Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:49 PM
Number of posts: 6,972

About Me

The last one to serve on the last jury before this joint takes its rightful place in the land of the 404 error, be sure and turn off the lights. See yah.

Journal Archives

Whenever someone answers an irrefutable fact with a phony rhetorical question

they are conceding they have lost the issue being debated, as here. I already told you that I saw a polling bigwig on CNN bemoaning that the #1 way they were actually able to accurately "poll" - over landlines - are fading from American homes so quickly that he admitted their polling was more inaccurate now than it had been since the 1950s - you need to learn to listen before you start typing double-down silliness, sport. That's why there have been so many "surprises" this year with several primary elections, most notably in Michigan for Sanders and Wisconsin for Cruz.

Come back when you got an actual reply that addresses my actual facts.

And BTW, it's going to be ever so sweet to watch you all over DI on election night....

Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Thu May 5, 2016, 11:50 AM (1 replies)

Trump is going to beat Hillary, and likely by landslide proportions.

Your poll in May is superfluous; at this point in 1980, all polls had Carter beating Reagan by 20+ points and in 1988 little Mikey beating Bush I by 17+ points.

Your wishful daydreaming will have turned into a nightmare by November. Better start bracing yourself to deal with it.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Thu May 5, 2016, 08:17 AM (2 replies)

"I know plenty" - No, you do not. You're a third-rate Hillary hack posting bilge on a

discussion forum. You don't personally know a single "Democratic congress members or senators" (Sic) and never will.

They ALL think he's an asshole.

I'd say that's pretty much every poster at DI, liberal or "Con," opinion of YOU. Save, of course, the idiot cartoon-spammer and the poster with the offensive rainbow flag pic mocking the brave Marines who won Iwo Jima during WWII.

Pretty easy to see why.

Yup - pretty easy to see why most DI'ers no matter their politics see the serial assholishness on routine display in your OP's. Very easy, in fact.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed May 4, 2016, 11:54 PM (1 replies)

And BTW, I'm a GOP Trump primary voter, genius. You can't even keep

THAT straight.

My analysis is, therefore, EVEN MORE weighted to seriousness as none of this affects me at all: I'm giving an outsider's perspective.

Witless wonders never cease....
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed May 4, 2016, 09:07 PM (0 replies)

Typical non-reply Reply: four mindless rhetorical questions completely unrelated to

my analysis above. More of the same witless theatrics from a regular supplier of it.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed May 4, 2016, 09:05 PM (0 replies)

"Deal with reality" - You wouldn't know "reality" if it was sitting on your lap.

When you're not on timeout here at DI, you run around spewing these silly OP's and personally attacking every single poster, whether they be a liberal or a "Con," who ruffles your rancid feathers.

A real piece of work.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed May 4, 2016, 04:25 PM (1 replies)

Dishonest OP, per usual for the author. She is ONLY ahead because her surrogates

ran around the country in contest after contest telling voters that it didn't matter what they did or they voted for: Her Majesty was going to be the nominee thanks to the Super Delegates no matter what.

This had the two-fold effect of both suppressing Democrat primary voter turnout and appealing to the "inevitability" vote among many who did.

So it's rich now to see a Hillary flack come on here and claim that the very Super Delegate system Her Majesty dishonestly employed to suppress Democrat voter primary turnout is going to be used by the guy she used it against to "overrule" the voters.

Ridiculous and brazenly intellectually dishonest OP. Per, as noted, usual.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed May 4, 2016, 04:23 PM (2 replies)

I wasn't on that jury, and am loathe to hide posts. My record shows this. But that OP

should have been hidden, on three counts:

1. It was not topical or relevant to the 2016 presidential election in the slightest, though it pretended to be.

2. It was deliberately offensive, suggesting something about a presidential candidate that is both absolutely horrible and not even remotely true, and all because (1) the OP doesn't like that presidential candidate and (2) the OP knows they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity to make such a vile suggestion.

3. The subject line itself was an utter fabrication; a complete and total lie.

Taken individually, I would probably not have voted to "Hide" that OP if only one of those points was present in it. I probably would have let it slide even if some combo of #1 + #3 were the only two factors. But the combined three-way mixture - especially of the utterly false and toxic suggestion of the OP that Trump had made "sexual comments about his 1 year old daughter" - makes it an easy "Hide" for anyone who is interested in the integrity of what is and what is not "across the line."

Of course, the OP himself knows his post was a vile lie: he just doesn't care. All he was interested in doing was both attempting to provoke a flamewar here at DI among conservatives in general and Trump supporters in particular while falsely smearing a presidential candidate he doesn't like while he was at it.

It was a (rare) "good" Hide on DI.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Tue May 3, 2016, 06:43 PM (1 replies)

A guy who rightly defended himself from the unprovoked attack of a thug-wannabe

and a presidential candidate who if elected will make America great again are, indeed, at the top of my list.

Though with Zimmerman, it wasn't so much the man - who is greatly flawed - as the perfectly legal and correct act of self-defense that he was then unjustly put through hell over that is my "hero"; you really do need to click the link in my signature line for why I'm "Zimm_Man_Fan."

BTW, every time I see someone start ranting about my screen name I just laugh: it tells me the person in question can't debate me on the facts, and I actually take it as a compliment of sorts, because the person doing so is basically saying "I got nuttin' so I'm gonna whine about your moniker."


Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Mon May 2, 2016, 02:54 PM (0 replies)

1. Yes, cut them off. PR is a welfare sinkhole and we have enough of those on native

soil, from Baltimore to Detroit to Oakland. 2. I don't care what the Supreme Court has to say about Puerto Rico. The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to legislate for and set the rules about territories.

In fact, I'm coming to feel this way about a lot of the court's recent dubious decisions. The bottom line is the high court has no force behind its rulings, only edicts that, if Congress wished to, could be rendered moot by cutting funding for Federal Marshals to enforce court rulings, or simply denying lower courts the funds to carry out those decisions.

In The Federalist Papers these three authors of the Constitution repeatedly plead for ratifying the Constitution with a Supreme Court in it - many people wanted NO federal courts, allowing state courts to interpret all federal laws for themselves - on the grounds that a Supreme Court would have no "force" but only "judgement" (Hamilton's words), and could be curtailed by Congress any time it overstepped its bounds. Today's Congress should take this kind of action to curtail the High Court's recent overreaches into what are and should be state matters.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Mon May 2, 2016, 02:39 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »