[George M. Middius[_4_]]

As usual, your OT crapola was stoopid and ignorant, so we in the Smart Guys
Community can only wonder what you wanted to say. (Or, as most of us usually
do, simply skip your yapfest of the day.)

So here's the question: Why do you believe Judge Sotomayor's decision being
overturned was significant? I'm quite sure you have no connection to any
would-be firemen in Connecticut. I'm certain you don't give a dog's heinie
about discrimination because you have a good job that seems quite secure.
I'm also dead-bang certain you don't identify personally with firefighters,
because (a) they're brave and you're a coward, and (b) they had the gumption
to get a lawyer and go to court, whereas all you ever do is whine from the
cheap seats.

Which leads me to suspect that in your whacked-out belief system, a judge
getting overturned by the Supreme Court makes her unfit to serve on that
court. Is that it? If that's what you 'think', just say so.


--

" * I don't know why you always focus on the irrelevant while ignoring
the relevant."

Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, 1 May 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
As usual, your OT crapola was stoopid and ignorant, so we in the Smart Guys
Community can only wonder what you wanted to say. (Or, as most of us usually
do, simply skip your yapfest of the day.)

So here's the question: Why do you believe Judge Sotomayor's decision being
overturned was significant? I'm quite sure you have no connection to any
would-be firemen in Connecticut. I'm certain you don't give a dog's heinie
about discrimination because you have a good job that seems quite secure.
I'm also dead-bang certain you don't identify personally with firefighters,
because (a) they're brave and you're a coward, and (b) they had the gumption
to get a lawyer and go to court, whereas all you ever do is whine from the
cheap seats.

Which leads me to suspect that in your whacked-out belief system, a judge
getting overturned by the Supreme Court makes her unfit to serve on that
court. Is that it? If that's what you 'think', just say so.

Oh, I took it as 2pid being happy that those damned darkies weren't
having things go their way. 2pid is all about White Power, you know.
That's why he and Bratzi are so much alike.

But your guess at this somehow being a disqualification of Judge
Sotomayor in 2pid's mind also makes sense.

What are we to do? 2pid admittedly seldom tells us what he really
means. That may be because 2pid doesn't actually know what he really
means. That's why he frequently argues both sides of an issue. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 4:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:11*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

As usual, your OT crapola was stoopid and ignorant, so we in the Smart Guys
Community can only wonder what you wanted to say. (Or, as most of us usually
do, simply skip your yapfest of the day.)

So here's the question: Why do you believe Judge Sotomayor's decision being
overturned was significant? I'm quite sure you have no connection to any
would-be firemen in Connecticut. I'm certain you don't give a dog's heinie
about discrimination because you have a good job that seems quite secure.
I'm also dead-bang certain you don't identify personally with firefighters,
because (a) they're brave and you're a coward, and (b) they had the gumption
to get a lawyer and go to court, whereas all you ever do is whine from the
cheap seats.

Which leads me to suspect that in your whacked-out belief system, a judge
getting overturned by the Supreme Court makes her unfit to serve on that
court. Is that it? If that's what you 'think', just say so.

Oh, I took it as 2pid being happy that those damned darkies weren't
having things go their way.

*Actually, I'm happy to know the military won't have to promote you
again and put you in a position where you might actually do some
damage.

I note your silent assent.

George, it looks like we're both right.

PS:

Q; What's one big difference between 2pid and me?
A: I've been promoted in the military. LoL.

You know squat, 2pid. You prove that every day. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 5:22*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:49*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2:11*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

As usual, your OT crapola was stoopid and ignorant, so we in the Smart Guys
Community can only wonder what you wanted to say. (Or, as most of us usually
do, simply skip your yapfest of the day.)

So here's the question: Why do you believe Judge Sotomayor's decision being
overturned was significant? I'm quite sure you have no connection to any
would-be firemen in Connecticut. I'm certain you don't give a dog's heinie
about discrimination because you have a good job that seems quite secure.
I'm also dead-bang certain you don't identify personally with firefighters,
because (a) they're brave and you're a coward, and (b) they had the gumption
to get a lawyer and go to court, whereas all you ever do is whine from the
cheap seats.

Which leads me to suspect that in your whacked-out belief system, a judge
getting overturned by the Supreme Court makes her unfit to serve on that
court. Is that it? If that's what you 'think', just say so.

Oh, I took it as 2pid being happy that those damned darkies weren't
having things go their way.

*Actually, I'm happy to know the military won't have to promote you
again and put you in a position where you might actually do some
damage.

I note your silent assent.

George, it looks like we're both right.

PS:

Q; What's one big difference between 2pid and me?
A: I've been promoted in the military

OMG, George...you're just like me. * LoL.

LoL. The difference, of course, is that George doesn't say stupid
things about military matters like you do. LoL.

That brings up an interesting question, 2pid:

Let's say a gay person wants to join the military. Do you believe that

1. They should be allowed to serve openly and without hypocrisy.

2. They should not be allowed to serve at all.

3. DADT has worked perfectly for over a decade. Leave it alone.

4. They should only be allowed to serve in certain capacities in
certain times of national need.

What say you, 2pid? Here's your chance to say what you 'think'. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 29, 6:39*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:22*pm, ScottW2 wrote:





On Jun 29, 2:49*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2:11*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:59*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

As usual, your OT crapola was stoopid and ignorant, so we in the Smart Guys
Community can only wonder what you wanted to say. (Or, as most of us usually
do, simply skip your yapfest of the day.)

So here's the question: Why do you believe Judge Sotomayor's decision being
overturned was significant? I'm quite sure you have no connection to any
would-be firemen in Connecticut. I'm certain you don't give a dog's heinie
about discrimination because you have a good job that seems quite secure.
I'm also dead-bang certain you don't identify personally with firefighters,
because (a) they're brave and you're a coward, and (b) they had the gumption
to get a lawyer and go to court, whereas all you ever do is whine from the
cheap seats.

Which leads me to suspect that in your whacked-out belief system, a judge
getting overturned by the Supreme Court makes her unfit to serve on that
court. Is that it? If that's what you 'think', just say so.

Oh, I took it as 2pid being happy that those damned darkies weren't
having things go their way.

*Actually, I'm happy to know the military won't have to promote you
again and put you in a position where you might actually do some
damage.

I note your silent assent.

George, it looks like we're both right.

PS:

Q; What's one big difference between 2pid and me?
A: I've been promoted in the military

OMG, George...you're just like me. * LoL.

LoL. The difference, of course, is that George doesn't say stupid
things about military matters like you do. LoL.

That brings up an interesting question, 2pid:

Let's say a gay person wants to join the military. Do you believe that

1. They should be allowed to serve openly and without hypocrisy.

2. They should not be allowed to serve at all.

3. DADT has worked perfectly for over a decade. Leave it alone.

4. They should only be allowed to serve in certain capacities in
certain times of national need.

What say you, 2pid? Here's your chance to say what you 'think'. LoL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

or

5. they should be allowed to serve as long as they are not married to
a same sex partner!!
(civl unions ok)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 6:33 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 6:39 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

That brings up an interesting question, 2pid:

Let's say a gay person wants to join the military. Do you believe that

1. They should be allowed to serve openly and without hypocrisy.

*Does George have to wear a pink tutu to be without hypocrisy?

Duh.

*How about you? Will you be out of uniform in womens clothing?

Duh. There are regulations in place about uniform wear in all
services, dum-dum. You can look them up.

*I need more data to determine the impact of your statement.

No, you're afraid to answer. That's to be expected from an imbecilic
sideline whiner like you. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 29, 10:21*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:40*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:33 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 29, 6:39 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
That brings up an interesting question, 2pid:

Let's say a gay person wants to join the military. Do you believe that

1. They should be allowed to serve openly and without hypocrisy.

*Does George have to wear a pink tutu to be without hypocrisy?

Duh.

*How about you? Will you be out of uniform in womens clothing?

Duh. There are regulations in place about uniform wear in all
services, dum-dum. You can look them up.

Isn't that going to conflict with openness?

Duh.

What will be next, accomodation dress codes as Do Tell replaces Don't
Tell?

What a perfectly imbecilic thing to say, 2pid. There's a reason (not
that you'd know) why they're called the "uniformed services". LoL.

*I need more data to determine the impact of your statement.

No, you're afraid to answer.

*No, I been assured on good authority (well, all the authority a
usenet resume can muster, which isn't much considering the quality of
the content offerred but....) all the contingencies must be
considered.

One who is deaf, dumb and blind will never see the quality of content
offered. LoL.

Good military planning and all that.

Outstanding! When do you plan on starting?