It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 870 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Lmao

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Quote:
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


But we need people to feel safe! I laugh when shit gets heated in a facebook group and someone says "I feel unsafe right now." No you don't! You're just talking to people online! Go offline! You're safe!

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Curious Hair wrote:
Quote:
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


But we need people to feel safe! I laugh when shit gets heated in a facebook group and someone says "I feel unsafe right now." No you don't! You're just talking to people online! Go offline! You're safe!

:lol: what?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Quote:
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


But we need people to feel safe! I laugh when shit gets heated in a facebook group and someone says "I feel unsafe right now." No you don't! You're just talking to people online! Go offline! You're safe!

:lol: what?


It's bad with the leftbook groups. Lots of reasons to "feel unsafe" there.

I'm a millennial by age (though my music tastes are definitely more gen-X) but one who grew up with the social aspect of the internet not as a fact of everyone's daily life but as an underground hive of freaks and assholes. That's a hard cultural gap to bridge -- it's always been once removed from Real Life in some sense, kind of a performance art. I guess I can't relate to real-life consequences of people talking about stuff online around me.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 1379
pizza_Place: Pequods
I think it is the hypocrisy that makes this interesting. Bernstein's self-righteousness over everything and then getting caught in Boobgate is what made it outrageous. Now, it's Spain with sexist tweets against other women from a few years ago, yet she is an evolved feminist (I'll leave out how she used her looks to get her job in the first). DiCaro with her sexist "hot athlete" website now looks foolish when she derides some man for saying Anna Kournikova is hot. Bill O'Reilly was a "family values" preacher, until he was caught.

In other words, it's news when 90 year old Bush grabs a butt, but it's not when the late Hugh Hefner did--one seems like a hypocrite, the other just doing what we expect him to do.

I think what has changed with social media is that the left are now getting caught as much as the right. And to PittMike's point, they created this monster--a "gotcha" news cycle that they now can't run from.

As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting. The difference is that with social media, the media can't control the story like they used to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43579
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:50 am
Posts: 11242
Location: Schaumburg
pizza_Place: Palermo's
Curious Hair wrote:
Quote:
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


But we need people to feel safe! I laugh when shit gets heated in a facebook group and someone says "I feel unsafe right now." No you don't! You're just talking to people online! Go offline! You're safe!


Do they "feel unsafe" because someone they are arguing with physically threatened them, or because they are hearing an opinion they don't like?

I assume it's the latter but can't wrap my head around how that can make a person feel unsafe. At this point I'm not surprised people say that, it just seems preposterous to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Curious Hair wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Quote:
That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


But we need people to feel safe! I laugh when shit gets heated in a facebook group and someone says "I feel unsafe right now." No you don't! You're just talking to people online! Go offline! You're safe!

:lol: what?


It's bad with the leftbook groups. Lots of reasons to "feel unsafe" there.

I'm a millennial by age (though my music tastes are definitely more gen-X) but one who grew up with the social aspect of the internet not as a fact of everyone's daily life but as an underground hive of freaks and assholes. That's a hard cultural gap to bridge -- it's always been once removed from Real Life in some sense, kind of a performance art. I guess I can't relate to real-life consequences of people talking about stuff online around me.

Im doing my best to not be a "back in my day" kind of guy. I really am, but man do some of these kids make it difficult.

I just imagine a WW2 or Vietnam Vet when I hear that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Terry's Peeps wrote:
It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.



the character of cable news today, or the extent of it? I thought the first Gulf War, under ass-grabber in chief HW, was when CNN took off in ratings/viewership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Hussra wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.



the character of cable news today, or the extent of it? I thought the first Gulf War, under ass-grabber in chief HW, was when CNN took off in ratings/viewership.

Gulf War
OJ
Lewisnki


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Hussra wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.



the character of cable news today, or the extent of it? I thought the first Gulf War, under ass-grabber in chief HW, was when CNN took off in ratings/viewership.


The tabloidization aspect.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Tad Queasy wrote:
Do they "feel unsafe" because someone they are arguing with physically threatened them, or because they are hearing an opinion they don't like?


It's not explicit physical threats, no. But I guess if a conversation gets too heated, oppressed/marginalized people can feel a lot of anxiety. I don't know. I can't relate.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 1379
pizza_Place: Pequods
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.


I agree that this was on the news every night. But, the victims (Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, etc.) were not to be believed. The story was Lewinsky, which was consensual. That's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the women that accused him of rape. They were discredited by the media. That would not happen today. In today's world--social media would give them power they did not have back then.

In fact, Hillary got caught in this hypocrisy when she stated that "all victims should be believed," and then it was pointed out that she didn't feel that way about Bill's accusers.

With all of those rape accusations, Bill would not be a viable candidate, or would have been forced to resign, in today's environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
90's were good to CNN; this Weinstein thing doesn't have anywhere near the legs of those big 3. And who wants to sit around listening to/watching people talk about some toad-ish looking dude groping chicks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Hussra wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.



the character of cable news today, or the extent of it? I thought the first Gulf War, under ass-grabber in chief HW, was when CNN took off in ratings/viewership.


"Cable news as we know it" has been through several iterations, though, hasn't it? We didn't really have the three-headed monster until after 9/11 (Fox News and MSNBC were around before but not terribly relevant), and MSNBC didn't find its niche as Liberal Fox News until around 2006-2007.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38362
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Heisenberg wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.


I agree that this was on the news every night. But, the victims (Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, etc.) were not to be believed. The story was Lewinsky, which was consensual. That's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the women that accused him of rape. They were discredited by the media. That would not happen today. In today's world--social media would give them power they did not have back then.

In fact, Hillary got caught in this hypocrisy when she stated that "all victims should be believed," and then it was pointed out that she didn't feel that way about Bill's accusers.

With all of those rape accusations, Bill would not be a viable candidate, or would have been forced to resign, in today's environment.



Yes

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Curious Hair wrote:
Tad Queasy wrote:
Do they "feel unsafe" because someone they are arguing with physically threatened them, or because they are hearing an opinion they don't like?


It's not explicit physical threats, no. But I guess if a conversation gets too heated, oppressed/marginalized people can feel a lot of anxiety. I don't know. I can't relate.

It's the death of shame, too.

Overall, that's a good thing. I mean people shouldn't be basketcases worried about what everyone thinks. But on the other hand....there's openly telling people about not feeling safe in a chat room.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
MSNBC owes Trump a thank you tanning gift-certificate. The network looked close to being relegated, perennial 3rd place in the ratings. And now Maddow has the No 1 cable news show and MSNBC has leapfrogged CNN to 2nd place behind Fox News.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.


I agree that this was on the news every night. But, the victims (Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, etc.) were not to be believed. The story was Lewinsky, which was consensual. That's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the women that accused him of rape. They were discredited by the media. That would not happen today. In today's world--social media would give them power they did not have back then.

In fact, Hillary got caught in this hypocrisy when she stated that "all victims should be believed," and then it was pointed out that she didn't feel that way about Bill's accusers.

With all of those rape accusations, Bill would not be a viable candidate, or would have been forced to resign, in today's environment.



Yes

True. Although you could probably apply that to many ex President's up against today's scrutiny.

I mean, LBJ allegedly pulled his cock out in front of a reporter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
rogers park bryan wrote:
[

I mean, LBJ allegedly pulled his cock out in front of a reporter.


Male or female?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Hatchetman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
[

I mean, LBJ allegedly pulled his cock out in front of a reporter.


Male or female?

Don't think they let women be reporters back then, but even if it were a man, if it happens today....big issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
There is a tweet for everything....



Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Following Following @realDonaldTrump
More
I am really beginning to respect Mark Halperin and John Heilemann as political reporters - they truly get why "Trump" poll numbers are high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43579
rogers park bryan wrote:
I mean, LBJ allegedly pulled his cock out in front of a reporter.

Look. At. His. Body.

Image

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
LBJ pulled his cock out in front of everyone. One time he pissed in the middle of a parking lot while a woman was standing right there.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 1379
pizza_Place: Pequods
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.


I agree that this was on the news every night. But, the victims (Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, etc.) were not to be believed. The story was Lewinsky, which was consensual. That's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the women that accused him of rape. They were discredited by the media. That would not happen today. In today's world--social media would give them power they did not have back then.

In fact, Hillary got caught in this hypocrisy when she stated that "all victims should be believed," and then it was pointed out that she didn't feel that way about Bill's accusers.

With all of those rape accusations, Bill would not be a viable candidate, or would have been forced to resign, in today's environment.



Yes

True. Although you could probably apply that to many ex President's up against today's scrutiny.

I mean, LBJ allegedly pulled his cock out in front of a reporter.


Agreed. But unlike most, the Clintons are still around, and dare I say “relevant?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Hussra wrote:
Megan McCardle playing the part of the canary in the coal mine on social media mob-think and public internet shaming:

Quote:
Given the way the internet is transforming private coercion, I’m not sure we can maintain the hard, bright line that classical liberalism drew between state coercion and private versions. We may have to start talking about two kinds of problematic coercion:

1. Government coercion, which is still the worst, because it is backed up with guns, but is also the most readily addressed because we have a legal framework to limit government power.

2. Mass private coercion, which even if not quite as bad, still needs to have safeguards put in place to protect individual liberty. But we have no legal or social framework for those.

I find myself in more and more conversations that sound as if we’re living in one of the later-stage Communist regimes. Not the ones that shot people, but the ones that discovered you didn’t need to shoot dissidents, as long as you could make them pariahs -- no job, no apartment, no one willing to be seen talking to them in public
.


Quote:
The people I have these conversations with are terrified that something they say will inadvertently offend the self-appointed powers-that-be. They’re afraid that their email will be hacked, and stray snippets will make them the next one in the internet stocks. They’re worried that some opinion they hold now will unexpectedly be declared anathema, forcing them to issue a humiliating public recantation, or risk losing their friends and their livelihood.

Social media mobs are not, of course, as pervasive and terrifying as the Communist Party spies. But the Soviet Union is no more, and the mobs are very much with us, so it’s their power we need to think about.

That power keeps growing, as does the number of subjects they want to declare off-limits to discussion. And unless it is checked, where does it lead? To something depressingly like the old Communist states: a place where your true opinions about anything more important than tea cozies are only ever aired to a tiny circle of highly trusted friends; where all statements made to or by the people outside that circle are assumed by everyone to be lies; where almost every conversation is a guessing game that both sides lose.


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... nline-mobs


I do not know who this person is but I couldn't agree more.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Douchebag wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
tommy wrote:
No, it's not the same. People are sick of the gotcha, judgmental culture. They're saying, "Now don't you see how unfair, decontextualized, and irrational this is?"
This is false. People wanted him fired. I believe they were also looking into sending messages to sponsors and I believe a few did message his boss. It's the exact same thing.
i mean, if they had said "It's not a big deal but you shouldn't throw stones from glass houses" I'd agree.

http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=93036


They did it because that's what he does!

It's a shame that the PittMike's and BadRogue's of the world don't realize that they are the same as Dan Bernstein, Julie DiCaro, and Sarah Spain. They are living a life hating the people that they emulate every single day.


You can say I was very much against Bernstein. You cannot accurately say I am one of the villagers with torches against JDC, Spain or anyone else.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40651
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
As evidence, compare the "free pass" that Bill Clinton got when he was accused of rape (and whom DiCaro still adores) with the lambasting that Harvey Weinstein is getting.

What?

The Clinton scandal was literally a top story every night on the news for 2-3 years. People will be saying "Who is Harvey Weinstein?" in 3-4 months.


It was basically responsible for the advent of cable news as we know it.



Even with that though the "media" controlled what we knew regarding all of that. We now know more about Clinton than we knew then. It is no longer controlled the way it once was.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
pittmike wrote:
I do not know who this person is but I couldn't agree more.

Some libertarian with a rich dad. She's usually eye-poppingly stupid.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 870 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group