Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If you have a debate with someone, but they keep changing their story it is hard to debate. He first tells me that he is upset about the media coverage of Sean Penn because the space should be devoted to the "human tragedy" and cites to an article that shows that tragedy (as if we all don't know how tragic it is). I show how hypocritical and absurd that is and then he changes his tune to, well its not the waste of ink and electrons, I just don't like the fact that they are making fun of Sean Penn when he is trying to help.
Once I point out the absurdity of that position, then he will change his excuse again.
Sean Penn is an idiot. Sending him in is like sending in the Keystone Cops. He will probably only make the situation worse. He goes to see the Butcher of Bahgdad just before the war. Now this same idiot tries to go New Orleans and uses a boat that doesn't float. It is funny and shows what an idiot he is. It is a valid news story because it is humorous and he is a celebrity.
But Ty gets upset about the newstory. Instead of just laughing and saying, and agreeing Sean Penn is an idiot he gets defensive. Why, because Penn is a liberal.
|
You have yet to offer a single cite to evidence supporting your non-dumbassery. Ty is observing the Marquis of Lawtalkers Rules. He raised raised an allegation - you are a dumbass. Until you refute that assertion with solid evidence, you are assumed a dumbass. You risk a default judgment of dumbassery with these frivolous motions to dismiss. The Court does not recognize Mr. Penn’s dumbassery as either precedential or relevant.
