OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
to no one's surprise, you continue to be a moron, trying so hard to create out of thin air something to virtue-signal about. In the process, your disregard for reality and common sense and the plain truth is ridiculous to the point of being bizarre..
BTW, which clip are you referring to?
people are making fun of me, and you're concerned that I don't realize it? K.
Fingers crossed
"The initiative proposes to replace Colorado’s partisan primary system with a single “all-candidate primary” for each state and federal office."
Could be in place before 2028 if voters want it
coloradonewsline.com
"The initiative proposes to replace Colorado’s partisan primary system with a single “all-candidate primary” for each state and federal office."
Could be in place before 2028 if voters want it
Open primary, ranked choice voting measure earns enough signatures, election reformers say • Colorado Newsline
A Colorado election reform group says it has submitted 213,000 signatures in support of a sweeping measure to abolish party primaries.
coloradonewsline.com
Imagine being this much of a baby back bitch.
“Duke announces theyll only play in Cameron Indoor” levels of cowardice
Speaking of Cameron and all things dook, my wife asked me a hypothetical question last night: If I had to choose one, would I choose Trump back in the White House or Coach K coming out of retirement and taking over in Chapel Hill?
She's quite funny and imaginative sometimes, my wife. As for the question, I'm still thinking about it . . .
As usual, your analogies suck. The difference, dumbass, is that Kentucky team lost in the final four to a team that lost in the national championship. So, Kentucky's opponent didn't win the Natty either. Kentucky actually played 39 games that year. Wisconsin, who beat Kensucky, played 40 games. And, Dook, who won it all, played 39.
To make your analogy work, Wisky would have had to drop out of the tourney and then have the NCAA appoint some team who didn't even qualify for the tournament to play Duke. And, after they were appointed, the coach would only appear in puff piece commercials or videos of him making statements rather ever being interviewed by reporters or being asked questions at one of those media sessions. And you'd claim that the Sisters of the Deaf & Dumb University were more than qualified to be in the championship game despite not have played a single minute of a single game or having beaten anyone to there.
You have no idea what you're talking about. @Archer2 and @nctransplant will let you know I'm a squad member with TDS. I'm apparently on your side. Hopefully you don't disagree and kick me out of the club, because then I'll be doomed to wander these boards alone.
What happened to @DaveChapelle? He ran away really fast when he found out there wasn't a mod over here to protect him.
failure to see the stark difference is why we have had incompetents and crooks in charge of our country for the current term. One is talking about something while the other is saying nothing.
Not sure what this has to do with politics, but this is by far your best post in this thread.
Did I call you a Squad member or did I just call you a sicko for belittling the assassination attempt ? That’s two entirely different things.
Archer2 replied to the thread OOTB's Political Thread . ...
You've disgraced only yourself. I'm sure the Squad here welcome you with outstretched arms sicko.
Jul 13, 2024
So….both. But they are two different things. One shows you’re a complete moron and the other shows you’re a whiny beyotch
Black job.
actually, 'the squad welcoming him with outstretched arms' does not necessarily mean he is a member. They might be welcoming him simply because he is 'a sicko who has disgraced himself'.....or possibly considering him for membership, since those are prerequisites for inclusion.
Accordingly, to be correct one or both of the invectives should be removed from your post.
Place an 'X' next to the invective(s) you wish to remove;
-complete moron
-whiny beyotch
For assistance in deciding which to remove, I may be reached here at OOTB. Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Exactly. I never said he was a member of the Squad although his idiotic remarks certainly put him on the fast track for admission. He is an idiot and a sicko, irrefutably so.
I decided I would rather be dragged over shards of broken glass than choose between a couple of certified losers. Fortunately, I don't have to decide and even more fortunately, neither scenario is going to happen. Whew!
Thank you for your kind offer but at this point I feel I have to decline. I will allow some wiggle room for the whiny beyotch to walk back his Karen-esque comment but ironically it’s due to his own ineptitude with vocabulary. “I’m sure the squad here welcome you” is grammatically incorrect and as such does allow for SOME speculation as to what the lunatic is trying to say in using a term of greeting someone’s arrival. Did he mean “the squad here (will or would) welcome you” implying an invite or potential arrival or did he intend to say “the squad here welcome(s) you” which is a claim he’s there (as a member)
It’s obvious to me that it is much more likely the whiny beyotch in question employed “the squad” as a singular noun and incorrectly conjugated the verb as “welcome” instead of the correct third person singular form “welcomes”.
Therefore it is concluded he was claiming the squad was greeting his arrival as a member and as such claimed he is now a member and the invectives are accurate.
Best regards
Last edited:
to begin with it wasn't an offer...but we'll deal with that later.
I'm afraid you are intent on pressing the point even though in doing so you have only managed to reinforce our contention.. We said " 'the squad welcoming him with outstretched arms' does not necessarily mean he is a member. ". YOU respond that " (his quote) is grammatically incorrect and as such does allow for SOME speculation as to what the lunatic is trying to say". In other words, we are in agreement that doubt regarding said claim of membership exists.
You go on to say that in your opinion this more likely indicates membership. That is your opinion. The fact, however, is that you don't know. Your case is completely circumstantial, and the only evidence you offer to bolster your opinion is that a mistake in grammar points toward membership....but you fail to establish how this is so. We maintain that the truth of the matter can NOT be established with the evidence at hand, and doubt is the overriding circumstance existent.
But we present evidence that, while admittedly failing to clarify, challenges your opinion.. In British English, a term like 'squad' (which connotes multiple members) is often considered to be plural and is treated as such grammatically. In that case, his grammar would be correct. We do not know that he was not using the term in this manner. We do know that while the use of British grammar in American speech is unusual, it is not incorrect to do so.
We are left with the statement given by the accused, which follows; "Exactly. I never said he was a member of the Squad although his idiotic remarks certainly put him on the fast track for admission."
In conclusion, we remind that this is America where the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. And we also point out that in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the accused must be taken at his word. Accordingly, we again request that you comply with the following;
Place an 'X' next to the invective(s) you wish to remove;
-complete moron
-whiny beyotch
We issue this warning: Refusal to comply may result in continued idiocy. Words are weapons and a verbal assault has taken place and this remediation must stand. The Chairman of the Board insists. The tie goes to the runner with liberty and justice for all forever and ever amen. No thesauruses were harmed in the making of this post.
Re: “it wasn’t an offer”
In response to your claim I submit the following quote of summation you presented. “For assistance in deciding which to remove, I may be reached here at OOTB.”
It is concluded there was indeed an offer.
As for for the rest of your polite yet innacurate assessment my decision is final. Any appeals should be referred to @tarheel0910 for prompt objective adjudication.
You calling someone an idiot? Anyone here who has read your posts on radar knows you're the biggest idiot on the board. And that is a significant accomplishment.
BTW, please go back and unlike the hundreds of likes that you've given me throughout the years.
Not sure if I should be honored that @heelmanwilm and @bluetoe are fighting over my post or creeped out.
speaking only for myself, you should be creeped out.
I'll be surprised if it passes, because I expect the entrenched powers to spend whatever it takes to defeat it. But it's good to see and, who knows, maybe people will go for it.Fingers crossed
"The initiative proposes to replace Colorado’s partisan primary system with a single “all-candidate primary” for each state and federal office."
Could be in place before 2028 if voters want it
Open primary, ranked choice voting measure earns enough signatures, election reformers say • Colorado Newsline
A Colorado election reform group says it has submitted 213,000 signatures in support of a sweeping measure to abolish party primaries.
I've heard it said that there is no moderation of this thread. Which makes me wonder . . . .
Where are the naughty pictures?
Where are the naughty pictures?
It’s not completely crazy given the current polling to think there could be an electoral vote tie. Each states house delegates gets to cast one vote and is not bound by their constituents preference. Or as we call it…anarchy
Similar threads
