Best switcharoo of all time!

[Tonelover]

Trump and Vance are going to be left holding each other's dicks when this is all over.

 

[Krull]

Trump and Vance are going to be left holding each other's dicks when this is all over.

No one wants to hear about you giving them blowjobs at the same time

 

[Tonelover]

No one wants to hear about you giving them blowjobs at the same time

Me either, but good one!

 

[Dan Gleesak]

No one wants to hear about you giving them blowjobs at the same time

I read that JD opposed mandated vaccines but he got one just because he wanted one. What a dope huh?

 

[acceptance]

I read that JD opposed mandated vaccines but he got one just because he wanted one. What a dope huh?

Yes.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Yes.

You are misguided about a lot of things though, the vaccine is Krull’s bread and butter

 

[acceptance]

You are misguided

Oh I’m very anti vax. And you are mistaken that I’m misguided in that regard at least.

 

[acceptance]

Justin Anusrar I came across a quote that made me think of you, by Ayn Rand:

"if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the approval—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions."

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Justin Anusrar I came across a quote that made me think of you, by Ayn Rand:

"if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the approval—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions."

That is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy right there. My answers and opinions are always dead simple. You and others just go to great lengths to nitpick and evade the simplistic point, because by itself that point can’t be argued. You do it every time.

Sure I could just ignore them instead of going off on all the dumbass tangents you send me on though, so I’ll take fault for that.

 

[acceptance]

That is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy right there. My answers and opinions are always dead simple. You and others just go to great lengths to nitpick and evade the simplistic point, because by itself that point can’t be argued. You do it every time.

Sure I could just ignore them instead of going off on all the dumbass tangents you send me on though, so I’ll take fault for that.

Great, can you think of an example to illustrate this problem?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Great, can you think of an example to illustrate this problem?

I say “greenhouse gases warm the earth”

You respond with an article about something else and we argue about it a week because I am trying to stay on topic and you want to relate to something else

 

[acceptance]

I say “greenhouse gases warm the earth”

You respond with an article about something else and we argue about it a week because I am trying to stay on topic and you want to relate to something else

I don't recall responding to that specifically (With the study I posted), but rather the broader discussion. As I keep saying, it's kind of a moot to worry about greenhouse gasses if eliminating their source warms the planet.

 

[VonBonfire]

Trump and Vance are going to be left holding each other's dicks when this is all over.

I don't actually have a party, but even that being the case, my party is gong to win this election and everyone in them other parties are going to be left holding each other;s peen-ginas when it's over so pipe down big dawg.

 

[Floyd Eye]

By all accounts except the far far left Harris is a major underdog. Makes no difference what the brainwashed masses say.

 

[Tonelover]

By all accounts except the far far left Harris is a major underdog. Makes no difference what the brainwashed masses say.

Makes no difference what you say either. We'll see in November.

 

[Adnil]

I think we all know who the cock in this thread, besides my ex.

 

[acceptance]

Confident dems, knowing that even while Harris is incompetent and unliked, rigged machines and mail in ballots will save the day.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

By all accounts except the far far left Harris is a major underdog. Makes no difference what the brainwashed masses say.

New York Times latest survey showed them pretty even. Take that for whatever you want

 

[VonBonfire]

Take that for whatever you want

If it was printed on paper it would make good asswipe.

 

[Floyd Eye]

New York Times latest survey showed them pretty even. Take that for whatever you want

I'm sure all the same media that is literally on video calling her the newly appointed border czar, but is now saying she wasn't, that's just something republicans made up, would say that. They lie, they get caught lying ( Biden's dementia for example) then they lie again and act like they never said it. They should be held to account for lying about Biden's mental issues. And Kamala and KJP definitely should. They won't be though. You guys like being lied to.