Banker’s Insulting Waitress Tip

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

Speaking of education did you get yours from shit house walls?

No that "one-room" school house was all yours. Kansans are very famous for their "outdoor" plumbing. BTW, do you still read the Sears catalog after you use the pages? Does your wife/sister/hayseed-cousin actually kiss you on your lips?

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by MC

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending...164624882.html

This guy seems like a real asshole.

UPDATE: According to The Smoking Gun, the restaurant says they found the original merchant copy, and the receipt going around the Web is Photoshopped.

[Doove]

IB,

Given the amount of time that you're willing to put into failing to prove anything, just for that alone i'll let you pretend you won the argument.

Nice job!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No that "one-room" school house was all yours. Kansans are very famous for their "outdoor" plumbing. BTW, do you still read the Sears catalog after you use the pages? Does your wife/sister/hayseed-cousin actually kiss you on your lips?

Lame I will see if I can get some of the posters to anti up some coin and we will get you some crutches.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

You still blabbing away as if anything you say has truth to it. LOL! Stop the presses, IB Stoopid says this board is proof! What a moron.

He must have reading them while he was bent over taking it in the ass! Word in Chicago is, for a good time, IB TakingIt is the man!

The 'proof' is in your posts. For instance, in this post above you make the argument that this board is unsubstantial and irrelevant; yet, by making the post you are insisting that you have a substantive POV and argument. It cannot be both: except in the convoluted mind of moronic liberal where 'black' is 'white' and 'up' is 'down' -- 180 degrees out of kilter. Of course now that you've deemed this board irrelevant, any retort by you will only further underscore the illegitimacy of your POV and your argument while bolstering others. But hey, go for it!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The 'proof' is in your posts. For instance, in this post above you make the argument that this board is unsubstantial and irrelevant; yet, by making the post you are insisting that you have a substantive POV and argument. It cannot be both: except in the convoluted mind of moronic liberal where 'black' is 'white' and 'up' is 'down' -- 180 degrees out of kilter. Of course now that you've deemed this board irrelevant, any retort by you will only further underscore the illegitimacy of your POV and your argument while bolstering others. But hey, go for it!

in context, aka the big picture, this board and many others are not substantial/relevant. To most your convoluted moronic jabber is out of kilter. Any further retort by you will only underscore your childish bullshit, and bolster others points of view in the interim.

See how that works?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

IB,

Given the amount of time that you're willing to put into failing to prove anything, just for that alone i'll let you pretend you won the argument.

Nice job!

No pretending to it, Doofus. You fallaciously made an insupportable claim, and you were easily exposed. This example vividly shows that you are willing to lie to win an argument, and it also vividly shows you will stand by that lie - no matter how conspicuous - until the very end. This example exposes you for the pathetic fraud you are; wherein truth doesn't matter as long as you can brow beat others into accepting your religio-socialist philosophy. Encore:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant.

Final analysis, in all of your wormy deceit you still haven't refuted the fact that Obama hypocritically voted against a bill which met every precondition he set; thus, he voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant.

Doofus, you lie, obfuscate and deceive. This is from the cited article - paragraph #2:

"At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive."

This is Illinois Bill SB 1082:

LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding 5 Section 1.36 as follows: 6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new) 7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant. 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any 9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various 10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", 11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant 12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any 13 stage of development. 14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with 15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion 18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean 23 section, or induced abortion. 24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall 25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate 26 protection under the law.27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 28 becoming law.

You have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, attempted to misdirect the argument, but you have failed to refute Obama's hypocritical vote against a bill which met every precondition he set. He voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=232

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

in context, aka the big picture, this board and many others are not substantial/relevant. To most your convoluted moronic jabber is out of kilter. Any further retort by you will only underscore your childish bullshit, and bolster others points of view in the interim.

And yet you posted.

See just how dumb CJ7 is @
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

Lame I will see if I can get some of the posters to anti up some coin and we will get you some crutches.

No crutches needed, and it's a shame your inbred retardation is not so treatable.

[CJ7]

very good DUFUS!

[CuteOldGuy]

Sa_fartman, you're the one who said I should be kicked out of the country. And I have never advocated anarchy, again you are just making that up. Because I want to return to the type of government envisioned by our Founders, I am for anarchy? I should be kicked out of the country? I really think that type of logic simply shows your inability to respond with a cogent, intelligent comment. (start Bugs Bunny imitation) What a maroon! What an im-bess-ill.

You know nothing of what this country was, or what it could be, or even what it has become. You believe the jingoistic, simple-minded drivel that comes over the popular airwaves as if it proceeded from Mt. Sinai. You, Doofe, and others are caricatures of the "perfect citizen." Just read your posts; in order to be allowed to remain in this society, you have essentially stated that one must not complain about government, that if the government does something, it must be because we need it, and people who disagree should be silenced. To summarize, one must "submit, comply, conform" in order to be a good American, according to you.

I will not "submit, comply or conform" to a system that is stealing liberty and imposing a police state. Sorry, not going to do it. If you and your "tolerant, benevolent, moral, and intelligent" government wants to bounce me out of here, rather than coherently address the issues I raise, go ahead. If they don't want a rational discussion of the issues, go ahead. If they want to show their love of freedom by making an example of me as to what happens to dissenters, go ahead. And then congratulate how you preserved the American dream by getting rid of people who think differently than you. Go fucking ahead.

[JONBALLS]

Damm....., MC,..... your threads kickn the SHIT outta mine..

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No crutches needed, and it's a shame your inbred retardation is not so treatable.

We Kansans had to be alert all the time watching out for you south Chicago retards coming to Kansas wanting to fuck our farm animals.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

We Kansans had to be alert all the time watching out for you south Chicago retards coming to Kansas wanting to fuck our farm animals.

In other words, 'you got that ass well covered' and you wouldn't share with your brother or your wife/sister/hayseed-cousin.



Inbred retard.

[Sa_artman]

You think that up by yourself? LOL LOL Oh man, you're quite the joke IB...entertaining, but a joke. 180 degrees? Who comes up with that lame shit? In the battle of the wits boy, you're only half way there. Keep trying. Maybe try some more of you're inbred jokes...

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The 'proof' is in your posts. For instance, in this post above you make the argument that this board is unsubstantial and irrelevant; yet, by making the post you are insisting that you have a substantive POV and argument. It cannot be both: except in the convoluted mind of moronic liberal where 'black' is 'white' and 'up' is 'down' -- 180 degrees out of kilter. Of course now that you've deemed this board irrelevant, any retort by you will only further underscore the illegitimacy of your POV and your argument while bolstering others. But hey, go for it!