Do liberals know the definition of Collusion?

It's rather hilarious watching all you guys debate the invisible man. Invisible because I've long put him on ignore and I just see your posts with nothing between them. You guys should try it. The guy doesn't provide any insight beyond what the left emails to it's listserv every morning. It's not like you're ever going to get him to go "hmm, that makes sense" on any subject at all.

I'm not a big one for using the ignore function, but sometimes it's necessary to remove the noise and get more signal.


For being invisible he sure seems to get under your skin since you keep bringing him up. I've got half a dozen people on ignore, but I stick to the definition of the word.
 
This Time We Liberals Have Totally Got Trump. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

As the Grand Marshal of the Supreme Court assembles the posse of Bailiffs, Trumpeters and Attendants, the Learned Scribes are generating the Official Law Warrant of Justice to arrest Donald Trump Jr. for High Treason, which they will do after marching to the White House on a carpet of rose petals strewn by Fair Maidens.

Or something. Whatever. The Menscian media is in a spazz yet again.

Boy oh boy, maybe this time we can overturn the results of the election…

And I admit I almost didn't think it could happen, but things have gotten stupider. Somehow the media and their enablers decided that the worst thing in the world is for someone to be willing to hear negative information about a political opponent from a foreign government, which wasn't a bad thing until Trump’s son tried it unsuccessfully. Apparently Putin’s cunning spies work through chunky music industry gadflies and third-tier lawyers and don’t actually have any dirt to give. Who knew?

But hey, collusion or something. Whatever.

It’s almost pointless to mention the actions of Hillary Clinton's cats paws regarding Paul Manafort and the Ukrainian government, or further back, Ted Kennedy’s anti-Reagan conspiracy, because neither counts as this is all posturing and lies. If Hillary thought Lenin’s embalmed corpse could have provided dirt on Trump, she’d have been in Red Square doing CPR.

Surprise! This stupidity drops right after Trump crushes it with a speech in Poland and right after James Integrity Boy Comey was revealed to have been playing the kind of classified materials games he let Clinton slide on.
r.

It’s all about liberals retaking power and trying to make sure we normals never get a say in our own governance again. Make no mistake, there are plenty of nominal Republicans who would be happy for that to happen. According to David Brooks, we peasants lack sufficient sandwich savvy for self determination.

None of this is about right and wrong. It's about power - their power, and ensuring we have none.

Let me break down how this is going to end. Liberals are going to gobble yet another Treason Viagra and the hot chick of success is gonna let them buy her a pricy dinner and then smile and say “Let's just be friends.”

Again.

I would almost feel sorry for them if they weren’t a bunch of evil, aspiring fascists who want to turn all of America into Evergreen College.

Oh, meanwhile in Iraq, which never mattered to Democrats, the people who were slicing the heads off dudes, tossing gays off buildings, and selling women into sex slavery, have been annihilated. This happened under the tender loving care of Mad Dog Mattis, the guy who Trump put in command of our armies and who refocused our military away from making it more comfortable for people who don't understand that a penis makes you male to killing our civilization’s enemies.

You might think that the annihilation of ISIS in Iraq would merit a mention, but no. See, in the middle of a political campaign, a campaign was willing to hear out someone promising negative information about an opponent, which, as we all now know, is the worst thing in the history of ever and is treason or something because that’s a useful narrative right this minute. CNN is all over one of these stories. Guess which one.

Go on. Guess.

I feel stupider watching CNN, so I don't. In fact, a lot of people aren't watching it. CNN is getting beaten out by Yogi Bear, a cartoon which provides more reliable information than Fredo Cuomo and the rest generate. In fact, Yogi Bear has had to retract exponentially fewer stories than CNN.

Let me say that again. A cartoon bear whose entire life focus is stealing picnic baskets from tourists is a more popular and more accurate source of information than Cable News Network.

But memes! Whatever.

Do you think this latest nonsense is going to stop Trump, by which I mean the people who support him? Do you think the normal people in America are thinking “Gosh, a campaign tried to get negative information about its opponent? I'm shocked and stunned and emotionally ruined. I don't know where to turn or what to do. I guess I better support a bunch of liberal fascists who want to take my money and my power and my guns and who boo God.

Whatever. Now Tim Kaine is channeling his inner Louise Mensch, who seems to be channeling the voices in her head, and is screeching “TREASON!!!” But we should be forgiving because Tim has an excuse.

He's an idiot.

The liberals are losing and they're going to keep losing. They're going to lose in 2018, despite the Republicans’ best efforts to fail. And in 2020 we’ll get four more years of Donald Trump and I'm going to laugh during every minute of it. Let all those latter-day converts to McCarthyism working as associate sociology professors at Gumbo State and who drive old Corollas with fading bumperstickers that read “Nuclear Freeze Now” keep tweeting “TREASON” in all caps. You go, girls.

Again, whatever.

Let's assume every single thing the liberals postulate is absolutely true. Let's say Donald Trump, Jr., knew that the Russian government was using a crew of goofuses to try to feed him negative information on Felonia von Pantsuit and he went to get it and found out they didn't have any, which is a miracle because if there is one thing in the world there's a lot of, it's negative information about Hillary Clinton.

So what?

This was never some sort of rule acquiring you be fussy about where you dig up your dirt, and to the extent Clinton didn't already break this fake rule, she would've in a heartbeat if she had been presented the opportunity. I don't think I'm going to give up my freedom to honor your bogus principle du jour.

It won't work. Nobody's getting arrested, nobody’s getting impeached. You liberals suck and you're going to lose. Again.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...-totally-got-trump-wash-rinse-repeat-n2353881
 
The Five Stages of Trumpism

1. "It's a total lie, never happened, fake news."

2. "It happened, but it's not a big deal."

3. "OK it might be a big deal, but it isn't illegal."

4. "OK it's illegal, but Hillary and Obama something something, so it's OK."

5. "Get over it, libt urd, you're just a sore loser."

Classic Trumpism Stage #4.
 
For being invisible he sure seems to get under your skin since you keep bringing him up. I've got half a dozen people on ignore, but I stick to the definition of the word.

You have a strange definition of "keep bringing him up" and "get under your skin". I mentioned him in this thread because he posts so often that having his posts omitted everywhere provides sometimes hilarious and sometimes confusing thread continuity. That's all.

Not that this concerns you in any way whatsoever, unless you're trying to provoke a flame war in an uncharacteristic manner with me.. Are you?
 
You have a strange definition of "keep bringing him up" and "get under your skin". I mentioned him in this thread because he posts so often that having his posts omitted everywhere provides sometimes hilarious and sometimes confusing thread continuity. That's all.

Not that this concerns you in any way whatsoever, unless you're trying to provoke a flame war in an uncharacteristic manner with me.. Are you?

Nah, I've left that pettiness behind w/my childhood. I find it annoying is all and comes across as insincere (not first time I've seen this whole "invisible guy" jab from you).
 
Nah, I've left that pettiness behind w/my childhood. I find it annoying is all and comes across as insincere (not first time I've seen this whole "invisible guy" jab from you).

Would seem that either your pettiness isn't as far behind you as previously thought, or you are a lot younger than I had believed.
 
Your guru Bass worked out more years than you, was no doubt in much better shape than you, and yet promoted his types of less is more workouts, to achieve gains, for someone just like himself. In other words, for someone who is just like who you claim to be.

You claim to be just what Bass is, yet you admit it doesn't work for you. You admit No Gains.
You stupid, stupid man. I said it does work, because I did not lose any strength or size as a result of reducing the frequency and volume of my training. That's a win. That is why I am now convinced that less is more. I was spending several more hours in the gym every week, whereas I now don't have to. This is why I am now such a proponent of HIT. This is why I have enthusiastically started a number of related threads in this regard in the health forum.

Seriously, are you brain damaged?

And why did you even raise this topic in this thread?
 
Last edited:
You stupid, stupid man. I said it does work, because I did not lose any strength or size as a result of reducing the frequency and volume of my training. That's a win. That is why I am now convinced that less is more. I was spending several more hours in the gym every week, whereas I now don't have to. This is why I am now such a proponent of HIT. This is why I have enthusiastically started a number of related threads in this regard in the health forum.


The Bass articles you've spammed that forum with promote low frequency workouts for muscular gain. Even for old people. Like us. Like Bass. Not just for youngsters, and for experience lifters, not just for beginners. It's the point of those particular threads. It's in the title of the threads. To promote gains.

If it works like your articles say, it should work for you.

But yeah, yeah, yeah, it doesn't work like that for you because you've reached such a peak level of development that further gains aren't possible. (sigh) :rolleyes:

It sounds reasonable to common senses to say that someone 58 yrs old is beyond prime and maintenance is all that can be hoped for. But the articles you repeatedly post and promote do not say that.

The apparent contradiction between your experience and what you promote seems to leave a sizable gap.
 
But yeah, yeah, yeah, it doesn't work like that for you because you've reached such a peak level of development that further gains aren't possible. (sigh) :rolleyes:
You stupid, stupid man.

Clarence Bass is right, and he supports his assertions with well-conducted research.

But people who have been seriously working out their whole adult lives do not continue to make strength and muscular gains after 40+ years. It doesn't happen. If you actually worked out, then you would know this. But you are an ignorant thug whose posts are an assault on IQ.

Go to Bass's web site and look at the pictorial. He's in great shape. Look at his physique when he was in his 40s. Then look at his physique when he turned 60. And look at him now as he approaches 80. He has worked out for over 65 years and is a great physical specimen who has stood the test of time, to be sure. But was he getting more muscular with the passage of time after his 40s and into his 50s? No. Also, note that he was a successful competitive Olympic lifter at the state level in his younger days. Is he even stronger now? Would he still be competitive? Of course not.

So WTF is the basis for your incessant buffoonery?

All kidding aside, you are a wretched fool. Be gone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top