Coastal Fishing Forums: AllCoast banner

1 - 20 of 221 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
The US EPA released its ruling on glyphosate, the weed killing ingredient in Roundup. The EPA judged glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans".

Guidelines provide for one of 5 findings in matters like these as follows:

Carcinogenic to Humans
 Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
 Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
 Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
 Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

The EPA has judged that sufficient evidence exists to place glyphosate in the lowest tier.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pesticides-glyphosate/u-s-epa-says-glyphosate-not-likely-to-be-carcinogenic-to-people-idUSKBN1EE2XH


This follows on the heels of the European Commission last month issuing a 5 year permit for glyphosate in Europe. The EC had delayed issuing the permit over a study from the WHO that labeled glyphosate as a carcinogen. However, a recent Reuter's investigation into the finding found the WHO had deleted all the exculpatory data that indicated it was safe to arrive at its conclusion.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
Lmao!!!!

mogandave - Oh the irony

pez - indeed
ps - yer daddies not only have y'all believing their sheesh
y'all are gurguling roundup whilst singing praises to y'all's oppressors
Inverted Totalitarianism is very effective
Right?
ROTMFFLMMFACFO
Seen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
"Right" on schedule

mogandave - Oh the buffoonery

pez - the more y'all call buffoonery the more "IT" sheeshes
Imagine that
ps - I'm not surprised BobO thinks "ITS" great
Yer apparent allegance is based on what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
mogandave - Oh the buffoonery
pez - the more y'all call buffoonery the more "IT" sheeshes
Imagine that
ps - I'm not surprised BobO thinks "ITS" great
Yer apparent allegance is based on what?[/QUOTE]

Data indicates this decision will save lives. If you think the data is bad. . . .then stop being such a lazy puke and go out and get better data. Oh thats right you think you deserve to have somebody else get the data for you. LOL! Enjoy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
Numbers add up to nuttin

mogandave - Arithmetic.

Yours?

pez - common sense
Sheesh
ps - a priori
pps - who's numbers?
Monsantos?
EPA?
CDC?
Y'all's inability to grok the fact that monsanto owns all them alleged gov agencies
and 99.9% of the pols on both alleged sides
is telling
No?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
I feel sorry for y'all

pez - the more y'all call buffoonery the more "IT" sheeshes
Imagine that
ps - I'm not surprised BobO thinks "ITS" great
Yer apparent allegance is based on what?

Data indicates this decision will save lives.

pez - who's data?

If you think the data is bad. . . .then stop being such a lazy puke and go out and get better data. Oh thats right you think you deserve to have somebody else get the data for you.

pez - the only data set needed to satisfy my needs to ascertain the validity of my opinion
is your, and now MD's, opinion.

LOL! Enjoy!

pez - one obvious indicator of zealotry is the obvious existential threat any deviation from the official story engenders in yer spew.
Seen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
pez - the more y'all call buffoonery the more "IT" sheeshes
Imagine that
ps - I'm not surprised BobO thinks "ITS" great
Yer apparent allegance is based on what?

Data indicates this decision will save lives.
pez - who's data?
I have simply noted that no study has been completed that links glyphosate to cancer. The data that suggests strongly it will save lives is the number of people in the world still starving. The profit motive accomplishes an abundance of food while oppressive regulation suppresses the abundance.

I am still interesting in hearing the whole story with your foray into caballing. Since you were in the abalone business I would expect that oppressive regulation is a big part of the story. Tell me about it. If you don't want the public to hear email me.


If you think the data is bad. . . .then stop being such a lazy puke and go out and get better data. Oh thats right you think you deserve to have somebody else get the data for you.
pez - the only data set needed to satisfy my needs to ascertain the validity of my opinion
is your, and now MD's, opinion.
And you think you can't be gamed on that?


LOL! Enjoy!
pez - one obvious indicator of zealotry is the obvious existential threat any deviation from the official story engenders in yer spew.
Seen
I am not a fan of pesticides or herbicides. However, I less of a fan of human suffering. I don't see the entire world revolving around me. You are certainly free to believe anything you want. Where I see the problem arising is when you support forcing somebody else to believe what you believe without clear evidence of harm. I am a believer that at the point where you move from making personal choices to advocating making scientifically poorly supported choices for others, thats where you enter the world of the cabal actually become a part of IT and earn a reserved spot for yourself on the bozo bus.

If you want to earn sympathy from me for your point of view you need to describe how not regulating glyphosate negatively affects you personally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
and in and on and on and on

I have simply noted that no study has been completed that links glyphosate to cancer.

pez - yer either lying, haven't looked past yer official spewport,'or automatically discount anythink that conflicts with what y'all already believe
or all three and then some

The data that suggests strongly it will save lives is the number of people in the world still starving. The profit motive accomplishes an abundance of food while oppressive regulation suppresses the abundance.

pez - right
sheesh

I am still interesting in hearing the whole story with your foray into caballing. Since you were in the abalone business I would expect that oppressive regulation is a big part of the story. Tell me about it. If you don't want the public to hear email me.

pez - I was cabaling decades before abaloning. Upon realizing whom I was really involved with, personally profiting wildly from, and providing profits for whilst "owning" the alleged oppressive regulators
I walked

And you think you can't be gamed on that?

pez - yer in over yer head BobO. Stop whilst yer ahead

I am not a fan of pesticides or herbicides. However, I less of a fan of human suffering.

pez - propaganda

I don't see the entire world revolving around me.

pez - correct! Y'all see "IT" revolving around yer daddies
sheesh

You are certainly free to believe anything you want.

pez - thanks

Where I see the problem arising is when you support forcing somebody else to believe what you believe without clear evidence of harm.

pez - y'all's criteria is askewed by propaganda
sheesh

I am a believer

pez - should read "...true believer..."

that at the point where you move from making personal choices to advocating making scientifically poorly supported choices for others, thats where you enter the world of the cabal actually become a part of IT and earn a reserved spot for yourself on the bozo bus.

pez - oh the MF irony! There "IT" is in all "ITS" insideousness!!!! Freaking incredible!!!!
So I should trust monsantos model of their sheesh is so safe that they shouldn't be required by oppressive regulation to label their sheesh so I am able to exercise my free choice to eat or not eat their sheesh?!?!?!?
Y'all's fealty is PITIFUL
AND inverted beyond the pale er uh bend
Bend over BobO and take "IT" like a man!
Fer y'all's daddy!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO time infinity!!!!
PITIFUL
to say nuttin of the hypocrisy

If you want to earn sympathy from me for your point of view

pez - not looking fer y'all's sympathy
at all
ever

you need to describe how not regulating glyphosate negatively affects you personally.

pez - y'all mean besides not being allowed to exercise my alleged free choice to not eat that sheesh and add to the coffers of monsanto and their minions?
Yer full of "IT" BobO
Perfect example of Inverted Totalitarianism in the flesh!!!
Yer sympathy is for bottom line profits of the cabal
and yer apologetic hoop jumping is sad
Phoot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I have simply noted that no study has been completed that links glyphosate to cancer.
pez - yer either lying, haven't looked past yer official spewport,'or automatically discount anythink that conflicts with what y'all already believe
or all three and then some
No Pez, I know statistics. A good study will involve statistics being properly applied and evaluated. There are many many things that statistics are not appropriate for at all.
There are many things where statistics is almost entirely unreliable but statistics can give you a starting place that "might" shorten the effort to find an answer. Then there is misapplied statistics where statistics gives you an unreliable hint and you improperly assume its fact.

In the last scenario sometimes the approach is to try other statistical tests to see if you can bolster the probabilities. Sometimes when you do that you get negative results. The EU Commission and the EPA found that WHO had hidden those negative results and went with the results that only hinted. Thats fraud. The scientists in WHO that did it should be fired.

Now to be clear I don't know if WHO committed fraud or not. I haven't studied the case. I do know the results were weak and they were characterized by WHO as weak. So from my point of view glyphosate should not have been regulated and the regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agreed. What happens in places like WHO when statistical results are cherry picked is what is known as Post Normal Science where the idea is to shift the burden of proof to Monsanto to prove safety to a higher level of certainty. I disagree with that.

When you shut down progress because of uncertainty you also shut down learning.

A big fan of Post Normal Science would contend that the people should not be guinea pigs, even while the choice remains for each person to decide for himself if he is going to consume products not certified as not being exposed to glyphosate.

Fact Pez, life is but one big experiment. We are guinea pigs each and every day experimenting with our own choices. You are such a grumpy hermit that that you could give a whit that anybody has choices or anybody has the balls to experiment, or that anybody even learns anything because its obvious you cannot.




The data that suggests strongly it will save lives is the number of people in the world still starving. The profit motive accomplishes an abundance of food while oppressive regulation suppresses the abundance.
pez - right
sheesh
Yes




I am still interesting in hearing the whole story with your foray into caballing. Since you were in the abalone business I would expect that oppressive regulation is a big part of the story. Tell me about it. If you don't want the public to hear email me.
pez - I was cabaling decades before abaloning. Upon realizing whom I was really involved with, personally profiting wildly from, and providing profits for whilst "owning" the alleged oppressive regulators
I walked
Thats what I am interested in. What did you do for the cabal? And why did you walk away.


And you think you can't be gamed on that?
pez - yer in over yer head BobO. Stop whilst yer ahead
I get your point but you said if MD and myself agree on something you know its false. If I were to say you are a nice guy and MD agrees with me would you dispute that?



I am not a fan of pesticides or herbicides. However, I less of a fan of human suffering.
pez - propaganda
Sorry Pez only when living in a cloud of mind altering smoke does one actually believe there isn't two sides to every story.



I don't see the entire world revolving around me.
pez - correct! Y'all see "IT" revolving around yer daddies
sheesh
Well read the rest of the responses and it will be obvious who is having it revolve around their daddy.



You are certainly free to believe anything you want.
pez - thanks
You are welcome.










Where I see the problem arising is when you support forcing somebody else to believe what you believe without clear evidence of harm.
pez - y'all's criteria is askewed by propaganda
sheesh
We would not have wars if we didn't believe somebody else should believe what we believe. Have you been so inculcated that you are unaware of that? The standard is supposed to be not to go to war except in defense against harm. Your standard would be all out war all the time. Oh thats right you are into non-violent conflict. Dream on Pez. You advocate for regulation you advocate for a man with a gun to enforce that regulation. Are you really so stupid that you are unaware of that? Oh thats right you are just too stoned to be aware of that.



I am a believer
pez - should read "...true believer..."
Actually "true believer" is incorrect in the context. I simply see that you can either choose to get along and be tolerant of other view points on important matters or you aren't tolerant and you are going to do everything possible to force others to believe as you do. I am not trying to sell you glyphosate. You can terminate your weeds any way you choose, including GASP! butchering them! LOL! Of course that takes more labor so thats why Organic foods cost more. Stop being so mad about seeing stuff in a store others are buying that cost those people less than what you choose to buy.




that at the point where you move from making personal choices to advocating making scientifically poorly supported choices for others, thats where you enter the world of the cabal actually become a part of IT and earn a reserved spot for yourself on the bozo bus.
pez - oh the MF irony! There "IT" is in all "ITS" insideousness!!!! Freaking incredible!!!!
So I should trust monsantos model of their sheesh is so safe that they shouldn't be required by oppressive regulation to label their sheesh so I am able to exercise my free choice to eat or not eat their sheesh?!?!?!?
What gives you the incorrect notion that you can't choose what to eat or not eat? What you are saying is you want to eat anything you want from anywhere and if its not what you want you want a label on it so you will know its not what you want. So if you take that to the logical democratic conclusion everything sold would come with a label of about 25,000 pages and what is now a 50cent bag of peanuts would cost you about $50. Oh thats right they only have label what Pez wants on the label and everybody else can go to he11 right?

What we have though for labeling is a democracy. If most of the people feel strongly something should be labeled it will be labeled and prophylactics for poor Pez's stoner nightmares don't get answered.


Y'all's fealty is PITIFUL
AND inverted beyond the pale er uh bend
Bend over BobO and take "IT" like a man!
Fer y'all's daddy!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO time infinity!!!!
PITIFUL
to say nuttin of the hypocrisy
Like you? I don't fear glyphosate. I have used it many times. If I felt a fear of glyphosate then I would buy food from those who certify they aren't using it or grow my own.

All you have to do is decide if the additional cost is justified (noting that small bags of peanuts from organic sources don't cost $50) I actually save money over your answer to the problem (to label everybody concerns). But maybe you really are an ******* and don't care about others getting their labels as long as you get yours.

Well yeah I do bend over a bit. I am not so narcissistic that I don't care what others want. I can think of thousands of different things that should be put on labels to make my life easier in purchasing. But if its even semi-popular its going to be on somebody's label and if its highly popular its going to be on every label. But that's not good enough for good ole elitist Pez right? You want everything privately Pez labeled.



If you want to earn sympathy from me for your point of view
pez - not looking fer y'all's sympathy
at all
ever
So you are just posting to hear yourself post? You actually know you don't have anything to say? Wow!




you need to describe how not regulating glyphosate negatively affects you personally.
pez - y'all mean besides not being allowed to exercise my alleged free choice to not eat that sheesh and add to the coffers of monsanto and their minions?
Yer full of "IT" BobO
Perfect example of Inverted Totalitarianism in the flesh!!!
Yer sympathy is for bottom line profits of the cabal
and yer apologetic hoop jumping is sad
Phoot
Just going in circles here. Why can't you avoid adding to the coffers of Monsanto? Oh thats right that takes ambition and when ambition sets in its time to take a nap right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
Freaky

No Pez, I know statistics. A good study will involve statistics being properly applied and evaluated. There are many many things that statistics are not appropriate for at all.
There are many things where statistics is almost entirely unreliable but statistics can give you a starting place that "might" shorten the effort to find an answer. Then there is misapplied statistics where statistics gives you an unreliable hint and you improperly assume its fact.

In the last scenario sometimes the approach is to try other statistical tests to see if you can bolster the probabilities. Sometimes when you do that you get negative results. The EU Commission and the EPA found that WHO had hidden those negative results and went with the results that only hinted. Thats fraud. The scientists in WHO that did it should be fired.

Now to be clear I don't know if WHO committed fraud or not. I haven't studied the case. I do know the results were weak and they were characterized by WHO as weak. So from my point of view glyphosate should not have been regulated and the regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agreed. What happens in places like WHO when statistical results are cherry picked is what is known as Post Normal Science where the idea is to shift the burden of proof to Monsanto to prove safety to a higher level of certainty. I disagree with that.

When you shut down progress because of uncertainty you also shut down learning.

A big fan of Post Normal Science would contend that the people should not be guinea pigs, even while the choice remains for each person to decide for himself if he is going to consume products not certified as not being exposed to glyphosate.

Fact Pez, life is but one big experiment. We are guinea pigs each and every day experimenting with our own choices. You are such a grumpy hermit that that you could give a whit that anybody has choices or anybody has the balls to experiment, or that anybody even learns anything because its obvious you cannot.

Yes

Thats what I am interested in. What did you do for the cabal? And why did you walk away.

I get your point but you said if MD and myself agree on something you know its false. If I were to say you are a nice guy and MD agrees with me would you dispute that?

Sorry Pez only when living in a cloud of mind altering smoke does one actually believe there isn't two sides to every story.

Well read the rest of the responses and it will be obvious who is having it revolve around their daddy.

You are welcome.

We would not have wars if we didn't believe somebody else should believe what we believe. Have you been so inculcated that you are unaware of that? The standard is supposed to be not to go to war except in defense against harm. Your standard would be all out war all the time. Oh thats right you are into non-violent conflict. Dream on Pez. You advocate for regulation you advocate for a man with a gun to enforce that regulation. Are you really so stupid that you are unaware of that? Oh thats right you are just too stoned to be aware of that.

Actually "true believer" is incorrect in the context. I simply see that you can either choose to get along and be tolerant of other view points on important matters or you aren't tolerant and you are going to do everything possible to force others to believe as you do. I am not trying to sell you glyphosate. You can terminate your weeds any way you choose, including GASP! butchering them! LOL! Of course that takes more labor so thats why Organic foods cost more. Stop being so mad about seeing stuff in a store others are buying that cost those people less than what you choose to buy.

What gives you the incorrect notion that you can't choose what to eat or not eat? What you are saying is you want to eat anything you want from anywhere and if its not what you want you want a label on it so you will know its not what you want. So if you take that to the logical democratic conclusion everything sold would come with a label of about 25,000 pages and what is now a 50cent bag of peanuts would cost you about $50. Oh thats right they only have label what Pez wants on the label and everybody else can go to he11 right?

What we have though for labeling is a democracy. If most of the people feel strongly something should be labeled it will be labeled and prophylactics for poor Pez's stoner nightmares don't get answered.

Like you? I don't fear glyphosate. I have used it many times. If I felt a fear of glyphosate then I would buy food from those who certify they aren't using it or grow my own.

All you have to do is decide if the additional cost is justified (noting that small bags of peanuts from organic sources don't cost $50) I actually save money over your answer to the problem (to label everybody concerns). But maybe you really are an ******* and don't care about others getting their labels as long as you get yours.

Well yeah I do bend over a bit. I am not so narcissistic that I don't care what others want. I can think of thousands of different things that should be put on labels to make my life easier in purchasing. But if its even semi-popular its going to be on somebody's label and if its highly popular its going to be on every label. But that's not good enough for good ole elitist Pez right? You want everything privately Pez labeled.

So you are just posting to hear yourself post? You actually know you don't have anything to say? Wow!

Just going in circles here. Why can't you avoid adding to the coffers of Monsanto? Oh thats right that takes ambition and when ambition sets in its time to take a nap right?

pez - Y'all's fealty is PITIFUL
AND inverted beyond the pale er uh bend
Bend over BobO and take "IT" like a man!
Fer y'all's daddy!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO time infinity!!!!
PITIFUL
to say nuttin of the hypocrisy
Seen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
No Pez, I know statistics. A good study will involve statistics being properly applied and evaluated. There are many many things that statistics are not appropriate for at all.
There are many things where statistics is almost entirely unreliable but statistics can give you a starting place that "might" shorten the effort to find an answer. Then there is misapplied statistics where statistics gives you an unreliable hint and you improperly assume its fact.

In the last scenario sometimes the approach is to try other statistical tests to see if you can bolster the probabilities. Sometimes when you do that you get negative results. The EU Commission and the EPA found that WHO had hidden those negative results and went with the results that only hinted. Thats fraud. The scientists in WHO that did it should be fired.

Now to be clear I don't know if WHO committed fraud or not. I haven't studied the case. I do know the results were weak and they were characterized by WHO as weak. So from my point of view glyphosate should not have been regulated and the regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agreed. What happens in places like WHO when statistical results are cherry picked is what is known as Post Normal Science where the idea is to shift the burden of proof to Monsanto to prove safety to a higher level of certainty. I disagree with that.

When you shut down progress because of uncertainty you also shut down learning.

A big fan of Post Normal Science would contend that the people should not be guinea pigs, even while the choice remains for each person to decide for himself if he is going to consume products not certified as not being exposed to glyphosate.

Fact Pez, life is but one big experiment. We are guinea pigs each and every day experimenting with our own choices. You are such a grumpy hermit that that you could give a whit that anybody has choices or anybody has the balls to experiment, or that anybody even learns anything because its obvious you cannot.

Yes

Thats what I am interested in. What did you do for the cabal? And why did you walk away.

I get your point but you said if MD and myself agree on something you know its false. If I were to say you are a nice guy and MD agrees with me would you dispute that?

Sorry Pez only when living in a cloud of mind altering smoke does one actually believe there isn't two sides to every story.

Well read the rest of the responses and it will be obvious who is having it revolve around their daddy.

You are welcome.

We would not have wars if we didn't believe somebody else should believe what we believe. Have you been so inculcated that you are unaware of that? The standard is supposed to be not to go to war except in defense against harm. Your standard would be all out war all the time. Oh thats right you are into non-violent conflict. Dream on Pez. You advocate for regulation you advocate for a man with a gun to enforce that regulation. Are you really so stupid that you are unaware of that? Oh thats right you are just too stoned to be aware of that.

Actually "true believer" is incorrect in the context. I simply see that you can either choose to get along and be tolerant of other view points on important matters or you aren't tolerant and you are going to do everything possible to force others to believe as you do. I am not trying to sell you glyphosate. You can terminate your weeds any way you choose, including GASP! butchering them! LOL! Of course that takes more labor so thats why Organic foods cost more. Stop being so mad about seeing stuff in a store others are buying that cost those people less than what you choose to buy.

What gives you the incorrect notion that you can't choose what to eat or not eat? What you are saying is you want to eat anything you want from anywhere and if its not what you want you want a label on it so you will know its not what you want. So if you take that to the logical democratic conclusion everything sold would come with a label of about 25,000 pages and what is now a 50cent bag of peanuts would cost you about $50. Oh thats right they only have label what Pez wants on the label and everybody else can go to he11 right?

What we have though for labeling is a democracy. If most of the people feel strongly something should be labeled it will be labeled and prophylactics for poor Pez's stoner nightmares don't get answered.

Like you? I don't fear glyphosate. I have used it many times. If I felt a fear of glyphosate then I would buy food from those who certify they aren't using it or grow my own.

All you have to do is decide if the additional cost is justified (noting that small bags of peanuts from organic sources don't cost $50) I actually save money over your answer to the problem (to label everybody concerns). But maybe you really are an ******* and don't care about others getting their labels as long as you get yours.

Well yeah I do bend over a bit. I am not so narcissistic that I don't care what others want. I can think of thousands of different things that should be put on labels to make my life easier in purchasing. But if its even semi-popular its going to be on somebody's label and if its highly popular its going to be on every label. But that's not good enough for good ole elitist Pez right? You want everything privately Pez labeled.

So you are just posting to hear yourself post? You actually know you don't have anything to say? Wow!

Just going in circles here. Why can't you avoid adding to the coffers of Monsanto? Oh thats right that takes ambition and when ambition sets in its time to take a nap right?
pez - Y'all's fealty is PITIFUL
AND inverted beyond the pale er uh bend
Bend over BobO and take "IT" like a man!
Fer y'all's daddy!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO time infinity!!!!
PITIFUL
to say nuttin of the hypocrisy
Seen
I said above I do bend over for the sake of democracy. I am not feeling anything. What do I do now? Like you drop to the ground arms and legs flailing screaming rape and psyoping greed in everybody but myself?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,806 Posts
Pitiful

I said above I do bend over for the sake of democracy. I am not feeling anything. What do I do now? Like you drop to the ground arms and legs flailing screaming rape and psyoping greed in everybody but myself?

pez - that you can't grok the obvious hypocracy of yer righteousness is very telling
and sad
imho
Here's a little reminder for y'all

arguing on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics, you might win but you're still retarded;
or never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience;
or you can't fix stupid, so why argue with it?

They all are funny, and all are true too.

I found "IT" (the above three truisms) on the internet !!!! Oh the irony !!!!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'all are so full if "IT" y'all can't see "IT" when "ITS" "right" in front of y'all !!!!!!!
And then y'all spew that sheesh as if it was truly true!!!
And then y'all, in particular you BobO, without any logical of factual basis, spurr y'all's magic phony pony ATTABOY on with such fervor she starts spinnin and spinnin and phooting and pooting to the point where yer gas mask filters get so clogged full of sheesh you start spewing rationalizations and apologisms as if they backed up yer sheesh!!!!!!
You, my good sir, are the epitome of "IT" in all "ITS" insideousness.
imho
ps - I'm reminded of a bit o' lyric
"...here comes the con man, commin with his con plan..."
and fer you and all them whom you oftentimes claim to speak for
and them whom oftentimes claim to speak for, or with you, here's a little refresher video
[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k34boxNrqL8[/ame]
Seen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,433 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I said above I do bend over for the sake of democracy. I am not feeling anything. What do I do now? Like you drop to the ground arms and legs flailing screaming rape and psyoping greed in everybody but myself?

pez - that you can't grok the obvious hypocracy of yer righteousness is very telling
and sad
imho
Here's a little reminder for y'all

arguing on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics, you might win but you're still retarded;
or never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience;
or you can't fix stupid, so why argue with it?

They all are funny, and all are true too.

I found "IT" (the above three truisms) on the internet !!!! Oh the irony !!!!!!
ROTMFFLMMFACFO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'all are so full if "IT" y'all can't see "IT" when "ITS" "right" in front of y'all !!!!!!!
And then y'all spew that sheesh as if it was truly true!!!
And then y'all, in particular you BobO, without any logical of factual basis, spurr y'all's magic phony pony ATTABOY on with such fervor she starts spinnin and spinnin and phooting and pooting to the point where yer gas mask filters get so clogged full of sheesh you start spewing rationalizations and apologisms as if they backed up yer sheesh!!!!!!
You, my good sir, are the epitome of "IT" in all "ITS" insideousness.
imho
ps - I'm reminded of a bit o' lyric
"...here comes the con man, commin with his con plan..."
and fer you and all them whom you oftentimes claim to speak for
and them whom oftentimes claim to speak for, or with you, here's a little refresher video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k34boxNrqL8
Seen
Yep Pez. the conman's plan was to amputate Bob Marley's cancer ridden toe.
 
1 - 20 of 221 Posts
Top