Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta

• The Perfect Storm. SM - Brunson
  • Uh-huh. Have you been drinking again? - Tsk Tsk
    • I can see apologies have no effect on the likes of you. SM - Brunson
      • You're full of S**T, Brunson Burner - LMAO!
        • Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM - MT
        • Of course, this was not posted to someone who was apologizing. And your response is charming. SM - Brunson
          • Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta - More conservative lies.
            • and your board is dead most of the time anyway - compassionate conservati
              • If we are so dead and have no issues, what brings you here? sm - Democrat
          • Yet another conservative LIE Brunson Burnout. - LMAO!
            • Yes, sincere apologies, wrong board. So what? NM - Brunson
              • So you didn't let her apology stop you from attacking her. - LMAO!
                • You consider *it would be so nice if you weren't here* an attack? sm - sm
                  • Yep, because their widdle feewings is so vewy tender. SM - MT
                    • They ain't living unless they are being condescending - leftist basher
                      • Which is exactly why your leftist/lib basher blood boils...sm - Democrat
                        • I meant... NOW shoe...nm - Democrat
                • Your post makes no sense and neither do the ones you cut and pasted. SM - Brunson
  • Sorry, wrong board. NM - Brunson

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

It's really kind of pathetic.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC has been doing a segment during her shows called *Lame Duck Watch.*  Just look on the web for the Rachel Maddow Show.

Lurker had the courage to try to debate you, tried to ignore your rude comments and personal attacks.  Yes, your intelligent debate triggered responses by Lurker, as follow:

Please do not preach at me and tell me I don't understand the concept of working for a living. I try my best not to berate or belittle anyone on this board and I would appreciate the same consideration.

I can see from her above post why you're so happy.  Looks like you succeeded in chasing her away for a while, too.

Stupid should hurt.  As much as ya'll scream and whine it must.

 Everytime you end up with egg on your face.  It's really hilarious to sit back and watch liberals have a victory party before there's even any court hearings or before the political chips can fall.  Oh the chips are going to fall, but I doubt they'll be where you want them to be.

It makes no sense whatsoever that I should email him, he should respond promptly, thanking me and saying he will post something, and VOILA, his posts appear.  What are the odds of FACTS being associated with that sequence of events?

Yeah, you're right.  That makes no sense at all because you've got your FACTS, and logic should just be ignored! 

And as far as who you claim to be, I couldn't care less who you are.  I should point out, however, that you're breaking the rules on this board, the same rules you claim to respect so much. 

the only thing you did in the above post is try to start yet another fight by claiming that all Obama supporters are racist.  Nice job staying on the issues...NOT.

BTW, I could give a rat's butt what MLK's party affiliation was.  I know what he stood for and fought for as a person, and that is what made him a legend, not his color and not his party credentials.

The ironic thing is that YOU are one of the ones who consistently bring race into just about every conversation.  Get over it.

Cover the pictures of our founding fathers? Maybe you need to party a little more - you sound like a miserable little wretch. Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from mine.

That's exactly what I said.  Scarborough has always supported Bush.  There is a difference between supporting and blindly following.  For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled.  You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth.  That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty.  I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand.  Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States.  People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity.  Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes.   He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day.  And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself.  And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God.  They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money.  He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board.  If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this:  *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.*  I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post. 

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution.  Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI.  Who are you KIDDING?  Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again. 

but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what?  Impeach Cheney?  Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens.  He's a Republican, too.  (President pro tempore of the Senate).  Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes.  What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway.  Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.