seemingly random
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,281
- 0
- 0
I can't decide if Buggerbean is a closet gay pedophile or someone's way over-the-edge parody persona.Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Can someone explain to me why he's so fixated on gay men? I'm relatively new around here so I'm trying to adjust to the various nuances of the crazies.
Don't know and don't want to know (although, I have to admit to a vague, bloody car-wreck curiosity).Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Can someone explain to me why he's so fixated on gay men? I'm relatively new around here so I'm trying to adjust to the various nuances of the crazies.
It appears to be a losing proposition to egg him on.Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Hmm, I wonder how he feels about Jews. We'd love to know
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Maybe ACORN was passing out crack? BO hasn't had a big rally yet (staged photo ops really) where peeps weren't lured with something. Intelligent people aren't swayed by this rubbish. "Ooohhhh look at the big rally..BO must be really good" Hah US a third world freekin country now.
Do you even believe your own bitter bullshit, or is it that you just can't stop yourself from spewing due to some tragic but basic character flaw?
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Maybe ACORN was passing out crack? BO hasn't had a big rally yet (staged photo ops really) where peeps weren't lured with something. Intelligent people aren't swayed by this rubbish. "Ooohhhh look at the big rally..BO must be really good" Hah US a third world freekin country now.
If literacy was your strong point, you would obviously observe that I never said there weren't 100k people there. I just said that they weren't all from Missouri. Idiot.Originally posted by: Dari
It must be the Dirty Chicago Political Machine that fibbed the numbers and hologrammed these people (who were really at a Palin Klan rally).
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If literacy was your strong point, you would obviously observe that I never said there weren't 100k people there. I just said that they weren't all from Missouri. Idiot.Originally posted by: Dari
It must be the Dirty Chicago Political Machine that fibbed the numbers and hologrammed these people (who were really at a Palin Klan rally).
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not sure if people realize the geography of this, but St. Louis is on the border with Illinois, where Obama is obviously pretty popular. I also drove across the river today while it was going on and it didn't look like there were nearly that many people there, though I may have been driving by a little before it got started (a little after 10 a.m.). I'm not sure how that's an appropriate use of a national monument, but it's certainly not the worst use of my tax dollars that the federal government will ever allow.
Sorry, your protests demand a response. Maybe this was code for something of which I am unfamiliar.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not sure if people realize the geography of this, but St. Louis is on the border with Illinois, where Obama is obviously pretty popular. I also drove across the river today while it was going on and it didn't look like there were nearly that many people there, though I may have been driving by a little before it got started (a little after 10 a.m.). I'm not sure how that's an appropriate use of a national monument, but it's certainly not the worst use of my tax dollars that the federal government will ever allow.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So where did I say there weren't 100k people there? There certainly weren't at 10 a.m., which is when I drove by, which happens to be what I said and both of you quoted, apparently without comprehension.
The op stated that there were 100k people. You then said "it didn't look like there were nearly that many people there".Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So where did I say there weren't 100k people there? There certainly weren't at 10 a.m., which is when I drove by, which happens to be what I said and both of you quoted, apparently without comprehension.
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The op stated that there were 100k people. You then said "it didn't look like there were nearly that many people there".Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So where did I say there weren't 100k people there? There certainly weren't at 10 a.m., which is when I drove by, which happens to be what I said and both of you quoted, apparently without comprehension.
But you are correct in that you did not say "it didn't look like there were 100k people there".
Impasse.
Nah, he's technically correct.Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The op stated that there were 100k people. You then said "it didn't look like there were nearly that many people there".Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So where did I say there weren't 100k people there? There certainly weren't at 10 a.m., which is when I drove by, which happens to be what I said and both of you quoted, apparently without comprehension.
But you are correct in that you did not say "it didn't look like there were 100k people there".
Impasse.
Fucking owned.
And then, there's this...Originally posted by: Farang
I would have defended CycloWizard because from what I read the crowd extended past the contained area the photos imply (like into the trees on the right) so if you counted every head in that picture it might not add up to 100k. But he lied and backtracked and then call someone an idiot, and the comment on the use of a national monument is pretty ridiculous. What, are candidates supposed to only have rallies on federal land in the middle of nowhere? Or would that be a misuse of federal land? Or should they buy land to use for campaigning?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There weren't 100k people there at 10 a.m. Is anyone going to challenge that, which was my original statement? I really doubt it, since it's easier to stick to strawmen and you all combined apparently don't have the mental capacity to combine thoughts from two consecutive sentences.
As far as the use of a national monument for a partisan political rally, it's improper. A partisan political rally is essentially a private event. Thus, the thousands of people who would have visited the arch, park area, riverfront, and associated museums yesterday would have been unable to do so because of what amounts to a private party. St. Louis is a city that will kick out the general public in a heartbeat for someone who throws enough money at them (hell, they even closed the zoo for some rich bastard's party this summer). However, the arch, park, riverfront, and museum are a federal monument. The land and its facilities don't belong to the Democratic party. Why should they be able to close it? If I had been in from out of town on vacation and was planning on going to the arch on Saturday (which is, of course, its busiest day of the week due to tourism), I would be F'ing pissed that it was closed so some douchebags could have a political rally on my land.
There weren't 100k people there at 10 a.m. Is anyone going to challenge that, which was
Originally posted by: mizzou
There weren't 100k people there at 10 a.m. Is anyone going to challenge that, which was
That is a moot point. Gates didn't even open until 10:15 and Obama was scheduled to speak at 12:00
That's like saying there weren't 100k people there at 3:00 in the morning
I've been a resident of St. Louis City (Skinker-Debaliviere neighborhood) for just over 4 years. And I don't see why it's ok to close a national monument just to raise a little tax revenue by bringing people into the downtown area.Originally posted by: mizzou
Do you even live in st. louis? Most of us thank the gods for any reason to bring people downtown.
Me - I'm complaining. It's free because it's endowed by private donors, just like everything else in Forest Park. I don't think the guys who donated money decades ago would appreciate the zoo closing its doors so some muckity mucks can have a party at the expense of families who are there to see the animals from all over the midwest. The zoo is for everyone - that's the point of the endowment. It's free to enforce that, not the other way around.And your comment about the St. Louis Zoo closing it's doors for a wedding is baloney. Admission is free so who is to complain?