Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1576

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:14 pm

Doc,



I already pointed out to lying Thomas that McElwee, a George Romney brither, would have unequivocally considered President Obama natural born. It is exactly the same as Mario Apuzzo's use of the writings of Arthur Hinman, except for being even more blatantly dishonest.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1577

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:22 pm





The guy is ill. I'm not going to mock him any more, nor engage him. I don't think he can help himself.







Maybe the example of someone saying that they are going to stop and keeping their word will encourage him to leave for good.



Personally, I'll keep engaging him because I don't believe him to be of diminished capacity. He may not have chose to be stupid or biased, but he is certainly responsible for putting his stupidity over the knowledge and expertise of others and, dumb as he is, stupidity is never an excuse for dishonesty in my book.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7085
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1578

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm



Tommy doesn't seem to have the legal understanding of Orly Taitz...Ouch....

I think Tommy is incompetent on a much deeper level that mere Stern-sigging, he doesn't have the sheer number of errors, but his mistakes are more fundamental and pervasive. Does anyone disagree?Tommy is certainly a stand-out in terms of the dissonance between his literacy (pretty fair) and his cognitive skills (practically non-existent). A stark and damn near pathological disparity. Curious.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1579

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:13 am

Wow. As dumb as you are, I'm really amazed that you have't forgotten to breathe by now.











It is irrelevant where it came from (at least as far as your dishonesty goes). You linked it, cherry picked a quote from it and made a statement that was a complete lie about it. It doesn't matter if it was written by Orly Taitz, Hitler or the Flying Spaghetti Monster herself (may her noodlely appendage embrace us all), you and only you were the one who decided to lie about it, Tommy boy.





If you scroll back in this discussion you will see that I didn't introduce Jefferson's BILL, and I did not claim it was actually a law.



And I never said that you did either of those things.



It's actually irrelevant what it says, because it was not ever a law, and the discussion was about state laws.



What is highly relevant is that you provided a link to the text, cherry picked a quote from it, and made a statement based on that quote that was a very obvious and stupid lie. Furthermore, when confronted with your lie (at the point where it could easily be considered a mistake had you acknowledged it), you decided to double down on the dishonesty by claiming that your obvious and stupid lie wasn't really an obvious and stupid lie, but something completely different.



And you're a mental deficient for indicating that my reference to it was in any way a lie.



You said that it did not include jus soli citizenship when the very first item in the list that you cherry picked a quote from granted jus soli citizenship. Jeebus Chris! Admit your stupid lie and move on, man. As you point out, it was never a law (although Thomas Jefferson's suggested template is arguably worse) so it certainly carries no force of precedent. In fact, just about the only thing it does do is to include jus soli citizenship. Which is, of course, exactly what you said it didn't do. In other words, your lie wasn't just blatant and stupid, but it was pointless as well.





Sorry, but that's another FAIL since every colony recognized jus soli before the revolution and none of them ever changed their law afterwards (and with the ratification of the Constitution, it was implicitly made universal by the use of the English common law term "natural born").



Your indication that every colony recognized "jus soli" is as misrepresentative of truth as it is deliberately dishonest.



OF COURSE every "COLONY" recognized jus soli as they forced to operate under the decree of the Crown, which operated under those Medieval principles. What "every colony" operated under is irrelevant.



Not at all. There was an enormous continuity of law. In fact, everything that wasn't specifically changed stayed the same (that, by the way, is pretty much a tautology---not that I expect that will stop you from making a fool of yourself trying to deny it). When did a native-born child of aliens stop being natural born? We know that, for example, in New York it never did---Julia Lynch was ruled a citizen and the native-born child of transient aliens was specifically considered to be eligible for the presidency. Too also, we know that Florida explicitly adopted the English common law as of the Declaration of Independence, so Calvin's case would still be a valid precedent enshrining jus soli, thus such a child would be natural born in Florida as well. Truth is, none of the states explicitly broke from the common law principle established in Calvin's case and, therefore, it is still in force today (as indicated by the SCOTUS precedent on the matter, Wong Kim Ark).



Not only did every State change their laws, but changed the very root of sovereign authority itself.



Uh huh. So exactly what laws do you think changed? Give us some examples. Because, if you can't, it seems unlikely that citizenship, and only citizenship, underwent some mystical and completely undocumented change.



However upon independence, no STATE operated under Jus Soli at all, not one. Each State recognized its own soil, obviously in recognition of its own borders, but that recognition of "soil" is not at all the same as operating by Medieval "jus soil" citizenship, which none recognized.



If it is so "medieval", why is it the principle followed by nearly the entire hemisphere, including the US? Why did President Madison, President Jefferson, and the New York Chancery Court seem to think it applied to the US? Why did the Framers of the 14th Amendment think that the citizenship clause, which codifies jus soli citizenship, merely explained the existing law? Sorry, but the only place jus soli isn't recognized is in your febrile imagination.

After independence, the only commonality of citizenship that each State shared was that of recognizing those born on the State's soil of parents who were citizens, as citizens themselves. In other words, the only commonality among the states was recognizing natural born citizens as citizens.Uh huh. And again, where are the law which show this to be the case? The differing definitions of citizenship of which you speak?





Nope, I make provocative statements which are based on facts to try to lure fools into saying stupid things. It's almost unsporting with you---you are more than capable of saying abysmally stupid things all on your own...





The claim that Obama was white, as a result of his mother, and this was commonly recognized, is not only stupid, but also, by your own admission, irrelevant. You should actually try to engage and honest and direct discussion.



Again, determining race is necessary to determine citizenship. President Obama's ancestor was a "white" child (and citizen at birth) of a black man and a white woman while the children of Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson were "black" even though President Jefferson was under US jurisdiction when they were born (even overseas as he held a diplomatic post).





That's a swing and a miss, Tommy. The "law" in question (whatever its origin) makes all WHITE people born in the commonwealth citizens. Furthermore, until Scott v. Sandford was overturned by the 14th Amendment, we know that no BLACK people enjoyed jus soli citizenship. Thus, to all but the incurably stupid, race was critical to determining citizenship before the Reformation Amendments.





While you're moving the goalposts all over, let me remind you of your own original claim:



SLARTI: "A curious and interesting fact, under this law, President Obama would have been a natural born citizen. At the time, a child's race followed that of their mother---so President Obama would have been considered white."



Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. Under that statute (real or not) and the laws of the time a native born child of a white US citizen mother and a black alien father would have been considered "white" and born a citizen.





Furthermore, until Gray rewrote the 14th Amendment, no people of ANY race enjoyed "jus soli" citizenship at all, anywhere, not in any one of the States!



Except for people in Florida, Connecticut, Tennessee, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont and Virginia (and maybe other states), according to Ballantine (a much more credible source than a liar like yourself). That's 9 of the original 13.



Your reference to Jefferson's bill, was in fact no "law" at all. It was a BILL template for each of the States to use. Given this fact, that BILL did not "make" anyone anything. But more relevant to your particular indication about "race", that BILL most certainly did not address making Obama a "white", or "Caucasian" and it's just silly to suppose any law would involve doing anything similar.



I said that in the time of the Founders he would have been considered "white" (as one of his ancestors with similar heritage was) and that would have been the key factor to whether or not he was held to be a citizen. Obviously he would have been considered "negro" at the time of his birth and, legally, that would have no impact on his citizenship status, although it seems unlikely that his natural born citizenship would ever have been questioned, had he been considered "white".



To those who're actually paying attention to History, the failure to recognize blacks as humans, had nothing to do with citizenship at all, and more to do with societal norms.



And the laws were promulgated to uphold those norms (by, for instance, considering the children born of white women to be white).





The terms of citizenship did not have to be entirely rewritten to recognize blacks as both humans and citizens, and very few actual citizenship laws ever referenced race.



Then can you explain why President Obama's ancestor (black father white mother) was considered white and a citizen and Thomas Jefferson's children were considered black and were slaves?



It's amusing as hell to watch you argue out of both sides of your mouth, in order to praise a non-law Bill for promoting citizenship from mere birth on soil, to then condemn the same non-law Bill for its reference to whites only, and then try to crowbar a reference to Obama being white by some contortion that only has validity in your own head. Do you have any clue at all how silly you sound?



You, sir, are an idiot if you think the straw men you just made have anything to do with my position. I neither praised nor condemned the bill---I only noted that you lied about it. Nor did I say the President Obama is white---just that he would have been considered white if born in the Founders' time. An interesting historical curiosity, nothing more. At least until you started lying about it, Tommy.





Wrong again, idiot. The race of the child followed the race of the mother, not the father, in the time of the Founders. Since anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would understand why this should be the case, let me explain it to you. They needed a rule which would be easy to apply (even you should realize that maternity is much easier to establish than paternity at birth---even more so back then) and wouldn't make the bastard children of slaveowners into citizens (you may recall the reason that there are many African-Americans named "Jefferson"). The easiest, most sensible rule was: black babies come out of black mommies and white babies come out of white mommies.



Slarti, please DO specifically provide direct reference to the Law that a child follows the "RACE" (not "citizenship") of the Mother. I wanna see this law.



I don't have a law, I have two examples: the ancestor of Dr. Dunham, born to a white woman and a black man and considered "white" and the children of Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson were considered "black". Can you explain that?



Now you're backtracking, moving the goalposts yet again, now calling it a "rule", when you originally referenced a "law".



As I said above, I don't know what the rationale was, just the effect. That being the case, I shouldn't have said "law" as I don't know for sure that there was one. (by the way, that's what an honest person does when they make a mistake---you could have saved yourself an enormous amount of grief by simply doing that a couple of times.

While there may have been some sort of custom, it was not any sort of law.



Possibly, but what you can't deny is the fact that children were considered to follow the race of their mothers.



You should probably let all your cohorts know who are saying that Obama is the "first black President," that they're liars. I've no doubt that Reverend Manning would be amused as hell by this, because he's been making that statement about Obama all along.



Please, now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Societal norms change (and are different in different places). The perceived race of someone with President Obama's birth circumstances has changed since the founding.





How do I know this? It was reported (early in his presidency) that President Obama was the descendant of the first recorded slave in Virginia---through Dr. Dunham, his mother.



Yes, and Obama even claimed that his parents met and fell in love during the original Selma march -- when that Selma march occurred in 1965, and Obama was born in 1961. It's curious that the membership here, who are so quick to label things lies, would be so relectant to recognize Obama a liar.



It's simple: you have proven yourself a liar, President Obama hasn't. The Selma thing has already been debunked upthread.

You need to actually question your sources, and not just throw out irrelevant nonsense.And you need to slow down on the irony and hypocrisy.





Okay, then please explain why the children of Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson didn't follow the condition of their father (although the 4 that survived were all eventually freed). That's called a counter-example you putz and, in an honest and rational person, generally lead to an acknowledgement and a retraction of the contradicted statement. From experience, you will probably either ignore it or double down on the stupid.





The PATRIARCHY reference deals with citizenship, NOT with any sort of determination of offspring being a certain race.



You are the one who brought up patriarchy, not me, so you can figure out how it fits into the discussion yourself.



Sure, the children of a slave were born into slavery themselves, but that was not dependent on the color of the womb.Then why wasn't President Obama's ancestor considered a slave?







"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1580

Post by BillTheCat » Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:06 pm

Stunning, but totally expected from the lying shitweasel. I went away for 5 days, and lo and behold - 26 more pages of fully-refuted and stomped-down nonsense from someone worse at interpreting law than Orly. :lol: I mean, fucking WOW. And kudos to whoever "helped" the liar out with his fancy new signature *smirk*, well deserved. :-bd



Impressed you all put up with the internet nobody for all this time.... I have too low of a tolerance for his brand of dumb.



Edit: Wow, is he actually going to tell the truth for once and go away forever?



About fucking TIME, loonytoon. Don't let the door hit ya where biology split ya! :wave:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1581

Post by Flatpointhigh » Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:56 pm

The dumb is stunning with that last query.



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1582

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:26 pm

Flatpointhigh,



Actually, I think that the dumb was stunning all the way through, we just had to dig down a little to become aware of the nuances.



Bill the Cat,



Whether this is just a hiatus or he's gone for good, Tommy's indecisive flouncing has robbed his exit of anything but a faint, lingering odor of failure. We don't need to know if he got distracted by something shiny, finally realized that all of his lies had destroyed his credibility beyond hope of redemption or found some benighted corner of the internet with people that are stupid and prejudiced enough to believe him, we can just be glad not to have the FEMA camp befouled with his logorrhea anymore.



Tommy,



If you are reading this (and I'm pretty sure that you are too vain and arrogant not to be), I just wanted to finish off a last little piece of business to illustrate why, even if birther positions had equal merit, anti-birthers and the Fogbow in particular would be much more effective. Because I'd been talking about it, someone PM'ed me information regarding laws about the race of children. It turns out that the Wikipedia article on Virginia says the following:



Slavery first appears in Virginia statutes in 1661 and 1662, when a law made it hereditary based on the mother's status.



Too also, they found this about Maryland:



A 1662 law decreed that the children of slaves took on the status of their mother, in contrast to common law, which conferred the father’s status on a child. The law was intended to enslave the increasing number of children fathered by white men.



Maryland legalized slavery in 1663 and attempted to pass a law that would enslave free blacks and require that all blacks be slaves regardless of their mother’s status; in the following year, Maryland punished marriage between a white woman and a slave by requiring that she serve her husband’s master during her husband’s lifetime and that their children would be slaves.





So whether or not you decide to return Tommy, ponder this: the one thing I have that you will never be able to match is friends. And, what's more, competent, capable friends who are willing to help me out.



To further show Tommy how useful having friends can be, could one of the lawyerly types please explain "seraphim" opinions? (or whatever the hell Tommy was talking about---I can't remember how it was spelled and I've got spilling issues too also)



Thanking the boogle in advance.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1583

Post by Dr. Caligari » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:04 pm

To further show Tommy how useful having friends can be, could one of the lawyerly types please explain "seraphim" opinions? (or whatever the hell Tommy was talking about---I can't remember how it was spelled and I've got spilling issues too also)



In the early years of the Supreme Court, the Court used "seriatim" (meaning "one at a time") opinions-- each justice delivered their own opinion. (For example, here is the case of Hylton v. United States, a 1796 case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal tax law: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr ). You would count up the votes and see who won the case, but no one justice's opinion carried the weight of binding precedent. (In Hylton, for example, four justices agreed that a tax on carriages wasn't an unconstitutional "direct tax," but they all offered slightly different versions of what a "direct tax" is.)



When John Marshall became Chief Justice in 1801, he changed that to the system we have today-- the justices first vote privately; one justice on the winning side writes an "opinion of the Court"; the other justices do not write unless they are dissenting, or concurring (agreeing with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason). This means that the "opinion of the Court" has more prestige, and is binding precedent on lower courts.


J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11941
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1584

Post by Plutodog » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:04 pm

"Faint" lingering odor?






The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1585

Post by BillTheCat » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:24 pm

We should call Service Pro in to fumigate.



"Like it never happened" :)


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1586

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:32 pm





We should call Service Pro in to fumigate.



"Like it never happened" :)







We should wait a bit to make sure he's really gone so we don't have to fumigate twice, though.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1587

Post by bob » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:59 pm

We should wait a bit to make sure he's really gone so we don't have to fumigate twice, though.Last active: Dec. 29, 10:14 PM (UTC).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1588

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:05 pm

Too (not also) early to declare him MIA then.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Barnzibul
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:27 pm
Location: Near as I can tell, that might be Utah over yonder

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1589

Post by Barnzibul » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:22 am



McCann must be used to talking and writing to people who merely accept his word without reading his allegedly supporting material -- because they want to believe his lies.

I think McCann is mentally ill. He seems to be completely detached from reality.



To be honest, I haven't been reading Limp Brain's messages since early on when he made it abundantly clear he's a racist asshole. He very well may be insane too. I can't be arsed to check.

I have been reading most of the responses by Fogbowzers though, as they are entertaining, enlightening, educational, amusing, and thoughtful. Also, too, they make sense.

Fortunately for humankind, LB has never had any power or influence and never will. If he ever says anything important, somebody PM me.



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11941
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1590

Post by Plutodog » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:50 am

Looks like Limp Britches finally figured out he wasn't making a lot of impact and went on home. We can wear down even long-winded filibustering trolls like him. His daddy would have been ashamed proud. Buh bye.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4983
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1591

Post by Slim Cognito » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:01 am

I lurk at the OAS forum where he used to argue with brain-dead Gray Ghost. Since GG obviously didn't have two brain cells to rub together, scoring points was easy as pie for LB. I think his ability to spell and use proper grammar made him overly confident he could spin the locals here just as easily. Too bad he didn't use this as a learning experience.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5968
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1592

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:23 am





I lurk at the OAS forum where he used to argue with brain-dead Gray Ghost. Since GG obviously didn't have two brain cells to rub together, scoring points was easy as pie for LB. I think his ability to spell and use proper grammar made him overly confident he could spin the locals here just as easily. [hlyellow]Too bad he didn't use this as a learning experience.[/hlyellow]





Mebbe, but the RWNJ motto is that "learning is for losers".



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34493
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1593

Post by realist » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:36 am

If LB is gone, then why are we still hanging out.



Just sayin'. 8>


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15757
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1594

Post by Suranis » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:47 am

The couches are comfy. And we are eating all his food. And the place is warm after all the hot air that was expelled in here.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1595

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:20 am

I have reason to believe that someone whose theories are comparably stupid to Loose Britches, whose verbosity and inexplicable self-regard are an equal match, and who himself (not his daddy) attended Haah-vahd, is about to grace us with his presence.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1596

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:29 pm





I have reason to believe that someone whose theories are comparably stupid to Loose Britches, whose verbosity and inexplicable self-regard are an equal match, and who himself (not his daddy) attended Haah-vahd, is about to grace us with his presence.







After the drubbing his ideological compatriot here just took? Mkay, please proceed, true believer. -xx



Edit: OMG I just realized/saw who you are talking about. Everything old is new again! :lol: At least he's not as obnoxious as Luft Balloon. (Actually I may be wrong about who it is, but I noticed who is listed as our newest member so I figured... but that was 2 days ago.)


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1597

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:46 pm

Well, he's old and not smart... might take him a while to post. But we've seen what happens once he starts.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1598

Post by SueDB » Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:56 pm

mebbe they are just rotating the old nutters.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1599

Post by Northland10 » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:13 pm

I lurk at the OAS forum where he used to argue with brain-dead Gray Ghost. Since GG obviously didn't have two brain cells to rub together, scoring points was easy as pie for LB. I think his ability to spell and use proper grammar made him overly confident he could spin the locals here just as easily. Too bad he didn't use this as a learning experience.



He already played the same game with some of us on John Woodman's blog. He didn't learn then, he won't learn now. He is not interested in learning anything.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1600

Post by SueDB » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:15 pm

And in the end, it will be a sparsely attended funeral. So sad... :-({|=


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”