We have a new jerk off

[tomndebb]

it is clear that your only real problem with him is that he’s openly conservative. His contributions may be small, but I doubt you’d care if he agreed with your political views.

Can I use this to improve my garden?

Small? He has contributed nothing but namecalling to every thread he has interrupted. His opinions have generally been erroneous, he has used terms incorrectly, and he has provided not one fact or logical construction to support his rants.

I think pitting him is silly–it just validates his existence–but this defense of him is nearly as pointless and content free as his posts.

[carrot]

You’re certainly right about his contributions being small, Clint in Wichita. I particularly like:

The democrat party should be called the American Communist party if they had any guts to call themselves what they are.

Sounds like a reasonable guy to me.

[rjung]

Expect to see more right-wing nutjobs come out of the woodwork, kids – with the good ship USS Dubya going down like a drunken whore(*), they’ve got to redouble their efforts to beat back all us “lefties” and “commies” to try and save George’s ass.

Not that their actions will make any difference, but it’s either this or admit that their candidate has been shafting the entire nation…

(* = and boy, aren’t we mixing our metaphors today? )

[IcicleFuzz]

Well, he’s not exactly a new jerkoff, just a fortunately silent one. Here’s the last time he was pitted. Twice in less than 25 posts. Such talent.

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by carrot *
**You’re certainly right about his contributions being small, Clint in Wichita. I particularly like:Sounds like a reasonable guy to me. **

Yes, in the same way that Pat Buchanan is good company at a gay bar.

[elucidator]

Good Heavens man, which gay bar? Do you have photos?

[dantheman]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
This clown is a real life jerk off …

You know him in real life?

Or did you mean something like “bona fide jerk off”? “Honest-to-goodness”? “True blue”? “Dyed in the wool”?

[Neurotik]

I thought it was “died in the wool.”

[cheddarsnax]

*Originally posted by Clint in Wichita *
**After looking at every one of his posts in the threads provided in the link, it is clear that your only real problem with him is that he’s openly conservative. **

From a linked thread:

The word ‘socialist’ is IN the nazi name of NSDAP!

Face it, it was very much what we’d see if the democrat party gets in control of the USA.

The socialist economy there was controlled by the government. Industry was socialized.

This is HARDLY right wing!

It appears to me that he is comparing the Democrats to the nazis. Now, if you believe this does not go beyond the realm of simply being “openly conservative”, well, that’s your business. But it’s quite clear to me that the OP was bashing monty2_2001 for being a fucking moron, not for being conservative.

[hawthorne]

Clint in Wichita
is clear that your only real problem with him is that he’s openly conservative.

He’s not openly conservative, he’s gapingly conservative.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**“Subtle” and “december” are two words that should never appear in the same sentence. Ever. **

“december is as subtle as a heart attack, sledgehammer or galloping diarrhea.”

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**I thought it was “died in the wool.” **

Since there seems to be a zeitgeist pertaining to this error, see here :

“Dyed in the wool,” of course, means “thoroughgoing, complete and unchangeable,” usually in the context of political or other opinions. For instance, a “dyed in the wool” Yankees fan (a species of which I am a fair example) would not dream of changing his allegiance to another team, even if he were, for some mysterious reason, required to move from New York City to rural Ohio. And no amount of Ohio State Buckeye propaganda could induce a dyed in the wool football non-fan (me again) to waste time watching a boring, pointless football game.
In its original literal sense, “dyed in the wool” refers to the process of dying sheep wool in its “raw” state, before it is spun into thread or yarn. The color of such “dyed in the wool” fabric tends to be more consistent and permanent than that of fabric dyed in later stages of the cloth-making process.
“Dyed in the wool” first appeared in this literal sense in the late 16th century, and within a few years “dyed in the wool” was being used in its modern figurative sense to describe someone who can be counted on to stick to his or her guns.

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by Clint in Wichita *
After looking at every one of his posts in the threads provided in the link, it is clear that your only real problem with him is that he’s openly conservative.

I think the problem here is really one of semantics. Since both you and monty2_2001 belong to the Ignorant Moron school of conservatism, I think it’s a mistake to refer to either of your views as “conservative” per se, as that would imply some commonality with the many non-IM conservative viewpoints. But if you replace the word “conservative” in your first sentence with “ignorant moron conservative”, then I think we’re definitely in agreement.

[PatriotX]

Here’s a beauty.

monty2_2001 quotes december and then accuses december of hating it when GWB looks bad.

---

*originally spouted as evidence of poor understanding by *monty2_2001

I honestly don’t understand why people here are mourning the death of the ba’ath party and uday/qusay so far.

Oh, I know why… Cause it makes Bush look good, and they HATE that!

I’d like to see dec defend himself against that charge.

[PatriotX]

umm…
I mean accuses december of hating it when GWB looks good.

[elucidator]

Collounsbury is banned and this ignorant little fartyodeler remains.

What a knob.

[monty2_2001]

I’m far from new, so get over that.

Also, you guys want to take me to the woodshed for not conforming to the leftwing politics that’s so pervasive here.

Sorry, I don’t play like that. Grow up and discuss, don’t bitch.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**Bingo–Monty2_2001 is my boy, the twit of the day, the idiot without parallel, the hands down winner of the Drive-by and One Trick Pony Sweeps Stakes.

My fault on the link–I thought it was to our favorite seventh grader’s member information and posts. It wasn’t. It just linked to the threads in which this junior reactionary has rolled a grenade. This is what a guy gets for trying to be cute. **

LOL, you’ve proven your maturity by starting a personal attack thread. You’ve really shown me!

[Avenger]

This is his latest pearl:

I’m not a big fan of our military people having to die for the scum in iraq. I’d have used other methods in our arsenal to keep our losses low. I have no love for our enemies.

On preview: "grow up and discuss@ :eek:

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by Clint in Wichita *
**After looking at every one of his posts in the threads provided in the link, it is clear that your only real problem with him is that he’s openly conservative. His contributions may be small, but I doubt you’d care if he agreed with your political views.

If you want him banned for being a conservative, then at least have the guts to come out and say it. His posts are not offensive, whether you agree with him or not. Grow a skin. **

Thanks for the support. Apparently being a conservative is verboten here. I haven’t done anything except disagree with them, and here come the calls for a ban. Where’s the ‘debate’ of ‘Great Debates’?