comments:
"'It's always so comforting when Muslims cite the precise verse from the Quran that tells them killing is wrong. Don't all empathetic human beings understand that instinctively? What if they lost their Quran that day and couldn't remember?' (Ann Coulter in 'My Name Is Adolf', 9/11/2002)
'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.' (Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)
So I guess Coulter must have left her Quran behind on the day she had the New York Observer interview, hence her 'forgetting' that killing is wrong."
A nut is a nut, no matter what side of the political spectrum they come from.
I would suggest that if a 'liberal' made such a statement about the twin towers, there would be uproar.
Because she is Ann Coulter and a Republican , all is forgiven I guess.
I support the defiance of government when they start to kill citizens. You do notice that bill clinton stopped murdering citizens after the OK City bombing didn't you?
Some of us are not going to forget Ruby Ridge or Waco, or Elian Gonzales any time soon!!!
sheesh, how could anyone defend this point of view?
by mojo on Sun Feb 20, 05 5:33pm
[+]
I didn't realize that Elian Gonzalez was murdered.
ELIAN GONZALES? Huh??
by mojo on Sun Feb 20, 05 6:09pm
[+]
I believe he is refering to that Cuban kid, who was lawfully reunited with his father.
Unfortunately, the rabid anti-Castro brigade see it a little differently
Hey Pene?
"I support the defiance of government when they start to kill citizens. You do notice that bill Clinton stopped murdering citizens after the OK City bombing didn't you?"
You're really not saying that the bombing of the federal building was justified are you? Or are you just making an observation?
The bombing of the federal building and the resulting deaths of innocent men, woman and children was the work of some deranged individuals that I'm sure you do NOT want to be associated with, right?
I'm sure you're not calling Bill Clinton a murderer, right? Bill Clinton is no more a murderer than is George Bush. They are our leaders that have to deal with complexities that you and I can't even imagine nor are equipped to handle. Sometimes they make the right calls and sometimes they don't. Sometimes people get hurt and even die because of their decisions, but ALL leaders have to deal with those issues. I'm sure they have many sleepless nights.
No government is perfect and mistakes will be made, but when they are it doesn't mean that we go around blowing up our innocent civilians even if they do happen to be trying to make their living working at a federal building in OKC!
I believe that's called "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" (remember that?)just like that prick Ward Churchhill that was supported by democrats when he said all those 9/11 victims deserved to die. Is one more justified than the other? Or does it depend on if your a democrat or republican?
Hey Dad... If Ann Coulter was possessed with a sense of humor and made her statements tongue -in- cheek I'd recognize it and give her the benefit of the doubt, but the most worrying thing about Ann Coulter is that she makes these Fascist statements in deadly earnest and some people actually SUPPORT her, and hang on her every word.
Ward Churchill was being deliberately inflammatory with that stupid statement, and no, I wouldn't support him either.
Zig - I would agree that Ann can be "rough" with her delivery, but I have also seen her many times make jokes about things that later (because of her manner) get blown out of context and her comments about the 911 attackers and the countries that were "cheering" are a perfect example of that and so is this ballot's title quote. No reasonable person can look at her statement on this ballot and think she was serious about blowing up the NY Times. I mean - C'mon!? Pleeeease! I understand that Ms Coulter rubs people the wrong way with her terse comments and rather dry wit, but we don't need to stand back and take things THIS far in making her out to be some devil, twisting her words and exaggerating her meanings. All I'm saying is that if you want to hate her opinions then GREAT but, you can't hate Ann for HER playing political games with her rhetoric and turn around and engage in the same type of rhetoric yourself. It just makes those (like Cranky) that do, appear to be just as radical from the left as she is from the right.
Just for the record - I would be standing up for Cranky right now, if someone was doing this to him. Until BOTH sides drop the "hate" (including Ann Coulter) and biased and extremely heated rhetoric, we will never be able to come together as a nation. Someone has to STOP this level of partisan bickering. To disagree is normal, to debate is helpful but to engage in this type of hateful and divisive commentary is just plain destructive and nonproductive for us all! I'm doing what I can to help people from all sides of the issues begin to find common ground.
At some point reasonable people will have to stop calling each other liars, thieves and murderers. At least I hope we reach that point! Care to join me in a call to the end of this kind of partisan crap? Do you think that if we all just start using constructive discourse rather than destructive discourse things might get better right here on this Site? Now, ask yourself this - If we can't even treat each other's views on this little site with respect, what chance do we have of ever changing things for the better on a national or even international scale? Answer? NONE!
We have a chance here on B&W that is very unique. This Site has a very diverse following with some real nice international flavor thrown in to boot. If you REALLY want to change things in the world we could all start right here. We could make B&W a model, a proving grounds for what our nation and our world could eventually become. Or we could continue down our current road and keep going at each other's throat. The choice is OURS to make.
I mean - REALLY!
I would be willing to bet that anyone reading Cranky and I's recent exchanges probably think I hate this guy. The truth is I don't at all. I think he is a very smart young man that is just a little to "committed" to advancing his agenda, much like what he accuses Ann Coulter of being. He criticizes Ann Coulter for being hurtful and offensive with HER words while at the same time he comes onto this Site and posts a picture of a Chimp right next to President Bush. He and his ilk also go around calling our President a liar, a cheat, a moron and even a murderer. The question I must ask is - Does he and his ilk have any idea just how offensive THAT is to me and the majority of Americans? My point is - If Cranky is going to raise holy hell over Ann Coulter's nasty and offensive remarks, he shouldn't be out here engaging in the same type of behavior. What Cranky doesn't understand is that he is making himself into the Ann Coulter from the far-left every time he does this stuff.
How can we say that Ann Coulter is offensive, harsh and should soften her rhetoric and be more compassionate towards others that do not share her beliefs and turn around and act as if it's OK to do what people like Cranky and others on this Site have been doing? Well? If you are going to condemn Ann for being divisive because of her harsh tone, then you are going to have to condemn Cranky for the exact same behavior.
We have got to stop playing this "our team vs your team" game! Right is right and wrong is wrong and BOTH apply to BOTH sides! PERIOD! Ann Coulter is no more or no less guilty than are people like Cranky! Here's the shame of it all - BOTH Ann and Cranky are better people than they are behaving like and yet their feelings are apparently so deep, that they simply can't seem to stop what they are doing long enough to realize how divisive their actions are! It's sad! What a waste!
JMHOs of course!
Say Daddy-Stalker:
That's a lovely speech, after all the hate and half-truths you've been spewing.
And I'm not saying that Ann Coulter shouldn't say what she says. She can say whatever she likes, but we are within our rights to comment and criticize.
And you still haven't answered my question: Are you trying to contact LCD to whine about me? Trying to get me tossed off the site? Trying to get my IP, so you can stalk me some more?
You are very creepy.
I think he should have gone after the real culprits he was angry at to start with, janet reno & the atf.He proved nothing by attacking innocent people. & if you read Coulter on a regular basis you'll find she puts humor in most of her books. I think her point was for all the articles they did on the prison scandal in Iraq they don't do any stories that you could call supportive of our troops or our government plus they fail to tell the full story more often then not if it doesn't support their "side" of things so can't say I blame her for saying that but you know Coulter doesn't really want to see another building bombed.
Don't flatter yourself Cranky. I have better things to do with my time than go looking for the likes of you. Man do you have a big head! Why do you think that EVERYTHING has to do with you? Too funny!
I didn't ever say that we don't have the right to criticize Ann. Great - do it all you want, just try to be a bit more civilized when you do it. When you attack Ann or anyone else in the manner in which you have, you only make yourself look just as bad as the person you are criticizing. As of now I can see no difference between YOU and Ann Coulter! Whether it stays that way is completely up to you, Cranky!
Want to keep up the name calling and insults with me? Or would you rather treat each other with some level of respect even if we can't agree on things? I'm trying to reach some common ground with you, but you only seem to want to continue your insults. It's kinda sad, Amigo!
Zig - First-of-all relax. I would not hate you just because we have a different opinion on something.
I was making a point about people like Cranky (not you) when they criticize people like Ann. You say:
"You're right, when she does such a great job of portraying herself as a devil without any of our help whatsoever.
You may find her witty, but others find her comments completely uncalled for and downright offensive."
I would ask: You mean when people like me find Cranky's comments completely uncalled for and downright offensive? You see? I find Cranky's comments to be just as offensive as you may find Ann Coulter's comments and if we keep this crap up we will never find common ground as we will be too busy insulting each other. It has to stop somewhere. Cranky complains about Ann, but then turns around and does the same thing he says he HATES out of Ann! Sad part is that he's too blinded by his own partisanship to see it.
One more thing - When I said this:
"All I'm saying is that if you want to hate her opinions then GREAT but, you can't hate Ann for HER playing political games with her rhetoric and turn around and engage in the same type of rhetoric yourself. - Dad"
I wasn't referring to you in particular, Zig. I was meaning any "person" engaging in that kind of rhetoric. My bad - I should have been clearer.
No harm - No foul my friend and thanks for your thoughts on this matter. I hope you may have found some of my points to be worthy of at least a small amount of thought and consideration as well.
Everygirl -
"if you read Coulter on a regular basis you'll find she puts humor in most of her books. I think her point was for all the articles they did on the prison scandal in Iraq they don't do any stories that you could call supportive of our troops or our government plus they fail to tell the full story more often then not if it doesn't support their "side" of things so can't say I blame her for saying that but you know Coulter doesn't really want to see another building bombed."
I feel the exact same way. I also feel that people can easily misread Ann Coulter and easily take some of her comments way too seriously because of her "dry wit" and the way she delivers her thoughts. It took me awhile to realize that she was many times just trying to get people's goat, so to speak. She LOVES needling liberals and she knows it drives them nuts. Hell - Look what it does to Cranky. The real funny part is that people like Cranky fall right into her web. She toys with people like Cranky. I can't say that I agree with that tactic, but it's is as clear as day to me that THAT is exactly what she's doing. Cranky should be smarter than to get pulled into that trap! JMHO
OK, Daddy-stalker:
Here we go again.
Three more.
And you still haven't answered my question: Are you trying to get in touch with LCD so that you can whine to him about me?
Terrorism is wrong, even if it kills liberals.
That's big of you.
Damn, it must be a full-time job, being so completely f$%king stupid. Does this woman have an off switch?
Cranky -
"And you still haven't answered my question: Are you trying to get in touch with LCD so that you can whine to him about me?"
This is getting kind of embarrassing for you, Amigo. Try to pay better attention. What part of this statement is confusing to you, Pinhead?:
"Don't flatter yourself Cranky."
What's that word (hmmmmmmmm?) that describes people that think EVERYTHING is all about them?
Get back on the meds, Cranky! ROTFLMAO!
I know you're a bit slow, so I'll say it again:
Don't flatter yourself! Got it yet? LOL! And as far as the "stalker" deal - LMAO! The ONLY people that have been stalking/following you are the field agents for the Atlanta Center For Desease Control! ROTFLMAO! Dude - get a life!
Herzog -
LMAO! I know you're being serious and I must say that we must put an end to you for those incredibly insensitive remarks. How could you? You don't work for the NRO do you? You could get fired! LOL!
Damn Crankster - Dude you're not even a good challenge anymore. You're far-left, whinny assed dribble, BORES me! Go away little man!
Nice dodge there, Daddy-stalker.
But you still haven't given a STRAIGHT answer to my question: Are you contacting LCD so that you can whine about me?
(Of course, there is always the possibility that you're not straight--and we know you certainly aren't truthful)
And as for "going away": this is my ballot stalker-boy--you came here. Am I surprised? You're just like Bush going to France to kiss Chirac on the ass, but trying to spin it like it's the French who want to improve relations. LOL. Why don't YOU go away, stalker-boy? Or don't you have anyone else to stalk right now?
And three more posts. The obsession is still cooking, I see.
Have a creepy day!
Brrrrrr.
There is a double standard about speech. The left can say anything witness Michael Moore, but the right cannot even enter the building as in Benjamin Netanyahu at UC Berkely.
this is just one example.
Bill Clinton was absolutely a murderer ASS2theBoner
ann coulter is just mad cause she's missed so many meals...somebody gimma a cheese burger!
Not the New York Times building. However, the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe...
|
|
