>> ^chilaxe:

@ gwiz665 @ Jinx @ MaxWilder @ quantumushroom @ Yogi @ peggedbea
It seems like a mistake to imply we don't care if people are douchebags or if they irrationally destroy their family.


It is irrational in the extreme to expect politicians to be saints. In general, they're kinda the opposite. We know that, and accept it. So why do we act all shocked when one of them screws up?

What chaps my hide is that we don't get all outraged and demand resignations when they blatantly go against the will of the people and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution when passing legislation like The unPatriot Act.

I thought you had some very good comments, all things considered.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Ha, what does that say about my commenting I wonder? :-/

Well, I'm glad to be a recipient of your comment upvote journey

In reply to this comment by longde:
Hi Spoco.

I took the 4 words in the comment below; then did a 4 comment searches with each of the keywords. Then read and upvoted the comments that had 14 points in the results. You won the jackpot; apparently you had a few comments with any of those words therein.

crazy, wrong, long, frequent



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

Ha, what does that say about my commenting I wonder? :-/

Well, I'm glad to be a recipient of your comment upvote journey

In reply to this comment by longde:
Hi Spoco.

I took the 4 words in the comment below; then did a 4 comment searches with each of the keywords. Then read and upvoted the comments that had 14 points in the results. You won the jackpot; apparently you had a few comments with any of those words therein.

crazy, wrong, long, frequent



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

Hi Spoco.

I took the 4 words, below; then did a 4 comment searches with each of the keywords. Then read and upvoted the comments that had 14 points in the results. You won the jackpot; apparently you had a few comments with any of those words therein.

crazy, wrong, long, frequent



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

As featured in May 2011 Wired Magazine

He's calling out this guy: http://videosift.com/video/Mr-B-the-Chap-Hop-sensation-Straight-Outta-Surrey

>> ^rottenseed:

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?



He couldn't. That's the failure of any human government.

But would you rather have a corporatist prez or not? At the very least he could veto pro-corporatist legislation, right?

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?

I want the job naming secret missions.

Operation: Happy Chap
Operation: Glitzy Pony
Operation: Sketchy Butler

Where's my paycheck?

>> ^timtoner:

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theatre?"


i'm liking this, let me try one

Aside from breaking your spine in three places Mr. Grylls, are you feeling up for some tennis today old chap?

Talented chap, pity I find his voice really annoying.

Yah. Yer a troll.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^messenger:
@BoneRemake
Right. Because pretences conclude that people should do things all the time. What are you talking about.

Something along the lines of <sS> to solicit "sarcasm" to the reader.
because I took your douchy paragraph as literal.
Hope that clears it up chap!
cheerio.
edit, which I now know means that strike out lettering I have always wondered about.

>> ^messenger:

@BoneRemake
Right. Because pretences conclude that people should do things all the time. What are you talking about.


Something along the lines of *<sS> to solicit "sarcasm" to the reader.
because I took your douchy paragraph as literal.

Hope that clears it up chap!

cheerio.

*edit, which I now know means that strike out lettering I have always wondered about.

That last line made me LOL. Boy, I hate saying LOL.

*promote for the chaps

" As white as a frenchmans flag "


Hah, good show chap !