We deserve our Bastard in Chief because we failed to be vigilant of our freedoms, handed down to us by generations that were. We failed to appreciate our freedoms, our creed, our founding, and all the rich history, in all its imperfection. In short, we failed to appreciate America.
Yes. I call the president a Bastard. But let's look at that in context. He claims to be Christian. But I contend no Christian can, who is genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit, brutalize Israel as he did yesterday. America, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, has turned its back on Israel, and there will be hell to pay for it.
I am coming very close to hating this man in a manner not acceptable to God. I am commanded to hate and eschew evil; I am commanded to have no fellowship with the ungodly; but in all this I am commanded to love my neighbor. If I am to hate, it is to be with perfect hatred.
Barack Hussein Obama not only delivered Israel's head to the world on a silver charger after his lurid dance at the UN, he also delivered America. This man, so full of arrogance and hatred for America has given us over to our enemies.
America deserves Barack Hussein Obama because America stopped appreciating, many years ago, the sacrifices that made this nation great. We deserve whatever befalls us. Each and every future terrorist attack on America or its citizenry abroad is laid squarely at President Obama's feet. His hands and soul are thick and pregnant with American blood.
We deserve whatever befalls us... May God have mercy on this nation, for we may very well have just witnessed the fall of America. And the blow was dealt by our very own president.
Can this nation ever, truly, recover from the man?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
53 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sometimes EL you write like someone who is rational, and has some perspective on the political fights of the day. Then you turn around and are so far over the horizon into wingnut land, I have to wonder if you're experiencing the same weather as me.
ReplyDeleteAnd this afternoon as I was pondering how to reply to this hate filled rant above. It came to me that whatever the text up there, abortion politics isn't the real reason you hate Barack Obama.
1. As Pres. Barack Obama has almost no power or control over abortion policy. That ALL rests with Congress, the States and The Supreme Court.
2. You have never lambasted other liberal politicians for their abortion stances.
3. You never write in support of pro-life causes or programs or policy.
4. You never write in opposition to pro-choice state measures, programs or personalities.
The only time your abortion views come into relief is when we are discussing Barack Obama. It seems to be a special little club you keep to beat him over the head with.
Now Barack Obama doesn't even know who you are, so I imagine he doesn't care what you say. But I imagine for yourself it's not good to hold so much misdirected anger.
Was the purpose of this blog post to vent that anger or to stoke it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, that article reads like someone is channeling Glenn Beck.
ReplyDeleteNow, Glenn Beck seems less coherent and emotionally stable than the typical street-corner madman with a doomsday sandwich board. He strikes me as having some serious mental health issues and it seems a bit cruel to put him on display as entertainment.
You may wish to pick a different stylistic guru.
Ducky,
ReplyDeleteYou may want to watch Beck with a bit more regularity before castigating him in the way you do. OR, pick an issue on which he has spoken and show why he's wrong or irrelevant. We already have Feodor making unsupported comments about Beck, and he needs no help from you.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteSeems to me Eric's talking about Israel here, not abortion. Perhaps you're NOT experiencing the same weather.
mea culpa. I had been reading an old post of EL's and commented wrongly here. I stand by my point though.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of Israel I fail to see what Pres. Obama has done. Did he say we'd stop selling arms to Israel? Did he say we'd press them to destroy their nuclear weapons? Did he say he would ask Israel to not attack Iran?
No. What he did was ask Israel to stop encroaching on their neighbors.
The only officially recognized borders for Israel are those drawn up in 1949. Israel has long expanded beyond those borders and constructed settlements displacing the lawful owners of those lands.
Israel wants to claim the land that is now the West Bank and Gaza. The only problem is that then in a democratic society ethnic arabs would outnumber ethnic jews. So what does Israel do? They encroach. A home here a settlement there. Creating refugees and using excuses to bulldoze ethnic arab settlements.
Until Israel tempers their expansionist plans, there can be no peace. we've spent years trying to get Palestinians to take the first step. With little success. This administration seems to have decided to work the other side of the equation for a while.
And of course all this should begin with the blindingly obvious statement that Israel is not an American protectorate. They are a sovereign nation with national goals and interests that America is not required to strive for.
Whatever your religious beliefs about the PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, the COUNTRY OF ISRAEL is not the same.
Again mea culpa for publishing my first comment under the wrong post.
Glenn Beck thinks the Rockefeller Center is sending out subversive communist messages.
ReplyDeleteMarshall affirms.
Ducky's diagnosis is confirmed, and it appears to be spreading.
"Glenn Beck thinks the Rockefeller Center is sending out subversive communist messages."
ReplyDeleteLet's see you prove this, troll.
"Marshall affirms."
Abject lie. Typical of the troll.
"Ducky's diagnosis is confirmed, and it appears to be spreading."
Like you, troll, Ducky makes statements without support. Thus, there has been no confirmation yet. Perhaps someday, you'll pretend to have a real opinion about current and relevant Beck positions and lay out a real argument.
Fartshall, you must not be much of real fan:
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL-pfCao-U&feature=related
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour link doesn't work, troll. Try again.
ReplyDeleteOK, troll. Since a highly educated and well read sophisticate like yourself is unable to provide a decent link, I went to YouTube myself and found a vid entitled "Glen Beck finds "Communist" art at Rockefeller Center" or something to that effect. I'm going to assume it's the piece you hoped to present. It shows Beck explaining the works commissioned by Rockefeller for his building, and sure enough, they contain what appears to be, and clearly in some instances, communist imagery. In other words, it doesn't seem as if Beck "thinks" this is the case, he has, unlike any of your comments, supported his opinion with an explanation and argument to back his contention. So we can concede that Beck indeed believes what you said he believes, but, with good reason.
ReplyDeleteWhat's missing here, is your argument for why he's wrong about the intended meaning of the various pieces. Always up for a good laugh, I remain ready to hear what you think is a better explanation. As it stands, Beck's case is a good one. "Progressives", or for that matter anyone center-left and beyond, are all just various degrees of what eventually becomes communist/marxist/fascist if left to run wild without reason and logic. So it seems that you need to provide arguments to dispel the notion that Rockefeller was such a progressive who would commission such works, or that he would commission such works with such meanings, or that the works were intended to convey such symbolism in the first place. Until you can, you remain just a blubbering fool pointlessly spewing invective.
"So we can concede that Beck indeed believes what you said he believes, but, with good reason."
ReplyDelete"but, with good reason"... this would be the laugh line.
Fartshall, I listed the evidence for you once before but you deleted it because you couldn't take it. Your not trustworthy with evidence. You're like a corrupt cop. You're Mark Fuhrman.
But for more honest folks, the sculptor of Beck's horror was Lee Lowrie, born in 1877, and a master of Beaux Arts, Classicism, and, pertinent to the Rockefeller Center, Art Deco.
Now, thousands of artists and designers worked in Art Deco, and, I daresay, some readers knew Art Deco works in their childhood home.
Among Mr. Lowrie's other communist acheivements: the Nebraska State Capital, the Los Angeles Public Library, the Chapel at West Point!!!!, relief panels for the National Academy of Sciences in D.C., , and several churches from New York (communists!) to Fort Wayne, Indiana (pinkos!).
Crazy Mr. Beck sure has his work cut out for him. And Fartshall tags along for the loony trip.
Go back to college, Fartshall, you were murderously underserved.
ReplyDeleteOr am I assuming college?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "good reason", you sorry troll who thinks he's clever by distorting my name in such a lame manner, is the obvious similarities between the symbolism in the RockCtr works and those of blatant communism.
ReplyDelete"...I listed the evidence for you once before..."
No you didn't, which is why I deleted it. It was drivel for the most part and your labeling it evidence doesn't make it so. Further, your listing of the artist's other works, as you've done again here, is also not evidence to contradict the charges of Beck. It doesn't matter what else he's done elsewhere, what style he chooses to utilize, his other honors, level of experience or learning, none of that has anything to do with particular pieces of his work highlighted by Beck.
I would also add that my personal level of education is also irrelevant to this and most any other of my comments, and nothing could support this contention any better than the inability of you to draw on the vast education to which you've laid claim to form even an elementary defense of the many stupid things you say.
So once again, I'll lay this out for you. Please ask an adult to help you understand it. I can only lower myself so far to make it clear to your toddler mentality:
You've insulted Beck and trashed his commentary. There has been nothing that he's suggested, charged, presented or highlighted on his show, no opinion has he offered, that you have thus far countered with anything beyond saying he's a Mormon and an alcoholic. Neither of these things detracts or diminishes the arguments he makes on his show.
Further, you've tried to use this one segment regarding the artwork at the Rockefeller Ctr to support your bad attitude toward the man, without ever explaining how this episode does that. I get that the artist Lowrie has done work elsewhere. But an artist who is commissioned by definition works for the person that commissioned him. What he creates is based on the directives of the one who commissioned him, even if that directive is simply, "Paint me something nice." What this means is, you have to prove that Rockefeller DIDN'T instruct Lowrie to create pieces with communist symbolism, or that Lowrie didn't take it upon himself to intentionally create pieces with communist symbolism. What Lowrie's done in Fort Wayne, Nebraska or anywhere else has absolutely no bearing on what he's done for Rockefeller. For all you know, based on the irrelevant info you've presented that doesn't support your case against Beck, Lowrie could be a raging commie who takes jobs creating non-commie work for others in order to put food on his table.
As if all that wasn't enough, you haven't even established that I concur with Beck's assessment of the artwork. I maintain that he makes a good case, but I have yet to say whether or not I agree with him or even give a flyin' rat's ass.
So far, Feo my boy, the only thing you've proven thus far is how incredibly inane you are. And you say I've been underserved? Your eagerness to expose your foolishness brings me great joy and laughter. Thank you.
"But an artist who is commissioned by definition works for the person that commissioned him."
ReplyDeleteAnd that would be Rockefeller. Rockefeller "the communist" according to Beck.
Rockefeller of Standard Oil, at one time the richest of corporations - corporations, as in capitalism. Standard Oil which was convicted of monopolistic practices in 1911 and broken up like Ma Bell.
Rockefeller, who was at on time the richest man in the world. Rockefeller, who pioneered cartel pricing and hostile takeovers. Rockefeller who said "God gave me money" and felt no need to apologize.
Yeah. Rockefeller the communist.
Get off your butt, Fartshall, and read something.
Or stay an acolyte of craziness and Mormonism.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence for you positions. You have still not done so. Insult me all you like, but you still have not done so.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you try this:
The images of which Beck speaks were created by a variety of artists (not just one guy named Lowrie), one of whom was an Italian, a close friend of NY Mayor LaGuardia, who was chosen to decorate that "Italian" portion of the Center. Rocky wanted to appeal to a few nations he had hopes would rent space for their businesses. The artist had no known fascist affiliations, no known love for Italian dictators. (See? This is how you argue your point. Take notes.)
One of the pieces highlighted by Beck was the work of a Mexican artist. His work was rejected by Rocky BECAUSE of it's communist symbolism. (See? Are you taking notes?)
So you see, troll, when you make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up with something substantial, not simply your own drooling hatefulness and pathetic attempts at cleverness. But I've provided, that would be once again, I'VE provided a couple of points to refute Beck's argument. You still haven't. Further, you haven't shown how I'VE bought into Beck's view of the artwork at RockCtr, which will be really tough for you since I had to look up the whole thing myself just to see what the hell you were talking about.
But even more importantly, even if Beck is 100% wrong about this issue, it does little to dismiss all the other arguments he's been making about Obama, his administration, and the corruption in our government.
IF you had one shred of honesty in your false priest bones, you'd understand how to look and listen to all sides of issues to determine what might be true and what might be false. But you, as about as typical a lib as one could find, simply dismiss anything from the right as a matter of course. One would think all that education and all those books would have resulted in at least a little bit of sense. What a waste you are.
"The images of which Beck speaks were created by a variety of artists (not just one guy named Lowrie)"
ReplyDeleteFartshall, this is how you just avoided the evidence that Beck is slowly losing his sanity while you applaud. You cannot deal with Lowrie, so you move on as if he's not there.
This is a note, by the way, pointing out your astigmatic lacunae.
Boy, Feo. You just love your Thesaurus, don't you? Ten dollar words don't impress if you can't demonstrate a grasp of simple points. Don't you even realize that I've provided help for your own position? Are you that stupid? And what regarding Lowrie do you believe I'm avoiding? He did not create all the pieces Beck discussed in his piece about the artwork at the RC. This is obvious from the very segment in question, as he describes one of the pieces as being done by an Italian artist. THAT artist is not Lowrie. So what is your queer attachment to this man that so upsets you by my failure to address him directly?
ReplyDeleteAnd are you now saying that your whole point was to prove that Beck's sanity is dissolving? Normally this would be a "takes one to know one" situation, but as you are lacking in rational reasoning ability, I don't see how you could be a credible observer of the sanity of others.
As my own presentation of details regarding the artwork demonstrates, the only thing that might be provable is that Beck is wrong about the artwork. Nothing more, despite your fevered and desperate hopes of discrediting him. But keep in mind, even being insane does not guarantee that one is wrong about everything. The cases of ACORN and Van Jones demonstrates that Beck might be crazy like a fox.
You? You're not crazy. You're retarded.
I only use them with you, Fartshall, because I know you need to look them up and because I can send you a bill; $10 buys my coffee for two days her in Babylon.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant "here in Moscow." I forgot we were talking about Beck and not Pat Robertson.
ReplyDeleteRobert Hughes "can be wrong about the artwork."
ReplyDeleteBeck is wrong about the apocalypse coming this Saturday because of pinko encryptions at the heart of American hedonism.
There's a big, diagnosable difference between the two for rational readers.
For you, not so much.
I don't recall hearing Beck claim the apocalypse was coming. I claim that all the time, but not because of anything pink.
ReplyDeleteWhat has Beck not claimed?
ReplyDeleteBut an art critique would be less likely to be excused for being wrong about artwork. Beck isn't a professional art critique, so he can be wrong all day long. Come to think of it, I don't think he works as an art historian, either, so once again, he can be wrong. I excuse him. It's an insignificant story above all else, particularly in light of his other, more relevant pieces regarding the Obama administration and corruption in politics and the lack of common sense in our society today with regard to politics and the direction of our nation. So you can rub yourself with glee over whether or not Beck is barking up the wrong tree regarding RC decor if you like. I'm well aware that it is an easy distraction for you, giving you the opportunity to avoid speaking to the points Beck has raised concerning Obama appointees, for example, and their radicalism and their likely affect on policy decisions. I understand your a coward. I expect nothing more from a false priest like yourself.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we have Lyndsey Graham on Beck: "he's a cynic and his whose show is antithetical to American values."
ReplyDeleteGranted, Sen. Graham (R-SC) only calls the Birthers "crazy," but, then, Beck is a Birther.
"So I’m here to tell you that those who think the president was born somewhere other than Hawaii are crazy. He’s not a Muslim. He’s a good man,” Graham said."
That's "critic," MA, not "critique." A critic gives a critique.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are a believer of Becks, then St. Peter and St. Paul are false.
ReplyDeleteBeing false to you is good news to me; in fact, it is the Good News.
You're making some incredibly dubious leaps of logic Feodor.
ReplyDeleteOh, please. Coming from you and the way you talk about a black man born in Hawaii and voted for by a distinct majority of American voters...
ReplyDelete... and Armageddon?
You have not credibility on "leaps of logic."
Graham's opinion is Graham's opinion. It is not proof of anything other than what Graham's opinion is. Are you having trouble with the word "evidence" or the notion of "supporting your opinion"?
ReplyDeleteObama is a man who believes a child who survives an abortion is not worthy of either life or the label "person". He has voted against allow a self-defense claim being used by someone who used a gun to defend himself in a town with a ban on that weapon, even if defending one's self in one's own home. He has voted to expunge some records of convicted criminals, however, and worked for funds for their education (as if they didn't have our money paying for the public education they abused already). He has voted to protect from the death penalty a gang-banger who murders for the benefit of the gang. This is the guy Graham thinks is a good man. Kinda makes his opinion worthless in my mind. To defend this guy over Beck does not serve Graham well, who is only blowing smoke to appear reasonable, instead of more loudly joining in with Beck on more relevant concerns, such as Obama's appointees and associates.
"That's "critic," MA, not "critique.""
Thanks, but I caught my mistake after publishing the comment. I had two similar thoughts running through my head at the time. Are we going to start pointing out typos now? You sure you want to do that?
"Coming from you and the way you talk about a black man born in Hawaii and voted for by a distinct majority of American voters...
... and Armageddon?"
First off, I don't believe I've ever seen anything from Eric that would justify your saying "about a black man" regarding his position on Obama. I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that Obama's color means nothing to Eric. For one who claims to be in an interracial marriage, you seem to bring up race a lot. You might have wanted to work on this hang-up before you said "I do".
In the second place, you could take lessons from Eric about supporting opinions and positions. He actually does what I've been waiting for you to do. He does not skirt the issues or purposely digress to a less relevant point. By doing so, he actually improves his credibility, even talking about something like end-times, because he give one something upon which to chew when considering his opinions. You just spew attitude and invective.
Apparently my "non" evidence already has you backing off supporting Beck on "communist" art on the Rockefeller complex.
ReplyDeleteNow, about evidence that Mormonism is screwy.
Where do we stand?
MA, you want to take on retroactive baptism for the dead?
ReplyDeleteAnd for what it's worth, I just described President Obama as what he is, in the American context.
ReplyDeleteYour the one who seems to find something threatening in the phrase, "black man."
I described him; you think race is being raised.
Interesting Rorschach there. Oops, ten dollar reference.
And a "typo" is a missed key.
ReplyDeleteA misuse of a word is a missed concept.
So, you now have two strikes:
- critique
and
-typo
If we're going to be nitpicky, you, Feodor, misused the word "Your".
ReplyDelete"Your[sic] the one who seems to find something threatening in the phrase...."
"You're" becoming ridiculous.
Yes, but if I was Marshall, I would have used "ewer."
ReplyDeleteHe goes all Anglo-French when he loses ground. That's why he thought "critique" was a fancy critic.
Again, the difference between a key strok(sic) and just not being clear on syntax.
Wow! It amazes me that someone as stupid as Feodor can dare assume a posture of such arrogant superiority! He must be under the care of a mental health professional. His inability to focus on the topic at hand, as well as his self-satisfying, but pathetically unclever remarks is so sad to witness. If only I was home on a computer rather than pecking this out on a cell phone. Then I could more properly mock and refute his most recent droolings. Soon, troll-boy. Soon.
ReplyDeleteWatch your cholesterol on the road, Fartshall. It can go downhill pretty fast.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't text and drive!!!! You'd be four times as likely to have an accident.
Are you on the clock? And you're surfing the net? Where are your ethics?
There you go, trying to be clever again.
ReplyDeleteRegarding word usage, perhaps you didn't understand my explanation. That's probably my fault. I have a hard time making myself understood to infantile minds. But I'll try again just for fun, to see where it goes.
I had two different ideas running in my head at the same time. In one, the word "critic" was the proper word. In the other, "critique" was the proper word. As I typed, I typed the wrong word. Simple. Just like you, so I can't imagine why this is so difficult. But you go right ahead and feel like you've scored a point. Heaven knows you score so few.
To continue...
"Apparently my "non" evidence already has you backing off supporting Beck on "communist" art on the Rockefeller complex."
To have me "back off" supporting Beck on communist art, I would think I would have to have been defending his positions. I'm pretty sure I gave a clear indication that I didn't give a rat's ass about this story. So I wasn't supporting Beck on this, I was insisting that HE defended his position while you did NOT defend your objection to it. At least, you did not defend it with any evidence or anything approaching an articulate argument against. You merely said he was insane, that one artist did work elsewhere (as if that proved anything regarding the work at RC), and that Beck's a Mormon. In short, you attacked the messenger but did nothing regarding his message. In the end, I provided you with ammo to help you with your argument. The whole time I did that, I never once suggested that I bought into Beck's position regarding the artwork, but only said that he made a good case. That he made a good case is a fact. That he was right about it is irrelevant. That I cared in the least about the artwork in the RC not established by you in any way. That Beck's belief about the artwork has no bearing on anything else he presents on his show is also a fact. That you think it does says more about you and it does so in a less than positive manner.
"Now, about evidence that Mormonism is screwy.
Where do we stand?"
As far apart as possible, for I'm so tired of dealing with your digressions. I don't care about Beck's religion unless he wants to have a show defending it. I'm concerned with his politics, which is what his show is about and the reason you dislike him. If he spoke glowingly of Obama, I'm sure you would never have mentioned his faith.
"MA, you want to take on retroactive baptism for the dead?"
No. You wanna take on any of Beck's shows regarding Obama, his admin and associates, his health care proposals or anything like that? It's clear you haven't the balls or the smarts to dispute him on any of that.
"And for what it's worth, I just described President Obama as what he is, in the American context."
Not MY America you racist. In this country, he's just a man. When idiots like you insist on referring to his color, you perpetuate the racism you claim to abhor. I choose to look beyond color. Now, stupidity is another matter. That's why I've little patience with you.
"I described him; you think race is being raised."
You described him by his skin color. That's being racist. That's bring up race. You raised the issue by the mere mention of something so insignificant. Why do you feel it necessary to describe him by his skin color? Of what importance is it exactly?
Don't answer. I'm not up for any further BS from you. You're too dishonest to give a decent accounting of yourself, so don't bother. I'll just continue to pray for the epiphany you so desperately need.
"You described him by his skin color. That's being racist. That's bring up race."
ReplyDeleteMarshall, you are so far from knowing your ass from your racist suppositions that you keep covering the wrong thing.
You ask a black man who he is in America and he'll tell you he is a proud black man.
But then, you'd never really listen to a black man, not deeply. Cracker has no depth, just a crunchy top.
"You ask a black man who he is in America and he'll tell you he is a proud black man."
ReplyDeleteAnd by doing so, he'll have uttered a racist statement. If you like, you can say that he would have uttered a race-based statement. Either way, it brings his own color to the fore, rather than render it as meaningless to the cut of his jib as MLK once preached it should be.
Frankly, and more likely, if I ask a black man who he is, he'll likely say either, "I'm Joe Smith." or whatever his name is, or, "Who wants to know?" I really doubt the average man of color has a pat reply prepared should anyone ask him, "Who are you in America?!" For that question, I'd guess he'd likely respond, "What the hell kind of a question is that?"
Further, this hypothetical black man of yours, what exactly did he do that should make him proud to be a black man? Did he have anything to do with either his sex or his race? Was there a choice at some point that he made to become a man as opposed to a woman, or a black one as opposed to one of another color? To be proud of one's sex OR color makes absolutely no sense. Who ever teaches kids to be proud of their color ALSO perpetuates racism in our country. (However, I have no problem whatsoever with those who teach kids that they don't have to be ashamed of their color. That's totally different, though a fool like yourself might not understand how it could be.)
I listen to people of all colors equally. I notice when they say shit that is stupid, like "I'm proud to be black/white/yellow/etc." What you hear you interpret in a manner that foments racism in our country. What I accept as worthy of hearing won't tolerate meaningless statements indicating pride in one's color. I expect better from my fellow Americans than to waste time with such trivial crap.
But of course, you being trivial crap yourself, I understand your attraction to such.
Marshall, black hearts can't reason. There's no relating to you on this as you are deep, deep into a midnight darkness of denial.
ReplyDelete"Marshall, black hearts can't reason."
ReplyDeleteYou've made that quite plain, but I keep praying for you. For example, you think I'm in denial. Exactly what am I denying? You keep changing subjects that I can't always keep up. Things would be so much easier if you'd stick to the subject at hand. But then, black hearts like yours avoid that which they cannot defend.
Your aping repetition just adds simplicity to your moral scotopia.
ReplyDeleteTen bucks, please: I'm sure you had to look it up; even then I doubt you get it.
What I get is that you're a coward who can't finish what you start.
ReplyDeleteWhat I get is that you're a fraud who disguises his mental shortcomings behind psuedo-intellectual nonsense.
What I get is that you're tiresome and no longer worth my time.
Run along. When you have something substantive to say, try again. Check with an adult first, since you've never presented a substantive comment so far. Unless of course embarrassing yourself is a hobby of yours.
What you get, you deserve. What you don't get is what you deserve, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat I deserve, as does anyone who takes the time to host a blog, are visitors who leave comments relative to the point of the thread, leaves comments that are intelligible as opposed to unnecessarily wordy as if to impress others that the commenter is extraordinarily intelligent when what is understood betrays that intent with extreme prejudice, and has the ability and willingness to support accusations, charges and opinions in general. In short, a blogger deserves to host a blog that is troll-free. But what we get is you. Ben brings it. Dan brings it. Jim can bring it, too. You just foul the air and do so as if it serves us to endure the odor. It doesn't except to relieve us of effort needed to point out what an arrogant asshole you are, as you expose yourself thusly with every comment. In that you excell beyond anyone's expectations.
ReplyDeleteWhat YOU deserve could fill volumes and would likely begin with a bitch-slapping for the punk you are. I hope instead that what you get is the epiphany you so desperately need should it be His will. In the meantime, you'll get what you've thus far worked so hard to deserve, which is mockery for being such a contemptuous piece of crap.
You're the one down the rabbit hole, Fartshall. Reason doesn't make sense down there. Nonsense is fact and fiction is gospel.
ReplyDeleteNow, get on down the road, Alice.
"Nonsense is fact and fiction is gospel."
ReplyDeleteYet, try as I might to enlighten you, you cling to your nonsense and fiction. Your blatherings might come to make some small imitation of sense if you only had the stones, ability and/or intelligence to mount a serious argument in any discussion in which you have unfortunately chosen to insert yourself. Instead, you insist on boring all with your lame attempts at cleverness and ridicule, which fails coming from one so ridiculous. Put another way, all we get from you is the psuedo-intellectual equivalent of "nana-nana-boo-boo". It's so sadly pathetic and impotent.
But you go on and keep trying. At least we get some laughs at your expense. Poor little troll.
"boring all"
ReplyDeleteYou either think a lot of yourself or you've got a pretty serious Axis I disorder.
And people I know who get bored by something never engage. Yet here you are, unenlightened, unenlightening, and all shine.
"You either think a lot of yourself or you've got a pretty serious Axis I disorder."
ReplyDeleteProjecting, I see.
"And people I know who get bored by something never engage."
The voices in your head don't count. I'm still waiting for you to engage in any meaningful manner rather than your typical self-absorbed attempts to impress or your pathetic attempts to sound clever. As for enlightening, it's something with which you are totally unfamiliar, as you darken every blog you've visited with your smarminess. As for enlightened, what you've think you know is less impressive than you hope it is.