Technically, it proves me right too.
I made a general claim for *gay sex*, while you tendentiously narrowed the case down to ball sucking, and whimsically dismissed the generic possibilities of slurping.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim your statement was "general". You highlighted the term "constant ball sucking of Obama" and said "how often this" comes up. Which would leave a rational person to conclude the "this" was about "ball sucking of Obama". If you had said "how often gay sex comes up"... that'd be a different story.
Indefinite pronoun reference is a , but I did elaborate.
*Bored posters are fixated on gay sex.*
I'm just gonna take the "win" and run.
It won't hurt my feelings if you run away and hide.
All this "Obama is God/the Messiah/the Chosen One/Anointed One" stuff is complete . People are going to see what they want to see. They have predefined explanations of things, so that when they see something, it automatically goes to a negative instead of actually being thought out.
Oprah called him the Chosen One? sticks, all Hollywood liberals must think that way!
Farrakhan (sp?) calls him the Messiah and his congregation cheers? bread, he must think he's the Messiah AND be a Muslim!
It's not that I'd be hiding... it's that I'm pretty sure I have the "W" and I don't want to be tripped up by the verboseness of your posts.It won't hurt my feelings if you run away and hide.
Think Derrick Fisher running off the court after 0.4.
The Obama/soter meme is not elaborated ex nihilo, as supported by your examples.
It is based on something, even if that something does not support the grotesque overreading of the point and the inane repe ion of that misreading.
Your gloss that people react to politics more emotionally than rationally and reflectively, while overrelying on the false precision of cliches is apt, if also prosaic IMO.
I do agree with you that political disputes often have a sort of mechanical predictability wrt cliche. Personally, I am less concerned that this is an expression of stupidity than alarmed that so many otherwise *wise and reflective* people get sucked into it.
That said, my feelings won't be hurt if you stick around either jman3000.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-08-2009 at 11:51 AM.
For some reason, your own *buzzer-beater* has not seared itself into my mind the way Fisher's did.
That's basically what I meant. I'm more concerned that people on both sides are letting others think for them... and it's all under the banner of "think for yourselves".
So think for yourselves as long as that thinking is like me. That's pointed mostly at the big 3 of Rush, Hannity, and Beck and somewhat towards Olbermann if just for his demonizing rants. The 2nd and 3rd tier conservatives, with the exception of Michael Savage, don't usually resort to that.
Give it time. It'll be like Manu's game 7 foul on Dirk. The more you think about it, the more it will enrage you.
actually, the more I think about Manu's foul on Dirk, the more I get over it.
Why? He didn't have to be around him at all. There was no reason to contest it. If he makes the dunk, we're shooting free throws the rest of the way.
I initially forgave him because he hit that huge 3 moments before, but the more I think about it the more I see how completely unnecessary it was.
You're holding a grudge just now? This is a prime example of why I think Spursfans are, in no small measure, hysterical and insane. We get bored in the off season, and start slagging Manu.
Bad analogy, I mean we're both biological organisms that breathe air too. It's different.
Politics OTOH is...it's more or less a belief system. A world view if you will. Not the same thing at all.
Furthermore, I'm much more of a Spurfan than he is...he is much more defined by his politics than I am.
I'l always got the impression that ducks is a ty typist who posts drunk alot...
boutons OTOH...
That's more like some sort of militant dementia/senility, and not all that coherent to boot.
On the contrary, spurfandom at this level is a belief system, though we have several sects.
because for one, it's a team game. The Mavs shot something crazy like 70% in the first half so there is plenty of blame to go around.
The play was also the type of instinct play that Manu always tries to make. The Spurs have lived and died by the Manu, so him making a mistake like that is forgivable considering that he was a big reason for the le the year before and the year after.
Let it go....
I'm beginning to wonder.
No offense, but both of you just argued about gay sex for almost a full page of postings.
I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, that's some damn funny stuff right there.
Interesting. While I won't ask you to explain the beliefs of the other Spursfandom sects, I would be interested in hearing yours, and boutons' for that matter.
What is it exactly that you "Believe.".
Hey, thanks for repeating our mantra.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.No offense, but both of you just argued about gay sex for almost a full page of postings.
I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, that's some damn funny stuff right there.
jman denied it even exists here. That I was making it all up, or something like that.
My own brief urged prevalence, based on the verbal traces to be found in*politics* alone. Everybody can decide for himself what to believe. IMO there are way too many ostensible*studs* talking about gay stuff. I just find it a little weird, and maybe a little sad, that this is an ongoing theme here.
Fify WH23
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote