The Current Events folder. It's a lot like Hitler.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It wouldn't be fun the first time either, 'cause you just know that crazy woman would be extemely dominating and try to plug you with a strap-on or do something else really emasculating. Crazy evil bitch.

HOT

[Ted the Poster 0]

Not from that evil c*** it isn't.

[The Czech Republic 0]

It wouldn't be fun the first time either, 'cause you just know that crazy woman would be extemely dominating and try to plug you with a strap-on or do something else really emasculating. Crazy evil bitch.

HOT

If you tell her that strap-ons and other emasculating things are for feminists, that'll quell THAT in short order.

[Guest CronoT]

 

Even Time Magazine hates her.

[Special K 0]

She's supposedly a lovely person in person, which leads me to believe she's just a very smart lady who knows there's an enormous, lucrative market in ultraconservative talk now. If you've ever seen her even mildly debated, you know she can in no way back up her claims, and makes weak efforts to even appear outraged. Sometimes she even seems hard pressed to take responsibility for her own quotes. She's a conservative Howard Stern. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Limbaugh's the same, honestly. The guy's smart, and a good radio personality, but he's phony as fuck, and doesn't appear to be too politically passionate if you look at his voter registration. Just a smart guy that tapped a market that blew the fuck up.

 

I just posted way to much in site feedback.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Even Time Magazine hates her.

"Even." You say it as if Time is this bastion of conservative journalism.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was wondering that, too.

 

Now if he would have said "The Weekly Standard" on the other hand (I think National Review and her had some tiff a while back)...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Even Time Magazine hates her.

"Even." You say it as if Time is this bastion of conservative journalism.

Actually TIME fellates her in the article, I believe.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I didn't read the article, but according to THE DRUDGE REPORT he said the article was fairly complimentary.

 

Oh, yeah. DEVELOPING...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Anne Coulter was bitching about how that cover shot of TIME made her look "deformed" and used it to launch into a predictable "liberal media bias" rant, which is hilarious given that I'd say that's one of the better pictures I've seen of her in a while. The fact that her Manute Bol-like hands and feet are tucked away raises the sexiness level several units alone.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I read the first half or so of the article in the drugstore last weekend, and it sounded spot-on and complimentary at the same time. She's someone who really doesn't believe what's coming out of her mouth, but she knows it's lucrative to act the part. Smart woman.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'd jump Anne's bones (and in her case, that's pretty much literal), but only up the ass or doggy style though.

[Sideburnious 0]

Site feedback = Current Events & Hardcore discussion

[Jingus 0]

And LSD too, apparently.

 

(That would be Love-Sex-Dating, not the drug, not the wrestler.)

[The Metal Maniac 0]

HOLD THE FUCK UP.

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showuser=636

 

When did Mike get banned?

[Carnival 0]

I was wondering why he wasn't here arguing the meaning of life with me?

 

oh well.....

 

edit: And I agree just post it in here, MikeSC doesn't need his own "Free MikeSC" thread.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Hey Carnival, you're close to the chopping block as well in my mind. Don't know about the rest of the staff.

 

Mike was banned a couple of years too late, that's when.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

While his banning may be been a while in coming, I'm just curious - did mods think he had been extra-dickish lately, or was it a matter of "may as well do it sometime"?

 

Like, was there a specific event that warranted this, or just past history?

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't know who actually did it, but we were given approval by the Admins because he's been a detriment to almost every thread in which he took part, and allowed to do what he does for far too long. Don't worry, he cares so little about us that he'll come back under another name and not even try to hide it. I hope I get to ban that one.

[Carnival 0]

I'm not saying I agree with the ban of mikeSC, i always argued with him, but i don't think he needed to be banned.

 

Banning people for no real reason doesn't make you cool, sorry don't mean to burst you bubble.

 

well nevermind i see your point. he did get people riled up all the time.

[NYU 0]

I've gotten into my fair share of arguments with Mike in the CE Folder over politics, but I always had the idea that he at least knew what he was talking about. Sure, he was unbelievably biased to the right and unwilling to ever admit he might be wrong, but he was still an intelligent poster. Someone who was able to initiate conversation in a thread and defend his stance most of the time. This is as opposed to Salacious Crumb, who never seems to have an independent thought in his posts. In the CE Folder, it's either spewing out the same stuff a conservative has already said earlier in the thread or adding some tremendously lame joke. I would have rather seen him go than Mike. At least with Mike, I could respect the fact that he often knew what he was talking about. I have never gotten that feeling from Crumb.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You haven't been here nearly long enough to know how much of a cancer he was for any hopes of civil discussion. He really should have been banned a year ago when he turned the Movies folder thread about Farenheit 9/11, not the CE one, into a political flamewar singlehandedly. He's done nothing but have close-minded arguments and refuse to admit being wrong when there's mountains of evidence against him, instead just insulting everyone else. I'm sure that if someone were to try and look up every instance where Mike did something at least warn-worthy that it would be more than 500 instances, regardless of the weaker grip of the rules in the CE folder.

[Carnival 0]

I agree with NY, the man was baised as fuck, but seemed smart. that is until his latest postings in the CE Folder. He was better than those people who just try to be smart asses all the time.

[Art Sandusky 0]

He's a self-styled conservative monolith who used an extensive vocablulary to pick on those he knew he could easily beat. Whatever town he's from in this state I wouldn't mind being wiped off the map.

[Carnival 0]

He's a self-styled conservative monolith who used an extensive vocablulary to pick on those he knew he could easily beat. Whatever town he's from in this state I wouldn't mind being wiped off the map.

 

I understand. Indeed he was hard headed to the max. Please tell me that our little war in the conspiracy thread was the last straw.

 

And what have i done that's so bad kotz?

[Jingus 0]

WHY exactly was he banned?

 

Watch all activity in CE drop by half now.

 

What's Dr.Tom's take on this?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Ceeeeeelebrate good times, COME ON~

 

Although I agree with NYU's stance on him. I think I've been the only poster here to prove Mike wrong at something, and having him admit to it (there was a thread a while back where he trashed Cuba's education system, I argued against it using a UN report on Cuba's education system being on par or beyond ours and many others first-world nations, and he respectfully admitted his error. My proudest moment in CE.).

 

I mean, the thing with him is, that you can't rattle his beliefs no matter how hard you try. He's more willing to budge on things that aren't as much of interest to him, but when he's up for defending Bush or any GOP stance, he's on it like a pitbull and never lets go. 90%+ of all the threads you'll see in CE that go on longer than 3-5 pages are usually because of him arguing with someone and not being able to let go of the stance he takes, whether he's in the right or wrong.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Ceeeeeelebrate good times, COME ON~

This man/woman has the right idea.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'd never thought I was someone who's gender was easily confused.

 

But anyways yeah, the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread was when I really thought he should have been banned. What is it with TSM and long overdue bannings? It's like we wait for them to redeem themselves, then as they start being mildly tolerable again, BYEBYE.

 

Sadistic. I like that.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Remember what happened to CE last time Mike was gone?