Obama to proceed with court nominee despite Republican defiance

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.

[vy65]

Mutually exclusive means that two things cannot happen concurrently. That they are exclusive to each other. In an attempt to deduce my argument about your narcissism, you are saying that you are not making the argument I am saying but instead your credibility argument. I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive; that you are making both arguments and that they go hand in hand.

Your deduction is invalid because of this thus me saying you suck at deductions. You do.

I don't care what you say, the argument that Biden and the dems are hypocrites is the argument that McConnell came out with before you started regurgitating it. I'm not surprised you ahve no idea where you got the idea from. Recall: i think you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.



http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/2...nell/21317349/

Seriously, how did you ever pass high school English?

What Biden said in 92 is mutually exclusive with what Obama wants right now. You've conceded as much.

Dems freaking out over GOP obstructionists lack credibility. The GOP is wrong to block the nomination. That's all I've said.

Your word vomit and going on-and-on about narcissism proves that the only narcissist here is you. You clearly love the sound of your own voice (words)

[vy65]

OK which time did you switch your vote to that other party because you were holding the person you originally voted for to his/her word?

I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote. Why's this relevant?

Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.

But you don't use ignore. Case in point this response ^^^

bottoms up vy

[vy65]

I use ignore because it prevents you from spamming the round and round. You have chump and others for that.

I do it to take away your go to tactic and it works. You just whine about me now and I don't have to sift through your spam. Plus for awhile it was good for outing your and your buddy's extra accounts. You guys do get butthurt.

Drink up TSA

[ChumpDumper]

I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote.

You have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Have you ever voted against a person you had voted for to hold them accountable for what they said?

Why's this relevant?

I'm asking how you hold the people you vote for accountable.

Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.

Don't make stupid assumptions. If you haven't ever held anyone accountable using your vote, how did you hold them accountable?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously, how did you ever pass high school English?

What Biden said in 92 is mutually exclusive with what Obama wants right now. You've conceded as much.

Dems freaking out over GOP obstructionists lack credibility. The GOP is wrong to block the nomination. That's all I've said.

Your word vomit and going on-and-on about narcissism proves that the only narcissist here is you. You clearly love the sound of your own voice (words)

Strawman much? What Biden said in 92 in relation to what Obama is about to do is not my argument, simpleton.

That is not all you have said. I keep talking about what you claim 'should' happen too in support of your take. Recall:

So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?

Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

I'm saying that none of that matters. Chumps gets it as he has started arguing along the same lines:

I guess that's the only argument Republicans have and the only one you want to discuss.

But what does it matter? Do you really just want to start an endless parade of examples of hypocrisy for each side? Because that can easily be done.

But so what? You're arguing like a politician or a talk show host right now. Voters want the process to go on from everything I have seen, and Republicans always themselves when shutting down government in whatever way they try. Democrat credibility doesn't factor into that.

Yet you cannot even grasp it. Makes me think of Aristotle when he says:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

A narcissist of course is not going to be able to see outside his worldview.

[vy65]

You have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Have you ever voted against a person you had voted for to hold them accountable for what they said?

I'm asking how you hold the people you vote for accountable.

Don't make stupid assumptions. If you haven't ever held anyone accountable using your vote, how did you hold them accountable?

You know who I vote for? Pretty impressive trick.

I hold the parties accountable like anyone else -- with my vote. Doesn't mean I've voted for them. There are other parties or the option to not vote.

But you seem to think its either Dem or GOP, which is pretty narrowminded and sad

[vy65]

Strawman much? What Biden said in 92 in relation to what Obama is about to do is not my argument, simpleton.

But it was mine, simpleton.

[ChumpDumper]

You know who I vote for? Pretty impressive trick
I hold the parties accountable like anyone else -- with my vote. Doesn't mean I've voted for them. There are other parties or the option to not vote.

I asked you about candidates. You make it sound like you have never held an actual candidate you voted for accountable for his /her words. That's normal.

But you seem to think its either Dem or GOP, which is pretty narrowminded and sad

lol your trying to insult me here is what's sad.

Let's keep it simple -- have you voted for Democrats or Republicans ever in your life?

Yes or no.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But it was mine, simpleton.

not your only one, crayola. I quoted them to help you twice now. We get the hypocrisy argument. are you saying you concede being wrong about the whole notion of 'should?'

[vy65]

I asked you about candidates. You make it sound like you have never held an actual candidate accountable for his /her words. That's normal.

lol your trying to insult me here is what's sad.

Let's keep it simple -- have you voted for Democrats or Republicans ever in your life?

Yes or no.

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.

[vy65]

not your only one, crayola. I quoted them to help you twice now. We get the hypocrisy argument. are you saying you concede being wrong about the whole notion of 'should?'

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

[clambake]

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.

you couldn't tell he was only providing an unbiased platform with which everyone could agree?

[Blake]

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

Yeah that was a pretty important word in your point.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't ask - you asserted "You have voted for Republicans and Democrats." And the assumption here - either Republicans or Democrats - is incorrect.

What's the relevance of your question? I want to stay on topic, so you're going to have to tell me why switching votes from republicans to democrats or vice versa is the only way to hold them accountable. Or, if that's not your point, you're going to have to explain what is your point.

Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've clarified my point several times. You're latching onto a word I used to make a stupid point. No one cares.

Narcissism again. You speak for yourself; you care so much that you respond in anger. Chump cared enough to use the same argument. You want no one to care; that is obvious.

Youre right to say it was stupid though. Self centered as well. I brought it up though because that was your response to our rebuttal. Should is simply the operative word and demonstrates your methodology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

He doesn't want to address who he votes for because it belies his narrative. That is what I see. He isn't very brave.

[DarrinS]

lol @ Fuzzy calling anyone an angry narcissist

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol @ Fuzzy calling anyone an angry narcissist

Yes because I insist on everything being about me. Because I couch everything in terms of me.

You guys are the ones tripping over my word choice and that I 'talk smart.' You are the ones following me around and taking pot shots. I would just as soon do without the attention.

I value the objective empirical truth and despise you because you don't. That is the extent of it.

[DarrinS]

Yes because I insist on everything being about me. Because I couch everything in terms of me.

You guys are the ones tripping over my word choice and that I 'talk smart.' You are the ones following me around and taking pot shots. I would just as soon do without the attention.

I value the objective empirical truth and despise you because you don't. That is the extent of it.

No one really thinks you "talk smart", tbh. I suppose a narcissist might think that about himself.

I don't know any truly smart people that use sophist and piece of together.


Looks like it is uniquely yours



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophist+piece+of+

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one really thinks you "talk smart", tbh. I suppose a narcissist might think that about himself.

I don't know any truly smart people that use sophist and piece of together.


Looks like it is uniquely yours



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sophist+piece+of+

that was terrence. he likes to tell me that I 'try hard' to 'act smart.' pretending like I don't get that is humorous though.

I have stated that given my fragments, profanity, and disregard for punctuation I don't see myself as 'smart' when I write here. I think it's hilarious that I can make you guys so insecure about your own intelligence. Here you are telling me that I'm not as smart as I think I am and trying to turn my argument against me. Your reaction tells me that you get my argument enough to act on it. Actions speak louder than words.

[vy65]

Ah, now your stonewalling because you don't want to admit you ever voted for a Democrat or Republican.

That's OK. It wouldn't be the worst thing to admit to. If you have never voted for a Democrat or Republican, I have no idea why you would want to hide that.

Since you don't want to talk about anything you actually do to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say, I will conclude you have done nothing to hold people you have actually voted for accountable for what they say. That is also OK.

I don't think you will do anything to hold Republicans accountable in this instance either. That's Ok.

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.

you really cannot figure it out, crayola? you want me to help with context clues?

[ChumpDumper]

Not stonewalling. Don't want to get off topic. I'll wait for you to answer my questions.

I've been waiting for you to answer mine, but you're stonewalling.