Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • If White House officials were trying to elevate Rush Limbaugh to the leader of the opposition, they may have succeeded.



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • kick from thread
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : crazy retard church

    What are tags?
    Comments 101 through 246 of 246 shown. Page 1 2
    heap 191 2009-03-03 12:23:07.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Hey, I'm just saying that I meant no personal offense when I criticized a position I thought you were presenting. I did take offense you you calling me a jackass.


    you have weird priorities, UT.

    NO. U.



    heap 191 2009-03-03 12:23:26.0 login to vote score 0
    ok, i lied. this is already boring.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-03 12:23:35.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: you have weird priorities, UT.

    NO. U.


    I might have weird priorities. I admit that.

    NO. U.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-03 12:23:45.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: ok, i lied. this is already boring.

    Quitter.
    heap 191 2009-03-03 12:24:22.0 login to vote score 0
    yah, the professional wrestling approach to conversation just isn't that much fun.

    i could be playing with myself.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-03 12:26:37.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: yah, the professional wrestling approach to conversation just isn't that much fun.

    i could be playing with myself.


    I don't think playing with yourself is considered professional. At best, novice. But not professional.
    notsuebhoney 76 2009-03-03 13:05:02.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: I'm not interested in the partisan bullshit. I thought I made that clear?

    Then maybe the (R)'s should show some fucking good faith in the same manner you want Obama to do, because up to date, that's exactly what the (R)'s are doing, playing partisan politics.

    Obama has compromised and the (R)'s said they would, then reneged. Sorry, but don't blame Obama for that.

    I want to see a 2nd viable, with valid and realistic opposition plus other solutions to problems, than the WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH WE LOST THE ELECTION bullshit I've seen so far from (R)s.

    To the (R)'s: Physician, heal thyself.
    notsuebhoney 76 2009-03-03 13:09:12.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy

    Please don't waste time responding, heap said it all for me, and thanks anyway :)
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-03 14:35:33.0 login to vote score 0
    notsuebhoney: untrustworthy

    Please don't waste time responding, heap said it all for me, and thanks anyway :)


    Then why even bother posting to me?
    notsuebhoney 76 2009-03-03 14:42:48.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Then why even bother posting to me?

    Sorry, I hadn't read the rest of thread.

    And, after doing so, I agree with heap in principle but I don't condone any shitcawking.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-03 14:45:39.0 login to vote score 0
    notsuebhoney: Sorry, I hadn't read the rest of thread.

    And, after doing so, I agree with heap in principle but I don't condone any shitcawking.


    Oh. Well it just seemed odd for you to fire off a rather terse comment towards me and then basically tell me that I might as well not answer. Makes me feel like I might as well not read what you posted.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 15:50:19.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, obama didn't elevate rush limbaugh to that status.

    Enjoy.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 15:54:47.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Enjoy.

    did you even read it?

    how many times have you repeated that this is some rahm strategy, or find cause to exclusively lay blame there...when it isn't. it's coming from many, many different angles - including obama himself (again, google 'you can't just listen to rush limbaugh and get things done'). it's a party wide approach, at least w/in offical party organs.

    and no, obama didn't elevate rush to that status. even carville and other assorted hacks didn't. they are making some serious hay taking advantage of it, but they didn't create the situation.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 15:59:20.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: did you even read it?

    how many times have you repeated that this is some rahm strategy, or find cause to exclusively lay blame there...when it isn't. it's coming from many, many different angles - including obama himself (again, google 'you can't just listen to rush limbaugh and get things done'). it's a party wide approach, at least w/in offical party organs.

    and no, obama didn't elevate rush to that status. even carville and other assorted hacks didn't. they are making some serious hay taking advantage of it, but they didn't create the situation.


    I read it. And it indicates that it was a plan to elevate Rush, who was unpopular, as the "de facto" leadership of the Republican party. And it was done only as a distraction and an attempt to alienate the Republican opposition.

    If you're going to continue to stick your head in the sand in spite of evidence showing that labeling Rush as the leadership was anything but a deliberate plan by Democrats and Rahm, then you're being a tool.

    Did you even read the article yourself?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:07:10.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    If you're going to continue to stick your head in the sand in spite of evidence showing that labeling Rush as the leadership was anything but a deliberate plan by Democrats and Rahm, then you're being a tool.


    again, this is why conversing with you is a near impossibility.

    for somebody to hold an inkling of a different stance than you, they must a) have an agenda - b) be fucking stupid and c) require your incessant fucking needling bullshit.

    i don't think that bipartisanship is being nice to each other. i think it's hammering out positions and policies that can be agreeable to the parties involved. thus, i'm a little more concerned about who is making effort to find common ground on policies and positions than political theater. because of this, i'm apparently an idiotic ostrich incapable of having a thought unapproved by you.

    in summary, fuck off.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:11:18.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, this is why conversing with you is a near impossibility.

    for somebody to hold an inkling of a different stance than you, they must a) have an agenda - b) be fucking stupid and c) require your incessant fucking needling bullshit.


    You're attacking me? Read the damn article, heap.

    i don't think that bipartisanship is being nice to each other. i think it's hammering out positions and policies that can be agreeable to the parties involved. thus, i'm a little more concerned about who is making effort to find common ground on policies and positions than political theater. because of this, i'm apparently an idiotic ostrich incapable of having a thought unapproved by you.

    in summary, fuck off.


    You're such a fucking crybaby and a tool at that. You've stuck your bloated head in the sand and ignored every bit of evidence that this was in fact a conscious and deliberate effort to paint an entertainer as the party leadership.

    You just proved what an angry, bitter, naive, and immature little moron you really are. You have the maturity of a grade schooler, and apparently your intellect isn't much better. I'll be sure to remember that the next time you attempt to bring up some "insightful" opinion. When it comes from a fucking prick like you with absolutely no objectivity or honesty, I'll take that with a big huge grain of salt.

    /What a fucking child.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:12:08.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You just proved what an angry, bitter, naive, and immature little moron you really are.


    yah, i stalked you out from a long dead thread to bitch at you.

    get a fucking grip.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:14:12.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: yah, i stalked you out from a long dead thread to bitch at you.

    get a fucking grip.


    Stalked? It's hardly stalking, heap. It's pretty easy to go back to an old conversation and bring up new evidence.

    Get over yourself. I was hoping you might actually pull your head out of your ass by reading evidence that showed just how wrong you were, but apparently you're too pigheaded and childish to man up.

    I showed you that you were off, and you can't even recognize that. How pathetic.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:14:19.0 login to vote score 0
    for chrissakes, take 10 seconds of self evaluation and really think about this.

    you apparently *need* to needle somebody for disagreeing with you to a point of digging up a dead thread to harrang them even further.

    and when somebody has enough of your bullshit, it's suddenly THEIR fault, and reason for lobbing bombs.

    jesus dude, this is a near bonscottian rift from rationality.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:15:19.0 login to vote score 0
    seriously, this shit has ruined this fucking site for me.

    kudos.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:17:07.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: for chrissakes, take 10 seconds of self evaluation and really think about this.

    you apparently *need* to needle somebody for disagreeing with you to a point of digging up a dead thread to harrang them even further.

    and when somebody has enough of your bullshit, it's suddenly THEIR fault, and reason for lobbing bombs.

    jesus dude, this is a near bonscottian rift from rationality.


    Again. Grow up, heap. You were fine blathering on and on in multiple threads about how right you thought you were, and now you don't even have the integrity to own up to the fact that you were wrong. Instead, you're going to accuse me of "stalking" you or attempt to insult me by comparing me to someone else.

    I'm not impressed with your lack of reasoning, honesty, ability to handle a discussion, or your childish antics as you attempt to back your way out.

    Be a baby. See if I care.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:17:24.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: seriously, this shit has ruined this fucking site for me.

    kudos.


    Why don't you go cry about it then?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:18:28.0 login to vote score 0
    democratic leadership could say that ewoks are leading the republicans - it would have absolutely no traction if republicans didn't suddenly try to prove to all the world that they answer to ewoks.

    that situation didn't just occur in the last month. it's been a downward spiral for years. no democrat created that situation.

    as to promoting and stirring shit on the topic, abso-freakin-lutely. that's all them. thing is, i said as much in this thread when it was actually relevant. it's the basest of politics, and it's freaking scary how effective they are at it.

    yet because i differ in the thinking that it's pointing at an existing problem...vs the democrats just created the situation...it's reason for incessant fucking needling bullshit.

    it's petty beyond fucking belief.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:20:14.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: democratic leadership could say that ewoks are leading the republicans - it would have absolutely no traction if republicans didn't suddenly try to prove to all the world that they answer to ewoks.

    that situation didn't just occur in the last month. it's been a downward spiral for years. no democrat created that situation.

    as to promoting and stirring shit on the topic, abso-freakin-lutely. that's all them. thing is, i said as much in this thread when it was actually relevant. it's the basest of politics, and it's freaking scary how effective they are at it.

    yet because i differ in the thinking that it's pointing at an existing problem...vs the democrats just created the situation...it's reason for incessant fucking needling bullshit.

    it's petty beyond fucking belief.


    Are you going to continue to switch back and forth between ignoring the article and sticking to your previously debunked bullshit theory and then crying, whining and accusing me of "needling" you?

    Make up your fucking mind, already.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:20:46.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Why don't you go cry about it then?


    find your happy place, and re-read your contributions in the last few minutes.


    tell me if you'd have any inkling of desire to login and receive more of it on a daily basis.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:21:14.0 login to vote score 0
    You know what else is funny? I've watched you act like an absolute cock to others here, with little justification. And now you're crying simply because I posted an article for you to read?

    Talk about needing to get a grip. You're waaaaay out of whack.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:23:42.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: find your happy place, and re-read your contributions in the last few minutes.

    I know what I posted. Have you read yours? You were the one that decided to start acting like a little bitch and calling names. You told me to fuck off practically right off the bat.

    tell me if you'd have any inkling of desire to login and receive more of it on a daily basis.

    Gee. I'm soooooo sorry that you came to a discussion board and have someone address posts towards you calling you out on your bullshit. I didn't realize you were subscribing to the V$ school of online persecution behavior.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:23:52.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Are you going to continue to switch back and forth between ignoring the article and sticking to your previously debunked bullshit theory and then crying, whining and accusing me of "needling" you?


    other than 'I AM ANGRY AT YOU', i honestly have no fucking clue what the hell you're talking about.

    it's went from OMG RAHMMMMMMMMMMM YOU BLEW IT ALL UP, to a link confirming what i said when the thread was actually relevant...that it was coming from many angles, rahm was just the latest addition.

    and yes, i do disagree with you that rush limbaugh being in a leadership position prior to this fluff even existing is a problem.

    i'm sure that's worth at least 14 more insults.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:24:53.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I know what I posted. Have you read yours? You were the one that decided to start acting like a little bitch and calling names.


    again, 'calling names' holds some importance to you that i don't have.

    after being told that i not only have an agenda, but that it is revolting, i think decorum is out the fucking window.

    i don't think you even realize how arrogant and acidic your regular discourse is.

    yes. after awhile, that wears goddamned thin.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:29:16.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: other than 'I AM ANGRY AT YOU', i honestly have no fucking clue what the hell you're talking about.

    it's went from OMG RAHMMMMMMMMMMM YOU BLEW IT ALL UP, to a link confirming what i said when the thread was actually relevant...that it was coming from many angles, rahm was just the latest addition.


    heap, just stop. You obviously didn't read the article. If you had, you would have realized that the strategy was built over time, and then unleashed with Rahm last weekend on meet the press. That's exactly how it went down. He was the first to label Rush as the de facto leadership.

    and yes, i do disagree with you that rush limbaugh being in a leadership position prior to this fluff even existing is a problem.

    He wasn't in any leadership position. He still isn't. Just stop this nonsense already.

    i'm sure that's worth at least 14 more insults.

    You started with the insults. If you can't take it, then don't dish it. I don't need to have this kind of childish interaction, but I'm not going to put up with you calling names and then acting like a wounded child when it gets turned back around on you.

    Get that straight. You get what you give.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:31:17.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, 'calling names' holds some importance to you that i don't have.

    after being told that i not only have an agenda, but that it is revolting, i think decorum is out the fucking window.

    i don't think you even realize how arrogant and acidic your regular discourse is.

    yes. after awhile, that wears goddamned thin.


    Let's go back to what I said: "If you think it's more helpful to waste time talking about Rush Limbaugh than to try to lead and unite the American public, then I'm afraid your agenda is about as revolting as Rahm's."

    Then you called me a jackass. What a great way to handle a criticism about a position I understood that you held.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 16:35:31.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    He was the first to label Rush as the de facto leadership.


    i must not have seen begala a week prior bald facedly stating the strategy. i must not have seen kaine say the exact same thing well before that interview.

    i must just be suffering from a lack of your vast wisdom and vitriol.

    untrustworthy:
    You get what you give


    ....exactly. jackass.

    you are being given what you've gave with that. again, being an acidic needling jerkoff that seems to need to tell people what they think and why gets a little fucking old. that 'it's a name' holds some importance to you, more important than every interaction ending up with you being a fucking jackass...well...that's swell. i hope it works out good for you.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 16:45:43.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: i must not have seen begala a week prior bald facedly stating the strategy. i must not have seen kaine say the exact same thing well before that interview.

    Rahm made his comment about Limbaugh before Steele retracted his comments. You seem to have your events in the wrong order.

    i must just be suffering from a lack of your vast wisdom and vitriol.

    I didn't say you lacked wisdom, although you don't seem eager to prove you have it. Instead, you do seem to show that you are the king of vitriol. I'll give you that.

    ....exactly. jackass.

    Crybaby.

    you are being given what you've gave with that. again, being an acidic needling jerkoff that seems to need to tell people what they think and why gets a little fucking old. that 'it's a name' holds some importance to you, more important than every interaction ending up with you being a fucking jackass...well...that's swell. i hope it works out good for you.

    I didn't call you any name. You seem to think that a criticism on your opinion is some kind of personal attack. That's the behavior and reaction I'd expect from a child. You have to be fairly immature and naive to think that your opinion is sacred and anyone who might criticize it is suddenly a big meany head.

    Keep up the crybaby routine, heap. Let's see how well that works out for you.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 17:10:14.0 login to vote score 0
    summary: WHAT'RE YOU GONNA DO WHEN THE 24 INCH PYTHONS COME FOR YOUOUUUUUUUUUUUUU

    i think you can lob some more spite without my help. i hope it gets the angry asshole out of your blood, if nothing else.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 17:20:04.0 login to vote score 0
    and just in case you actually do care about the information vs the shitcawk....

    heap:
    i must not have seen begala a week prior bald facedly stating the strategy. i must not have seen kaine say the exact same thing well before that interview.


    untrustworthy:
    Rahm made his comment about Limbaugh before Steele retracted his comments. You seem to have your events in the wrong order.


    begala: Leader of GOP Is 'Corpulent Drug Addict' Rush Limbaugh

    there were stories on politico and other sites before rahm's interview even happened that pushed the same button - and even a statement from dncc reps that pushing this was their next strategy. no subterfuge, right out in the open. again, before rahm's interview.

    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 18:52:07.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: summary: WHAT'RE YOU GONNA DO WHEN THE 24 INCH PYTHONS COME FOR YOUOUUUUUUUUUUUUU

    i think you can lob some more spite without my help. i hope it gets the angry asshole out of your blood, if nothing else.


    I think you need to look at your own pathetic and childish behavior. You want to tell me how "wrong" I am and then get butthurt when I disagree and have evidence to back it up. Then you lower the bar with name-calling and cry like a child when I call you on it.

    I'm not impressed.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 18:55:40.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: and just in case you actually do care about the information vs the shitcawk....





    begala: Leader of GOP Is 'Corpulent Drug Addict' Rush Limbaugh

    there were stories on politico and other sites before rahm's interview even happened that pushed the same button - and even a statement from dncc reps that pushing this was their next strategy. no subterfuge, right out in the open. again, before rahm's interview.


    Rahm is the COS for Obama. He speaks for the White House, and poorly at that.

    This wasn't an issue until he pushed Rush as the leader of the GOP, which is not only a lie, but it's flat out pathetic and childish. Two attributes which I guess I can see how much you appreciate, even if you won't honestly call it for what it is.

    Face it, heap. Rahm took the low road and deliberately pushed Limbaugh as the de facto leadership for no reason but to distract from criticism and push away Republicans. He knows full fucking well that Rush is hated by most everyone, including Republicans. Yet he does this kind of bullshit like a partisan hack with an agenda focused only on dividing the parties, not on uniting the nation.

    If you don't get that, you're a moron. If you do get it and think that this should be applauded, then you're a revolting moron.

    Which is it?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 18:59:50.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    That's exactly how it went down. He was the first to label Rush as the de facto leadership.


    utter, unadulterated, complete bullshit.

    now that you've read the link above, and have to accept that it is complete and unadulterated bullshit, you'll shift to something else - again, just to be a divisive prick.

    content does not fucking matter with you. angry vitriol and spite does.

    the only thing that sucks about this is i actually remember a person that logged in under your nick that wasn't this freaking petty. for real, read your comments. the only effort placed in them is what new insult you can place in them.




    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 19:04:10.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: utter, unadulterated, complete bullshit.

    now that you've read the link above, and have to accept that it is complete and unadulterated bullshit, you'll shift to something else - again, just to be a divisive prick.

    content does not fucking matter with you. angry vitriol and spite does.

    the only thing that sucks about this is i actually remember a person that logged in under your nick that wasn't this freaking petty. for real, read your comments. the only effort placed in them is what new insult you can place in them.


    I'm not petty. I'm reacting to your bullshit, heap. Take a look around. I have great conversations with all sorts of people with opposing opinions because they have integrity, an open mind, perspective, and mostly respect.

    You don't. You get what you give. If you want a different response to me, then try changing your behavior. If you don't want to do that, then ignore me. But don't expect to post stupid shit and expect me to just let it slide. And don't be a prick towards people and expect me to let that pass either. You own your behavior, and I'll call you on it time after time.

    Cry about it if you want, but I'm not interested in your childish antics. You're like the little kid that runs around teasing other kids and throwing dirt at them and then runs crying to the teacher when you get what you deserve.

    It's time to grow up. Until then, I'm going to treat you exactly the way you deserve, and respond with exactly what you ask for. Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy intelligent and thoughtful conversations with others of opposing viewpoints and roll my eyes as you act like the dick you are.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 19:08:42.0 login to vote score 0
    january 23rd: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," - obama

    january 31st: "The real leader of the Republican Party in America today is a corpulent drug addict with an AM radio talk show, Rush Limbaugh." - begala


    same narrative, a month earlier: fox news opinion peice

    note the following quote in the above:
    [Obama is] obviously more frightened of me than he is of Mitch McConnell .He is more frightened of me than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party -- rush, himself. days before steele even got the chair.


    for some reason, a repeated insistance that this just started with a meet the press interview no longer matters, so maybe i'm answering the wrong question. perhaps i should get right to the point and ask just why the shit you feel a constant need to go randy-macho-man-savage on people for no fucking reason.

    i know. i know. name calling. again, that didn't arise in a vacuum. if i spent the above conversation telling you what you thought, why you thought it, and that you were revolting for having done so - i'd fully well expect you to tell me to fuck off. perhaps i'm wrong in thinking that, but....well...fuck off.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 19:09:57.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You don't


    again, there is exactly 1 person who i cannot converse with, without it turning into a fucking professional wrestling match textual abortion.

    you cannot say the same.

    not even fucking close.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 19:15:56.0 login to vote score 0
    january 23rd: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," - obama

    That's not pretending Rush is the leader of the GOP.

    january 31st: "The real leader of the Republican Party in America today is a corpulent drug addict with an AM radio talk show, Rush Limbaugh." - begala

    That's another partisan hack that was rightly ignored for his bullshit. Rahm speaks for the White House, and is much harder to ignore.

    same narrative, a month earlier: fox news opinion peice

    note the following quote in the above:
    [Obama is] obviously more frightened of me than he is of Mitch McConnell .He is more frightened of me than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party -- rush, himself. days before steele even got the chair.


    You do realize that a radio entertainer doesn't get to self appoint himself as a party's leader, right?

    for some reason, a repeated insistance that this just started with a meet the press interview no longer matters, so maybe i'm answering the wrong question. perhaps i should get right to the point and ask just why the shit you feel a constant need to go randy-macho-man-savage on people for no fucking reason.

    I rail on you because you're being a dumbass. You seem to think that this thing had legs before Rahm made his statement. That's fucking stupid.

    I also rail on you because you think this is ok. It's not. It's fucking stupid-ass partisan politics which lowers the bar and divides a nation when Obama really needs more unity.

    i know. i know. name calling. again, that didn't arise in a vacuum. if i spent the above conversation telling you what you thought, why you thought it, and that you were revolting for having done so - i'd fully well expect you to tell me to fuck off. perhaps i'm wrong in thinking that, but....well...fuck off.

    You have your head up your ass. What else can I say? You start calling names and then play the role as the victim when you get it in return. You deny the reality of the situation by hoping, just hoping, that obscure quotes will somehow make a case, however weak, that this was an issue before Rahm used his political capital which was borrowed from the White House to deliberately take the debate to a much lower level by insulting and degrading a party which is obviously not taking it's leadership from Rush.

    Just stop already. Even if you don't realize it, you're embarrassing yourself.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 19:24:39.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, there is exactly 1 person who i cannot converse with, without it turning into a fucking professional wrestling match textual abortion.

    you cannot say the same.

    not even fucking close.


    You're a liar. I've seen you act like an absolute dick to others who are calm and rational. Do you think I don't read other posts on this site? I know how you act, and it's quite often very ugly. Admit it or deny it, it makes no difference. It just is what it is.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 19:33:14.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    That's another partisan hack


    that's the origin of this. that begala and carville are partisan hacks is kinda self evident.

    that really has shit nor shinola to do with perpetual incistance that it originated w/ a meet the press interview that happened over a month later.

    the dncc has been pushing this narrative into the news for a month. thus, my confusion as to why this is rahm's baby. that confusion is apparently worth being revolting, an idiotic flabby faced fucktard with my head in the sand....etc. again, it's just...it's freaking irrational.

    untrustworthy:
    I also rail on you because you think this is ok. It's not.


    ok, here's a challenge for ya.

    find the part of this thread where i said this.

    oh. shit. that's the peril of telling people what they think and why. what they actually say can some times be relevant. i don't think it's OK. i also don't think it's evil to the point you are painting it. that i'm not sharing your level of outrage is...well...i'd say that's the province of having my own opinion.

    be sure to come up with at least 5 more insults to properly scorn me for not sharing your exact level of outrage. after all, it would seem that I HATE YOU SO MUCH is the only point left in this convo.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 19:43:15.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: that's the origin of this. that begala and carville are partisan hacks is kinda self evident.

    that really has shit nor shinola to do with perpetual incistance that it originated w/ a meet the press interview that happened over a month later.

    the dncc has been pushing this narrative into the news for a month. thus, my confusion as to why this is rahm's baby. that confusion is apparently worth being revolting, an idiotic flabby faced fucktard with my head in the sand....etc. again, it's just...it's freaking irrational.


    Apparently you aren't paying attention. So let me remind you again that Rahm Emanuel is the Chief of Staff for Obama. He has a large amount of political capital at his disposal. While people may have been blaming Rush for being a voice of the Republican party for years, it does not change the fact that the motherfucking COS did it with nothing more in mind than to belittle, divide, and distract. And the evidence of the power and authority he abused is out there because this hasn't been a headline issue until he fucking brought it up. Do you not get that?

    ok, here's a challenge for ya.

    find the part of this thread where i said this.

    oh. shit. that's the peril of telling people what they think and why. what they actually say can some times be relevant. i don't think it's OK. i also don't think it's evil to the point you are painting it. that i'm not sharing your level of outrage is...well...i'd say that's the province of having my own opinion.

    be sure to come up with at least 5 more insults to properly scorn me for not sharing your exact level of outrage. after all, it would seem that I HATE YOU SO MUCH is the only point left in this convo.


    I have no problem with you having an opinion. I never once told you that you had no right to your opinion. But I have my own opinion as well. My opinion is that Rahm Emanuel, a person long known to be a bitter partisan asshole with no appreciation for bipartisan politics resorted back to his old game in order to fulfill an agenda to push away Republicans, in spite of the promise and rhetoric of Obama to do exactly the opposite.

    I also have an opinion about your opinion, and I think it's short-sighted, vindictive, partisan, immature, and completely non-progressive. Just as you have your right to an opinion, I have a right to mine, and I've made every effort to show you why my opinion on Rahm is valid. The fact that you've denied every ounce of the evidence I've shown you only re-enforces my second opinion about your point of view.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 19:58:39.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I never once told you that you had no right to your opinion.


    no, but you've made a repeated point of telling me what my opinion is - and then judging me for it.

    again, you cannot even justify the opinion you've put in my mouth, but you can tell me that i'm short sighted, vindictive, partisan, immature, and completely non-progressive for having an opinion....that i don't have.

    i know saying the word 'jackass' is the worst fucking thing in the world, but for a moment contemplate that it is an accurate description for your interaction.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 20:02:59.0 login to vote score 1
    heap:
    be sure to come up with at least 5 more insults


    untrustworthy:
    short-sighted, vindictive, partisan, immature, and completely non-progressive


    kudos on hitting the number, btw.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 20:18:06.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: kudos on hitting the number, btw.

    I'm done with you. I've made efforts before to reach out to you and build some understanding, but you've done very little in return. If you want to spew your crapola and have nobody criticize you for it, then good luck. But I have little justification for spending my time on you any further.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 20:19:41.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I'm done with you.


    thank you.

    for real, you've placed an opinion in my mouth, chastised me for it, ignored the fact that you've done this...and then further frothed about how evil i am.

    yes.

    please do fuck off.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 20:24:29.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: thank you.

    for real, you've placed an opinion in my mouth, chastised me for it, ignored the fact that you've done this...and then further frothed about how evil i am.

    yes.

    please do fuck off.


    You're shockingly naive and self concerned. I can't do anything about that. You're a victim looking for a villain. I refuse to be that guy, no matter how much you try to make me into that.

    Good luck with your life. I hope you figure out how to deal. Until then, just leave me out of it.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 20:27:10.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You're shockingly naive and self concerned. I can't do anything about that. You're a victim looking for a villain. I refuse to be that guy, no matter how much you try to make me into that.


    again, you simply cannot acknowledge that i have never once said that i am in favor of this. yet the spittle is still on the screen from your condemnation of me for holding an opinion i do not hold.

    no insult adjusts for this. you can label me whatever you like, but it simply does not change the fact that giving people their opinion, then chastising them for the opinion you just gave them is a pile of bullshit.

    i am more than fucking willing to leave you out of it. it wasn't me that drug this thread out of the dregs for no good reason other than another IHATEYOUSOMUCH rehash.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:00:14.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, you simply cannot acknowledge that i have never once said that i am in favor of this. yet the spittle is still on the screen from your condemnation of me for holding an opinion i do not hold.

    no insult adjusts for this. you can label me whatever you like, but it simply does not change the fact that giving people their opinion, then chastising them for the opinion you just gave them is a pile of bullshit.

    i am more than fucking willing to leave you out of it. it wasn't me that drug this thread out of the dregs for no good reason other than another IHATEYOUSOMUCH rehash.


    You've been defending this action by Rahm and the Democrats endlessly.

    Just stop. You're still just embarrassing yourself. You only stand to further make a mockery of your own position by moving goalposts.

    You're a joke, heap. You've earned that. I can't make any excuses in your favor anymore. You're going to have to stand for your own silly behavior and the reaction you get from it for once.

    Now why don't you go post some llamas or something as if that's funny or interesting. Then go fuck yourself.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:04:51.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You've been defending this action by Rahm and the Democrats endlessly.


    no, i haven't. i've stated that rahm was not the originator of the strategy, so singling him out as the unique evil strikes me as odd. it has, and does, come from many angles within the party....including obama himself.

    if there is contrary, please feel free to post it. just scroll on up and copypasta it.

    or acknowledge that just maybe the habit of giving people opinions and then condemning them for what you just put in their mouth is a raft of shit.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:09:04.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no, i haven't. i've stated that rahm was not the originator of the strategy, so singling him out as the unique evil strikes me as odd. it has, and does, come from many angles within the party....including obama himself.

    if there is contrary, please feel free to post it. just scroll on up and copypasta it.

    or acknowledge that just maybe the habit of giving people opinions and then condemning them for what you just put in their mouth is a raft of shit.


    Jesus Christ, heap. Stop pretending like I'm an idiot. If you want to privately think that, then go for it. But if you're going to try to convince me that you haven't been supporting this bullshit behavior not only from Rahm, but from the rest of the fuckwits in the Democratic party as thinking it's such a glorious "BURN!" then you're going to be sorely disappointed. You're full of shit. I know that. You know that. So please. For the appreciation of sanity and reality, stick it up your ass already. I'm not buying your bullshit that this was all about "Well so and so said such and such and that means you're stupid for bringing up Rahm."

    Fuck man. Are you seriously going to blame me for being the instigator of an argument when you're such a bullheaded fuckwit hell bent on moving goalposts without acknowledging a single god-damn thing I've been saying?

    Pull your head out of your ass. Please. You might be pleasantly surprised at what the real world looks like.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:10:00.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Jesus Christ, heap. Stop pretending like I'm an idiot


    post where i said i support this or shut the fuck up.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:17:29.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: post where i said i support this or shut the fuck up.

    Jesus fucking Christ. You've been attempting to state that this is a legitimate charge against the Republicans because other Democrats supported it, Obama made statements against Rush, Republicans made concessions after criticizing Rush, Rush himself stated that he was a leader, etc. etc. etc.

    You've been making every god-damned argument in the book about how this is a good political move, that Republicans deserve it, that it makes sense, and that the White House, while being early critics of Rush aren't responsible for putting him into the limelight.

    Just how daft are you?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:28:33.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You've been attempting to state that this is a legitimate charge against the Republicans because other Democrats supported i


    no, i've said it's a legit charge because i think it's a legit charge.

    i've also said it's the most base form of politics, and isn't going to actually get them anywhere.

    your sole umbrage is in the fact that i do not express enough outrage. i don't like it. i don't think it's the end of the motherfuckingfrothfucking world. i don't think it's spending capital - that's what bothers me. they are actually *more popular* for the effort. it is goddamned effective political theater. that's the part that bothers me. that they are this goddamn good at it. that, i find kinda scary.


    again, had you actually read the comments rather than aiming for spite, you might know this.

    untrustworthy:
    Just how daft are you?


    enough to keep responding to somebody who has absofuckinglutely zero inclination to actually read what is said, i guess.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:29:04.0 login to vote score 0
    I'll tell you what, heap. Since I apparently "don't get" what your point is, then why don't you explain it for me.

    Is Rahm Emanuel accountable for his participation in this bullshit game of elevating Rush or not?

    Is Rush the de facto leader of the GOP in your opinion?

    Is there a good reason why Democrats should be jumping on board with this political game?

    Is elevating Rush Limbaugh actually good for Americans while we attempt to conquer one of the most difficult times we've experienced in generations?

    /Answer these questions for me, and be honest and revealing in your true intent. I'm sick of playing this game with you.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:34:25.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no, i've said it's a legit charge because i think it's a legit charge.

    It's not legit. Rush Limbaugh is just a person with an opinion. He holds no official representation over the GOP. In fact, many Republicans find him to be a massive distraction.

    i've also said it's the most base form of politics, and isn't going to actually get them anywhere.

    It's fucking stupid.

    your sole umbrage is in the fact that i do not express enough outrage. i don't like it. i don't think it's the end of the motherfuckingfrothfucking world. i don't think it's spending capital - that's what bothers me. they are actually *more popular* for the effort. it is goddamned effective political theater. that's the part that bothers me. that they are this goddamn good at it. that, i find kinda scary.

    More popular? Really? You think that belittling an entire party by falsely accusing them of following some fucktard makes the Democrats more popular? Is that what I we should be looking for in leadership?

    again, had you actually read the comments rather than aiming for spite, you might know this.

    I know you're about as disingenuous in your rhetoric as you think you can get away with.

    enough to keep responding to somebody who has absofuckinglutely zero inclination to actually read what is said, i guess.

    I've read every god-damned word you've said and I know that you're full of shit, and you think it's my fault for calling you on it. You've disregarded every last bit of evidence and issue I've presented about the fucking COS under Obama playing childish games with politics at a very significant juncture where we need honest communication and cooperation.

    If you don't think that's important, then I continue to stand behind my assessment of your opinion.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:38:12.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I'll tell you what, heap. Since I apparently "don't get" what your point is, then why don't you explain it for me.


    i have.

    untrustworthy:
    Is Rahm Emanuel accountable for his participation in this bullshit game of elevating Rush or not?


    for originating it, no. for hopping on board, absolutely.

    again, this isn't a 1 party mediafest. this would not be anywhere near the story had it not actually been hitting the crux of the biscuit. there is scads of blame to be lobbed to the dncc, strategists, admin members, obama himself - and most importantly, republican leadership for embodying the charges in their every misstep.

    again, the democrats could say that the republicans are led by ewoks.

    that is not a multi day news story until republicans bend over backward to prove that not offending ewoks is their main goal.

    untrustworthy:
    Is Rush the de facto leader of the GOP in your opinion?


    currently, yes. there is a vacuum of anything better.

    this is the same situation that the democrats found themselves in during the run up/post election of 04. in every aspect of framing what a democratic position was, it was michael moore, cindy shehan, or some other frothing loon that was leadership. the party itself supplied either nothing, or worse than nothing for leadership.

    untrustworthy:
    Is there a good reason why Democrats should be jumping on board with this political game?


    because they are politicians. it's kinda what they do.

    i dont' think that SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! shit from the republicans destroys bipartisanship, either. i think it's political theater. i think what destroys bipartisanship is making zero effort to work towards common ground on policies. think of every bipartisan effort ever passed - it was not void of political theater.

    and it never will be.


    i don't like it, but apparently not sharing your exact level of outrage means....well...fuck if i know. pick an insult. it apparently means that.

    untrustworthy:
    Is elevating Rush Limbaugh actually good for Americans while we attempt to conquer one of the most difficult times we've experienced in generations?


    it depends. will it bring us closer to actually having republicans suggest what a policy meeting ground might be?

    again, it's theater. the meat is the legislation and policy stances. if theater can force a party's hand towards actually being more than 'no', sure. it can have a positive endgame.

    i don't think it will, but it is within the realm of possibility.

    now actually read that, and tell me the part that equates 'you support this'.

    and consider i haven't said a motherfucking thing that i haven't said prior in this thread.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:40:15.0 login to vote score 0
    jesus fucking christ, just fucking point out where i said i support this, or shut the fuck up.



    heap 191 2009-03-05 21:41:20.0 login to vote score 0
    it's flat text.

    really.

    scroll the fuck up, and highlight the section where i said i think this is great and wonderful, or acknowledge that you put the opinion in my mouth, then proceeded to be a multi-day frothing dick about it.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:58:53.0 login to vote score 0
    for originating it, no. for hopping on board, absolutely.

    again, this isn't a 1 party mediafest. this would not be anywhere near the story had it not actually been hitting the crux of the biscuit. there is scads of blame to be lobbed to the dncc, strategists, admin members, obama himself - and most importantly, republican leadership for embodying the charges in their every misstep.

    again, the democrats could say that the republicans are led by ewoks.

    that is not a multi day news story until republicans bend over backward to prove that not offending ewoks is their main goal.


    Great. So you think that the Republicans essentially are guilty, and that the Democrats are justified in accusing them of it, but you won't take ownership of giving them credit for it.

    Talk out of both sides of your mouth much?

    currently, yes. there is a vacuum of anything better.

    this is the same situation that the democrats found themselves in during the run up/post election of 04. in every aspect of framing what a democratic position was, it was michael moore, cindy shehan, or some other frothing loon that was leadership. the party itself supplied either nothing, or worse than nothing for leadership.


    I think I've been clear in stating that it's not acceptable when the Republicans do it and neither is it acceptable when Democrats do it. I'm not interested in your reflecting blame as an excuse for really stupid behavior.

    because they are politicians. it's kinda what they do.

    Yeah. That's a great philosophy. "It's ok because we expect shitty behavior so we should just continue to expect shitty behavior. Too bad Americans get screwed in the mix."

    i dont' think that SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! MARXIST! shit from the republicans destroys bipartisanship, either. i think it's political theater. i think what destroys bipartisanship is making zero effort to work towards common ground on policies. think of every bipartisan effort ever passed - it was not void of political theater.

    We're talking about the fucking White House Chief of Staff here. Not some douchebag with a book to sell. Not some fuckwit looking for ratings. We're talking about someone with a direct obligation to represent the Obama administration and to facilitate an agenda based on bipartisanship.

    i don't like it, but apparently not sharing your exact level of outrage means....well...fuck if i know. pick an insult. it apparently means that.

    Irresponsible? Ambivalent? Complacent?

    Are these insults to you, or are they accurate representations of your position?

    it depends. will it bring us closer to actually having republicans suggest what a policy meeting ground might be?

    Fuck no. You don't belittle and mock people in hopes that they will look upon you as someone to look up to and agree with. You do that to shun them in hopes that you will polarize people into also dismissing them. It's childish games which are too dangerous and petty to be played right now.

    again, it's theater. the meat is the legislation and policy stances. if theater can force a party's hand towards actually being more than 'no', sure. it can have a positive endgame.

    The ends justify the means, even if it means turning the opposition against you? Obama hasn't even had his first 100 days yet. Do you think it's a good idea to piss on the Republicans now? Really?

    now actually read that, and tell me the part that equates 'you support this'.

    and consider i haven't said a motherfucking thing that i haven't said prior in this thread.


    How about the fact that you've done nothing but criticize my entire point endlessly by trying to bring up fringe concepts which, at best, are nothing more than splitting insignificant hairs in the grand scheme of what I'm talking about. You've been on my ass about this issue as if I should just be as complacent and disinterested in it as you, which is shocking. I'm not a huge supporter of Obama's policies or agenda, but I am a huge supporter of him as a man with great potential to lead the nation at a time when we really need it. He's smart, articulate, and has promised to be a leader of all Americans. That is the exact philosophy which launched him into the limelight at the DNC in 2004.

    Now, are you trying to tell me that I should just dismiss this crap as politics as usual? Because that's not what I'm inclined to do. I'm more inclined, like mutilato has said before me, that having a great deal of support and criticism is critical towards keeping the huge amount of political capital on the right path.

    I'm sorry if my passion for politics and hope for responsible behavior with integrity and respect somehow offends or puts you off. But you've been hammering on me about this issue from the beginning, and I make no apologies for thinking that this is a bullshit issue.

    If, at this point, all you have to say is that my argument about this problem is that, "It's not that bad, it's just politics as usual," then forgive me for thinking I should just ignore you in the future. I don't need some asshole telling me that while I might be right in principle, that I'm wrong for having some desire to discuss it.

    I particularly find your argument at this point to be pathetic considering the amount of effort you've made at basically telling me that I've made too much of an effort in criticizing Rahm Emanuel. There's so much irony in that notion, that I'm surprised you haven't recognized it yet.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 21:59:15.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: jesus fucking christ, just fucking point out where i said i support this, or shut the fuck up.

    I already did. Fuck off.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:02:10.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: it's flat text.

    really.

    scroll the fuck up, and highlight the section where i said i think this is great and wonderful, or acknowledge that you put the opinion in my mouth, then proceeded to be a multi-day frothing dick about it.


    You're pathetic. You've spent so much time defending this behavior by saying it's deserved, that everyone's doing it, and that it's not important to be concerned about that I'm blown away by your tenacity at trying to tell me that it's not worth talking about. If it truly wasn't worth talking about, then the nation wouldn't be talking about it, and you wouldn't be making such an effort in trying to make a case as to why it's not worth talking about.

    Whatever your issues are, like I said, I want nothing to do with them. Apparently you're not even aware of your own agenda, and that's sad. Don't blame me for it.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:03:06.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I already did. Fuck off.


    no, you haven't.

    the absolute lack of 'here is the part where you said you support this' is kinda indicative of that.

    you can't. it isn't there.

    see, i actually know what i think. i don't have to read into it and try to craft an insult for it rather than actually reading it.


    scroll to the part of the thread where i said i support this, highlight it, paste it here, or


    shut.

    the.

    fuck.

    up.

    at some point, you're going to have to figure out that you're railing against an opinion i don't hold.

    maybe.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:03:47.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:


    no where in that list of insults is a copypasta of me even remotely saying that i support this.

    but you know that already.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:05:50.0 login to vote score 0
    you've read so much into this it's flat fucking baffling. from making a comparison to another time when a political party was in the wilderness and leadership came from the frothy fringe....it becomes 'reflecting blame'. it's a comparison. that's it. no reflecting/deflecting a damned thing. it's another example of the situation.

    but it has to be something dire and nasty so you can lob another insult.

    fuck this.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:06:29.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no, you haven't.

    the absolute lack of 'here is the part where you said you support this' is kinda indicative of that.

    you can't. it isn't there.

    see, i actually know what i think. i don't have to read into it and try to craft an insult for it rather than actually reading it.


    scroll to the part of the thread where i said i support this, highlight it, paste it here, or


    shut.

    the.

    fuck.

    up.

    at some point, you're going to have to figure out that you're railing against an opinion i don't hold.

    maybe.


    Are you trying to tell me that you think that the Republicans have made Rush the de facto leader at the same time you want to convince me that you don't support Democrats, particularly Rahm Emanuel, in saying so.

    If you believe this crap, you're better at lying to yourself than you are at lying to me.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:07:03.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no where in that list of insults is a copypasta of me even remotely saying that i support this.

    but you know that already.


    I know you'll move your goalposts freely to avoid standing for or against anything, apparently.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:08:17.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: you've read so much into this it's flat fucking baffling. from making a comparison to another time when a political party was in the wilderness and leadership came from the frothy fringe....it becomes 'reflecting blame'. it's a comparison. that's it. no reflecting/deflecting a damned thing. it's another example of the situation.

    but it has to be something dire and nasty so you can lob another insult.

    fuck this.


    Fuck you. You've been on this debate, apparently now, without standing for or against anything. Color me unimpressed. People claim that I will argue about nothing, but I humbly resign that crown to you. You've truly earned it.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:09:14.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Are you trying to tell me that you think that the Republicans have made Rush the de facto leader at the same time you want to convince me that you don't support Democrats, particularly Rahm Emanuel, in saying so.


    erm...de facto kinda means the opposite of 'they made him the leader'. it's a contradiction of what the term even means.

    and yes, i've said several times this is the basest politics and will get them nowhere.

    go ahead and read into that that i want to suck rahm's dick, or some other bullshit. what i actually say has zero fucking impact on your response.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:10:52.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You've been on this debate, apparently now, without standing for or against anything


    dude, you've frothed at the cock for 2 days now that "THIS ORIGINATED WITH RAHM"...which struck me as odd. i've seen a motherfucking dncc memo, full color glossy, from a month ago that laid out the strategy.

    originally, i thought you were missing part of the picture. somewhere between here and there, it's become nothing more than IHATEYOUSOMUCH spite and intentionally reading the biggest pile of bullshit you can out of any statement.

    sweet jesus.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:11:48.0 login to vote score 0
    well, i guess once shown that it didn't originate w/ rahm, that suddenly didn't matter any more. i think after that, the only point has been IHATEYOUSOMUCH.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:13:29.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: erm...de facto kinda means the opposite of 'they made him the leader'. it's a contradiction of what the term even means.

    Split some more hairs, why doncha?

    and yes, i've said several times this is the basest politics and will get them nowhere.

    And yet you're criticizing me for stating as such? WTF?

    go ahead and read into that that i want to suck rahm's dick, or some other bullshit. what i actually say has zero fucking impact on your response.

    I never said you wanted to suck Rahm's dick. What I have been trying to say is that you're criticizing me for stating the truth about Rahm taking the low road in purely partisan politics and representing the Obama administration poorly by expending political capital in order to belittle the Republicans.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:16:06.0 login to vote score 0
    dude, you've frothed at the cock for 2 days now that "THIS ORIGINATED WITH RAHM"...which struck me as odd. i've seen a motherfucking dncc memo, full color glossy, from a month ago that laid out the strategy.

    Fuck, dude. I posted the article talking about it. Rahm was the guy that put it into action. Did you not read what I said?

    originally, i thought you were missing part of the picture. somewhere between here and there, it's become nothing more than IHATEYOUSOMUCH spite and intentionally reading the biggest pile of bullshit you can out of any statement.

    You've been a prick. What can I say? You get what you deserve. Normally I like discussing the issue, but you've been so hell bent on moving goal posts and posting weird ass deflections in every effort to somehow try to deflate my criticism against the actions taken by the Chief of Staff while pretending to secretly agree with me that I don't even know what to do with you. You're playing games now.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 22:24:13.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: well, i guess once shown that it didn't originate w/ rahm, that suddenly didn't matter any more. i think after that, the only point has been IHATEYOUSOMUCH.

    Jesus Christ. It did originate with him. I suppose you'd tell me that the Atomic bomb didn't originate with the US. Or that it wasn't just an issue of resolving WWII. Or that fucking original sin was somehow to blame.

    Critics have been criticizing Rush Limbaugh since he first pissed one off, and they've been criticizing his followers by making fun of him. That's a logical fallacy. What Rush has said was not actually what the Democratic partisans have been portraying. They're using him as a wedge to play partisan politics. And now they are doing it to belittle and demonize Republicans by falsely claiming that they are following Rush like he was the leader of the GOP.

    However, Rahm Emanuel, as I've said a number of times, is the White House Chief of Staff. He's one of Obama's closest and most critical right hand men. Apparently you don't grasp the significance of that role, as you think that it's not relevant in comparison to some partisan hack looking to make some headlines for a personal agenda. But I think it's a big difference because he not only represents the Obama administration, but also represents the people of America, and the nation to the world in many respects. If you think it's funny and cute for him to take a position that media whores typically take to make money, then good for you. I'm sure Rush is happy to see dumbfucks like you celebrate his newfound celebrity because he'll be making millions of dollars from it while the rest of the people wish to see the attention put back on the actual issues at hand.

    /Seriously, heap. It's people like you that have apathy and lack of integrity towards leaders that let us get into this kind of bullshit we're dealing with now. Be proud of yourself. Go post some llamas to celebrate.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:55:13.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    It did originate with him


    .....dude, the link you gave sourced it at begala and carville. over a month ago. before steele even got the job. the same thing i've been saying since the top of this thread.

    untrustworthy:
    Seriously, heap. It's people like you that have apathy and lack of integrity towards leaders that let us get into this kind of bullshit we're dealing with now. Be proud of yourself. Go post some llamas to celebrate


    again, i'm sure telling me what i think, then condemning me for it makes perfect sense to you.

    i just can't bring myself to give a shit.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 22:58:10.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Split some more hairs, why doncha?


    when you're trying to say that they have placed him in the position, that's the exact opposite of what de facto means.

    rush, and other angry reactionary freaks are the guiding force in the party by my reckoning...exactly because nobody else is stepping into that role and doing anything remotely close to a good job with it. i don't like that.

    you're more than welcome to think the opposite, and if you'll take note...i haven't labeled you 'the problem', evil, lacking integrity, revolting, or any other needling bullshit for you holding that opinion.

    you cannot say the same.

    re-read that.

    re-read it again.

    sink in yet?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:00:23.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: .....dude, the link you gave sourced it at begala and carville. over a month ago. before steele even got the job. the same thing i've been saying since the top of this thread.

    Dude. The link I sourced also mentioned Emanuel's launch of the "Limbaugh is the GOP leader" upon opportunity. Did you miss that?

    \again, i'm sure telling me what i think, then condemning me for it makes perfect sense to you.

    What do you think again? You lost me. Somewhere between saying that all of this was the Republican's fault and that they deserved it and it was accurate and then claiming that you didn't support the Democrats who did it, even though everyone was doing it, and it's ok because it's just politics as usual.

    Forgive me for trying to put my finger on exactly what your stance was.

    i just can't bring myself to give a shit.

    Which is a quality you embrace which makes me lose respect for you constantly. You just don't give a shit. It doesn't matter what it is. You'll express your opinion and criticize others, but when someone challenges you, you fall back on llamas and moonbeams and "NO U!" and I don't care.

    Seriously, if you don't care, then why do you try so hard to convince everyone? It's almost like you care or something.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:04:41.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Dude. The link I sourced also mentioned Emanuel's launch of the "Limbaugh is the GOP leader" upon opportunity. Did you miss that?


    did you miss begala saying the same thing a fucking month ago?

    did you miss kaine, dncc apparatus and other party pimpers having the ongoing narrative for over a month?

    yes. yes, you did.

    untrustworthy:
    Forgive me for trying to put my finger on exactly what your stance was.


    bullshit. if you'd read for content instead of insult, perhaps you might actually understand what somebody else says instead of finding it a jumping off point for froth.

    untrustworthy:
    Which is a quality you embrace which makes me lose respect for you constantly.


    again, nothing like a good judgemental needling prick to liven up a conversation. yay for you.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:05:51.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: when you're trying to say that they have placed him in the position, that's the exact opposite of what de facto means.

    You don't know what de facto means?

    1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
    2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure ).

    rush, and other angry reactionary freaks are the guiding force in the party by my reckoning...exactly because nobody else is stepping into that role and doing anything remotely close to a good job with it. i don't like that.

    So wait. He's the guiding force, even though most Republicans dislike him or think he's doing a discredit to the party? And you dislike it, so you criticize me for having an issue with Democrats, particularly the COS under Obama making him out to be the leader? WTF?

    you're more than welcome to think the opposite, and if you'll take note...i haven't labeled you 'the problem', evil, lacking integrity, revolting, or any other needling bullshit for you holding that opinion.

    No, I'm just a "jackass." Well, I take back everything I said about you lacking integrity, holding what I perceive to be a revolting position, etc. Everything.

    Instead, let me replace that with saying you're just a big poopy-head. Is that better?

    you cannot say the same.

    Thankfully, you're right.

    sink in yet?

    Oh, believe me. So much of what you've portrayed has sunk this conversation so low that I'm surprised I'm still participating.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:08:34.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    So wait. He's the guiding force, even though most Republicans dislike him or think he's doing a discredit to the party?


    source.

    untrustworthy:
    so you criticize me for having an issue with Democrats


    source.

    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:09:25.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: did you miss begala saying the same thing a fucking month ago?

    Did you miss my post stating that he was a partisan hack of no significance? Did you miss the fact that he isn't Chief of Staff? Maybe you need to review this thread.

    did you miss kaine, dncc apparatus and other party pimpers having the ongoing narrative for over a month?

    Democrats have been criticizing Limbaugh since he fell on their radar over 20 years ago. Don't pretend that Rahm was innocent in calling out Limbaugh as the GOP leadership. I'm not that dumb.

    bullshit. if you'd read for content instead of insult, perhaps you might actually understand what somebody else says instead of finding it a jumping off point for froth.

    Somebody else? I'm talking about you, not just "somebody else." Get that straight. This is about this conversation between you and I. Not anyone else.

    again, nothing like a good judgemental needling prick to liven up a conversation. yay for you.

    Again, you get what you give. I'm reacting to your bullshit. Keep up the same behavior and you can expect the same response.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:15:17.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: source.

    If you're going to pretend you've read my sources before, you should at least be cautious about questioning them.

    "I hope he fails,” Limbaugh said of Obama on his show four days before the president was sworn in. It was a time when Obama’s approval ratings were soaring, but more than that, polls showed even people who didn’t vote for him badly wanted him to succeed, coming to office at a time of economic meltdown.

    -------

    The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

    “His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.


    Source? Are you going all flashlv on me now?

    source.

    This entire fucking thread?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:19:03.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Did you miss my post stating that he was a partisan hack of no significance?


    partisan hack of no significance is the source of this. again, your own link says as much. begala, carville, and other dncc strategists laid this out.

    again, this scares me because the thought of that effective of a political sledgehammer reminds me entirely too much of rove and company. it scares me exactly because of the effectiveness. again, trillions being spent, the market is finding new cellars every day, and the administration is *going up* in approval ratings. that...that is enough to make my butt pucker.

    at the same time, that is not a source of frothy fucking outrage and condemnation for me. it is for you. that difference apparently means i fully support it, and want nothing but yummy political theater for ever and ever, amen. or something.


    untrustworthy:
    This is about this conversation between you and I. Not anyone else.


    no, really it hasn't. it's been between me, a filter that translates 'this is the basests politics and i don't think it will gain them anything in the long run' into 'OMG I FUCKING LOVE THIS. IT MAKES MY PENIS HARD', and eventually...you.

    that filter is a sumbitch.

    untrustworthy:
    Again, you get what you give. I'm reacting to your bullshit.


    at no point have i stated you are insert_insult_here for holding any opinion. i'm just tired of how you consistently attack, insult, dissemble, and harrang somebody for having a differing opinion - then have the motherfucking audacity to act innocent when somebody has had enough of it.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:23:20.0 login to vote score 0
    heap:
    He's the guiding force, even though most Republicans dislike him or think he's doing a discredit to the party?


    this is what you stated. most republicans.

    recent gallup poll has a 60% approval rating for rush among republicans. higher than any other party leader.

    i asked for a source for your statement because it is incorrect.

    you can supply a source for your statement now, or maybe just find a neat new insult. make it about my shoe size. show some effort.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:24:38.0 login to vote score 0
    you can also highlight, copy and paste the line where i criticized you for having an issue with democrats.

    it might be difficult since i haven't said anything fucking remotely close to that, but technically i guess you could.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:26:45.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: partisan hack of no significance is the source of this. again, your own link says as much. begala, carville, and other dncc strategists laid this out.

    Rahm made it relevant, and launched it into the mainstream. Are you saying that isn't the case, even though the timeline proves that the headlines followed his interview on Sunday?

    again, this scares me because the thought of that effective of a political sledgehammer reminds me entirely too much of rove and company. it scares me exactly because of the effectiveness. again, trillions being spent, the market is finding new cellars every day, and the administration is *going up* in approval ratings. that...that is enough to make my butt pucker.

    You're scared of this and you're criticizing me about this? And where is your source proving that this is a net positive for Obama? last I saw with the stimulus, his numbers had dropped a bit, which is why Rahm pushed for this opportunity to launch the issue into the mainstream.

    at the same time, that is not a source of frothy fucking outrage and condemnation for me. it is for you. that difference apparently means i fully support it, and want nothing but yummy political theater for ever and ever, amen. or something.

    You've criticized me for taking issue with Rahm Emanuel using his position and power in making a big issue out of this, and then you expect me to think that you're indifferent?

    no, really it hasn't. it's been between me, a filter that translates 'this is the basests politics and i don't think it will gain them anything in the long run' into 'OMG I FUCKING LOVE THIS. IT MAKES MY PENIS HARD', and eventually...you.

    that filter is a sumbitch.


    I'm sorry, but are you speaking for others? Were you self appointed as the representative against me, or did some partisan hack name you as the de facto critic of all?

    at no point have i stated you are insert_insult_here for holding any opinion. i'm just tired of how you consistently attack, insult, dissemble, and harrang somebody for having a differing opinion - then have the motherfucking audacity to act innocent when somebody has had enough of it.

    WTF? You've been trying to claim that I'm off base or making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I didn't take any issue with you until you tried to portray my argument against the COS as being pathetic, non-productive etc. You've been trying to tell me that it's ok because Republicans deserve it, other democrats were doing it, this is politics as usual, it doesn't matter, and now you're trying to tell me you don't like it either, but you're mad at me for responding to your critique.

    Can you please plant your goalposts somewhere, either in opposition to my opinion or in alignment? I don't think you can fairly say you don't care at this point because you've participated heavily in this discussion, which indicates that you DO care. Is that not the impression I should get at this point?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:30:52.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: you can also highlight, copy and paste the line where i criticized you for having an issue with democrats.

    it might be difficult since i haven't said anything fucking remotely close to that, but technically i guess you could.


    I'm sorry. I must be insane because apparently you want me to now believe that I'm justified in my response and that you think that Rahm Emanuel as well as the other Dems have made a true mistake in attempting to portray Rush as the leader of the GOP. Obviously they are making the effort to take the high road and embrace the Republican criticism in order to unite the nation in order to garner support for a stimulus package the size never yet seen before, in order to move our nation forward.

    I have no idea where I ever got the idea that you had any criticism for me. Maybe I'll go get my head checked.

    /iRoll
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:33:34.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Rahm made it relevant, and launched it into the mainstream. Are you saying that isn't the case, even though the timeline proves that the headlines followed his interview on Sunday?


    yes, yes i am.

    steele's groveling made it news. rahm said the exact same thing as others have for the preceding month - what made it news was a republican misstep that gave good narrative. that's all media is good for anymore.

    untrustworthy:
    You're scared of this and you're criticizing me about this?


    no, i'm criticizing you for being a frothing assbag. again, at no point have i said you're _insult_goes_here_ for having any opinion.

    i've said you're a dissembling fucking dick who puts shit in people's mouths, spends days condemning them for it, and have the social skills of a freshly raped fucking baboon.

    untrustworthy:
    You've criticized me for taking issue with Rahm Emanuel


    again, at no point have i said 'YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE FOR THINKING THIS'. i've stated you're incorrect in stating that it originated (and earlier in the thread, i'm guessing you're giving up on this, solely the providence of emanuel') - absolute honesty, my initial statements were suprise that you weren't placing the blame in all the directions it came from. scroll alllllll the way up there. it struck me as odd that obama said roughly the same thing, caused a media shitstorm and limbaugh frothing - a month ago - but rahm's statement was the only one that mattered. it isn't.

    it's the one that was responded to incorrectly. thus....news.

    that said, the entire fucking bru-hah-hah would not have existed had it not been an ongoing media narrative for over a month. it just simply did not magically appear from meet the press this weekend.

    i swear to zombie fucking jesus, this is the only substantive factual disagreement that's been covered in the last two days.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:34:54.0 login to vote score 0
    I'll tell you what heap. If you're serious about the problem in these conversations between us, I'm absolutely dedicated to resolving them, and I mean that honestly. If you think there is middle ground which can be struck, I'll make every effort to strike it. Honestly.

    We're both still talking here after a long fucking time, and that obviously means we're both interested in participating in the conversation even though you and I have both been dicks, and we're both pretty good at that.

    I'll put my neck out if you will. If not, then let's stop. I'd prefer the former, but will accept the latter. Bury the hatchet or not?
    someone who may or may not be heap 2009-03-05 23:35:31.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I'm sorry, but are you speaking for others? Were you self appointed as the representative against me, or did some partisan hack name you as the de facto critic of all?


    this makes no sense. re-read what it is in response to. nothing in that sentence indicates anything even remotely close to that.

    untrustworthy:
    /iRoll


    again, you cannot point to what you state, because it isn't fucking there.

    if it is, copy and paste it. you can't. it isn't there. i have not once criticized you for finding issue w/ what democrats are doing. the mother fucking manner in which you conduct yourself, absofuckinglutely.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:36:08.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I'll tell you what heap. If you're serious about the problem


    i am serious in desiring you to straight fuck off and leave me be.

    i have zero expectation that this will not happen again. none.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:41:24.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: yes, yes i am.

    steele's groveling made it news. rahm said the exact same thing as others have for the preceding month - what made it news was a republican misstep that gave good narrative. that's all media is good for anymore.


    Rahm made his statement about Rush before Steele.

    no, i'm criticizing you for being a frothing assbag. again, at no point have i said you're _insult_goes_here_ for having any opinion.

    I think you've been a frothing assbag too. Apparently we share that in common.

    i've said you're a dissembling fucking dick who puts shit in people's mouths, spends days condemning them for it, and have the social skills of a freshly raped fucking baboon.

    Yeah. And you're a real fucking diplomat, aren't ya?

    again, at no point have i said 'YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE FOR THINKING THIS'. i've stated you're incorrect in stating that it originated (and earlier in the thread, i'm guessing you're giving up on this, solely the providence of emanuel') - absolute honesty, my initial statements were suprise that you weren't placing the blame in all the directions it came from. scroll alllllll the way up there. it struck me as odd that obama said roughly the same thing, caused a media shitstorm and limbaugh frothing - a month ago - but rahm's statement was the only one that mattered. it isn't.

    Obama criticized Limbaugh. Emanuel claimed he was the leadership of the GOP, then mockingly claimed he admired him for his honesty and integrity and attempted to link him to the entire fucking party. That was pathetic.

    it's the one that was responded to incorrectly. thus....news.

    No, Rahm represents the White House. Thus, news.

    that said, the entire fucking bru-hah-hah would not have existed had it not been an ongoing media narrative for over a month. it just simply did not magically appear from meet the press this weekend.

    Limbaugh has been in the news as a critic of Obama for a month. He was not labeled as the leader of the GOP in the mainstream media until Rahm did it.

    i swear to zombie fucking jesus, this is the only substantive factual disagreement that's been covered in the last two days.

    I don't think you've listened to my perspective at all, even though I've cited sources confirming and agreeing with exactly what I've been saying. There was a plan discussed. There was opportunity. And Rahm struck on the iron when he thought it was hot, and he did so in a way that was not of the high level rhetoric I'm familiar with from Obama, and that bothers me.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:45:55.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: i am serious in desiring you to straight fuck off and leave me be.

    i have zero expectation that this will not happen again. none.


    So you see, I offer an opportunity to try to bury the hatchet and you tell me to fuck off. This isn't the first time this has happened. If you want me to leave you alone, then why don't you just ignore me? If you want to reach some common ground or understanding, then why not take the opportunity.

    You want to have your cake and eat it too. If I'm willing to back off, give a lot of benefit of the doubt, and try to understand the issue, is telling me to fuck off the way to deal with it?

    I'm tired of the fight, and I'd rather see if we can have common ground. If you're not, then I'm confused as to why you'd bother continuing to respond to my posts for this long, particularly given the fact that you've accused me of ruining this site for you. If I'm willing to help try to fix it and you're not, how am I accountable?
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:46:01.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Yeah. And you're a real fucking diplomat, aren't ya?


    i have yet to state that any opinion you hold is revolting, lacking integrity, 'the problem', or any other arbitrary judgmental bullshit.

    you are absofuckinglutely right after awhile of that shit, i've had my fill - and owe you absolutely fucking nothing in the way of social decorum. nothing.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:48:00.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: i have yet to state that any opinion you hold is revolting, lacking integrity, 'the problem', or any other arbitrary judgmental bullshit.

    you are absofuckinglutely right after awhile of that shit, i've had my fill - and owe you absolutely fucking nothing in the way of social decorum. nothing.


    Then why are you still responding? You're free to install software that will enable you to ignore me. Or you can walk away from this website. I'm not asking you to do either, but if you have no desire to reach a common ground, then I have to wonder why you're still wasting time discussing this. It seems pointless.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:48:33.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    So you see, I offer an opportunity to try to bury the hatchet and you tell me to fuck off.


    yes.

    because i do not want the hatchet buried.

    after this shit, why would i?

    i want you to fuck off, and find somebody else to froth at like a rabid badger for awhile.

    i would actually like to enjoy this site. you kill that. and i am really coming to dislike you because of it.

    i do not want the hatchet buried.

    i do not want this repeated again in another month.

    i want you to stop fucking responding to me with dissembling 'OH SO YOU'RE SAYING' mischaracterizational bullshit.

    i'm saying what i'm saying. no translation needed, no 'so you mean' alteration so it fits the insult you want to fling, nothing more, nothing less.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:50:18.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Then why are you still responding?


    because fuck you, that's why.

    again, i owe you neither jack nor shit in the way of social decorum after this shit. fuck you in the ear.

    you keep responding, i will too. leave me be, i'll be more than happy to move on to a thread about ponies, llamas, or ponyllamas.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-05 23:56:02.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: yes.

    because i do not want the hatchet buried.

    after this shit, why would i?

    i want you to fuck off, and find somebody else to froth at like a rabid badger for awhile.

    i would actually like to enjoy this site. you kill that. and i am really coming to dislike you because of it.

    i do not want the hatchet buried.

    i do not want this repeated again in another month.

    i want you to stop fucking responding to me with dissembling 'OH SO YOU'RE SAYING' mischaracterizational bullshit.

    i'm saying what i'm saying. no translation needed, no 'so you mean' alteration so it fits the insult you want to fling, nothing more, nothing less.


    I'm not going to stop responding to you. Not when you have a cock to me routinely throughout the past. If you post something that I think is wrong, I will call you out on it. If I see you being a dick to someone, I'll criticize you for it. If I see you playing the victim even though you are getting served exactly what you deserve, I'll make a point of it.

    If you don't want to bury the hatchet, then that's totally and completely your call. You want to be angry. You want to hate me. You want to be the victim of a open discussion board where anyone from anywhere is free to participate and respond to you in any way they wish.

    Why would I respect your request for me to tiptoe around you when you won't even respect my request for trying to reach common ground?

    You don't owe me anything and I don't owe you anything. This is another example of you getting what you give. I put my offer out there to make a resolution, and you're rejecting it. I see no reason to respect any request you make of me now. Why would I? You're not special. I'll treat you like any asshole who opens an account here on any given day. You can be a pilto, a V$, a vaylon, a smackem, etc. You've officially given me no reason to treat you differently. That's the bed you're making, even though I've put the opportunity out there to try to put this shit behind us and move on, because I think we could do that. You don't. Not much I can do to change your mind besides what I've already done.
    heap 191 2009-03-05 23:59:26.0 login to vote score 0
    dude, did i chase you down in a dead thread for a fuckyou fest?

    did i mischaracterize every 3rd thing you said into something else, and them condemn you, judge you, and berate you for thinking what you do not think?

    believe it or not, leaving me the fuck alone is the only resolution i see. i like this site.

    i cannot fucking stand you.

    if you want me to leave this place to suit your 'well, i want to continue being a dick, so i will' druthers, fine. have at it.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:00:25.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: because fuck you, that's why.

    again, i owe you neither jack nor shit in the way of social decorum after this shit. fuck you in the ear.

    you keep responding, i will too. leave me be, i'll be more than happy to move on to a thread about ponies, llamas, or ponyllamas.


    What? Why am I going to quit responding? I don't take this as personally as you do. This site is fun for me. I'm finding out more and more about people all of the time whether they respond positively or negatively. I hope to make good relationships, but I'm not going to compromise my own values or principles for others who just want me to fuck off.

    How do you rationalize that? You tell someone to fuck off and then ask that they respect you self proclaimed boundaries? In a free and open discussion board? You've criticized and insulted me many times in the past, and now you're mad that I've challenged you? If you don't want to play the game, you shouldn't start it. You don't get to lob insults and criticisms at people and then be the victim when they respond. That's not rational and it's not really healthy.

    I'm still trying to reach out, and even while we both have something to gain, you still wish to react on your emotion and fight back against someone who is trying to drop his guard. That makes no sense.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:02:14.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    This site is fun for me.


    that's just it. this shit is apparently your idea of fun.

    it isn't mine.

    at all.

    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:05:37.0 login to vote score 0
    dude, did i chase you down in a dead thread for a fuckyou fest?

    You enjoy criticizing me in threads I'm not in. That's more cowardly than calling you out.

    did i mischaracterize every 3rd thing you said into something else, and them condemn you, judge you, and berate you for thinking what you do not think?

    Yes. And you ignore the rationale and evidence I've used to support my opinion.

    believe it or not, leaving me the fuck alone is the only resolution i see. i like this site.

    How is that my problem? If you don't care about my efforts, why should I care about yours?

    i cannot fucking stand you.

    Ok. I can live with that.

    if you want me to leave this place to suit your 'well, i want to continue being a dick, so i will' druthers, fine. have at it.

    I don't want you to leave at all. I want to resolve the issue. I've said that I'm willing to make concessions, give you the benefit of the doubt, etc. But I'm not going to give you protected space on an open website just because you're pissy and don't like me. Deal with the website as it is. Do you think that brazil can request others to leave him alone? flash? V$?

    Come on. You know better than that. This isn't your website and it isn't mine. It's a community website. If you don't respect me, then why would you expect me to respect you? Respect is earned, and it often has to be given in exchange for it being received. You know this.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:06:15.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I don't want you to leave at all.


    then find somebody else to be your humprag for awhile.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:08:46.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: that's just it. this shit is apparently your idea of fun.

    it isn't mine.

    at all.


    I'm not working. I'm posting. If I wasn't enjoying exchange, then I wouldn't be here. And I'm not asking you to leave either. I hope you wouldn't. But I won't protect you particularly if you don't have the respect to have an adult conversation about interaction. There's no reason for me to condone that kind of attitude. You have no special right to get away with being childish towards people and demand boundaries after. That just doesn't work here or in meatspace. You have to own the responses you get to your own behavior.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:10:18.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: then find somebody else to be your humprag for awhile.

    I have left you alone before. You know this. And when I did this, you reveled in the notion that you were so powerful that you kept me at bay. Why would I give you the satisfaction in doing that again? Why should I show you respect that you obviously have really never had for me? Do you think I owe you something?
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:12:08.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    you reveled in the notion that you were so powerful that you kept me at bay.


    seriously dude, i think i'm a hell of a lot more interesting in your mind than i am in reality. you know my mind enough to tell me what is in it.

    yah, that's not being a jackass.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:14:05.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I hope you wouldn't.


    find.

    somebody.

    else.

    to.

    textually.

    hatefuck.

    then.



    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:16:48.0 login to vote score 0
    heap, weren't you the guy that used to bark at me about taking this so seriously? Aren't you taking this too seriously now? Really? Am I personally hurting you? Do I even know you? No.

    You're just a guy posting on the internet, just like me. If either of us is getting so mad that we need to tell people to leave us alone on a personal message board, then we should have already shut off our computers and gone for a walk. I've enjoyed your posts in the past, even though I've understood that you don't like me. So I take you for what you are. But I won't take you putting expectations on me you'd never allow me to put on you. That just won't work. I'm making an effort to try to bury a hatchet over what is really a very stupid and silly issue, but you are extremely angry, apparently.

    The ball truly is in your court. I won't change my behavior. I'm not going to seek you out for criticism, but I'm not going to avoid you either. Say something that I take issue with, and I'm going to call you on it. Be a dick towards people, and I'll call you on it. Hell, post something funny, and I'll comment on it.

    I wouldn't expect any different response to my own posts. I've gotten all kinds of crap. People have threatened me, mocked me, badgered me, written hateful shit about me on other sites, etc. It's ok because it's really not a big deal in the big picture. I won't be afraid of people responding in what I feel to be an irrational way. That's not my problem. I understand the consequences of what I say and do, but I won't take the blame for what others do.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:17:52.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: seriously dude, i think i'm a hell of a lot more interesting in your mind than i am in reality. you know my mind enough to tell me what is in it.

    yah, that's not being a jackass.


    Ok. I'm a jackass. I'm an asshole. I'm a complete prick. I guess that's me. Do you expect me to suddenly change because you've made some sort of compelling argument?
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:18:33.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Aren't you taking this too seriously now?


    because i like this site.

    because you are the sole solitary singular motherfucker inclining me to pull my own plug and say fuck this place.

    perhaps that isn't the pinnacle of seriousness, but contextually - it is the crux of the biscuit.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:19:07.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Ok. I'm a jackass. I'm an asshole. I'm a complete prick. I guess that's me. Do you expect me to suddenly change because you've made some sort of compelling argument?


    not continuing it for no reason shy of spite would be nice.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:20:10.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: find.

    somebody.

    else.

    to.

    textually.

    hatefuck.

    then.


    You seem to think you're special in that regard. You're not. Anyone who has acted the way you have has gotten the same response from me that you've had. It's not you. It's your behavior. Maybe you think you're absolutely innocent, and that's fine. But there is a consistent way you've postured against me which also gets a consistent reaction. If you continue to posture the same way, don't you think you'll continue to get the same reaction?
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:21:13.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You seem to think you're special in that regard


    sweet jesus


    can you formulate a fucking sentence without telling somebody else what they think?

    a physical impossibility, or is having it pointed out to you incline you to continue doing nothing but that just for dick points?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:21:57.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: because i like this site.

    I do too. And I like the people who come here, even the ones that drive me crazy like yourself.

    because you are the sole solitary singular motherfucker inclining me to pull my own plug and say fuck this place.

    I've been here since day 1.

    perhaps that isn't the pinnacle of seriousness, but contextually - it is the crux of the biscuit.

    It is what it is. Do you expect me to leave because you don't like me? Do you think I should stop responding to people because they don't like what I have to say? What makes you special?
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:23:20.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I've been here since day 1.


    ....yah, that's relevant.

    i've been here since day 2. this somehow means something. something important.

    just what, i have no fucking clue.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:24:38.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: sweet jesus

    can you formulate a fucking sentence without telling somebody else what they think?


    I said, "seem." That means that it's how I perceive something. That's not telling you what you think. That's telling you what my perception is only. You're always free to clarify anything I perceive inaccurately. You are and always will be the final judge of what you think, not me.

    a physical impossibility, or is having it pointed out to you incline you to continue doing nothing but that just for dick points?

    I'm only stating what I think. What I think is not necessarily what you think.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:25:42.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Do you expect me to leave because you don't like me?


    again, no...you do not have to translate what is stated into 'YOU'RE SAYING ______COMPLETE_DIFFERENT_THING______'

    do you want me to fucking beg?

    ok.

    please, mr. untrustworthy, please find somebody else to fucking incessantly harrang so i can attempt to enjoy this community. pretty please. please with cream and motherfucking sugar on top, find somebody else to use as a humprag.

    i've had my fill.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:25:52.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: ....yah, that's relevant.<

    i've been here since day 2. this somehow means something. something important.

    just what, i have no fucking clue.


    I'm saying that I've been here since the beginning and I've always been a prolific poster. Yet you seem to have a problem with me more recently. I haven't changed. The dynamics of this site certainly have.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:26:36.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    You are and always will be the final judge of what you think, not me.


    that's nice of you.

    after being told what i think for 2 solid days now, that's a wonderful concession on your part.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:28:26.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: again, no...you do not have to translate what is stated into 'YOU'RE SAYING ______COMPLETE_DIFFERENT_THING______'

    I asked a question. I didn't claim to know what you were thinking. That's why I asked.

    do you want me to fucking beg?

    No. I just want you to settle down.

    please, mr. untrustworthy, please find somebody else to fucking incessantly harrang so i can attempt to enjoy this community. pretty please. please with cream and motherfucking sugar on top, find somebody else to use as a humprag.

    i've had my fill.


    Again, like I said, I'm not going to seek you out and harass you. But I'm not going to avoid you either. Say something I take issue with, and I'll call you on it. Be a dick to others without cause, and I'll challenge you about that. Post something funny, and I'll laugh and comment about it.

    But I will not extend any special boundaries to you or anyone else.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:29:37.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    No. I just want you to settle down.


    then leave me the fuck alone.

    that this simple motherfucking request is met with nothing shy of spite says fucking volumes.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:29:42.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: that's nice of you.

    after being told what i think for 2 solid days now, that's a wonderful concession on your part.


    I haven't told you what you think. I've only stated my perception. Like I've said, you're free to correct me. You are the authority of what you think. But that doesn't mean I can't state my opinion or perceptions.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:32:00.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I haven't told you what you think.


    bullshit.

    in the last 2 hours, i've been told what my political opinion is, that i revel in some notion of some bullshit that never crossed my mind, that i think i'm special, that blah blah wank wank wankity wank. every 3rd sentence you fucking type is either putting words in my mouth and then bitching at me for what you just said....or just flat out telling me what i think.


    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:34:16.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: then leave me the fuck alone.

    Leave you alone? Are you asking me to ignore you?

    that this simple motherfucking request is met with nothing shy of spite says fucking volumes.

    I requested that we bury the hatchet, and you insulted me. In your mind, what could possibly ingratiate me towards giving you special consideration about when you post?

    I don't want you to leave, but I also don't want you to be a dick towards me. I don't want you to be a dick towards others. I don't want you to post bullshit and then feign victimization when you're called on it. If you promise that, then I'll do my best to leave you alone. I can't promise I'd never address a post towards you, but I'll make an effort to not engage you in a serious conversation.

    Personally, I'd rather not have to strike such a deal, but if you really don't want me to bother you at all, then that's where I'll compromise.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:36:21.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: bullshit.

    in the last 2 hours, i've been told what my political opinion is, that i revel in some notion of some bullshit that never crossed my mind, that i think i'm special, that blah blah wank wank wankity wank. every 3rd sentence you fucking type is either putting words in my mouth and then bitching at me for what you just said....or just flat out telling me what i think.


    I never said any of that. I only reflected on what my perception was. I can't tell you what you think. That's insane, and you know it. I can't tell you what you think any more than you can tell me what I think. You KNOW what you think. I can only make an educated guess.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:37:18.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Leave you alone? Are you asking me to ignore you?


    i don't care if you ignore me, if you hang on every word, or if you do none of the above with sprinkles on top.

    leave me alone isn't a difficult fucking concept. stop harranging me with your incessant judgmental condescending arrogant bullshit isn't a difficult concept. that you are the single solitary aspect of this site that makes me want to close the fucking window and move on isn't a difficult concept.

    i don't think this would need clarification, but if you'd highlight the aspect that is presenting a problem, perhaps...well, no. i have no expectation of anything but more fucking needling bullshit.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:38:19.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    I never said any of that.


    untrustworthy:
    And when I did this, you reveled in the notion that you were so powerful that you kept me at bay.


    do you even have a concept of what it is you type? at all? you are flat telling me what i think, and have done so repeatedly - even more since i've pointed it out.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:39:27.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: i don't care if you ignore me, if you hang on every word, or if you do none of the above with sprinkles on top.

    leave me alone isn't a difficult fucking concept. stop harranging me with your incessant judgmental condescending arrogant bullshit isn't a difficult concept. that you are the single solitary aspect of this site that makes me want to close the fucking window and move on isn't a difficult concept.

    i don't think this would need clarification, but if you'd highlight the aspect that is presenting a problem, perhaps...well, no. i have no expectation of anything but more fucking needling bullshit.


    Ok, so you don't want me to ignore you, but you don't want me to make a post in response to you? Is that what you're saying? Because I understand that I can read what you write, but are you simply saying that I shouldn't respond to it here?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:41:38.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: do you even have a concept of what it is you type? at all? you are flat telling me what i think, and have done so repeatedly - even more since i've pointed it out.

    Really? I thought I was pretty clear in stating that what I'm saying is only what I think you mean. It doesn't make much sense for anyone to think I could tell them what they think, does it? How is that even possible? How can I tell you what you think? I can't read your mind. I can only read what you post here and extrapolate from there. I'm going to be wrong, and you're more than welcome to correct me. I thought I made that clear.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:42:19.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    Ok, so you don't want me to ignore you, but you don't want me to make a post in response to you?


    no.

    i do not fucking care if you ignore me or jack off at every word.

    leave me the fuck alone fits into either category.

    again, not difficult concepts, but if you'd like to further twist them into another response sourced in nothing but spite, that's nothing less than what i've come to expect.

    perhaps one more response will be the one where it sinks in.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:43:44.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    It doesn't make much sense for anyone to think I could tell them what they think, does it?


    no.
    no, it does not.

    thus my disdain at continuing conversations that consist of little more than that.

    there is no ambiguity in 'you were reveling in some bullshit that never crossed your mind'. that is flat out fucking reading my mind, then bitching at me because your mind reading declared some idiotic bullshit.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:43:51.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: do you even have a concept of what it is you type? at all? you are flat telling me what i think, and have done so repeatedly - even more since i've pointed it out.

    BTW, you did speculate that you thought you got me so riled up that I left the site, and you certainly didn't seem to have any concern or remorse about that. Maybe you'd like to explain what you meant since I'm obviously mistaken in understanding your meaning. I'd appreciate your perspective, particularly since I thought it was a strange position for one to take and since I clearly didn't grasp your intent.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:45:42.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    BTW, you did speculate that you thought you got me so riled up that I left the site


    your spite spank bank is obviously longer lived than mine. don't remember it, but...sure. i'll take your word for it. i'm inclined to think i was about as serious as a clowncar full of dildos if i did actually say something like that, but...sure. ok.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:47:55.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no.

    i do not fucking care if you ignore me or jack off at every word.

    leave me the fuck alone fits into either category.

    again, not difficult concepts, but if you'd like to further twist them into another response sourced in nothing but spite, that's nothing less than what i've come to expect.

    perhaps one more response will be the one where it sinks in.


    I'm not going to jack off while reading your posts, I promise that. I likely won't read every post you make either. But do you want me to never ever respond to any post you make ever again? Like you and I can both post here and pretend the other doesn't exist? I'm guessing that's what you're saying, but I don't want to be mistaken for telling you what you think. Just say "untrustworthy, I don't want you to ever address a post to me ever again," if that's what you mean.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:49:05.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: no.
    no, it does not.

    thus my disdain at continuing conversations that consist of little more than that.

    there is no ambiguity in 'you were reveling in some bullshit that never crossed your mind'. that is flat out fucking reading my mind, then bitching at me because your mind reading declared some idiotic bullshit.


    I can't read your mind. I don't know how to do that. The best I can do is extrapolate what I think you meant, and then hope you'd correct me if I was wrong.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:50:44.0 login to vote score 0
    moment of clarity.

    no ambiguity.

    you are chasing me off of this site. i don't know if it's the OCD (i know that sounds like a low blow, but...in all seriousnes, i have to fucking wonder) or just the persona, or the phase of the moon, or what. i have no idea - you cannot let it fucking go. ever. the need to harrang somebody with needling dissembling bullshit until they just capitulate or close the window is everfuckingpresent.

    one way or another - i do not want to waste another fucking night with this bullshit. i have zero expectation that without a concession on your part to just leave me the fuck alone it will not be a recycled session of exactly this in a day, a week, a month - but it will fucking happen.

    i'm fucking tired of it. i like this place, but it isn't worth this shit.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:51:48.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy:
    "untrustworthy, I don't want you to ever address a post to me ever again,"



    "untrustworthy, I don't want you to ever address a post to me ever again,"


    that's what 'leave me the fuck alone' means.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:53:27.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: your spite spank bank is obviously longer lived than mine. don't remember it, but...sure. i'll take your word for it. i'm inclined to think i was about as serious as a clowncar full of dildos if i did actually say something like that, but...sure. ok.

    It's not a spite bank. It's just my memory. It came across to me (and this is strictly my perception) that you were taking ownership and pride at the idea that I left the website because of some interaction we had. I just remember it because I thought it was an odd thing to claim. Why would I leave because of you?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 00:54:54.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: moment of clarity.

    no ambiguity.

    you are chasing me off of this site. i don't know if it's the OCD (i know that sounds like a low blow, but...in all seriousnes, i have to fucking wonder) or just the persona, or the phase of the moon, or what. i have no idea - you cannot let it fucking go. ever. the need to harrang somebody with needling dissembling bullshit until they just capitulate or close the window is everfuckingpresent.

    one way or another - i do not want to waste another fucking night with this bullshit. i have zero expectation that without a concession on your part to just leave me the fuck alone it will not be a recycled session of exactly this in a day, a week, a month - but it will fucking happen.

    i'm fucking tired of it. i like this place, but it isn't worth this shit.


    Well, I don't know why you would think I'd concede anything. I don't see anything I should concede.
    heap 191 2009-03-06 00:55:35.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy:
    Well, I don't know why you would think I'd concede anything.


    me either, really.

    enjoy your next humprag.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 01:01:09.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: "untrustworthy, I don't want you to ever address a post to me ever again,"

    that's what 'leave me the fuck alone' means.


    No. I won't do that. It's not because I want to drive you away, and it's not because I dislike you. It's because this is an open forum where anyone and everyone can participate freely. There is third party software which you can install to ignore me. The link is in the wiki.

    However, I don't see any reason to extend any special consideration to you. I think you've been rude, disrespectful, bitter and sometimes just dismissive in how you present your opinion. Again, these are just my perceptions. If it were just against me, I might take it more with a grain of salt, but I've perceived the same behavior from you towards others, and that bothers me.

    If you had some massively redeeming qualities I might be more inclined to just let it go. But that just isn't the case. I do like you, and I do value your participation, but I won't sacrifice my own participation in order to walk on eggshells around you when you don't afford me an ounce of respect, consideration, benefit of the doubt, etc. Why would I?

    That's a really serious question. Why should I honor your request? Are you going to threaten me? Chastise me? Lobby others to boycott this site? What have you given me to make me want to give you anything?
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 01:09:58.0 login to vote score 0
    heap: me either, really.

    enjoy your next humprag.


    I don't know what you think. I've tried to make that clear. Maybe you think I want you to go away, but I thought I made it obvious that I'm willing to bury the hatchet and at least try to resolve issues. I'd rather we got along and were able to move forward. I don't get much out of hearing you dismiss me over and over again. I guess I learn a little bit about human nature, but it's not a quality I really like.

    So while you've claimed that I've made claims about what you think, you should be more wary about making claims about what I think. If you want to blame my behavior on OCD or whatever else, I won't stop you. Maybe there's some truth to that. I don't really know. But I do know that I have not done anything but reach out to you in the latter part of this thread and you've done nothing but reject my offer. If being OCD means I don't get the emotional barrier which prevents someone from letting an issue go, then I guess I like that part of my personality. I don't know why someone would hold onto something which would lead them to leave a website which they loved, turn down an offer to resolve a conflict, attempt to understand a different perspective, or even think that there's something to be gained from at least respecting an alternative opinion. And maybe I'm even wrong for thinking that. What do I know about why you behave the way you behave? Apparently, not much. I guess I know that now.
    untrustworthy 1 2009-03-06 01:19:06.0 login to vote score 0
    BTW, I looked up the plugin for ignore. I don't know if it's the most current version as I've never installed it, but I think it is.

    http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Internet-Applications-Addons/Mozilla-Extensions/baNdit.shtml

    If you install it, you can turn off posts from myself or others. I don't think it can delete other responses to ignored users, but it might. I know they've made some improvements. They also have a link for requested revisions if it doesn't work right.
    Comments 101 through 246 of 246 shown. Page 1 2
    If you logged in, you could post here.