THERE'S HOPE!! - SCOTUS Slaps Obama

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Look, the smartest of the three boobs tries a reasonable defense while taking a rip at me but then sees that the more stupid COG does EXACTLY what I predicted he would do to defend the indefensible. Poor IB Dumb is sandwiched in between as COG gets nailed.



Ha Ha Ha -You guys get your balls busted and then find another great-spelling idiot to join with you in showing your asses. J.D., you said I "loose". J.D. I knew in advance that COG would not be smart enough to pick up on your well-intentioned excuses.

J.D., you do see that your definition is the same as mine, don't you? LMAO COG just wasn't smart enough to admit a small mistake but rather, he chose to compound it and drag his other little bully buddies into the fray to try to extricate him from the situation. Ha Ha Ha COG, IB and JD, the Three Musketeers of Dumbass.

You stumble all over yourselves trying to keep COG from looking so dumb but he won't have any of it and SHOWS everyone you were simply sticking up for the dumbest of the The Three Musketeers of Dumbass.

Please keep me laughing, boys! It is fun to see you imitating "smart". I would have gone for anything reasonable like "did ekim go to the cited site" or anything close but, no, COG acted exactly like Jubilation T. Cornpone from Little Abner.

Keep it up. It is so entertaining to watch all three of you flopping around like fish out of water. Whirly, you are a "non-factor" and realize your limitations. I like that about you.

These others actually believe they are relevant. Your political opinions are just as indefensible as this red herring you're using to take the heat off Dummy#1/COG.

Wrong again – just like you were wrong when you insisted COG was confusing 'cite' and 'site'. Once again, your ignorant, presumptive assertion was revealed to be bogus bullshit. Once again, you have scurried about and resorted to your usual, wormy-tactic of squirming and misdirecting. By this deceit, you hope you might cover your own innate buffoonery like a cat in a litter box trying to cover its shit, and you are a loser.

Your pathetic little word-game underscored the fact that you are - and you will remain - an ignorant, pompous-asshole of a loser. Nothing you write, no argument you make, will ever mitigate that simple fact.

[gulflover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The appropriate word is "cite" which is short for "citation". In proper writing when you forward a statement of fact then you "cite" the source in either a footnote or in the addendum. The original source will then be found in the bibliography. Face it Stevie, you are going up against the entire scholastic establishment. You loose.

I see what you did there. Very clever.

[JD Barleycorn]

I see Stevie took the bait. Don't you love similar words that mean different things like "cite" and "site" (sight), "lose" and "loose". This was two easy <<<< Though I thought too hours was a little slow.

[Little Stevie]

Slow people bore me. Run along, J.D. No one else is here bragging about the ball-busting they took. Did you recruit Gulf Fluffer to add his tripe? LMAO!

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a stupid, pompous asshole, and this summation of events is a bald face lie.

Now you've gone and left off the "d" from "bald-faced lie". You can't even muster a good retort without stepping on a rake and hitting yourself in the balls. LMAO

Got any more recruits like Gulf Fluffer?

[CuteOldGuy]

Geez, Stevie. Get a life.

[JD Barleycorn]

I see that Stevie doesn't have any answers. I have another fish hook here but I would rather Stevie prove his point some time. It might be a first.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Now you've gone and left off the "d" from "bald-faced lie". You can't even muster a good retort without stepping on a rake and hitting yourself in the balls. LMAO

Got any more recruits like Gulf Fluffer?

Yet another deflection. You are still an pompous-asshole liar.

[timpage]

Typical Fox News reporting. Makes it sound like the DOJ and Obama were parties to the lawsuit when they weren't. DOJ probably filed an amicus brief. Imagine that they would have the temerity to suggest that churches have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Bastards! Next they'll be saying that the TV huckster evangelist billionaires should have to pay taxes on all that money they bilk out of their elderly devotees! The very idea just boils my blood.....

The decision allows churches to discriminate against their employees by firing them for reasons that would violate the law in the private sector. And TTH knows exactly what he is talking about COG, this lady spent less than 20% of her employment time engaged in teaching religion-related topics. She's not a minister, she's a teacher. Read, man, read!!!

[Sidewinder]

Here's the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

[CuteOldGuy]

How is the EEOC not part of the Administration? That would be an interesting development.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet another deflection. You are still an pompous-asshole liar.

Wrong AGAIN, IB Dumb! Practically every post you made in this thread was an attempt at deflecting attention and making excuses about why your buddy made such an error in misusing "cite" and now you misspell "bald-faced lie" and say I'm using deflection. You need help. Your little mini-army of dunces is failing miserably.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Wrong AGAIN, IB Dumb! Practically every post you made in this thread was an attempt at deflecting attention and making excuses about why your buddy made such an error in misusing "cite" and now you misspell "bald-faced lie" and say I'm using deflection. You need help. Your little mini-army of dunces is failing miserably.

You lied in your post. You were challenged on your lie. You, in turn, criticize spelling - that's deflecting. You remain a pompous, lying asshole. You are a loser.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How is the EEOC not part of the Administration? That would be an interesting development.

The EDITORIAL you referenced said the "White House" was hit with a "knockout" punch. Hardly is an Amicus/Friend of the Court Brief the same as filing the suit to begin with. Besides, the corruption on the SCOTUS is a beacon that showcases moral bankruptcy. Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Scalia should wear NASCAR jumpsuits showing the corporate sponsors who have undoubtedly bought and fully paid for them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

The EDITORIAL you referenced said the "White House" was hit with a "knockout" punch. Hardly is an Amicus/Friend of the Court Brief the same as filing the suit to begin with. Besides, the corruption on the SCOTUS is a beacon that showcases moral bankruptcy. Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Scalia should wear NASCAR jumpsuits showing the corporate sponsors who have undoubtedly bought and fully paid for them.

FYI: The corruption of the Administration is a beacon that showcases moral bankruptcy. Obama, his Czars and his department heads should wear NASCAR jumpsuits showing the corporate sponsors who have undoubtedly bought and fully paid for them.