Hypothetical question

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in
message

> Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an
> ignorant hick even though you've got a full B.S. degree
> from an accredited U.S. university?

Tell us about it Middiot, using yourself as an example. Also if you have any
balls at all, you'll give us the name of your alma mater and when you
graduated.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Mr. **** engages his hair-trigger Defensive Overreacting Reflux.

> > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an
> > ignorant hick even though you've got a full B.S. degree
> > from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> Tell us about it [my supreme master], using yourself as an example.

You can relax, Turdbucket. This troll wasn't aimed at you. For future
reference, Kroo-trolls always feature a reference either to your mental
infirmity or to your compulsive lying.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 11:50*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> messagenews:cm2u2413qvk4ks8v476jt0cvitd0o902ba@4ax .com
>
> > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an
> > ignorant hick even though you've got a full B.S. degree
> > from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> Tell us about it Middiot, using yourself as an example. Also if you have any
> balls at all, you'll give us the name of your alma mater and when you
> graduated.

George does not sound like an ignorant hick, GOIA. Therefore your
question is about as valid as most things you post, which is to say
"not very".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 2:16*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On May 17, 9:42*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> Nah, it's for more valuable to be a rent-boy abusing shut-in ward of
> the state with an obvious fraudulent elitist ego.

So you agree that you sound like an ignorant hick, and that it isn't
very valuable.

For once we can agree on something.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> George does not sound like an ignorant hick, GOIA. Therefore your
> question is about as valid as most things you post, which is to say
> "not very".

Arnii has to pop out of his clock periodically in order to squawk
irrationally. If he doesn't, his spring gets coiled too tight, and he
looses a ****storm in his basement.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> > > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
> >
> > Nah, it's for more valuable to be a rent-boy abusing shut-in ward of
> > the state with an obvious fraudulent elitist ego.
>
> So you agree that you sound like an ignorant hick, and that it isn't
> very valuable.
> For once we can agree on something.

Are you jealous of my "fraudulent ego"? I'm thinking of upgrading to a
real ego, but I'd rather pay extra taxes to take care of poor people.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 3:20*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> > > > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> > > Nah, it's for more valuable to be a rent-boy abusing shut-in ward of
> > > the state with an obvious fraudulent elitist ego.
>
> > So you agree that you sound like an ignorant hick, and that it isn't
> > very valuable.
> > For once we can agree on something.
>
> Are you jealous of my "fraudulent ego"? I'm thinking of upgrading to a
> real ego, but I'd rather pay extra taxes to take care of poor people.

Is this the "real" George, or the "fraudulent" George?

The "fraudulent" George is so "obvious" that it's "absurd".

(I've been missing the hilarious irony of 2pid calling things
"absurd". It used to happen so regularly. Is it possible that a small
beam of self-perception has cracked the thick plate of Impervium that
surrounds 2pid's skull?)

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in
message
> Mr. **** engages his hair-trigger Defensive Overreacting
> Reflux.
>
>>> Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an
>>> ignorant hick even though you've got a full B.S. degree
>>> from an accredited U.S. university?
>>
>> Tell us about it Middiot, using yourself as an example. Also if you have
>> any
>> balls at all, you'll give us the name of your alma mater and when you
>> graduated..

<Middiot last seen crouched in a corner in a fetal position.>

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?

**It would seem so. US voters placed a drug addicted moron in the highest
office in the land. They had a choice between the drug addicted moron and a
well qualified and intelligent man. It seems American voters prefer idiots.

Trevor Wilson

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> > > > > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
> >
> > > > Nah, it's for more valuable to be a rent-boy abusing shut-in ward of
> > > > the state with an obvious fraudulent elitist ego.
> >
> > > So you agree that you sound like an ignorant hick, and that it isn't
> > > very valuable.
> > > For once we can agree on something.
> >
> > Are you jealous of my "fraudulent ego"? I'm thinking of upgrading to a
> > real ego, but I'd rather pay extra taxes to take care of poor people.
>
> Is this the "real" George, or the "fraudulent" George?
>
> The "fraudulent" George is so "obvious" that it's "absurd".
>
> (I've been missing the hilarious irony of 2pid calling things
> "absurd". It used to happen so regularly. Is it possible that a small
> beam of self-perception has cracked the thick plate of Impervium that
> surrounds 2pid's skull?)

Good question, although it's absurd enough not to warrant answer. Even so,
turns out there's an acid test for absurditivity. You ask the absurdroid
in question whether the Apollo astronauts really got to the Moon. (The
alternative explanation for the evidence presented by NASA is that it was
all a hoax perpetrated by Big Brother in order to bolster anti-Soviet
propaganda.)

After Scottie answers this question, I'll provide a link on how to
interpret the answer.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Trevor Wilson said:

> > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
> > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> **It would seem so. US voters placed a drug addicted moron in the highest
> office in the land. They had a choice between the drug addicted moron and a
> well qualified and intelligent man. It seems American voters prefer idiots.

Are you forgetting that the 2000 election was stolen?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

> It seems American voters prefer idiots.

I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
the error of your conclusion.

Here:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 4:17*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> messagenews:jg8u249ehqkmfd98isusmo3o4logti4u63@4ax .com
>
> > Mr. **** engages his hair-trigger Defensive Overreacting
> > Reflux.
>
> >>> Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an
> >>> ignorant hick even though you've got a full B.S. degree
> >>> from an accredited U.S. university?
>
> >> Tell us about it Middiot, using yourself as an example. Also if you have
> >> any
> >> balls at all, you'll give us the name of your alma mater and when you
> >> graduated..
>
> <Middiot last seen crouched in a corner in a fetal position.>

People laugh at you in all sorts of positions, GOIA. I often laugh at
you while taking a dump. "There goes another one evading GOIA's
collection," I say. ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:25:46 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
>> though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S. university?
>
>**It would seem so. US voters placed a drug addicted moron in the highest
>office in the land.

trevorboy!!! Still passing gas through your mouth.


> They had a choice between the drug addicted moron and a
>well qualified and intelligent man.

Yep - and that 's who they elected

>It seems American voters prefer idiots.

LOL Such a bigot......



>
>Trevor Wilson
>

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:11:54 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!" > wrote:

>On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>
>> It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
>I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
>the error of your conclusion.
>
>Here:
>
>Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

Ouch - that really slapped poor little trevor.....

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
...
On May 17, 4:25 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

> It seems American voters prefer idiots.

I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
the error of your conclusion.

Here:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

**Oops. *Only* fractionally less than half the US voting population prefer a
moron in the White House.

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > Is there any conceivable value in sounding like an ignorant hick even
>> > though you've got a full B.S. degree from an accredited U.S.
>> > university?
>>
>> **It would seem so. US voters placed a drug addicted moron in the highest
>> office in the land. They had a choice between the drug addicted moron and
>> a
>> well qualified and intelligent man. It seems American voters prefer
>> idiots.
>
> Are you forgetting that the 2000 election was stolen?

**I stand corrected. *Only slightly less than half the US voting population
prefers a moron in the White House.

Trevor Wilson

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:52:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
...
>On May 17, 4:25 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>
>> It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
>I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
>the error of your conclusion.
>
>Here:
>
>Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
>**Oops. *Only* fractionally less than half the US voting population prefer a
>moron in the White House.

LOL As usual, you still miss the target.

I'll help you clarify: The right man is in the White House.....


>
>Trevor Wilson

The bigot


>

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie's little brother yapped:

> I'll help you clarify: The right man is in the White House.....

You're trailing off. Is that because you're lost in a beatific reverie
about how much better off the country is today than it was in 2000?

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie's little brother yapped:
>
>> I'll help you clarify: The right man is in the White House.....
>
> You're trailing off. Is that because you're lost in a beatific reverie
> about how much better off the country is today than it was in 2000?

**Ozarkmoron is a believer in the supernatural. That explains it's
preference for that drug-taking moron, you guys call the President.

Trevor Wilson

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Mai, 19:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>
> > wrote:
> > It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
> I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
> the error of your conclusion.
>
> Here:
>
> Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% *Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:18:00 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scottie's little brother yapped:
>
>> I'll help you clarify: The right man is in the White House.....
>
>You're trailing off. Is that because you're lost in a beatific reverie
>about how much better off the country is today than it was in 2000?

Haven't had a terrorist attack in our country since 9/11.

And the country is doing just fine, thank you.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:34:39 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Scottie's little brother yapped:
>>
>>> I'll help you clarify: The right man is in the White House.....
>>
>> You're trailing off. Is that because you're lost in a beatific reverie
>> about how much better off the country is today than it was in 2000?
>
>**Ozarkmoron is a believer in the supernatural.

LOL That is a pretty tired lie there trevorboy. Got any substance to
back it up? As usual, of course not.....



>That explains it's
>preference for that drug-taking moron, you guys call the President.

And what will you say if Obama is elected?

You are truly pathetic.....



>
>Trevor Wilson
>

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.

Ironic to hear that from you, RAO's biggest Bushie-apologist.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Mai, 10:07, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.
>
> Ironic to hear that from you, RAO's biggest Bushie-apologist.


LOL!
I only apologized for the mispronounciations, and my own typso, of
course!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 18, 1:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 Mai, 19:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
> > I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
> > the error of your conclusion.
>
> > Here:
>
> > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% *Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
> So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.

What has that got to do with the statement at hand?

"It seems American voters prefer idiots."

The Electoral College and the Supreme Court may prefer idiots, but not
the American voter.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Mai, 14:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 18, 1:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Mai, 19:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
> > > I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
> > > the error of your conclusion.
>
> > > Here:
>
> > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% *Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
> > So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.
>
> What has that got to do with the statement at hand?
>
> "It seems American voters prefer idiots."
>
> The Electoral College and the Supreme Court may prefer idiots, but not
> the American voter.-

There ';preference' related to the method
of choice and the implementation of that method,
not to the type of person.
You are samrt ennought to know that, I think.
And I think you are smart enough to argue
your own point of view on those isues.
I don't know why you are stooping to stoopidity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 18, 1:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Mai, 14:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 18, 1:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Mai, 19:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 17, 4:25*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > It seems American voters prefer idiots.
>
> > > > I'd suggest you check results of the 2000 *popular* vote. You'll see
> > > > the error of your conclusion.
>
> > > > Here:
>
> > > > Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% *Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%
>
> > > So, you don't believe in adhering to the Constitution.
>
> > What has that got to do with the statement at hand?
>
> > "It seems American voters prefer idiots."
>
> > The Electoral College and the Supreme Court may prefer idiots, but not
> > the American voter.
>
> There ';preference' related to the method
> of choice and the implementation of that method,
> not to the type of person.

bushie is an idiot, but that wasn't the point.

I'm not arguing that bushie was selected unconstitutionally, or that
it wasn't fair, even though both could be and have been argued. What
is clear is that a majority of American voters did not want him.
Hence, Trevor's original comment is wrong, which is all that I said.

Perhaps placing "idiots" in quotes would've helped you.

> You are samrt ennought to know that, I think.
> And I think you are smart enough to argue
> your own point of view on those isues.
> I don't know why you are stooping to stoopidity.

Is it "stupid" to say that a majority of American voters did not
select bushie? That is all that I said. Here, argue this one (with
yourself):

"bushie won the 2000 election due to the Electoral College and the
Supreme Court, *not* due to winning a majority of the popular vote."

Have fun.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Mai, 15:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

> "bushie won the 2000 election due to the Electoral College

So did all the other presidents
thats how we do it.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > "bushie won the 2000 election due to the Electoral College
>
> So did all the other presidents
> thats how we do it.

Stoopidity aside, it was refreshing to hear duh-Scottie finally offer up
some criticism of Dumbya. I thought it would never happen, but it did. It
was a benchmark of perversity, albeit one that could be topped if A. Krooger
were to admit people insult and demean him because of his own behavior.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 18, 4:23*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Mai, 15:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > "bushie won the 2000 election due to the Electoral College
>
> So did all the other presidents
> thats how we do it.

Which is not, of course, the point. But nice deviation from the topic.

Trevor said "the American voters wanted bushie". They did not, as a
majority vote showed.

As I said, I am not arguing voting law, the Constitution, or the
reasoning behind the archaic Electoral College. I was simply rebutting
Trevor's point.

Are you arguing that the "American voters wanted bushie" because he
won more Electoral College votes and won a Supreme Court decision, but
lost the popular vote? That would be an "absurd" position. LOL!

More American voters in 2000 did *not* want bushie than did. Period.
Therefore Trevor's point was wrong.

You may continue this discussion alone, Clyde. :-)