Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11887
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. AIP -

     

    If I had known a little red would make you so angry I would have done it a long time ago. You are trying to game the rep system with your buddies and when you were called on it you started lashing out while claiming you don't care about it.

     

    Stop being so sensitive, snowflake.

     

     

    • Like 1
  2. How much have I replied with?  None.  Because I don't care about anything but calling out petty bitchassedness.  You have a bad case of it.
     
    This site is so full of traitors it's pathetic.
    You seem upset. That's strange because you keep claiming you're not upset. Quite the mystery.
  3. Huckleberry, are you going to cry?  The second time in a week that a triggered snowflake has taken time to find all of my recent posts in here and "dislike" as many as possible.

     

    What a silly, petty, little bitch.  Hahahaha!

     

    Everyone else do it, too, please.  Having red next to my name in this echo chamber full of pansies and unhinged Never Trump Deranged crybabies is an honor.

    I'm not upset at you or triggered or whatever you want to call it. I'm only countering the Politics forum circle jerk that you, ScottishHorn, udaydanceparty, and Annie engage in.

     

    If I ran things the wouldn't be rep in this forum so it's not like it matters to me. You, on the other hand made this post so it's clear that it actually does matter to you.

  4. 18 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

    I can imagine Trump sitting next to Putin and whispering to him to just wait until after the election when he can really help him out.

    This is twice in two days you've owned yourself without realizing it. You're one of the worst trolls I've ever seen. You're like "Hornguy" on the HornFans recruiting board a decade ago but might actually be worse. Not in terms of upsetting people, but in terms of being terrible at your job.

    • Like 3
  5. Just awful.

    The #bothsides Trump supporters should use that logic and ask themselves, honestly, what they would have done if Obama had stood next to an adversary and done that. Seriously, just contemplate it for a moment. If, that is, you're capable of honest introspection.

    • Like 2
  6. 7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    More funny is, wait for it, *more* than acceptable. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/240847/can-i-say-more-funny-or-most-funny-instead-of-funnier-or-funniest

    And aren't you the resident pedant? LOL

    No, the comparative form of funny is funnier, your finding a site that references other people incorrectly using more funny doesn't make it right, it just means other people have screwed up before you.

    Don't worry, someday the language will evolve to match incorrect usage just like it always does. It just hasn't yet in this case.

  7. 9 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Indeed.

    But Surly likes extreme takes when opposing something, so we’re rolling here...

     

    The anti-Trumpers should love it.

    1. Make a stupid post that makes you seem like an idiot.
    2. Get called out on it.
    3. Say "I did that because the other side does it."
    4. Fail to realize that Step #3 does not make you seem like less of an idiot even if it were true, which everyone can tell it's not.

    Sorry, no profit step.

    • Like 5
  8. 27 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Socialism isn’t a move forward.  It’s just what you fuckers are in love with.

     

    You make it sound like nobody over 40 knws WTF is going on in life.  That’s normal, but you’re not going to disenfranchise us by taking away our votes.

     

    Hell, y’all have barely earned anything yet and think you should call the shots?

     

    yeah, that ain’t how it works, bro.

    What a stupid fucking post that has nothing to do with what it was ostensibly replying to.

    • Like 1
  9.  I think Russian attempts to influence the people in this country worked on you well.  The simple minded.  The people that dont see the hypocrisy and turn a blind eye to the corruption in government because it's their team

    I don't think I've ever seen someone own themselves so badly before. This is an impressive post.

     

    • Like 6
    • Haha 1
  10. She should have kept walking, she seems cunty. Maybe he just doesn’t have anything better do? Would have been a lot less bitch like to walk to the woman and say, “why not leave her alone?” “There’s no reason to call the cops, chill”.  Instead let’s video and heckle (while fucking up the clever phrase)  
    Intentionally trying to get someone viral and fired from their jobs for doing something minor that you disagree seems meek, and weak to me. He should have just handled it like a normal person.  That dude certain she was speaking to the police? Any backstory (maybe the gypsy fucked her over before) that he’s aware of?  Nope. Hey y’all, let’s get this one fired!!  What a bitch. 
    So you claim to think that both people were bitches who should have just left the situation alone. Both of them are threatening a stranger's ability to make a living when it's really none of their business. Yet you're only angry at and talking shit about one of them. Any reason why that might be?
    • Like 1
  11. It's almost like zork doesn't realize that what he quoted is telling him that Trump's entire strategy is based on the USA willfully forfeiting its position as the only economic superpower.

  12. Chris Fowler was so over the top when it ended. Basically no credit to Kerber.

     

    Kerber is a better tennis player than Williams right now. All time? Williams is probably the greatest and much much better than Kerber. 6 months from now? I'd put my money on Williams being better again. Right now? Kerber is better and the superior player beat the crap out of the inferior player.

     

     

  13. Is Academy going to go on record with what exactly is this policy violated by Mr. Crouch?
    Many if not most large retailers have a policy in place where employees should not stop an armed robbery for both employee safety as well as workers comp insurance policy reasons. I'm willing to bet that if they hadn't terminated the manager then their insurance could have been terminated.
    • Like 1
  14. It is a good question.  The PotUS does have special privileges, like being ok legally as PotUS to release the intel to the Ruskies in that oval office meeting even if it was ill advised.  Not sure if that is Executive privilege or how it works wrt PotUS rights to declassify anything.(not sure on the rules or what hoops would be expected to pass through before it is allowed for a PotUS)
    The oval office meeting came to mind as a highly controversial occurrence(mainly due to the potential Israeli, IIRC, assets it might have put in jeapordy) 
    Not sure about the phone.  Is that a new topic?
    Oh holy shit you are a riot. You know every slight transgression any Democrat has committed but are completely oblivious to every well known Republican transgression. Try branching out beyond the Drudge Report, man.
    • Like 2
  15. Occam's Razor says that there is nothing to this with the only objective being to delay any investigation into Crooked Hillary until after the next presidential election.
    No, that's not what Occam's Razor says. That's what rubes from Alabama who believe 9/11 was an inside job say.
    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
  16. 13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Even with that caveat, I find it interesting that Rosenstein made those remarks, and have to figure that the indictment was crafted to permit him to do so.  Or maybe it just didn't so that's what he said.  Occam and all.

    Occam's Razor actually says that Rosenstein and others involved with the investigation are doing their best to directly address the American people with facts at every turn when doing so will not hurt the investigation. Also that they're tired of all the stupid bullshit being flung about the investigation. And that is also supported by his actual statements:

    (Not using the jacked up quote function):

    "The indictment was returned today because prosecutors determined that the evidence was sufficient to present these allegations to a federal grand jury. Our analysis is based on the facts, the law, and Department of Justice policies.

    ...

    In my remarks, I have not identified the victims. When we confront foreign interference in American elections, it is important for us to avoid thinking politically as Republicans or Democrats and instead to think patriotically as Americans. Our response must not depend on who was victimized.

    ...

    The partisan warfare fueled by modern technology does not fairly reflect the grace and dignity of the American people.

    The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference. We need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future interference, and defend America."

    • Like 4
  17. 1 minute ago, TornACL said:

    Here's an idea. Why don't you read the actual Rosenstein statement, which is plastered all over the place. And is available right here. On the DOJ's own website.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-announcing-indictment-twelve

     

    Yeah, just finished reading that. For some reason the tweet above didn't include the very next paragraph after the statement about this indictment not alleging any crimes by any American.

    "The Special Counsel's investigation is ongoing. There will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time."

    I guess her internet cut out before that part loaded.

  18. 2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    "This particular indictment will go exactly nowhere" is pretty specific.

     

    It will be interesting to see if the congresscritter gets indicted or Stone or whomever said "pretty standard."

    If you want to get in a pedantic semantics argument, I'm your man.

    And again, no, it's not specific. "This particular indictment will yield zero convictions" is specific. "(W)ill go exactly nowhere" is not specific at all. Because leading to further investigation, indictments, etc. is going somewhere. 

×
×
  • Create New...