Friday, August 20, 2010

172 IQ, Bitches!

Doug wrote another one of those posts, where he lifts my comment and attributes it to some annonymous "Liberal commentor". He does this because he's a coward, of course. Still - he did catch me in an error of word usage in a comment that wasn't proof-read or spell checked.. therefore, his argument must be supperior to mine.

Just go read it and see if any of the incoherent ramblings make sense. I need somebody to be able to translate idiot-speak into something to argue against.

Anyway.. this is the comment I left for him.. which will, as always, get deleted.


And once again you refer to me as a "Liberal commentor". It's a weird you feel compelled to do that, over and over, and nitpicking my error in word usage in a non-proof read comment is bizare. You constantly stumble over the language in your own posts, and you dare to call me out on it? That's really damn funny. I didn't misspell "role", I used the wrong word entirely, and you're too stupid to realize that it wasn't a spelling error but a grammatical error.

Did you even read your own post before you approved it? It's barely intelligable and incoherent. There is a very long trail of case law supporting the application of the Constitution against the abuses of a majority. But then, you don't think case law really means anything anyway.

It still stands as fact that the way the government functions in this nation is very different than the way YOU think it should. It's as if everyone else is insane, except for you, Doug.

You do understand that, don't you? You do understand how fringe your view is, and how rejected it is, even from those that you think support your own ideology. For Pete's sake, John Roberts would think you were insane.

But it's everyone else that's crazy.. isn't it, Doug? Everyone else doesn't understand. Everyone else hasn't read the Constitution, nor understands it's meaning. Nobody else has read the federalist papers, or written books on it.. or spent years in study of law. It's only the very small segment of the population that understands that our government is behaving contrary to the Constitution.

In other words.. it's very difficult to make crazy people understand that they are crazy, despite their view being the slimist of a minority - even rejected by people they identify with. For me, I find it amusing that you've gone that route, and you are that far gone. That's what makes you an ideal foil.

So go ahead and critique my grammar or spelling. I didn't check either after I wrote this comment.


/bonus stupid

Doug is wondering about;

And one wonders why now one in five Americans believes Obama is a Muslim.

I don't think anyone "wonders why now one in five Americans believes Obama is a Muslim."

It is because about 20% of the population is really fuckin' stupid.

You know.. the types that think creationism is real, evolution is a fraud, and mankind dates back about 6000 years... whilst simultaneously claiming they (had) an IQ greater than Albert Einstein.

That's the kind of really unbelievably retarded that I'm talking about. And, it's "one in five Americans believe", not "believes", you stupid fuck.

3 comments:

kris said...

he does like the strawman - and even where his arguments are intelligible, they are nevertheless incomprehensible.

The arrogance is astounding. He and he know-nothing pals know more about the constitution than Scalia J himself.

Mind you, they love Thomas J - that guy really knows what he's talking about. Ok, maybe he doesn't say much on the bench, but he really tears up affirmative action!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421827466

stoopid is as stoopid does. If only someone would just recognise his genius...

Tom said...

Virtually every post is a strawman. He loves to make up what Liberal ideology espouses, and then argue against that as opposed to what anyone is actually saying. This is why he paraphrases constantly.

The annoying part is that he thinks he's making a convincing argument using that method, whilst simultaneously claiming the moral high-ground.

Honest to god.. he thinks that completely making shit up, not quoting or linking anything, and then arguing against it is the more ethical approach to political debate.

Either that, or he realizes that he's just too fucking stupid to argue against points that people are actually making.

I'm not really sure which is true.

kris said...

I'm going with stupid.

Stupid and arrogant.