Its Hairy RPeater65, he's confused by facts as well has never made an intelligent reply when boxed into the corner...blurters is his nature and Cricket scores although he pretends not to have any interest in either sport.Originally Posted by RPETER65
Hairys the kid in class room who does the silent farts and clears the room.
As opposed to yourself, Isnt. You're one of those guys who fart in the bathtub then pop the bubbles with your nose.Originally Posted by ltnt
That's a "snarf," as I recall MrG. The pros do it by biting the bubbles I hear. I suggest you take it up as an alternative to smelling girls bicycle seats.
There is little point in asking stupid people why the Republican party is now termed "The Party of Stupid", even by several Republicans. Stupid people get a vote too I guess, if they have citizenship.
Thus, such calls will only fall on deaf ears- "We've got to stop being the Party of Stupid" (Bobby Jindal, Gov. La, GOP). Best just let nature take it's inevitable course instead. The current GOP loony bin is way too far gone- it will only reform thru' the natural cycle of birth and death.
^No Hairy you wouldn't as you don't understand it to begin with...Confusion and Hairy synonymous...do you actually have a job or is posting on TD your main function?
^Try post 1881 Hairy. Quite a good read... I won't tell anyone you read it, if thats what worries you?
Newsbusters? Really?Originally Posted by ltnt
NewsBusters is a wingnut media watch website that styles itself as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." The site is an extension of Brent Bozell's hate group, Media Research Center.
While an ostensibly admirable goal to keep check on the media (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[1]), it does not so much expose "liberal bias" as try to ram a Republican agenda in all over the place. The site also has a blatant anti-science agenda, often bashing stories on evolution and global warming that don't give time to wingnut creationist or denialist perspectives.
Get lost you fucking baboon.
^ You are a puppet posting propaganda from a thoroughly trashed source. These sites you post are simply propaganda sites manufactured to destroy the middle class utilizing fear. They are funded by the money of your oligarch masters.
Oh look, Booners found some latin someone clever used on a website, and now he wants to use it everywhere to try and pretend he's clever too.
Quod prorsus fatuus
You REALLY missed a golden opportunity to write quod erat demonstrandum there!Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
bsnubs got "anger issues." Guess mama's going to have to shorten his leash again. Its easy for left tards when they don't like what they read, they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs...Keep em coming bsnub, you'll be Dog Housed sooner or later for your rants.
Poll: Most Americans unwilling to vote for a socialist - Nick Gass - POLITICO
"Americans say they are more likely to support an atheist than a socialist for president next year, according to the latest Gallup survey, released Monday.
Just 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist if their party nominated one, while 50 percent said they would not, while 58 percent said they would have no problem voting for an atheist in their party.
Independent Bernie Sanders is the only self-described “democratic socialist” in the race, though he’s running as a Democrat. He’s has been gaining in the polls in recent weeks, and 91 percent also told Gallup they would vote for a Jewish candidate. (Sanders is, so far, the lone Jewish candidate.)
By comparison, 93 percent said they would vote for a Roman Catholic. Five declared candidates in the race are Catholic: Democrat Martin O’Malley and Republicans Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum. (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is also Catholic, but he has not announced a presidential bid.)
As far as black candidates, 92 percent said they would vote for one. Republican Ben Carson is the only African-American running for president in 2016 so far.
For women, 92 percent also said they would vote for one. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Carly Fiorina are the only women running in either major party.
Asked about Hispanic candidates, 91 percent of Americans said they would vote for one (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are the only two running so far).
Public approval along religious and ideological backgrounds drops off after that point, with 81 percent for a Mormon candidate, 74 percent for a gay or lesbian candidate, 73 percent for an evangelical Christian candidate and 60 percent for a Muslim candidate.
Republicans are much more likely to back an evangelical Christian candidate (84 percent to independents’ 73 percent and Democrats’ 66 percent), while Democrats are much more likely to back a socialist candidate (59 percent to independents’ 49 percent and Republicans’ 26 percent).
Statistically speaking, there are no differences in either party in their willingness to vote for a Hispanic, black or female candidate.
The poll, conducted June 2-7, surveyed 1,527 adults nationwide on the telephone, carrying an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points".
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrsOriginally Posted by ltnt
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs
they simply attack the poster with personal slurrs
Have another swig from the drum chemical-boy, you're losing it again.
bibo ergo sum
If you hear the thunder be happy - the lightening missed.
This time.
Since when did facts matter to creationists and their lunatic political ideologies?Originally Posted by RPETER65
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)