So what's Elmo been up to lately

Why is this nonsense? Because he works for the liberal guvmit TV station with bigbird.Crock Hunter wrote:humm.. I had sort'a wondered who would be posting the trivial nonsense in gonzo's absence... Good to see you taking up the slack.. .
Only the liberals here would think a grown man having sex with a sixteen year old was NONSENSE. Says a lot about ya's for sure.Vrede wrote:Sesame Street is a self-supporting, independent, private entity and it's not a "TV station". None of its characters work for the guvmit, the alleged abuse occurred when the guvmit was conservative, and sexual predators belong to all parties.Colonel Taylor wrote:Why is this nonsense? Because he works for the liberal guvmit TV station with bigbird.Crock Hunter wrote:humm.. I had sort'a wondered who would be posting the trivial nonsense in gonzo's absence... Good to see you taking up the slack.. .
Yep, "nonsense" no matter how you look at it. If you'd watched it more maybe you'd be able to post smarter.
Yup Vrede even thinks it's Bush's fault that a fellow lib has sex with a boy. No surprise here for sure.Vrede wrote:An idiot, again. The act is not nonsense, it's what you've written about it that is. Then, there's your longstanding and creepy obsession with pedophilia.
I blame Shrub. After all, it was his "guvmit" when this is alleged to have occurred.
Where's the emoticon for "Groan".. . .neoplacebo wrote:Looks like St. Elmo's fired.
Not that facts are of any use to you... .Seems Clash's boyfriend was an adult and not 16 afterall.. ..Colonel Taylor wrote: having sex with a sixteen year old .
Well THERE's yer problem....Vrede wrote: Think hard, Colonel Taylor, really try
I was commenting on an article that I did not write.O Really wrote:Opps - It ain't so. Accuser recants.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49812203#.UKLYduQ8CSo
What say you now, Colonel? How about "opps - I jumped the bash a "liberal" gun again"?
And if you had done even the s l i g h t e s t bit of investigation rather than allowing the article to play into your prejudices.. you wouldn't look like such a nitwit now.. .Colonel Taylor wrote: I was commenting on an article that I did not write.
Crock Hunter wrote:And if you had done even the s l i g h t e s t bit of investigation rather than allowing the article to play into your prejudices.. you wouldn't look like such a nitwit now.. .Colonel Taylor wrote: I was commenting on an article that I did not write.
If I am prejudice against grown men who have sex with boys so be it. Unlike those who said it was just nonsense. Says a lot about a person.
It's what you get for allowing that jerking knee near a keyboard..
Damn dude.. you seem to have a never ending pile of straw for those strawmen .. . .. no thinking person wants grown men to be allowed to have sex with children... boys or girls... . Why would you be so dishonest as to suggest otherwise?Colonel Taylor wrote:If I am prejudice against grown men who have sex with boys so be it.
Yes.. it says that I prefer not to jump to conclusions.. I prefer to gather enough facts ( it's those things that get in the way of your prejudices) to reach an informed conclusion.. .. A conclusion that grants me the ability to discern trivial nonsense (your opening post) when I see it.Colonel Taylor wrote:Unlike those who said it was just nonsense. Says a lot about a person.