Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Attempted firebomb of times squareFollow

#127 May 05 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,

I never said that.

How does it feel having to create lies in a transparent, and failed, attempt to make yourself look witty?


Actually, Sam's quote said exactly what I said. You said that if there's another attack, you wanted it to be in LA, NY, or Chicago. Not only another attack: you said that if there's a suitcase-nuke, you want it to be in those cities. Remember? You got banned for it?


Quote:
Oh that's right you're a liberal democrat. You don't feel morally obligated by concepts like truth.


See, you're a moron for two reasons. I'm not a Democrat, first of all. And morality has jack all to do with political affiliation.
#128 May 05 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
BROWNDUCK,

I M RUBBER U R GLUE

xoxo
VARUS
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#129 May 05 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Locked,

You're reading comprehension skills are that of a 1rst grader.

Let's try this again.

Quote:
That is until there's another 911 except it's a city that's destroyed by a suitcase nuke. Which they'll blame on Bush, even if he's not in office. Man I hope it's La, NY, or Chicago.


Where in this quote do I say I want Chicago destroyed? Please show me.

Saying I hope such and such a city is hit IF we're attacked again is a far cry from saying I want to see Chicago destroyed.


Quote:
And morality has jack all to do with political affiliation.


Morality has to do with telling the truth. Misrepresenting what i've said is the same as lying; which liberals have no problem with. And yes you are a radical liberal bedwetter.

#130 May 05 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Screenshot
.

Edited, May 5th 2010 4:31pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#131 May 05 2010 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
And yes you are a radical liberal bedwetter.


Based on societal analysis, since most older politically inclined voters vote conservative, and are they are also the most notorious bed wetters, aside from children who are below voting age and thus are not included in the practicing liberal-conservative dynamic, I believe you are mistaken in you correlation between one whom votes liberal and one whom wets the bed. In fact, it seems that a grizzled old conservative party veterans would be the most likely members of society to fall into the category of bed wetters.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#132 May 05 2010 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
That is until there's another 911 except it's a city that's destroyed by a suitcase nuke. Which they'll blame on Bush, even if he's not in office. Man I hope it's La, NY, or Chicago.


Lets break this down shall we.

Quote:
That is until there's another 911 except it's a city that's destroyed by a suitcase nuke.


Ok here it states that a nuke will be used instead of a plane on the next "911", which may or may not happen.

Quote:
Which they'll blame on Bush, even if he's not in office.


Even if this attack happens 100 years in the future, somehow Bush will be blamed.

Quote:
Man I hope it's La, NY, or Chicago.


While you never state directly that you "want" for it to happen to those cities, it would be very foolish to believe otherwise.

I know reading comprehension was and probably never will be one of your strong suites varius, but you can at least try to stick to what you say instead of... how should I put it... 'flip-flopping' around on the issue and trying to play both sides of the fence. I will think no less of you if you stick to your original statement. Probably due to the fact that I cannot really go much lower than what I already am without having pure hatred towards you, which I feel towards no man.
#133 May 05 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Moebius,

Quote:
Don't try and confuse him with the facts, sir.


or proper grammar.



Edited, May 5th 2010 11:59am by knoxxsouthy


That's rich.
#134 May 05 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Varus is a known terrorist who hopes for the most death and destruction of American lives and property as possible. This is why he advocates nuking the three largest cities in the U.S. If he really did care for America and its citizens, he would denounce any kind of attack. And if absolutely necessary to pick a city to destroy, make it as small and have the least impact. Like, say, Glasgow, Montana. I doubt anyone would notice that.

Not that I in any way advocate the destruction of any US cities, I just wanted to give an example.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#135 May 05 2010 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
REMEMBER THE MAINE!!!!!!!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#136 May 06 2010 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I guess at this point in the thread i'm just going to nod and smile in a vague slightly bewieldered, glazed over manner and mumble "9/11", "Proletariate", "Roe vs. Wade" and "tacos" at various intervals until I wander off to look at something shiny.
#137 May 06 2010 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:

Saying I hope such and such a city is hit IF we're attacked again is a far cry from saying I want to see Chicago destroyed.


If you accept that a terrorist attack will happen (and you seem to accept that), you're rooting for a major US city. You know, instead of saying something like "I hope the attack is foiled, or a dud, or doesn't hurt anyone" you say said "If there's a suitcase-nuke... I hope LA, Chicago, or NY are hit with it."

So you're saying now that you don't want a suitcase nuke to hit those cities? That's nice. You still said it before :-P

Quote:
Quote:
And morality has jack all to do with political affiliation.


Morality has to do with telling the truth. Misrepresenting what i've said is the same as lying


So when you call me a democrat, you were doing the same as lying. Thus, you aren't moral, and...
Quote:
which liberals have no problem with.


Thus you must share characteristics with your idea of a liberal. Amazing.

Quote:
And yes you are a radical liberal bedwetter.


I am a social liberal, I'm not what I would consider radical, and I think I last wet the bed back when I was like 2 or 3. Thus, you're lying again by misrepresenting the truth not once here, but twice. If part of your definition of a liberal is "having no problem with lying," and lying is "misrepresenting the truth," you therefore must share characteristics with liberals.

Of course, considering you make up definitions as often as gbaji does, you're still full of shit :)
#138 May 06 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Be fair to gbaji, varrus knocks him way out of the park as far of making definitions, or anything else goes.

I rarely agree with gbaji, but at least he tries to support his position with facts.
#139 May 06 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
Locked,

Quote:
So you're saying now that you don't want a suitcase nuke to hit those cities? That's nice. You still said it before :-P


I said what I meant. IF a suitcase nuke goes off I'd rather it be in one of those cities.

How is this such a complicated statement for you liberal bedwetters to understand?


Quote:
If you accept that a terrorist attack will happen


But did I?

I said;

Quote:
That is until there's another 911 except and it's a city that's destroyed by a suitcase nuke


So if I accept that Ca is going to break off into the sea causing the deaths of millions and say good riddance that somehow would magically make we want to see it happen?



p.s. If the president can call voting american citizens teabaggers does that mean I can start using the N word to describe him?



Edited, May 6th 2010 10:37am by knoxxsouthy
#140 May 06 2010 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Lubri,

and the liberals support their positions with chocolate flavored unicorns.



Edited, May 6th 2010 10:36am by knoxxsouthy
#141 May 06 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
p.s. If the president can call voting american citizens teabaggers does that mean I can start using the N word to describe him?

I'm sure it hasn't stopped you yet.

Of course, are you trying to make the claim that it's acceptable to call them "Teabaggers"? Because that's what you'd be saying.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 May 06 2010 at 8:43 AM Rating: Decent
Jophed,

If the president says it it must be acceptable right?

He is after all the epitomy of class and style isn't he?

#143 May 06 2010 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
I'm not saying that I hate Chicago and all its inhabitants, but wouldn't it be nice if they were the next to receive a large scale terrorist attack?
#144 May 06 2010 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
If the president says it it must be acceptable right?

You didn't answer the question. Do you think it's acceptable?

Personally, I don't care what he calls them. I'm not even interested in defending or trying to rationalize or explain it or whatever. For that matter, I don't much care if you call him a "N-word" either. I do think it's kind of amusing to see conservative pundits try to compare the two since that's more likely to marginalize minorities who think conservatives don't "get it" than it's likely to make anyone think "OMG so terrible that he said it!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#145 May 06 2010 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
They call themselves teabaggers.
#146 May 06 2010 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sweetums wrote:
They call themselves teabaggers.

Some do, sure. And the term originated within the movement. That's not likely to matter to someone who just wants to rag on Obama.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 May 06 2010 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Jophed,

Minorities have never and will never be a big voting block for the GOP. They know which party pays for their welfare and have no intention of changing that.



So you don't care that the president uses crude sexual references when talking about a significant voting block in america? No need to answer that; you didn't really care when he was making fun of retards eithers so I know where you stand on this.

Everytime a liberal bedwetter talks about how intelligent Obama is I want them to remember that he can't even support his position without resulting to vulgarity.



#148 May 06 2010 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
Sweetums,

Quote:
Tea Party activists loathe the term “tea baggers,” which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.


No they don't. But thank you for playing I've been brainwashed by the liberal media game.


#149 May 06 2010 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Jophed,

Minorities have never and will never be a big voting block for the GOP. They know which party pays for their welfare and have no intention of changing that.



So you don't care that the president uses crude sexual references when talking about a significant voting block in america? No need to answer that; you didn't really care when he was making fun of retards eithers so I know where you stand on this.

Everytime a liberal bedwetter talks about how intelligent Obama is I want them to remember that he can't even support his position without resulting to vulgarity.


Says the man calling the majority voters of the country "bedwetters" :-P

And who just called the mentally handicapped "retards"...

Aaaaaand...

Quote:
But did I?

I said;

Quote:

That is until there's another 911 except and it's a city that's destroyed by a suitcase nuke



Until. There. Is.

So, yes, you did. Any more issues with your faulty memory?
#150 May 06 2010 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So you don't care that the president uses crude sexual references when talking about a significant voting block in america? No need to answer that; you didn't really care when he was making fun of retards eithers so I know where you stand on this.

No, I don't. Neither do you. Neither do the usual mouthpieces on both sides of the aisle.

I'm sure there are some people legitimately offended. Obama should probably apologize just because it's the "right" thing to do. 99.99% of the "outcry" on this, just like every other similar 'slur', is nothing but politics.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 May 06 2010 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
When is the new troll shipment schedule to arrive? Our current troll appears to be broken as it is spouting the same, boring **** every time.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 232 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (232)