You misspelled “depraved”.
[West Side Story]
“In the opinion on this court, this child is depraved on account he ain’t had a normal home.”
“Hey, I’m depraved on account I’m deprived!”
[/WSS]
For some reason, every time I see the name of one of our recently-activated [del]agents[/del] members, I hear AC/DC singing “Dirty deeds, and they’re dundas chip…”
That, too. Culturally deprived AND depraved. As a child I was more attracted to Bugs Bunny and Wile E Coyote than to highbrow culture like Moose and Sqvirrel. Although even at a tender young age I thought that Natasha was hot, and if Rocky and Bullwinkle were made into a live-action movie, she should be cast accordingly. Bastards stole my idea when they started making the Bond movies.
Rene Russo for the win.
I remember Sally Kellerman.
Oh man, I missed this one! You are in luck - I find that I have changed my opinion based upon your idiotic comparison between words from a blowhard and a mass casualty incident caused by a semi truck. Good job!
Let me ask you something, Manson. If words from the President of the US don’t matter, then why does the SEC regulate speech from lesser entities, such as CEO’s during the runup to IPO’s and during earning statement periods? Why can’t one just yell “fire!” in a crowded theater? Tell lies about public and private persons? Why are there libel laws? Have you never heard of “signalling”?
Your position literally makes no sense in the world we live in. Do you not know how important speech is? The freedom of it is the first amendment to the Constitution. Not the 2nd. Not the 10th. Not the 25th. The first.
Words matter. Telling us it’s by a blowhard makes sense, but only in the context where said blowhard isn’t the US President. Since this idiot is the President, well… you’re wrong. In many, many ways.
Glad it wasn’t just me. :o
Because CEOs aren’t the President?
If it would help, I can video myself yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, to disprove your notion that one can’t do such a thing.
JohnT has sex with goats and likes it. Is that true? If not, then I just told a lie about a private person. Are the cops going to show up at my door?
Actually, it makes perfect sense in the world we currently live it. Perhaps you enjoy getting outraged at every single thing that comes out of the President’s mouth. Cool for you if you enjoy that. I’ve got better things to do then start crying everytime Trump says something stupid.
Of course Bugs Bunny and company are better than Mouse and Squirrel. Mouse and Squirrel just make good fodder of late. (Rene Russo would work. I lean towards Tina Fey.)
Dumb arguments from a guy who is whining about people “crying everytime Trump says something stupid.”
Really, did you just argue that a random CEO is more powerful than the man who is in charge of the US Military? Or is your argument that there should be no limits as to what the most powerful person in the world can say… and that others shouldn’t rebut him? Otherwise, I have no idea what your position is.
Moose and sqvirrel.
Strange definition of “whining” you have if saying something once is “whining”
Of course there shouldn’t be limits. I believe you mentioned the 1st Amendment in your previous rambling, incoherent post. Plus, I said nothing even close to resembling “a random CEO is more powerful than the man who is in charge of the US Military”.
Again, if you want to waste time rebutting a statement that will change the next day, then feel free. Kind of pointless though.
“I’ve got better things to do than start crying everytime Trump says something stupid”, which, apparently, one of those “better things to do” is bitch about people calling out Trump saying something stupid is both:
- Whining
- Stupid
Your argument is, in effect, “whining about the President’s speech is stupid, but whining to randos on a message board about their whining about the President’s speech is… not.”
Got it.
Nah, I don’t do it every time someone calls out Trump saying something stupid. If I did, I wouldn’t have ANY free time left, with all the crying going on around here. Nice try though.
You are making one of the dumbest, and most self-unaware, arguments I have seen on this Board. So… congratulations?
I didn’t think you fit the category as put forth in the OP or title of this thread, but you have at least disabused me of that illusion.
Perhaps your problem is assuming that I am making an argument. I’m not. Since this isn’t the forum for arguments. It’s the forum for complaints. And my complaint was people crying over every little statement the President said. It’s not my fault people get so butthurt about being called crybabies that they continue on with strange troll accusations (in the Pit, of all places), or strange fantasies about there being some sort of argument involved, or even stranger lists of things that people supposedly “can’t” do.
Oh hi, I was coming to mention you, manson!
Seriously, are we supposed to believe that
you believe it is correct to not address a teenage girl’s sexuality except by threatening any potential male suitors,
and that the notions that it should be addressed with her
and that she shouldn’t be treated like an imbecile
are equivalent to throwing her into the arms of guys closer to your own age than hers.
Who maybe would by the way be around when you’re doing the threatening. Or something. Because yeah, the way to keep your daughter protected from dirty teachers or internet pigs (with my apologies to porcines) is to threaten her male classmates, totally.
May you get oral sex from a swordfish.
I would like you to point out where I have said that I believe it is correct to not address a teenage girl’s sexuality EXCEPT by threatening any potential male suitors.
Once you do that, I will respond.
Reading that thread, manson1972, it certainly looks that way. Threaten her suitors, and if you don’t do that, she’ll hook up with an older man (the logic on that one is weird).