Money for larryc12


larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
21 Jan 2014, 8:57 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Vikesfan353 » 20 Jan 2014 8:58 pm wrote:
I never said he had all of them under control, I said when help was asked for it was sent, which it was.....
I never said 1 casualty I said 1 American...and I was referring to the embassy and consulate attacks that were brought up earlier....
So yes so far I have been wrong zero times...


You need to understand that Dano does not go by what you actually SAID. He'll just say you said whatever he wants it to look like. This goes on in thread after thread, then he claims he handed you your ass.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
24 Jan 2014, 8:20 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Misty » 24 Jan 2014 4:39 pm wrote:
Wednesday at the Republican Party’s winter meeting, Mike Huckabee was discussing the GOP’s need to get more of the women’s vote, when he said that the Democratic Party tells women “they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government.”

For one thing no one is asking 'Uncle Sugar' to write a prescription each month for birth control.
Contraception should be covered as a routine part of a woman's health care coverage, much like the law that Huckabee himself signed when he was the Governor of Arkansas.

While serving as governor of Arkansas Huckabee signed state legislation that required all health insurance plans providing prescription drug coverage to cover contraceptive drugs and devices as well.

Huckabee's exemption for religious organizations was actually narrower than the exemption in the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... ct2217.pdf

Can you say hypocrite?

Secondly, I'm sick of hearing about how women need contraceptives because they can't control their libido.
Remember when the slut-shaming Rush Limbaugh said that Sandra Fluke was having 'so much sex' that she couldn't afford her birth control?
(El Rushbo thinks that a woman needs to take a pill every time she has sex, but then I guess he's confusing the BC pill with his boner pills.)

What part do men play in this whole scenario?
After all, women wouldn't need contraceptives if they weren't having sex with men.
When do we start talking about how much sex men are having, or why they can't seem to control their libidos?


I don't know where you get the idea that men are exempt from criticism over unwed births. It is MEN that couldn't care less who they impregnate and just go on to the next one. But, of course, the left is who validates their behavior by rewarding them with abortions and welfare for mom, so why SHOULD they care? Still, the question remains. Why should women be GIVEN contraceptives when it is THEY who choose to have sex without a husband?
-1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
26 Jan 2014, 9:16 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
skews13 » 25 Jan 2014 8:12 pm wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/how-christian-tribalism-empowers-hardliners-against-wishes-most-americans

Image

The Christian right has long understood that in order to get the power they desire, they need to portray themselves as a group that is working for a majority. Sometimes they claim to speak for a majority of Americans and sometimes just for the majority of Christians, but either way, they understand that positioning themselves as spokespeople for a majority is an excellent way to push forward their agenda, even when that agenda is absolutely against what the majority actually wants.

More than any other group in America, the Christian right knows that you can shove through a massively unpopular policy by appealing to people’s sense of identity and solidarity. Indeed, you can often get people to support you who would be utterly repulsed by your actual agenda.

How do they do it? They understand better than anyone how, in politics, identity trumps grittier concerns like actual policies. Labels like “conservative” or “Christian” create intra-group loyalty that allows the radicals within a group to push their agenda knowing that while the majority in their group may disagree with them, they won’t fight too hard because they don’t want to be accused of not being Christian or conservative enough.

Understanding how identity often matters more than belief is key to understanding how the religious right manages to gather so much power while pushing an agenda completely out of lockstep not just with the mainstream of America, but the mainstream of conservatism.

A good example of how this works is with the recent attempts by the anti-choice movement to undermine women’s access to contraception. Will Saletan, recently writing for Slate, denied that the anti-choice movement is any real threat to access to contraception, because the majority of self-identified pro-lifers, who are almost entirely self-identified Christians, actually support contraception. He triumphantly declared that one cannot believe the “pro-life” movement is really about misogyny.

The problem with that argument is that, in the real world, the anti-choice movement is, in fact, chipping away at access to birth control just as they’re chipping away at access to abortion. (Saletan admitted that there have been attacks on contraception access, but basically hand-waved that off as irrelevant.) And they’re quite successful at it!

A number of lawsuits trying to kill the mandatory contraception coverage policy in the Affordable Care Act have been successful, suggesting that it’s going to go to the Supreme Court soon. The anti-choice movement successfully kept emergency contraception off drugstore shelves for years, for no other real reason than it was a new contraception and therefore easier to politically organize against. And anti-choicers have successfully slashed family planning funds earmarked for pregnancy prevention and convinced the Republican party to repeatedly use the threat of a government shutdown to attempt to destroy contraception subsidies permanently.

What Saletan also fails to acknowledge is that many people who identify as pro-life also disagree with bans on abortion! Fifty percent of Americans call themselves pro-life, but 77% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances. In other words, there’s a lot of people who identify as pro-life because they believe that’s what good Christians do—but they actually believe abortion should be legal in some cases.

What’s going on here is that, simply put, the hardliners in the Christian right are able to pressure other people into going along with them by using in-group loyalty. Your average pro-lifer wants abortion and contraception to be legal in some cases, but they will continue to give money and political support to anti-choicers trying to get rid of legal access to both because, at the end of the day, expressing solidarity with the movement matters.

Time and time again, we see this dynamic play out: People identify with the labels “Christian” or “conservative." The leaders of these communities push for extremely radical right-wing agendas the ordinary, workaday people in the community disagree with. But the ordinary people refuse to push too hard against their leaders, because their loyalty to the label trumps their concerns about embracing harmful policies or stances. It’s true when it comes to big serious issues like reproductive rights and true when it comes to sillier issues.

Part of what makes this work is that the Christian right has spent decades establishing a well-funded campaign to equate the label “Christian” with right-wing politics. A favorite tool to do this is to argue that Christians are being oppressed by the forces of secularism.

Take, for instance, the 2012 campaignto show loyalty to the Chick-Fil-A executive who went on the record saying that gay marriage would bring “God’s judgment” on the nation. Interestingly, the justification for the call to show “appreciation” for Chick-Fil-A was not framed by organizers as a show of solidarity for the idea that gays were evil. Oh no, it was a show of solidarity for Christians who were supposedly oppressed by meanie liberals with their meanie criticisms. By framing the issue as one of religious solidarity instead of homophobia solidarity, organizers were able to turn more people out than if they had bluntly named it Hate The Gays Day.

A similar thing happened with the outcry when Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” made homophobic comments to a reporter from GQ. Christian right organizers swiftly reframed the issue not as a debate about homosexuality, but instead about the supposed oppression faced by Christians. The message was clear: To be a good Christian, one should stifle any concerns about hatefulness toward gay people and rally behind Robertson. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana issued a statement that was the epitome of using religious solidarity to stifle internal criticism:

The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

Jindal was unwilling to go on the record agreeing with Robertson’s views of gay people. The support for Robertson was framed as a pushback against the supposed oppression that Christians face, with the implication being that, in order to fight against the oppression of Christians, it is important to go along with homophobia even if you disagree with it.

Once you understand how loyalty to the tribe causes people to squelch their objections to what the leaders of the tribe want, it becomes much easier to see how the Christian right convinces people to go along---or at least avoid fighting them---when the leaders decide to push radical right-wing agendas.

This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”

Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion—except to say it should not be taught in science class—the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.

A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.

This tendency to put identity and group loyalty ahead of actual beliefs helps explain one of the most amusing statistical discrepancies out there. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say premarital sex is wrong, a group we can safely say is spouting the religious teachings about the issue. But 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. While it’s possible that the people who object to premarital sex but also had premarital sex deeply regret their decision and would like to take it back, the truth is probably rooted in these issues of identity vs. reality.

What these numbers demonstrate is that there are a lot of Christians out there who are saying premarital sex is wrong while still choosing it for themselves. Being perceived as a good Christian—even to an anonymous phone poll-taker-trumps their own experiences, choices and beliefs.

You see this problem in all sorts of areas. Liberals and Democrats and atheists also feel pressure to toe the party line set by leaders, even if they strongly disagree. However, the concept of a “good atheist” or a “good liberal” doesn’t hold as much power as the concept of a “good Christian." For radical right-wingers, the threat that someone is being disloyal or betraying their identity is a powerful weapon.

More importantly, people’s eagerness to align themselves with the desirable labels of “Christian” or “conservative” or “pro-life” means that they will frequently set aside their actual policy objections with the movement in order to be a part of it.

If more Christians were willing to fight the hardline right-wingers on everything from science education to abortion to even the war on Christmas, the Christian right would lose most, if not all, of their power. Unfortunately, the power of conformity ends up being a thick armor that protects the Christian right, no matter how radical they get.


What an enormous boatload of yada, yada, yada. :shock:
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
26 Jan 2014, 2:29 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
What I know is the truth is that Nugent drives leftists up a wall, which he loves doing. LOL!
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
31 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Huey » 31 Jan 2014 5:59 pm wrote:

Oh, it is just another attack on a very intelligent and beautiful women that happens to have opinions that are different then theirs. Yet they claim we hate women.


As annoying and unreasonable as they can be, I love them to death. :)
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
05 Feb 2014, 10:10 am

Post 05 Feb 2014, 10:10 am
larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Meet Maine 's New Governor
--- In case you haven't heard about this guy before, his name will stick in your mind!


The new Maine Governor, Paul LePage is making New Jersey 's Chris Christie look timid. He isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Judging by the comments, every time he opens his mouth, his popularity goes up.


He brought down the house at his inauguration when he shook his fist toward the media box and said, "You're on notice! I've inherited a financially troubled State to run. Observe...cover what we do...but don't whine if I don't waste time responding to your every whim just for your amusement."


During his campaign for Governor, he was talking to commercial fishermen who are struggling because of federal fisheries rules. They complained that 0bama brought his family to Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park for a long Labor Day holiday and found time to meet with union leaders, but wouldn't talk to the fishermen. LePage replied, "I'd tell him to go to hell and get out of my State." The Lame Stream Media crucified LePage, but he jumped 6 points in the pre-election poll.


The Martin Luther King incident was a political sandbag, which brought him national exposure. The 'lame stream' media crucified him, but word on the street is very positive. The NAACP specifically asked LePage to spend MLK Day visiting black inmates at the Maine State Prison. He told them that he would meet with ALL inmates, regardless of race, if he were to visit the prison. The NAACP balked and then put out a news release claiming falsely that he refused to participate in any MLK events. He read it in the paper for the 1st time the next morning while being driven to an event and went ballistic because none of the reporters had called him for comment before running the NAACP release.


He arrived at that event & said in front of a TV camera, "If they want to play the race card on me they can kiss my ass", and he reminded them that he has an adopted black son from Jamaica and that he attended the local MLK Breakfast every year that he was mayor of Waterville. (He started his morning there on MLK Day.)


He then stated that there's a right way and a wrong way to meet with the Governor, and he put all special interests on notice that press releases, media leaks, and all demonstrations would prove to be the wrong way. He said any other group, which acted like the NAACP could expect to be at the bottom of the Governor's priority list!


He then did the following, and judging from local radio talk show callers, his popularity increased even more: The State employees union complained because he waited until 3 P.M. before closing State offices and facilities and sending non-emergency personnel home during the last blizzard. The prior Governor would often close offices for the day with just a forecast before the first flakes. (Each time the State closes for snow, it costs the taxpayers about $1 million in wages for no work in return.)

LePage was CEO of the Marden's chain of discount family bargain retail stores before election as governor. He noted that State employees getting off work early could still find lots of retail stores open to shop. So, he put the State employees on notice by announcing: "If Marden's is open, Maine is open!"


He told State employees: "We live in Maine in the winter, for heaven's sake, and should know how to drive in it. Otherwise, apply for a State job in Florida !"


Governor LePage symbolizes what America needs; Refreshing politicians who aren't self-serving and who exhibit common sense.



THE LAW IS THE LAW!


I really love this one.


This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!!HERE IS WHAT Governor LaPage said,


"THE LAW IS THE LAW So "if" the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.


And "if" that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.


I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen


I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.


I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.


BUT, he said, "YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?



Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe Government (Federal, State and Local) and its employees should participate in Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.




I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.




I'd like the" US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day.



I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.



I'm thinking a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."




In fact....I think our government should work on Sundays (AFTER ALL, It was initially set aside for worshipping God) because, AFTER ALL, our government says that it should be Just ANOTHER DAY...."



What do you all think???? If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions" and begin, once again, to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
08 Feb 2014, 11:27 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
"Days of Our Lives", "General Hospital", "As the World Turns", "The Edge of Night", "All My Children" - none of them can hold a candle to this SO. This one doesn't even have commercials just as someone is about to reveal something horrible.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
12 Feb 2014, 2:09 pm

Post 12 Feb 2014, 2:09 pm
larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Brattle Street » 12 Feb 2014 10:36 am wrote:

let's just start here. provide your proof. If it is soooooo well known, it should be NO problem to demonstrate the truth of your statement. Let's see it little larry. Show us how you are not too cowardly to back up your own words. otherwise the spit will run down your face again.


Cannon: "And you closet queers are the ones ALL PISSED OFF because he broke your number 1 rule. Cry all you want, son. The NFL is gonna draft an open gay, and there's not shit you can do but cry on the interwebs about it.

"all pissed off" - lie. I'm not pissed at all.

"cry all you want" - lie. I've shown a different side to this than simple congratulatory applause for his coming out. That's not crying.

"there's not shit you can do but cry on the interwebs about it" = the proposition being that I'm trying to do anything about it.

He does this crap all the time whenever someone disagrees with him. It's dishonest, childish, and not very smart. And wouldn't you just love getting me to spend a bunch of time finding other shit and then you saying none of it proves anything anyway? Guess what. I don't live under your beck and call. :wave:
-1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
18 Feb 2014, 5:36 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
contracoup » 18 Feb 2014 1:37 pm wrote:

I honestly don't know.

Other than outlawing handguns, I don't see any simple answers.

What do you think should be done?

cc


Arrest, do discovery, hold a trial before a jury of his peers, convict or find not guilty, sentence accordingly if convicted. That's what.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
23 Feb 2014, 7:43 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
GailyBee » 23 Feb 2014 6:03 pm wrote:

Good question.

This will work if--IF--teachers begin at the kindergarten level expecting students to really participate. For example, if I ask my kinder math group 'what is 7 + 3?' and someone says '10', I don't just give them a thumb's up and move on. I say, "How can you prove that?"
This leads to using manipulatives, fingers--kids working and talking together to prove the solution is correct.

If we don't begin in the lower grades, then by the time kids are in middle/high school, it's almost too late.

I am also teaching the kinders Sign Language. We do math using ASL. They have NO idea how bright they are, but they are amazingly intelligent--motivated, AND they enjoy it.


Oh, btw, there is one "rote" that I think simply has to stand, and that is times tables. If they can't reproduce them, they are in big trouble from then on. I can't tell you how many times I've seen high school kids having to use a calculator to solve 2X=10, because they don't know what 10/2 is. All they know is, "you're supposed to divide each side of the equation by 2". Out comes the calculator. Yikes!
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
23 Feb 2014, 8:23 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Cannonpointer » 23 Feb 2014 4:22 am wrote:


So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


Mary then picked up a rock and threw it at her. Jesus said, "Mom, sometimes you really piss me off."

:)
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
24 Feb 2014, 9:35 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
GailyBee » 23 Feb 2014 8:53 pm wrote:

I'm all out of greens...IOU on green.


Not to fret. I don't expect any. :D
-3

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
01 Mar 2014, 9:18 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
GailyBee » 28 Feb 2014 10:25 pm wrote:

I didn't write it...didn't think I should change anything in it...

Speaking of editing--I've been reading a TON on my Kindle, and I'm appalled by the number of errors I find. Spelling errors, using the wrong word ('straight' when the author meant 'strait', 'further' when 'farther' was meant)...it really bugs me.

Sorry--side rant. :blink:


I participate in a Chicago Cubs blog and I just can't believe some of the writing there. The participants are very smart and have excellent comments to offer, but I can't believe how many do not know the use of "their" vs. "there", for example. I also see, "try and" instead of "try to" (Hannity says that all the time, driving me nuts - LOL!). Are we teaching these fundamentals of usage anymore? I can excuse mixing up usage out of habit, i.e. "your" vs. "you're" - that's easy to do when typing in a hurry, but when something incorrect is written time after time after time, it's not about being in a hurry.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
03 Mar 2014, 5:58 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
greatnpowerfuloz » 03 Mar 2014 3:34 pm wrote:

Death porno has nothing to do with nudity. It doesn't even have anything to do with the shot of a dead person. Your's and crimson's lustful glee in posting it is what makes it pornographic. And really fucking creepy, I might add.

Zimmerman is not and never has been a civic minded folk. Unless abusing women and sexually harassing young girls is now on the list of admirable American qualities. He's no golden boy and has proven that by his subsequent actions under the microscope of media scrutiny. Actions his father can no longer make 'go away.'

He took out a black thug and you can give him all the pats on the back you like for that, but you don't get to stand him up next to decent men of good character. He's a cretin with an overblown image of his own importance. A man-child who hasn't taken responsibility for a single one of his own actions in the many domestic conflicts he's been involved in since the trial ended.

What he's glorified as doing for the betterment of society in toasting a thug does not glorify him as a human being or excuse what he's done to others. You belittle your own character by claiming he's one of the good guys. One of you.


And all you want to talk about is Zimmerman the character. It's IRRELEVANT to the actual point, which is a person has the RIGHT to shoot someone who is bringing serious bodily harm that could result in one's death. The cop in this OP did so, not a word about it. Zimmerman did so, he's a "man-child", "wannabe cop", so on and so forth. The only difference in the two lawful exercise of self-defense scenarios is that Martin was black. I've got news for you. Martin had no more right to his life than this white guy did to his. The white guy was just as unarmed, he was just as aggressive, he was doing the same bodily harm, and he had done no more "suspicious" behavior (likely less) than did Martin. It doesn't matter who is to blame for the struggle. What matters is who is about to inflict life threatening blows by whatever means. All that was sorted out in a court of law, and no matter what you think of Zimmerman the man, it's irrelevant to the findings of the court. No matter what I or anyone else thinks of Martin, it's irrelevant to the findings of the court. I think of Zimmerman as the defendant in the proceedings, nothing more, nothing less. The left, however, has to somehow make this about killing a black kid needlessly - racist - opportunist - coward with a gun. I hear no howling about this white guy getting killed over yelling at a cab driver. Well, he was white and shit happens to people that get into fights - as long as they're both white or both black, that is. This thread proves the point as none of you have been defending this white guy.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
03 Mar 2014, 6:01 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
tharock220 » 03 Mar 2014 3:44 pm wrote:

You're giving Zimmerman way too much credit here. The dude wasn't guilty of murder, manslaughter, or anything else, but he's a total piece of shit. I had some interest in this at the beginning of the case, but when I realized the eventual verdict would be seen as a triumph by opposing political sides, of all things, I said fuck it. For that, I'm truly happy. As a conservative my initial reaction was to support Zimmerman, and after seeing what a scumbag he is, I'm glad I never did.

Troglodytes were cave dwellers, but they were civilized. Trayvon got himself killed that night. The events of his life pointed to an early grave. But make no mistake about it. He was killed by a publicity seeking, woman beating douche bag, and helping somebody change their tire or organizing a neighborhood watch atones for neither. I wanted Casey Anthony to be found guilty for killing her child, but at least she's had the good sense to avoid the public.


Whatever you think of Zimmerman, it's still irrelevant. What IS relevant is the difference in attitude about these two very similar cases.
2

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
05 Mar 2014, 11:21 am

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
contracoup » 05 Mar 2014 10:02 am wrote:
Lots of wankers talking about "respect" since Pooty Poot invaded The Crimea. I used to know what the word meant, but now I'm not so sure.

Most times I hear it used these days is in the context of some professional athlete boasting that, because his team beat some other team, now he has respect. I suppose that means that the players on the beaten team have been disrespected.

Here's my question:

Is that the kind of "respect" the wankers have in "mind"?

Has the practice international geopolitics been brought down to the level of Aaron Hernandez
?

cc


There are more forms of respect than just one. Why is it automatically, in your mind, boasting when an athlete says he and his team now have respect? It doesn't mean disrespect or respect, one or the other. I despise the St. Louis Cardinals, for example, but have all the respect for them in the world. I have very little, if any, respect for the New York Yankees, a winning force in baseball for decades upon decades. The left always wants to talk about black and white vs. gray, yet here you're doing the same.
1

larryc12's Photo
Posted by larryc12
07 Mar 2014, 7:02 pm

larryc12       
      

Posts: 13602
Southern indep » 06 Mar 2014 9:05 pm wrote:
Oh I've let him know what I think about his lame ass in other threads...
But damn isn't his trolling a bore?


No, no! We're the trolls. Haven't you read "more troll crap"? He's got it down. :D
1