Those times any of my moles engage in, uh, information-gathering activities, I take very good care to see, and react to, the primitives as if they’re very much brighter than me; mountains smarter than me, with tons more cerebral mass than what franksolich has.
Hell, I even act as if Atman knows more than I do.
This is my standard modus operendi, and I’ve always been astonished at how well it works, in discombobulating the primitives, as a public service for the Good of Humanity.
The good moles, the really good ones, don't continuously provoke or stray too far from the hive mind. The really good moles know how to move among you, stir you up, and move away while you tear each other apart. Are you getting this, ****os? You're in a circular firing squad, shooting wildly at each other, and celebrating when you take down innocent bystanders.
I know we're in your heads, driving you like a rented Malibu, laughing as you, the smarterest people on the internet, jump and dance at shadows. You fire blindly into the dark while we chuckle. Your own fall to the floor, by your hand, and we smile while we get ready for you to chain drag the next DUmmie through the gravel.
Hey BuzzClik. Sir. Dude.
I’ve been watching the back-and-forth between the decent and civilized people of the DUmpster here, and yourself.
Just watching without saying anything, because whenever there’s a tanglement between us here, and a visitor from Skins’s island, I trip all over myself trying to be a nice guy…..and end up making things worse.
It’s something I learned as the seventh out of eight children; when the bigger ones fight, just stay out of the way, because then suddenly they’d all gang up on me.(http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad335/photoatcc/misc/buzz_zpsfiqzdmbj.png) (http://s949.photobucket.com/user/photoatcc/media/misc/buzz_zpsfiqzdmbj.png.html)
<<<tended to be a uniting force for squabbling people.- - - - - - - - - -
Anyway, as moderator here, I’m compelled to correct the record concerning your pal BainsBane.
Before she came over here, you yourself advised her that franksolich is a nice guy, one of the nicest guys one can ever hope to meet, which was, and is, true.
So when she showed up here, I was nice to her, impeccably polite.
Then I made the mistake of getting involved, and ooops…..
What ticked me off about your pal BainsBane was that she came over here thinking she was going to be dealing with a bunch of cretins, morons, hicks, idiots.
I dunno why primitives have this notion of us; surely the record shows otherwise.- - - - - - - - - -
This isn’t directed so much to you, sir, as it is to other primitives, but anyway, I’m gonna let you in on a secret, dude, that I’ve used in the past with moles on Skins’s island (none of them currently active at the moment, because other moles and authentic primitives are doing franksolich’s work for me).
There’s that old saying—and your pals BainsBane and MrsCorpio need take notice (yourself, not so much)—about “never underestimate the enemy.â€
Those times any of my moles engage in, uh, information-gathering activities, I take very good care to see, and react to, the primitives as if they’re very much brighter than me; mountains smarter than me, with tons more cerebral mass than what franksolich has.
Hell, I even act as if Atman knows more than I do.
This is my standard modus operendi, and I’ve always been astonished at how well it works, in discombobulating the primitives, as a public service for the Good of Humanity.
What makes anyone entitled to the money that someone else earns?
Scenario for you: Gay person out on the town, doing a pub crawl. Walk into a bar on their list, visibly intoxicated. The bartender, who is wearing a cross necklace, rightly declines to sell them a drink.
1. Did the bartender just commit a hate crime?
2. Should they have continued to serve someone until they end up in the hospital, or kill someone while driving drunk?
3. Would the fact that they served a gay person to avoid being "hateful" and "bigoted" relieve them of the legal and moral responsibility of contributing to another person's injury/death?
Pearls before swine, Frank.
Re: Merry late Christmas
Postby JustPassinThru » December 29th, 2011, 10:50 am
Cap'n Howdy wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the NOPC powers-that-be were to create exactly such a mythology to account for the end of their little empire: you, me, Nixon, JPT were the last of the major shit-disturbers who left this autumn, and that's when the site collapsed and finally ended.
That happens. For all the pissing and moaning when food-fights break out on these boards...a lot of times it's the draw. Especially when it's over something of significance; not who-stole-who's-signature idiocy.
Any NewsMax vets remember Rusty Needle? When NM got pulled, he went over to BTTS - as BuzzClik - and then was a charter member of CHCH. And a liberal-mod; and it went about as well with Rusty/Buzz as it did with Dougger. He did have the decency to give up the mod post and remain a member for a time...
...and for about two years it was the Buzz-and-Justy show, with us lobbing hand-grenades back and forth and the others taking sides. Like Doug, he was a worthy opponent...given to untruths and deliberate logical fallacies, like all liberals; but willing to discuss.
It ended with the 2004 election. He had considerable invested in a Kerry win...emotional, surely, maybe time as well - and he just collapsed like a dirigible with a hole, after Kerry's loss. Left a few weeks later...never to return.
He's apparently a college prof. And, apparently, he now spends his "office hours" playing online video games (his name, BuzzClik) instead of even wasting time at least in worthwhile discussions.
Anyway...once the schitt-slinging ended, Capitol Hill Coffeehouse collapsed. It's a near-ghost now...members check in a couple times a month to swap time signals; that's all.
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Just one time each.
I started out as a Republican.
I voted for Nixon in 1972 when I cast my first vote ever.
I voted for Carter in 1976 over Ford because I disliked Ford very much.
I voted for Reagan in 1980 because I was stupid, but in 1984 and 1988 I voted Libertarian as I was transitioning out of the Republican Party.
It's been all Dem ever since.
Frank dear, there is a lot more to Buzz than I think you know (very close) - this x-post should help:
that makes him a Paultard, so he must have posted over there post-Gator.
Hey BuzzClik. Sir. Dude....Frank, you know your words are never lost on me.
Frank, you know your words are never lost on me.
(http://1389blog.com/pix/HatTipSmileyAnim.gif)
Frank dear, there is a lot more to Buzz than I think you know (very close) -
Shit, Buzz, you are a Low Information Voter.
Voted for Carter in 1976 because you didn't like Ford. That was like not liking dry toast. ****ing brilliant.
Voted for Reagan, the anti-Carter, in 1980.
Voted for Bergland in '84, and Ron Paul in '88, but can only articulate 'I was transitioning out of the Republican Party. It took you four years to 'transition'? Damn, man, it took Bradley Manning less time than that to transition into 'Chelsea'! Then again, he is the cellblock pincushion at the USDB, so he may have been inspired.
I am a hardcore libertarian, and I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to run a tollbooth. What in the **** is wrong with you?
And you have blindly voted for collectivist, redistributionist, Statists ever since. It makes me doubt that you ever understood the philosophy of liberty.
I overestimated you. Mea culpa, Buzz. I won't make that mistake again.
I'm still waiting on answers to my two (sic) questions:That's five questions, but who's counting? In order and renumbered:
What makes anyone entitled to the money that someone else earns?
and
Scenario for you: Gay person out on the town, doing a pub crawl. Walk into a bar on their list, visibly intoxicated. The bartender, who is wearing a cross necklace, rightly declines to sell them a drink.
1. Did the bartender just commit a hate crime?
2. Should they have continued to serve someone until they end up in the hospital, or kill someone while driving drunk?
3. Would the fact that they served a gay person to avoid being "hateful" and "bigoted" relieve them of the legal and moral responsibility of contributing to another person's injury/death?
and
You claim to want debate, yet ignore actual attempts at debate. Kind of shows the weakness of your arguments, doesn't it?
Still, she was banned. I don't expect Buzz to be as familiar with her banning as he pretends but the fiction he peddled to his fellow Proglodytes need not be left unchallenged.Well, for the record... yours is the third explanation that I've received for her banning since I arrived here, and it is the only one consistent with the reason she told me immediately after her banning. (She and I were in constant communication during her stay; mostly I was telling her to get the hell out.)
But, the quoted material above is interesting to me: Give me a few details about "the fiction he peddled to his fellow Proglodytes." Be real specific because your accusation is real clear.
Buzz Clik (31,045 posts)
49. Sourass? This is not our first dance; we know each other well.
Frank, your colleagues collapsed in short order in the face of the intellectual onslaught of Bain.
Complete and total fail. There is nothing in my post that suggests why Bain was banned.
For the record:
What got Ph-Double-D's tossed out of here was not her unassailable intellect but her immediate and unreserved leap to blaming conservatives for the Boston bombing.
I suspected as much: a couple of you mods have taken it upon yourselves to try to bait me into some sort of anger-driven onslaught that will justify you banning me. Again.
Complete and total fail. There is nothing in my post that suggests why Bain was banned.
I suspected as much: a couple of you mods have taken it upon yourselves to try to bait me into some sort of anger-driven onslaught that will justify you banning me. Again.
You don't need a reason.
Complete and total fail. There is nothing in my post that suggests why Bain was banned.
I suspected as much: a couple of you mods have taken it upon yourselves to try to bait me into some sort of anger-driven onslaught that will justify you banning me. Again.
You don't need a reason.
Come on folks, don't fall for the buzzer's crafty tricks. This obviously a ham-handed DOTY run on his part. His miscalculation, of course, is the well known short attention span of conservatives.
The Give away for me was his shameless romancing of first, the coach and now (on another thread), Big Dog. This crafty commie will stop at nothing.
Awwwww, Mongo straight!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28khv-BydeY[/youtube]
That's five questions, but who's counting? In order and renumbered:
1) The IRS by Congressional mandate
My question was not about the mechanism of taking money. The IRS didn't exist for the majority of our nation's history, so you can't claim that they are the authority. I am not even questioning the authority of the gov't to levy taxes, nor will any conservative. We know that there are LEGITIMATE purposes for the gov't to spend money. I am questioning the MORAL RIGHT that you leftists claim to other people's property. Or, to rephrase it, does the world owe you a living?
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.
So, you do admit that refusals of service occur and are not tied to hate, but to business principles. Would you also admit that people have a right to choose who they associate with?
5) No.
One word answers are not indicative of desire to engage in debate. It sounds like you're scared of saying the wrong thing. I'm sure everyone here would rather see the courage of your convictions than some mealy-mouthed response.
And followup: If I have to SUE a business to provide a service, what is their motivation to provide the best service possible? Another lawsuit? They would argue that they didn't want to do it in the first place, but the client was SO INSISTENT they sued, and I would find for the respondent if I were on that jury. Wouldn't you want the best service possible for a major event like a WEDDING?
They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines. It's an attack on Christianity
Found an article today by a Christian baker. They state that they will serve gay weddings, but will donate 100% of the revenues (not profits, revenues) to a religious freedom non-profit, and want everyone to know that is their policy.
They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines. It's an attack on Christianity^^^
They don't sue to force the businesses to provide a service. They file suit to force the business to go out of business or at least pay fines. It's an attack on Christianity
Just look how "brilliant" DUmbass buzzy really is.
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101637.0
After getting his idiot ass handed to him over and over,he runs away.
Finally in the middle of last night he pops in to show us his response.
A DUmp thread where he is safely shielded from any of us.
Thanks for proving how idiotic and chicken shit you are buzzy.
Just look how "brilliant" DUmbass buzzy really is.Today must be opposite day, Carl. Along with "Talk Like a Pirate Day", I just don't particpate.
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=101637.0
After getting his idiot ass handed to him over and over,he runs away.
Finally in the middle of last night he pops in to show us his response.
A DUmp thread where he is safely shielded from any of us.
Thanks for proving how idiotic and chicken shit you are buzzy.
Today must be opposite day, Carl. Along with "Talk Like a Pirate Day", I just don't particpate.
After spending a few days of futility attempting to discuss a book and never getting a single response dealing with the content of the book or the author, Bad Dog decided to get nostalgic and bring up Climage Gate, the email scandal surrounding the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. I told Bad Dog the issue was settled after multiple investigations, but he pleaded total ignorance to the investigations and that I was a liar. Rather than look up the information himself (or getting an assist from a small, cheering crowd), I relented and gave him two links to the panel results demonstrating full exoneration of all the scientific allegations. To which Wasp69 responded, "EAU's CRU was not exonerated of anything." This brought an orgasmic level of cheering from the adoring throng and prompted you to say, "Buzzy,you are so far in over your head and out of your league it is pathetic." Considering that Wasp69 admitted to spending all of 30 seconds examining the reports, and that he was wrong, I reluctantly re-read the reports and compiled a response outlining how I was completely correct and that Wasp69's declaration that CRU members"were found to have hidden data (by legal meas or otherwise), thwarted FOI requests, and sought to discredit those that they did not believe were going to advance their agenda" was wrong. Close on the FOIA issue, but not correct.
Knowing full well that any attempt to settle the issue here was a waste of time, I posted it at DU. You've already linked my DU posting here and in the Science Club, so you've already been to DU. Feel free to flex that intellect and take me to task. You'll note that I made no reference to our debate over here, and I will not out you or anyone else who chooses to debate the subject. Of course, you'll be unable to call me a knob gobbler or a chicken shit. Are you game or will you continue with your present approach of yelling at clouds?
Buzzy drivel snipped... This brought an orgasmic level of cheering from the adoring throng..." more Buzzy drivel snipped
Notice also buzzy that you are still allowed here,you have not been banned despite your own antics.
Pretty ironic that your reaction is to say "oh,come to the DUmp to talk",a place that any of us would be banned in one post.
Pretty typical behavior for these brave intellectuals, though, isn't it? Buzzy proves, once again, how none of them survive outside of the collective...
Quote from: BuzzClik on April 05, 2015, 12:53:20 PM
That's five questions, but who's counting? In order and renumbered:
1) The IRS by Congressional mandate
My question was not about the mechanism of taking money. The IRS didn't exist for the majority of our nation's history, so you can't claim that they are the authority. I am not even questioning the authority of the gov't to levy taxes, nor will any conservative. We know that there are LEGITIMATE purposes for the gov't to spend money. I am questioning the MORAL RIGHT that you leftists claim to other people's property. Or, to rephrase it, does the world owe you a living?
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.
So, you do admit that refusals of service occur and are not tied to hate, but to business principles. Would you also admit that people have a right to choose who they associate with?
5) No.
One word answers are not indicative of desire to engage in debate. It sounds like you're scared of saying the wrong thing. I'm sure everyone here would rather see the courage of your convictions than some mealy-mouthed response.
Next question: Do I have a right to demand a Jewish deli cater my event with cuban sandwiches and BLTs? Or force a halal butcher to sell me a pig carcass?
And followup: If I have to SUE a business to provide a service, what is their motivation to provide the best service possible? Another lawsuit? They would argue that they didn't want to do it in the first place, but the client was SO INSISTENT they sued, and I would find for the respondent if I were on that jury. Wouldn't you want the best service possible for a major event like a WEDDING?
Buzz is still hiding. Refusing to engage in a debate generally means you know your arguments are weak.
Put up or shut up, Buzz. You want a debate? I'm your huckleberry...