RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech

RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 4:45:06 AM)
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre ORIGINAL: thompsonx When rape is inevitable try to get comfortable, spit on it and don't forget to breathe." It was my curious way of saying that when the courts have spoken it is best not to phoque with them. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I was mistaken. By the way, thompsonx, I appreciate your response format. The plain for the call and bold your responses. While I find we disagree, your format helps to keep track of the points of contention and where they stand. Not everyone agrees with you. I can certainly understand the idea with respect to the inevitable, etc. I suppose closing one's eyes and thinking of England is a better way to play it than being a legislative power-bottom. I think some people have enough fire in them yet to come up against a Lockean type dilemma, and the need to make a choice. The Snowden case is I think a good example of this. I don't want to express whether I think his actions were right or wrong, Why? but it seems to me that he made a conscious decision to disclose something he was contractually obligated not to for what he believed is the greater good. We reamin unconvinced that one can be contractually obligated to be unethical. I think the best bet, not for encouraging such rebellion, but for encouraging such rebellion in the direction of humanity's interests is to educate subsequent generations on the importance of questioning objectively whether a given proposition, whether on the dullest paper or most regal vellum, is true. Everyone I know with a three digit iq and a pulse would tend to agree. I also think this can only be done when the channels of speech have exactly zero roadblocks. The courts have given their opinion on those matters.

thompsonx -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 4:58:20 AM)
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre ORIGINAL: thompsonx Manoeuvre In the case of atomic weapons, I think it is unreasonable to think that at this stage in our technological development, that it is simply the lack of knowledge that prevents nuclear proliferation. The difficulty and tremendous material costs for obtaining and refining the materials is, I think the main obstacle, other than the semi-effective political effects from the NPT, etc. I think it is unreasonable also to expect that principles of physics, which of course can be derive, if with difficulty, could be effectively concealed indefinitely, even if that was the object of a large political bloc. They have been pretty effective for about 70 years I disagree that it has been pretty effective, but I guess that depends on what you mean by "pretty". My point was that it had been pretty effective at limiting the spread of nukes to nation states. My best guess is that even with a bill gates or carlos slim level of financial clout they most likely would not be able to acquire the ability to create an atomic bomb. Two countries that hate each other over a real estate dispute that is only partially terrestrial now have nukes aimed at each other's population centre, Are we speaking of india and pakistan? one country that is hated by most of its neighbours most likely has nukes pointed in every direction, Are we speaking of amerika? and one country with a 3rd generation despot may have nukes pointed at the countries that send the rice bags that feed their people. Are we speaking of n.korea? While I think the NPT is a great idea, I wouldn't call it a smashing success story. I also think that the major barrier to a functional nuclear armament is not the tight control (or lack thereof) of physics knowledge, but the fact that the cost of obtaining and producing the materials and equipment necessary to produce a working devise are prohibitively expensive and immensely conspicuous. Money is hardly a consideration when roi is sufficient to drive investment. ie: A robber pays $1000 for a gun that will allow them to steal $1,000,000 does not look upon that $1000 capital expenditure as being "prohibitively expensive".

WickedsDesire -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 7:04:11 AM)
What the hell are you lot on about now Wicked is a fan of free speech, not so much slander, sophistry, muffin hate crimes and bluebottles atomic weapons even I know no other country should be allowed to posses them- and any who seek to have these weapons of doom - must be stopped not that any of the ones who actually have them can lead by example, or calim the higher moral ground

itsSIRtou -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 7:16:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I will bet you can get closer to the number of states we have than Obama, his guess was 59. Actually, Bama, Dumbo-Ears said there were 57 states (the exact number of Muslim Nations on the global map, back then). Actually, you're both wrong. His claim was 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws quote: "...over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty [pause] seven states. I think one left to go. One left to go; Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to..." So, 50....7 (57), one left to go (58), Alaska (59) and Hawaii (60) was not allowed to go to. [:D] Bit harsh to give Obama shit over that one, as his predecessor couldn't have counted higher than twenty without taking his strides off to count on his cock as well as his fingers and toes. [:D] Cite? Other than your opinion? YouTube footage? Newspaper coverage? MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC? since u asked here's a whole youtube page of bush flubs including trump calling bush "dumb as a rock"... all I had to type in the search box was "bush, dumb" https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bush%2C+dunb&spfreload=1 personally, I'd of added the "mission accomplished" videos to his list of stupid things he said......

Charles6682 -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 8:45:32 AM)
BULA!!

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 10:09:53 AM)
Re: Nukes, Yes, thompsonx, I was referring to India, Pakistan, Israël and North Korea. 5, and now 9+. I guess we can argue about what constitutes successful in this case. I suppose 4 strikes in seventy years isn't that bad. Apparently ZA had them for awhile during the bad old days. Pakistan and DPRK are the only ones that really cause me concern, given that Pakistan seems to be only one bloody coup away from having people whose worldview is identical to that of the taliban or ISIS with their hands on the big red button. DPRK is already basically a hostage crisis, but that topic is intensely boring. Given that the AQ Khan discount proliferation outlet had been in business for as long as it did, I think that cat is out of the bag as well. I agree, that someone with Carlos Slim's or Bill Gates' wealth would not be likely to develop nukes, but I disagree with the idea that the reason would be that they be incapable of procuring the necessary information. The complementary situation, the idea that someone in possession of the information but without the material means of production would have an easier time of it I think is even further from most likelihoods. Re: Meth thompsonx, you'll forgive my interpretation of your statement below: quote: thompsonx In the state of California simple possession of the formula is a felony unless authorized by law. So while the cat is out of the bag it is against the law to pet it. Manoeuvre: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you stating that it is a felony to possess information on how to cook meth? That's how I read your post. I think that's how most readers would read your post, though I may be mistaken. thompsonx, I don't think I'm going to take your word for this one. Would you mind pointing me to where I can find information on this law? thompsonx: That tortuous road would be linked to criminal conspiracy laws which allow a prosecutor to pile up charges(the purpose of which is to engender a "plea bargain") Say some "chemist" is caught cooking, the "perp" is charged with perhaps a dozen or so crimes related to this one crime. "The knowledge to manuacture contraband is in itself prima-facia evidence that one intends to commit said crime and as such is itself a crime". It makes sense to me, that ownership of the book "Cooking meth for dummies", laying open on the page with step 4, on a table with all the paraphernalia and ingredients for step 4 spread out neatly, with the bunsen burner lit to a nice perfect cool flame, some safety goggles hanging on the coat-hanger which holds nice white Tyvek suit........ Ownership of the book would constitute some evidence of the crime of manufacturing meth. I initially thought that you were stating that possession of the knowledge itself was a felony, which sounds like an awful situation in the post-wikipedia world. Just for fun, I googled your quotation above (highlighted in blue) and I was unable to find any such result. Who are you quoting here?

WhoreMods -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 10:51:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Re: Nukes, Yes, thompsonx, I was referring to India, Pakistan, Israël and North Korea. 5, and now 9+. I guess we can argue about what constitutes successful in this case. I suppose 4 strikes in seventy years isn't that bad. Apparently ZA had them for awhile during the bad old days. Pakistan and DPRK are the only ones that really cause me concern, given that Pakistan seems to be only one bloody coup away from having people whose worldview is identical to that of the taliban or ISIS with their hands on the big red button. DPRK is already basically a hostage crisis, but that topic is intensely boring. Given that the AQ Khan discount proliferation outlet had been in business for as long as it did, I think that cat is out of the bag as well. I agree, that someone with Carlos Slim's or Bill Gates' wealth would not be likely to develop nukes, but I disagree with the idea that the reason would be that they be incapable of procuring the necessary information. The complementary situation, the idea that someone in possession of the information but without the material means of production would have an easier time of it I think is even further from most likelihoods. Re: Meth thompsonx, you'll forgive my interpretation of your statement below: quote: thompsonx In the state of California simple possession of the formula is a felony unless authorized by law. So while the cat is out of the bag it is against the law to pet it. Manoeuvre: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you stating that it is a felony to possess information on how to cook meth? That's how I read your post. I think that's how most readers would read your post, though I may be mistaken. thompsonx, I don't think I'm going to take your word for this one. Would you mind pointing me to where I can find information on this law? thompsonx: That tortuous road would be linked to criminal conspiracy laws which allow a prosecutor to pile up charges(the purpose of which is to engender a "plea bargain") Say some "chemist" is caught cooking, the "perp" is charged with perhaps a dozen or so crimes related to this one crime. "The knowledge to manuacture contraband is in itself prima-facia evidence that one intends to commit said crime and as such is itself a crime". It makes sense to me, that ownership of the book "Cooking meth for dummies", laying open on the page with step 4, on a table with all the paraphernalia and ingredients for step 4 spread out neatly, with the bunsen burner lit to a nice perfect cool flame, some safety goggles hanging on the coat-hanger which holds nice white Tyvek suit........ Ownership of the book would constitute some evidence of the crime of manufacturing meth. I initially thought that you were stating that possession of the knowledge itself was a felony, which sounds like an awful situation in the post-wikipedia world. Just for fun, I googled your quotation above (highlighted in blue) and I was unable to find any such result. Who are you quoting here? Why the fuck did Heisenberg need a huge lab, then?

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 10:57:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx When rape is inevitable try to get comfortable, spit on it and don't forget to breathe." It was my curious way of saying that when the courts have spoken it is best not to phoque with them. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I was mistaken. By the way, thompsonx, I appreciate your response format. The plain for the call and bold your responses. While I find we disagree, your format helps to keep track of the points of contention and where they stand. Not everyone agrees with you. I can certainly understand the idea with respect to the inevitable, etc. I suppose closing one's eyes and thinking of England is a better way to play it than being a legislative power-bottom. I think some people have enough fire in them yet to come up against a Lockean type dilemma, and the need to make a choice. The Snowden case is I think a good example of this. I don't want to express whether I think his actions were right or wrong, Why? but it seems to me that he made a conscious decision to disclose something he was contractually obligated not to for what he believed is the greater good. We remain unconvinced that one can be contractually obligated to be unethical. I think the best bet, not for encouraging such rebellion, but for encouraging such rebellion in the direction of humanity's interests is to educate subsequent generations on the importance of questioning objectively whether a given proposition, whether on the dullest paper or most regal vellum, is true. Everyone I know with a three digit iq and a pulse would tend to agree. I also think this can only be done when the channels of speech have exactly zero roadblocks. The courts have given their opinion on those matters. You're not allergic to olives, are you? Of course not everyone agrees with me. What I'm trying to say is that while I disagree with you, I happen to enjoy doing so, and the format you use for your replies keeps our disagreements neatly partitioned. I don't want to express a value judgement on the Snowden affair because I haven't really considered the matter thoroughly. The reason I brought up the ideas in the red and blue sentences above is because I think that censorship is charged against free speech's account, and to support in its entirety the truth-seeking endeavour in red, I think one needs to support in its entirety the truth-spreading proposition in blue. Indeed courts have expressed their opinions on these matters. Do you have an opinion? _________________________________ What would you say if I typed all astray? Would you close this window and leave? I'll try to remember it's I before E... So my spelling won't make you heave!

thompsonx -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:02:12 AM)
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Re: Meth thompsonx, you'll forgive my interpretation of your statement below: thompsonx In the state of California simple possession of the formula is a felony unless authorized by law. So while the cat is out of the bag it is against the law to pet it. Manoeuvre: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you stating that it is a felony to possess information on how to cook meth? That's how I read your post. I think that's how most readers would read your post, though I may be mistaken. thompsonx, I don't think I'm going to take your word for this one. Would you mind pointing me to where I can find information on this law? thompsonx: That tortuous road would be linked to criminal conspiracy laws which allow a prosecutor to pile up charges(the purpose of which is to engender a "plea bargain") Say some "chemist" is caught cooking, the "perp" is charged with perhaps a dozen or so crimes related to this one crime. "The knowledge to manuacture contraband is in itself prima-facia evidence that one intends to commit said crime and as such is itself a crime". It makes sense to me, that ownership of the book "Cooking meth for dummies", laying open on the page with step 4, on a table with all the paraphernalia and ingredients for step 4 spread out neatly, with the bunsen burner lit to a nice perfect cool flame, some safety goggles hanging on the coat-hanger which holds nice white Tyvek suit........ Ownership of the book would constitute some evidence of the crime of manufacturing meth. I initially thought that you were stating that possession of the knowledge itself was a felony, which sounds like an awful situation in the post-wikipedia world. That one would take some foundational work by the prosecutor. if no formulea was found ,it would be construed to be prima facia evidence that the knowledge was in the chemist head Just for fun, I googled your quotation above (highlighted in blue) and I was unable to find any such result. Who are you quoting here? My memory of a prosecutors arguement from one of several trials I was required to observe for a class in criminal behaviour I was taking some time ago. I am sorry if you took it to mean source. If it had been I would have attached a moiker. I remember reading about and a 60 minuits segment about a physicist who had a design for an extreem long distance piece of artillary. Evidently no one in the west wanted it (even though it was a sound design)so he tried to peddle it to the arabs and he wound up very dead.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:06:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Why the fuck did Heisenberg need a huge lab, then? Do you mean Oppenheimer? I'm sorry that my post was a big mess, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean and what you are replying to. Would you be more specific? _____________________ I get by with a little help from my enemies.

WhoreMods -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:08:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Why the fuck did Heisenberg need a huge lab, then? Do you mean Oppenheimer? I'm sorry that my post was a big mess, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean and what you are replying to. Would you be more specific? Breaking Bad? In between settling grudges he'd been nursing his whole life, Walter built the meth lab of his dreams. If he could have just made the meth in his microwave, it would have been a much shorter series. [;)]

WhoreMods -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:10:24 AM)
Have you not seen any Breaking Bad? That Heisenberg, not the real one.

thompsonx -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:11:34 AM)
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre ORIGINAL: thompsonx When rape is inevitable try to get comfortable, spit on it and don't forget to breathe." It was my curious way of saying that when the courts have spoken it is best not to phoque with them. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I was mistaken. By the way, thompsonx, I appreciate your response format. The plain for the call and bold your responses. While I find we disagree, I remain unconvinced of that. your format helps to keep track of the points of contention and where they stand. Not everyone agrees with you. I can certainly understand the idea with respect to the inevitable, etc. I suppose closing one's eyes and thinking of England is a better way to play it than being a legislative power-bottom. I think some people have enough fire in them yet to come up against a Lockean type dilemma, and the need to make a choice. The Snowden case is I think a good example of this. I don't want to express whether I think his actions were right or wrong, Why? but it seems to me that he made a conscious decision to disclose something he was contractually obligated not to for what he believed is the greater good. We remain unconvinced that one can be contractually obligated to be unethical. I think the best bet, not for encouraging such rebellion, but for encouraging such rebellion in the direction of humanity's interests is to educate subsequent generations on the importance of questioning objectively whether a given proposition, whether on the dullest paper or most regal vellum, is true. Everyone I know with a three digit iq and a pulse would tend to agree. I also think this can only be done when the channels of speech have exactly zero roadblocks. The courts have given their opinion on those matters. You're not allergic to olives, are you? No but I am not an faficianado either. Of course not everyone agrees with me. What I'm trying to say is that while I disagree with you, I happen to enjoy doing so, and the format you use for your replies keeps our disagreements neatly partitioned. I don't want to express a value judgement on the Snowden affair because I haven't really considered the matter thoroughly. The reason I brought up the ideas in the red and blue sentences above is because I think that censorship is charged against free speech's account, and to support in its entirety the truth-seeking endeavour in red, I think one needs to support in its entirety the truth-spreading proposition in blue. Indeed courts have expressed their opinions on these matters. Do you have an opinion? Snowden is a motherphoquing amerikan patriot hero...The sort that the likes of john wayne and rambo could only dream of. _________________________________ What would you say if I typed all astray? Would you close this window and leave? I'll try to remember it's I before E... So my spelling won't make you heave! [/quote]

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre ORIGINAL: thompsonx I think the best bet, not for encouraging such rebellion, but for encouraging such rebellion in the direction of humanity's interests is to educate subsequent generations on the importance of questioning objectively whether a given proposition, whether on the dullest paper or most regal vellum, is true. Everyone I know with a three digit iq and a pulse would tend to agree. I also think this can only be done when the channels of speech have exactly zero roadblocks. The courts have given their opinion on those matters. You're not allergic to olives, are you? No but I am not an aficionado either. Of course not everyone agrees with me. What I'm trying to say is that while I disagree with you, I happen to enjoy doing so, and the format you use for your replies keeps our disagreements neatly partitioned. I don't want to express a value judgement on the Snowden affair because I haven't really considered the matter thoroughly. The reason I brought up the ideas in the red and blue sentences above is because I think that censorship is charged against free speech's account, and to support in its entirety the truth-seeking endeavour in red, I think one needs to support in its entirety the truth-spreading proposition in blue. Indeed courts have expressed their opinions on these matters. Do you have an opinion? Snowden is a motherphoquing amerikan patriot hero...The sort that the likes of john wayne and rambo could only dream of. I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'm asking if you have an opinion on the matter of free speech which I colour-coded, not the Snowden affair. _____________________________ Where there's cattle, there are ranches. Where there are olives, there are _____?

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 11:55:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Have you not seen any Breaking Bad? That Heisenberg, not the real one. I'm sorry, WM. I have not. I know the main man's name is Walter White, and that it's a great show. People regularly come into my office and remark after looking at the periodic table poster on my wall "Oh, so you're a fan of Breaking Bad?" I tell them I'm a fan of Dmitri Mandelev. TV is so good nowadays, it's like the x-files/twin peaks quality curve just keeps getting steeper. I'm concerned that if I watched anything longer than a limited series, such as Sherlock, that I'd get a little too into it, so I don't partake. I have a short list of vices, and I'm trying to keep it short. On the topic, please keep in mind I say Eh? a lot and speak french. Could you be a touch more specific in terms what you are replying to I think I understand the Breaking Bad business, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. ___________________ Thomas Dolby gave us the golden age of wireless Netflix is presenting the golden age of TV

WhoreMods -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 12:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Have you not seen any Breaking Bad? That Heisenberg, not the real one. I'm sorry, WM. I have not. I know the main man's name is Walter White, and that it's a great show. People regularly come into my office and remark after looking at the periodic table poster on my wall "Oh, so you're a fan of Breaking Bad?" I tell them I'm a fan of Dmitri Mandelev. TV is so good nowadays, it's like the x-files/twin peaks quality curve just keeps getting steeper. I'm concerned that if I watched anything longer than a limited series, such as Sherlock, that I'd get a little too into it, so I don't partake. I have a short list of vices, and I'm trying to keep it short. On the topic, please keep in mind I say Eh? a lot and speak french. Could you be a touch more specific in terms what you are replying to I think I understand the Breaking Bad business, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. I'd just mentioned that regarding the whole thing of the recipe for easy meth in Cooking Meth For Dummies you'd mentioned and the rather more cinematic and melodramtic set up they had Walter using in the telly series. A cheap joke that struck me as funny after a couple of drinks, and I apologise that it didn't travel. My bad.

thompsonx -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 12:04:25 PM)
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre ORIGINAL: thompsonx I think the best bet, not for encouraging such rebellion, but for encouraging such rebellion in the direction of humanity's interests is to educate subsequent generations on the importance of questioning objectively whether a given proposition, whether on the dullest paper or most regal vellum, is true. Everyone I know with a three digit iq and a pulse would tend to agree. I also think this can only be done when the channels of speech have exactly zero roadblocks. The courts have given their opinion on those matters. You're not allergic to olives, are you? No but I am not an aficionado either. Of course not everyone agrees with me. What I'm trying to say is that while I disagree with you, I happen to enjoy doing so, and the format you use for your replies keeps our disagreements neatly partitioned. I don't want to express a value judgement on the Snowden affair because I haven't really considered the matter thoroughly. The reason I brought up the ideas in the red and blue sentences above is because I think that censorship is charged against free speech's account, and to support in its entirety the truth-seeking endeavour in red, I think one needs to support in its entirety the truth-spreading proposition in blue. Indeed courts have expressed their opinions on these matters. Do you have an opinion? Snowden is a motherphoquing amerikan patriot hero...The sort that the likes of john wayne and rambo could only dream of. I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'm asking if you have an opinion on the matter of free speech which I colour-coded, not the Snowden affair. I should think that the two, snowden and your premis, are inextricably paired. _____________________________ Where there's cattle, there are ranches. Where there are olives, there are _____? [/quote]

ManOeuvre -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 1:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Have you not seen any Breaking Bad? That Heisenberg, not the real one. I'm sorry, WM. I have not. I know the main man's name is Walter White, and that it's a great show. People regularly come into my office and remark after looking at the periodic table poster on my wall "Oh, so you're a fan of Breaking Bad?" I tell them I'm a fan of Dmitri Mandelev. TV is so good nowadays, it's like the x-files/twin peaks quality curve just keeps getting steeper. I'm concerned that if I watched anything longer than a limited series, such as Sherlock, that I'd get a little too into it, so I don't partake. I have a short list of vices, and I'm trying to keep it short. On the topic, please keep in mind I say Eh? a lot and speak french. Could you be a touch more specific in terms what you are replying to I think I understand the Breaking Bad business, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. I'd just mentioned that regarding the whole thing of the recipe for easy meth in Cooking Meth For Dummies you'd mentioned and the rather more cinematic and melodramtic set up they had Walter using in the telly series. A cheap joke that struck me as funny after a couple of drinks, and I apologise that it didn't travel. My bad. I understand. I did not mean to describe the meth production process. What I was trying to pin down was whether it is a crime to possess technical information relating to the meth production process, either in isolation or in adjunct to other drug-making paraphernalia and supplies. thompsonx, would you clarify? Is possession of the information a crime itself or can that possession of information be only considered evidence of some other crime? ___________________________ Sig 226 in .40

CreativeDominant -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 2:13:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I will bet you can get closer to the number of states we have than Obama, his guess was 59. Actually, Bama, Dumbo-Ears said there were 57 states (the exact number of Muslim Nations on the global map, back then). Actually, you're both wrong. His claim was 60. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws quote: "...over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty [pause] seven states. I think one left to go. One left to go; Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to..." So, 50....7 (57), one left to go (58), Alaska (59) and Hawaii (60) was not allowed to go to. [:D] Bit harsh to give Obama shit over that one, as his predecessor couldn't have counted higher than twenty without taking his strides off to count on his cock as well as his fingers and toes. [:D] Cite? Other than your opinion? YouTube footage? Newspaper coverage? MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC? since u asked here's a whole youtube page of bush flubs including trump calling bush "dumb as a rock"... all I had to type in the search box was "bush, dumb" https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bush%2C+dunb&spfreload=1 personally, I'd of added the "mission accomplished" videos to his list of stupid things he said...... Are any of them demonstrative and complementary to your claim...which is what I called you on...that he couldn't count higher than 20? Yeahhhhh...didn't think so.

mnottertail -> RE: Left Folks and their notions of Free Speech (7/5/2016 2:26:33 PM)
Is there a video of him counting higher than 20?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.171875