Yes you were. You were stating that other than the creationism, boy howdy, this guy is smart!
You were defending an article made by someone so delusional they think that dinosaur bones sunk in the world-wide flood.
I possess the normal degree of articulation for a man of my age and physical condition.
I don’t hate anyone on this board… well maybe Bricker, because at least he’s smart enough to know better. I think you’re a complete dipshit, but I don’t hate you. I hate what you do, since you specialize in lying about economics in order to fool people to your side, but you, you’re peachy.
I’m annoying because you know, deep down, that you’re full of shit. And I point that out.
Says the guy who claimed the “9/11 perps were safely based in Montreal.”
It’s been almost four months since I referenced that. I figure I can do so now with little fear of being reasonably considered obsessed, or anything.
Dude, I didn’t even know he was a creationist. Attacking him (or me) based on that is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. People believe plenty of crazy things while still being completely coherent in another area. Newton was a creationist and a believer in alchemy. Many famous physicists were devout Christians. A lot of famous writers were Marxists, which is even harder to justify than creationism.
Not in the brain pan you don’t.
No, you’re annoying in the same way that the fly that’s currently buzzing around my face is annoying. You’re noise, and little else.
Supporting him in light of his creationism should be less embarrassing than putting forward that lurid jerk-off of a piece of shit manifesto and saying how much it represented your point of view, Sam.
Hey, if he prefers internet porn about politico-economic ideologuism to internet porn about sex, who are we to object? Whatever floats his boat, ya know.
But *bragging *about one’s internet porn habits? Now that’s a twisted plea for help.
Sam!! I don’t recall seeing you in the pit before. I thought the deal was that you would do the well-thought-out GD posts and I would get my yucks and tweak the squares in the pit. I guess we should discuss further at the next Righties of the SDMB meeting.
Nah, looking at that love letter to capitalism from a creationist, (the creationist bit was the least of the problems, it was indeed like reading a masturbating screed) “well thought out post” is not what comes to mind, and then looking at yet once again at Sam’s latest 100% bullshit denialist point in the middle of a mildly good post of his on the latest global warming thread, makes me believe that he does not care that he is still being had by the rotten sources that he relies on.
How surprising of you to admit it. I don’t like to drag him too far though, he’s obviously a timid, glass-unicorn of a man. I don’t think he has much more than his bullshit beliefs.
Speaking of, how you doin’? Been busy getting ready for Romney’s “tax plan”.
I looked again, you are still 100% wrong regarding the science behind the global warming issue. Point being that you are really stupind if you think that is my motto, the closest real thing I do is “I post links to the science, and one can identify the cowards that do not want to deal with it in an instant.”
And you and I have done way too many rounds on your favorite dick-stroker of a subject, so no need for that again. I’ve been very clear that I’m all about following the science here and not the politics. You have been clear that you are 100% in line with the politics and hare happy to cite the science that supports your political position.
Science, but as mentioned, you do not bother to check it.
So then follow the science, and make sure to understand that virtually all republicans are nowadays deniers of the science, they are the ones that politicized that issue.
BTW Inhofe is also a creationist, as the other thread showed, gullibility in one very important scientific issue usually shows a blobiator on the internet or in a magazine that is also wrong in other subjects.
Not that this is pertinent to the thread, and could probably use it’s own thread, but I’ll share anyway.
My wife and I were just discussing the corollary “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” yesterday.
I pointed out Komen and said, “Ya huh. Maybe it’s only for the relatively unknown. It’s good for the Joe Plumber where nobody knows your name, but not for the big guys who already have an established reputation.” So she pointed out Charlie Sheen. Obviously this guy got some major bad publicity, and while I can’t say it was great for his career, it wasn’t exactly bad either. Same with Limbaugh.
Anyway, long story short, I think the saying should be, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity for the little guy. There is bad publicity for famous people with reputations, unless that reputation is already bad.”