Brown Pushing For Big Fan Turnout Saturday Night
- By tarheel0910
- Blue Heaven
- 16 Replies
This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.
tell me what didn’t make senseprobably so, but that doesn't explain how little sense your posts sometimes make. I wasn't trying to be mean or anything, I generally like your posts when I can figure out what you're saying.
He just seems like Bill Maher to me.he's obviously not actually a republican, as witnessed for one thing by his complaint that the dems wackiness caused the republican to get elected....but he OFTEN seems like one, espousing much that republicans find fault with the left for. I've been pointing that out for some time now.
he's obviously not actually a republican, as witnessed for one thing by his complaint that the dems wackiness caused the republican to get elected....but he OFTEN seems like one, espousing much that republicans find fault with the left for. I've been pointing that out for some time now.I saw the episode.
I agree with Bill 100% in that clip!
ETA: But, you missed the part where he vehemently opposes the electoral college. He's not a republican.
probably so, but that doesn't explain how little sense your posts sometimes make. I wasn't trying to be mean or anything, I generally like your posts when I can figure out what you're saying.maybe your jokes suck, even when not political.
maybe your jokes suck, even when not political.you must not be aware that a good deal of what you post makes no sense, at least not to me. I won't ask for clarification which will likely lead to even less clarity, but I can provide that my previous reply was a joke based on what Tyson was quoted as saying to the reporter.
I saw the episode.and if you'd watch the video that @poopondook posted
I'm surprised you haven't already made a pass.You're just trying to get a kiss from me!
I tried to watch. Netflix kept kicking me out. Hope they made a ton of money because the next big streaming "event" they have people may pass due to the issues. Imagine having friends over and not being able to watch? Regardless, sounds like I didn't miss that much and I'm glad the wife and I just went to bed. Saw this and thought I'd link it so people could remember what boxing could be.
I’ve never been a big boxing fan but if more fights looked like that I’d probably start watching.
May well be our most effective line up right now. Drake doesn't give the scoring threat that RJ does but he does chip in but defensively Drake is a problem, hitting the boards Drake is a problem, that 7ft reach from Drake, is a problem, bottom line is Drake is already a problem for our opponents, with each game he seems to be an even bigger problem!Free throw shooting this season is a big positive !!
Wash did have a very good game and man his stroke is smooth.
I could get used to seeing EC, Seth and Drake at the 1,2 and 3 spots. I see very few negatives there save Drakes limited PT with the team but that is one helluva athletic trio with some serious defensive chops.
You're just trying to get a kiss from me!recognizing your deep emotional need to virtue-signal is not due to some prejudice of mine. Virtue-signalers demonstrably suck ass, and if you'd watch the video that @poopondook posted you might get some clue as to why that is so. I doubt it though, I'm sure you'll remain clueless. On the other hand it's a shame that you didn't read my post, because I had already made a point of your misuse of the notion of prejudice.
recognizing your deep emotional need to virtue-signal is not due to some prejudice of mine. Virtue-signalers demonstrably suck ass, and if you'd watch the video that @poopondook posted you might get some clue as to why that is so. I doubt it though, I'm sure you'll remain clueless. On the other hand it's a shame that you didn't read my post, because I had already made a point of your misuse of the notion of prejudice."Virtue signaler" provides you all the cover you need. If you'd just own your prejudice you could avoid writing a bunch of shit that I'm not going to read.
yes this is gold, like much of what he has posited lately. I keep saying, he walks and talks like a republican; he's just too rooted in his idea of liberalism to BE a republican.This is gold. Things like:
"Black people. They're just like us!" and "Democrats have become like a royal family that, because of so much incest, has unfortunately had children who are retarded."
Login to view embedded media
"Virtue signaler" provides you all the cover you need. If you'd just own your prejudice you could avoid writing a bunch of shit that I'm not going to read.right. Let's redefine 'suffering' now. People in poverty aren't suffering. Flood victims in WNC are not really victims and they aren't really suffering. A gazillion Jews didn't suffer during WWII because only illness causes suffering. What else do you need to redefine in a lame attempt to rationalize your misplaced pettiness? While we're at it, let's move those goalposts just enough that my contention doesn't seem to apply. Now suddenly we are no longer addressing, but in fact denying your implication that if you hate the condition, you must hate the person. To that end, we'll just stipulate that you have the most reliable, God-like knowledge that homosexuals are all deliriously happy with their circumstance.
The condition of poverty is not something that I want to exist. The condition of homosexuality is not something that I want to exist. But both do, and more often than not neither the homo or the poor person chose for that to be the case and in many cases in fact wishes it wasn't. I was poor when young and although now I'm fine with having been poor, it was definitely a problem and you can believe it caused suffering. I DID NOT WANT TO BE POOR, but now I'm actually proud to have been that way. Still, I would eliminate poverty if I could and I would eliminate homosexuality if I could, even as I count gay people among my friends and friendly acquaintances. It isn't like I blame them for being that way simply because there is nothing to blame them FOR...except in your twisted world view where any stance not aligned with yours represents bigotry or misogyny or racism or any other -ism excuse for virtue-signaling, as well as your stupidly misused notion of 'prejudice'.
And your virtue-signaling ass knows damn well that both have problems due to their circumstance, because otherwise you'd have nothing to virtue-signal about. Of course, that hasn't seemed to stop you so far, so maybe that isn't such a good point..
"You have also shown that you don't really care about the "misfortune" of the poor or impoverished if they color outside the lines of your world view."
The invectives you casually toss at me exist only in your demented mind. All you can do is state your misguided conclusions. You can not materially validate them. If you ever decide to not be such a petty shithead, try to know what you're talking about and be able to demonstrate it before you call someone a bigot.
I will admit that I am not a 'people person' and I don't cry myself to sleep at night worrying about the human condition. I accept that we will all die and I want everyone to stand on their own two feet in the meantime, as much as possible. But I detest trouble and suffering, and I'm not too fond of problems in general. Sue me..
right. Let's redefine 'suffering' now. People in poverty aren't suffering. Flood victims in WNC are not really victims and they aren't really suffering. A gazillion Jews didn't suffer during WWII because only illness causes suffering. What else do you need to redefine in a lame attempt to rationalize your misplaced pettiness? While we're at it, let's move those goalposts just enough that my contention doesn't seem to apply. Now suddenly we are no longer addressing, but in fact denying your implication that if you hate the condition, you must hate the person. To that end, we'll just stipulate that you have the most reliable, God-like knowledge that homosexuals are all deliriously happy with their circumstance.Poverty and poor are completely different... It's like illness. Illness means suffering. You've got this prejudice that people who you believe are confused are actually suffering. That it's "bad" to be these things. The suffering implication only exists from the belief that it should be considered some kind of affliction. Homosexuals even co-opted the word GAY as a term of reference. Gay is the opposite of suffering. Your whole world view is a rigid ideology , and vernacular, that disparages women, feminity, anything that isn't white, Christian masculine in some archaic-traditional sense.
You have also shown that you don't really care about the "misfortune" of the poor or impoverished if they color outside the lines of your world view.