The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Granted, I made a stupid post, but I just didn't want to make a less stupid one.

Precisely!

[Peeperkorn]

Mapmaker Virgins hate JFK's sex appeal? How surprising.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mapmaker Virgins hate JFK's sex appeal? How surprising.

Uh, who are you? If I am going to be insulted, can I at least be insulted by Al or Oakvale or Grumps or somebody I know?

[Peeperkorn]

Mapmaker Virgins hate JFK's sex appeal? How surprising.

Uh, who are you? If I am going to be insulted, can I at least be insulted by Al or Oakvale or Grumps or somebody I know?

No.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mapmaker Virgins hate JFK's sex appeal? How surprising.

Uh, who are you? If I am going to be insulted, can I at least be insulted by Al or Oakvale or Grumps or somebody I know?

No.

Ok, I guess you will do. Continue as planned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Posting here for implying that Bushie is normal:

so we once had normal people as mods?  now all we have are self righteous asses.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Just for the record, the shooter was not a TSA employee, just a nutjob (and probable NRA member) who railed against "fiat currency" and the "NWO" and of course saw the TSA as perfect embodiment of that. 

http://news.yahoo.com/note-suspect-wanted-kill-least-one-officer-202838706.html

Paultards with guns can be dangerous.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Going back to the JFK kerfuffle:

Max, I understand your grandma's predicament during JFK's presidency, but to be frank...there are other ways of viewing a Presidency. My grandmother is currently living on foodstamps and medicare, and that does not greatly alter my view of Obama. Granted, I dislike Obama to begin with, but the fact that my grandmother is not financially stable is not the President's fault. JFK prevented WWIII, he didn't cause it. His willingness to approach the Cuban Missile Crisis in the diplomatic fashion that he did ultimately spared the world of a global conflict. Did he nearly drop the ball on it? Sure. But you can't say Nixon would have handled it better, and I'd go far enough to say that a Nixon presidency in 1960 would have caused WWIII without a doubt. JFK was President for just under 3 years, so he didn't have the opportunity to enact a full-scale plan to increase the United States' economic standing. TLDR, you cannot blame JFK for your grandmother's unfortunate situation, just like I can't blame Obama for my grandmother's unfortunate situation. You have to look at the presidency as a whole, and JFK did more good than harm in the short time he was President.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marijuana obviously. It actually has a purpose and is basically harmless, unlike tobacco, which is disgusting, harmful and absolutely useless.

Going back to the JFK kerfuffle:

Max, I understand your grandma's predicament during JFK's presidency, but to be frank...there are other ways of viewing a Presidency. My grandmother is currently living on foodstamps and medicare, and that does not greatly alter my view of Obama. Granted, I dislike Obama to begin with, but the fact that my grandmother is not financially stable is not the President's fault. JFK prevented WWIII, he didn't cause it. His willingness to approach the Cuban Missile Crisis in the diplomatic fashion that he did ultimately spared the world of a global conflict. Did he nearly drop the ball on it? Sure. But you can't say Nixon would have handled it better, and I'd go far enough to say that a Nixon presidency in 1960 would have caused WWIII without a doubt. JFK was President for just under 3 years, so he didn't have the opportunity to enact a full-scale plan to increase the United States' economic standing. TLDR, you cannot blame JFK for your grandmother's unfortunate situation, just like I can't blame Obama for my grandmother's unfortunate situation. You have to look at the presidency as a whole, and JFK did more good than harm in the short time he was President.

I'm not judging his presidency on my grandmothers circumstances. Just making a comparision that I find amusing. I have plenty of reasons why I think Kennedy was a horrible President; in fact, I am writing an English paper on the subject that is coming up due soon.

This ain't the place to debate Kennedy, but I am a Nixon buff and I am quite sure that he would have handled everything better, as vile and disgusting as he was.

Anyway, here is a gem from BRTD. I'm not ant-pot, I just despise BRTD's logic.

Marijuana obviously. It actually has a purpose and is basically harmless, unlike tobacco, which is disgusting, harmful and absolutely useless.

[Kitteh]

Marijuana obviously. It actually has a purpose and is basically harmless, unlike tobacco, which is disgusting, harmful and absolutely useless.

Going back to the JFK kerfuffle:

Max, I understand your grandma's predicament during JFK's presidency, but to be frank...there are other ways of viewing a Presidency. My grandmother is currently living on foodstamps and medicare, and that does not greatly alter my view of Obama. Granted, I dislike Obama to begin with, but the fact that my grandmother is not financially stable is not the President's fault. JFK prevented WWIII, he didn't cause it. His willingness to approach the Cuban Missile Crisis in the diplomatic fashion that he did ultimately spared the world of a global conflict. Did he nearly drop the ball on it? Sure. But you can't say Nixon would have handled it better, and I'd go far enough to say that a Nixon presidency in 1960 would have caused WWIII without a doubt. JFK was President for just under 3 years, so he didn't have the opportunity to enact a full-scale plan to increase the United States' economic standing. TLDR, you cannot blame JFK for your grandmother's unfortunate situation, just like I can't blame Obama for my grandmother's unfortunate situation. You have to look at the presidency as a whole, and JFK did more good than harm in the short time he was President.

I'm not judging his presidency on my grandmothers circumstances. Just making a comparision that I find amusing. I have plenty of reasons why I think Kennedy was a horrible President; in fact, I am writing an English paper on the subject that is coming up due soon.

This ain't the place to debate Kennedy, but I am a Nixon buff and I am quite sure that he would have handled everything better, as vile and disgusting as he was.

Anyway, here is a gem from BRTD. I'm not ant-pot, I just despise BRTD's logic.

Marijuana obviously. It actually has a purpose and is basically harmless, unlike tobacco, which is disgusting, harmful and absolutely useless.

[Lief 🗽]

Our society is eventually going to go down one of two paths; the brothel or the burqa. My money's on the burqa.

[TNF]

Manchin. Just take a look at his face, it cries "inbreeding".

[H. Ross Peron]

Real conservatives are very ambitious and love to run in primaries. But that way we end up splitting the vote. The RINOs almost always automatically take 33% or so of the Republican electorate who will vote for the most RINO candidate possible.  These are the types that equate moderatism with electability, something that isn't true with Republican presidents in recent history.

This candidate is usually supported by elites and the donors. They are able to squeak over the finish line because the rest of us can't get our act together. The ONLY time real conservatives have won, such as Reagan, is when we united against the RINO candidate.

Christie is basically a liberal Democrat, and quite frankly, I am done with the RINOs.  I will stay home if a conservative is not nominated at this time, because I see no difference between the Republicrats and the Demicans anymore, it's AMERICA vs liberal one party oligarchy!!!

Look what's going on in Virginia. GOP elite want the Cuccinelli loss, that's why they starved him of donations against Moneybag McAuliffe.  They are salivating over the potential "Moderate, pragmatic people's man Christie wins big while right wing Christian Cuccinelli loses"

The RINOs control all the purse strings.  But we don't have to vote for them anymore just because they have an R after their name!

lol

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But you know, pots somehow cool. It only alters your mind. I know a guy who I once went to school with who was smoking pot and ran over somebody. But that's not that big of a deal, I guess .

Let's ban alcohol then.

How about legalize everything?

Including smothering libertarians with pillows?

[Maxwell]

But you know, pots somehow cool. It only alters your mind. I know a guy who I once went to school with who was smoking pot and ran over somebody. But that's not that big of a deal, I guess .

Let's ban alcohol then.

How about legalize everything?

Including smothering libertarians with pillows?

But aren't Libertarians heartless elites who want to throw bricks at poors?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But you know, pots somehow cool. It only alters your mind. I know a guy who I once went to school with who was smoking pot and ran over somebody. But that's not that big of a deal, I guess .

Let's ban alcohol then.

How about legalize everything?

Including smothering libertarians with pillows?

But aren't Libertarians heartless elites who want to throw bricks at poors?

Yes.

Teddy had a green avatar too, and he threatened to kill a forum member once.  I'm growing suspicious.

[Leftbehind]

lol a tongue in cheek remark makes it into the Deluge, because Sanchez wants to promote himself.

But aren't Libertarians heartless elites who want to throw bricks economic servitude at poors?

Absolutely.

Wouldn't voted for Joseama Bin Zapatero-Chavez-Galloway, the leader of Project for a Islamic Socialist Workers Caliphate.

[memphis]

establishing sexual compatibility

"Sexual compatibility" as a static construct that people either have or don't have is a myth. Any couple in a healthy relationship where both parties communicate and compromise as needed are able to create sexual compatibility.

The chemistry is either there or not. Suggesting otherwise makes me wonder if one has ever felt any attraction to another person.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Anybody who can overcome their childhood religious abuse is a major FF in my book. Much less so, if it's to join a different sect though.

[RI]

establishing sexual compatibility

"Sexual compatibility" as a static construct that people either have or don't have is a myth. Any couple in a healthy relationship where both parties communicate and compromise as needed are able to create sexual compatibility.

The chemistry is either there or not. Suggesting otherwise makes me wonder if one has ever felt any attraction to another person.

lol. Chemistry and attraction do not require having sex to confirm.

[memphis]

establishing sexual compatibility

"Sexual compatibility" as a static construct that people either have or don't have is a myth. Any couple in a healthy relationship where both parties communicate and compromise as needed are able to create sexual compatibility.

The chemistry is either there or not. Suggesting otherwise makes me wonder if one has ever felt any attraction to another person.

lol. Chemistry and attraction do not require having sex to confirm.

I never said that they did. Only that suggesting that any two people are potentially sexually compatible if they'll just work on is so ridiculously naïve that only somebody who has never experienced attraction could suggest it.

[RI]

establishing sexual compatibility

"Sexual compatibility" as a static construct that people either have or don't have is a myth. Any couple in a healthy relationship where both parties communicate and compromise as needed are able to create sexual compatibility.

The chemistry is either there or not. Suggesting otherwise makes me wonder if one has ever felt any attraction to another person.

lol. Chemistry and attraction do not require having sex to confirm.

I never said that they did. Only that suggesting that any two people are potentially sexually compatible if they'll just work on is so ridiculously naïve that only somebody who has never experienced attraction could suggest it.

Um, ok. We clearly disagree. I don't believe people have predefined sexual scripts that they are bound to. My point is that sexual compatibility is created by a couple, not something exogenous to a relationship. People may bring sexual baggage into a relationship, but, in a mature relationship, it can be overcome and remade. The only requirements are communication, commitment, realistic expectations, and an ability to compromise on the part of both partners. Any other problems tend to be manifestations of other non-sexual parts of a relationship or one of the partners' own issues that can usually be resolved through counseling, etc.

If the "chemistry" wasn't there in the first place, the relationship unlikely will be given time to become a mature relationship. However, once it is there, chemistry transforms into intimacy, and it is thereafter irrelevant. Sexual chemistry is not the basis of a strong relationship.

[Flake]

Wasn't this thread originally about bad posts?

[RI]

I never said that they did. Only that suggesting that any two people are potentially sexually compatible if they'll just work on is so ridiculously naïve that only somebody who has never experienced attraction could suggest it.

Also, your insult(?) is really misplaced. I'm getting married in two months. Furthermore, I've had my share of relationships. I know what it is to be attracted to someone. I know what it's like to be in a relationship where chemistry wasn't there, and when it was. I'm not saying any two people can establish sexual and relational compatibility, but any two people can given certain circumstances and attitudes. When there wasn't chemistry, there was little incentive to work on the relationship. There were very incomplete communication skills, and compatibility requires openness, acceptance, and the ability to articulate what you want and need. You don't need to have sex to know if a relationship has these things. I know of no reason why two people in a mature relationship, preferably a marriage or similar state, can not establish compatibility if they both sincerely wish to do so.

[courts]

I never said that they did. Only that suggesting that any two people are potentially sexually compatible if they'll just work on is so ridiculously naïve that only somebody who has never experienced attraction could suggest it.

Also, your insult(?) is really misplaced. I'm getting married in two months. Furthermore, I've had my share of relationships. I know what it is to be attracted to someone. I know what it's like to be in a relationship where chemistry wasn't there, and when it was. I'm not saying any two people can establish sexual and relational compatibility, but any two people can given certain circumstances and attitudes. When there wasn't chemistry, there was little incentive to work on the relationship. There were very incomplete communication skills, and compatibility requires openness, acceptance, and the ability to articulate what you want and need. You don't need to have sex to know if a relationship has these things. I know of no reason why two people in a mature relationship, preferably a marriage or similar state, can not establish compatibility if they both sincerely wish to do so.

no