bigbob is secure in the knowledge that Dustin Hoffman never took drugs:
Hoffman was a great actorRevolting cat! thinks acting ain't no thing:
Dustin, yes. This doper? No.
It takes a lot less to be anb actor than to be a concert pianist. Elvis Presley was an "actor".A_Former_Democrat thinks drugs are just like guns:
All I hear here is that this actor was "great", "awesome", "unbelievable", "incredible", "amazing", the same things I hear on music threads from people who claim post-graduate degrees in music. What does it mean, valley girl? It means nothing to me!
Some nutcase goes and shoots up a theatre or a school and here they all come, shouting from the mountaintops for “gun control”red-dawg doesn't understand how alcohol is different than heroin.
But as another of their own falls dead from drugs, nary a peep in favor of a war on drugs
I only have two questions:rktman can't resist an 'Obama is gay' crack.
If he had drank himself to death, would the NYC Cops have arrested a bunch of bartenders?
Were any of these people seen at Chris Kyle's Memorial service at Cowboys Stadium?
We celebrate an actor, a person who reads texts others wrote and pretends to be others, a junkie who once played a famous fag! I get it now!OneVike laments the existence of fame:
Uh, isn’t/wasn’t he a little “light” to play the “lyin’ king”?
I am sure that if I looked, it would not be too difficult to find a funeral that was held on Friday for a Godly individual who lived a life that was truly worthy of celebrating as we mourn their passing.
So why do we continue to celebrate the worst of our society instead of the best?
I guess no one cars if John Joe Christian died of natural causes after contributing his life to Christ, family and country because he did so in the obscurity of his little circle of friends and family.
And the spiral down into the depths of depravity continue for this once great country God had shed His grace upon.
I did not realize Dustin Hoffman was a conservative icon.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to have a soft spot for his character in Midnight Cowboy.
DeleteYeah...I know.
It's gratifying to see how weak and small-minded the trolls are. They've really got nothin' but unfunny sexual innuendo. (Probably all slappin' each other on the back anyway, like, "Good one.")
DeleteYou don't seem very happy. In fact, you strike me as quite sad. And desperate.
DeleteBut remember, about 10-20% of that disapproval is firebaggers who think Obama is not liberal enough. They'll still hold their noses and vote for him, as was proved in 2012.
Delete"But Hoffman was amazing. His ability to sell characters of just about any sort - epically large and charismatic to quiet and small and petty - was unequaled."
ReplyDeleteSing that. He was one of the few actors that never pulled you out of a scene to think "This is Hoffman pretending." He was an artist of the highest order. Poor sod had what, 23 years clean? Makes you think.
Quite funny ... the disdain for actors and the acting profession by the holier-than-thous in society has been going on for 1000 years or more.
ReplyDeleteI like how freepers pretend this only came about as a result of "Obama" and liberalism ...
kind of like how they pretend Bill Clinton invented the blow job.
I like how liberals pretend to be normal heterosexuals. We all have our fucking hobbies, don't we?
DeleteActually, I like how freepers pretend to be heterosexuals, as much as they despise women.
DeleteThey'd hate any one of them if they had to listen to them shriek in person for more than five minutes.
DeleteI don't hate women. Just those women. They're irritating. And as disgusting as they are, you will never have a shot at anything as good as them! Which explains your bitterness and abundance of free time.
DeleteMy goodness, haven't seen you around in ages!
DeleteReally running you ragged at the Cluck Bucket these days, poor ol' fellow!
Have you even read FR lately when the subjects of Ann Coulter or Nikki Haley come up? Ain't much love there for sure. Megan Kelly gets a fair amount of boorish disrespect too. Let Mia Love make one vote in favor of equal rights or funding welfare support and the patented FR racism will fly thick and fast!
I swear to God, all the syphilitic cock you sucked at the adult bookstore is finally rotting your brain, ha ha!
(It ain't gay if you keep it on the "down low", right?)
Yes, that's correct. Especially if you call them "dyke on wheels" or "Hitlery"
DeleteAnd just because you've never been within 50 feet of a black person doesn't mean we haven't.
Just as soon as you prove him/her wrong.
DeleteYou lose again.
Laz interprets Nine Inch Nail songs.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3122079/posts#comment
"Nine Inch Nails Saw The Fascist Future of the USA." Yeah, he sure did. And "Year Zero" was released in 2007, and "Capital G" was NOT about Obama. I know how badly Freepers like to make art, music, and literature about their own political opponents, but unless Ted Nugent is singing, they usually get it 180 degrees wrong. And they always refuse to see the writing on the wall about their own heroes.
DeleteOoch, that really hurts. Pretty funny coming from people who still idolize a washed-up whorish hockey mom from Alaska and send that whore money on a regular basis for her PAC.
DeleteIf those make Obama "a definite short-busser" then Bush must have been a barely functional weapons-grade moron.
DeleteConservatives don't worship politicians the way you worthless lib fucks do.
DeleteTwo words: Ronald Reagan.
Sure, you can find any fringe-type website where people who call themselves conservatives will badmouth Reagan. But the vast majority of conservative websites speak of Reagan as the greatest president since George Washington. Compare that to liberal websites who frequently criticize President Obama. So to repeat your own words back to you, "You really, really have no fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?"
DeleteDid you actually follow those links? I found a few at the very first link. Hint: Just because they don't promote the fake right-wing "scandals" or call him a "dictator" or "a definite short-busser" doesn't mean they love him uncritically.
DeleteSo...you're calling me a conservative now? OK...
DeleteAnyway, how about these:
http://freerepublic.com/tag/reagan/index?tab=articles
http://www.redstate.com/search/reagan
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/?s=reagan
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=reagan&submit=Search&ss=fn
Yes, the exact same thing you did to get the websites you cut and pasted. I wonder what that says about you, then?
DeleteI know lots of liberals who are critical of Obama.
DeleteThe only conservatives that are critical of Reagan are either hardcore libertarian (Ron Paul) or some super reactionary paleo-conservatives (Pat Buchanan).
Both are hated by the Conservative mainstream and don't even consider them conservtives.
The RNC is a constant worship feast of everything Reagan.
No one is revered on that level at the DNC. Not even FDR or JFK.
On the topic of sexuality, although it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything, you keep on shrieking about it so I guess I should give my two dimes.
I find anal to be incredible uncomfortable, oral is ok but I way prefer being vaginally penetrated.
On the topic of being uncomfortable around african-americans... my current boyfriend is black!
Man, I remember when trolling meant something. This guy is the shittiest troll I have ever read. Boring and repetitive as hell.
ReplyDeletePut some effort into it, you slacker.
Isn't it about time you got yourself to the Cluck Bucket for your all night shift?
DeleteOr are you spending the evening in the alley behind the adult bookstore again tonight, down-low boy?
I don't know if a troll who wears his...uh...heart on his sleeve to this extent can be called "down-low."
DeleteAs conservative closet cases go, this troll is an absolute flamer...right up there with Dan "I'm Not Gay, Just Thrifty!" Rutherford (R-Of Course).
And by the way, troll-boy, rhetoric like yours has done a LOT to get gay rights to the point they're at now, as more and more people look at you manifestly unhappy and hypocritical freaks and realize that they don't really wanna be associated.
DeleteSo please proceed, jerkoff. Looks like Kentucky's gonna be the next state to join the 21st century. We couldn't have done it without raging denialista anger-bears like you, with your crippling psychosexual problems...so thanks, sweetie! See you at your mandatory gay wedding.
Yup, when states try to enshrine discrimination into their constitution, a judge must shred it.
DeleteFirst show me where in the Constitution it says that a right has to be mentioned in the Constitution in order for it to be a right.
DeleteAnd BTW, I guess "fag lover" is supposed to be an insult, but just for the record, I do have friends and family members who are gay, I do indeed love them, and I have no doubt that any of them could kick your ass on a civics test, in a debate, or a fistfight.
DeleteHave fun crying yourself to sleep tonight under your jizz-flecked poster of Reagan's head grafted onto a seven-year-old boy's body, you bootlicking pervert.
No, but apparently you are. I Googled "Bill of Rights". Was there anything in particular you wanted me to see? Because nowhere in there does it say a right has to be mentioned in the Constitution in order for it to be a right. Now did you have anything intelligent to say, or did you want to just show your ass again as usual?
DeleteI can't help you anymore, Euphdick. If it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's not a right. Period. The government cannot create rights. Our rights come from our Creator or our humanity.
DeleteLook, I'm not going to sit here and be your fucking civics teacher. You can read Hobbes, De Tocqueville, and Burk as I did in college....or don't. I don't really care.
Amendment IX: "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people."
DeleteArticle 6: Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Supreme Court (1923): "Without doubt, [the 14th Amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry...."
Supreme Court (1942): Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.”
Supreme Court (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Supreme Court (1977): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
If you don't like it, move to Russia.
You can read Hobbes, De Tocqueville, and Burk as I did in college.
DeleteRight. 'Cause when I want guidance on the legal status of homosexuals under the U.S. Constitution in 2014, I'll naturally go to 17th-century English monarchist, a French guy who visited the USA briefly in the 1830s, and an 18th-century British conservative, instead of consulting, say, Supreme Court decisions made over decades. Or James Madison's discussion of the care he took in avoiding any misconception that a right not enumerated in the constitution is not a legal right.
And if our rights come from our humanity, then so much the worse for your...well, "argument" wouldn't really be the word. Even "assertions" is a bit too strong. Most of what you're saying here could be replaced by an animated .gif of a crying baby with no loss of meaning.
Again, you're stupid and terrible at everything.
If it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's not a right. Period. The government cannot create rights. Our rights come from our Creator or our humanity.
DeleteYou're using the same failed argument that I humiliated you on a few weeks ago, but I don't mind doing it again. If our rights come from our "Creator" or our "humanity" then how is the Bill of Rights even relevant? Did the founding fathers take dictation from this "Creator"? Besides, who do you think wrote the Bill of Rights? That's right, the government. So they did create rights. You lose again.
You can read Hobbes, De Tocqueville, and Burk as I did in college.
By "in college" you really mean that you visited a college library one evening after your shift at the Cluck Bucket was over, right? Because if you actually took classes, you could not have passed them with "logik" like this. Any professor who valued his or her reputation would laugh you out of the classroom.
Actually, the 9th Amendment proves you wrong, but you're probably too stupid to see it.
DeleteAnd the government is not allowed to discriminate based on sex. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a legal contract called "marriage" together, the government can't say that because they're the same sex the contract is invalid.
Try a little harder next time.
"If it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's not a right. Period. The government cannot create rights. Our rights come from our Creator or our humanity." You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, don't you? If our rights come from our Creator, then it does not matter what the Bill of Rights says. In any case, you're wrong, because just because something isn't spelled out doesn't mean it isn't a right. The Constitution sets limits upon the government, not upon its citizens.
DeleteThis one is just epic -
ReplyDeleteFormer Congressman: Obama Plans to Release Minorities from Prison
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3122307/posts
Figures. Can't let his fellow ganstas to rot in "da house" now can he?
DeleteYou can read Hobbes, De Tocqueville, and Burk as I did in college.
ReplyDeleteRight. 'Cause when I want guidance on the legal status of homosexuals under the U.S. Constitution in 2014, I'll naturally go to 17th-century English monarchist, a French guy who visited the USA briefly in the 1830s, and an 18th-century British conservative, instead of consulting, say, Supreme Court decisions made over decades. Or James Madison's discussion of the care he took in avoiding any misconception that a right not enumerated in the constitution is not a legal right.
And if our rights come from our humanity, then so much the worse for your...well, "argument" wouldn't really be the word. Even "assertions" is a bit too strong. Most of what you're saying here could be replaced by an animated .gif of a crying baby with no loss of meaning.
Again, you're stupid and terrible at everything.