Liberal Forum

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014 4:35 pm » wrote:

Ahem.

Sorry.

So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014 4:10 pm » wrote:Hush now, he's been reading for decades. DECADES! He CAN'T be wrong.

He can just tell who is right and who is wrong. He can't explain WHY - but believe me, he can just tell!

DECADES!

Goodness!

He couldn't pour water from a boot if there were instructions on the heel but he could tell you you are wrong ... it's just that "Why?" question is so damn tricky!

People follow him, you know. Sure, they only follow him out of curiosity but he has followers! Must mean he is a leader!

This is a man who has completed his posting duties to his entire satisfaction. He has delusions of adequacy.

In short, he is entertaining but I wouldn't recommend that you breed from him.

LMAO.... delusions of adequacy... that is a keeper

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:34 pm » wrote: Two weeks ago. Mother's on strike.

The dog thinks I smell okay.

To be honest, he's an avid fan of my underwear

Dogs are cool.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:36 pm » wrote: So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

I can attest to the fact that we both read it religiously while enjoying a post-coital cigarette.

Any more questions about our personal life, pervert?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:36 pm » wrote:
So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

Wow! You read TWO publications!

I bet you read a book once, too!

When you look at the collar your village placed around your neck, did they provide a return address? Idiots like you are hard to come by these days and they probably miss you.

Mind you, their loss is our gain. Comedy genius. I thank you.

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 4:44 pm » wrote:
I can attest to the fact that we both read it religiously while enjoying a post-coital cigarette.

Any more questions about our personal life, pervert?

Yeah, who are YOU with while you smoke your cigarette? Text me. We should hook up.

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014 4:46 pm » wrote: Yeah, who are YOU with while you smoke your cigarette? Text me. We should hook up.

I only text strangers.

All this sex talk has scared off the eunuch.

I wonder if that retarded, harrumphing *** has taken any note of the poll? The score is currently 100% against his position, in favor of mine.

On a board where people sling competing talking points ad nauseam, clemtard attacked me for the SPECIFIC FAUX PAS of posting my own opinions, without googling any talking points to back them up.

I ggogled the phrase "Carter economy better than reagan" and I was the [flash] second[/flash] NOW FIRST! link. https://www.google.com/#q=carter+econom ... han+reagan

I have been pilloried for being original.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:54 pm » wrote:I wonder if that retarded, harrumphing *** has taken any note of the poll? The score is currently 100% against his position, in favor of mine.

Of course not. He only "respects" opinions that reflect his own*.

*by acquisition

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:57 pm » wrote: So how is it after decades of reading, I've discovered it's the liberal-left that overwhelmingly gets caught in deceit and outright lies?

And all without ever once providing evidence of the deceit and lies. Which is truly remarkable as I can and have cited those deceit and lies on numerous occasions with none of the obsessive need to do so, which you possess. Why have you failed so miserably to provide the same evidence, I as a liberal, have provided?

And very rarely found my sources to be wrong?

[/quote]
All of your sources are opinions. You've admitted this and have stood behind it proudly.

The entire **** world knows that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them. You seem to be in touch with more assholes than I. What does that say about you?

Does it make you better than me because you've been intimate with a greater number of assholes in your lifetime than I?

I'm a magnanimous soul. I will give you credit for that accomplishment.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:54 pm » wrote:I wonder if that retarded, harrumphing *** has taken any note of the poll? The score is currently 100% against his position, in favor of mine.

On a board where people sling competing talking points ad nauseam, clemtard attacked me for the SPECIFIC FAUX PAS of posting my own opinions, without googling any talking points to back them up.

I ggogled the phrase "Carter economy better than reagan" and I was the second link. https://www.google.com/#q=carter+econom ... han+reagan

I have been pilloried for being original.

And he's somehow managed to withdraw his vote for option 2, which was recorded earlier in the evening.

Tells me he might be questioning his own position.

Nah, forget that. Clem never wavers from his own stupidityl. It was probably cedarswamp being a fly in the ointment.....again.

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 6:02 pm » wrote:
And he's somehow managed to withdraw his vote for option 2, which was recorded earlier in the evening.

Tells me he might be questioning his own position.

Nah, forget that. Clem never wavers from his own stupidityl. It was probably cedarswamp being a fly in the ointment.....again.

Maybe Golfboy. Could be the vote was withdrawn awaiting an opinion from Heritage or Breitbart.

Maybe I can help. Coming up with your own opinions (i.e. thinking about ****) is GAY! Vote against it!

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:32 pm » wrote: I'll take the word of an ignorant, foul mouthed psychotic over that of informed commentators whose job it is to be objective.
There, happy?

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014 4:35 pm » wrote:

Ahem.

Sorry.

I know, right? That was some funny ****.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:36 pm » wrote: So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

You think the WSJ OpEd page is objective?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:36 pm » wrote:
So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

you are DONE clemmy. no one is buying. you are an amateur propagandist. Awake and aware, observant and perceptive people see right through your mask. You are more suited to addressing the people with an IQ below 40.

The WSJ editorial page used to be reliably conservative in both economic outlook and social/political outlook. Paleoconservative, Chicago school, the works - rightist, but rational and predictable within their mindset. Reliable and always fact-based.

That was before Rupert bought the place, fired the professionals, and hired a former Reagan flack as editor. Now they're just another RWNJ yellow rag.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:36 pm » wrote:
So you've read the WSJ oped page and Forbes for how long, moonbat?

Rupee Murdoch and Steve Forbes are oligarchs silly.

thelion » 17 Feb 2014 9:53 pm » wrote:The WSJ editorial page used to be reliably conservative in both economic outlook and social/political outlook. Paleoconservative, Chicago school, the works - rightist, but rational and predictable within their mindset. Reliable and always fact-based.

That was before Rupert bought the place, fired the professionals, and hired a former Reagan flack as editor. Now they're just another RWNJ yellow rag.

You don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, do you?

You'd be very surprised who writes for it, that is, if you bothered to pay the $22.26 a month for it.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 9:58 pm » wrote: You don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, do you?

You'd be very surprised who writes for it, that is, if you bothered to pay the $22.26 a month for it.

Nope. Used to, though. Right up to 2008, when it became obvious that Rupert's poison had destroyed the WSJ's journalism and reduced them to propaganda.