Search results

Do you want people to agree with you about your desire to see civilians ********?

Basically, stop, is what the point is. Unless you're producing the content yourself you're going to have to rely on theft which isn't cool.

I don't trust a turtle ******* that claims to be a friend to all the ********.

That was totally the intention. I bent all the way to my toes to fit it in.

I think I took the innuendo right on the chest.

How come no one ever sends me unsolicited vag pics? :(

Ain't no thing but a chicken wing. We should go track down Roald in his bed and get this cockblocking sorted out.

Never been on one, always respected the process though.

Hope, but not expect.

In all fairness, any failings that DNA testing highlight are present throughout the legal system and not just on death row; furthermore I tend to agree with what I believe revidffum's point was--that the same level of testing which has exonerated innocent people in the past also serves to...

No. You specifically stated that you wanted to see civilians ********. This is nothing to do with people's jobs, this is not something we can "agree to disagree" on. You said it. You and you alone said it. You can't claim to be "done" with that question until you actually answer it.

This has nothing to do with people's jobs. You said you wanted to see dead civilians. That is inescapable fact, it's on record and you've been called on it several times now. You're a scumbag for wanting that and a coward for trying to weasel out of having said it. You aren't even fit to be...

I read the comment. You said those on the left want dead civilians. But that's just false--I'm a lefty and I don't want that; you're a right-winger and you do. So where do you get the idea that lefties want dead civilians, when you are the only one here who's enough of a scumbag to want that?

That's not unique to communism, that's totalitarianism and it's seen on both sides of the fence; once again we have someone who simply cannot tell the difference between ideology and the actions of some of its practitioners. I could go out today and ******** a puppy, is ********** puppies a...

That has nothing to do with your statement. You said you wanted to see civilians ********. That has absolutely nothing to do with politicians doing their job. Why do you want to see civilians ********? Answer the question and stop changing the subject. You know you're being evasive so stop it.

Actually no one acted like (googling...) Shelley Lubben until he started some pretty crass name-calling without provocation; if he wanted to respectfully post cock pics without being a needlessly aggressive ***** about it that's a whole different issue. Just to be clear, though, you're with the...

I don't understand how this was ever seen as anything else. :/

I'm pretty sure I said "and women who don't like disappointing cocks"; but maybe you didn't hear that over the sound of you being an insecure tosspot.

You posted your cock--and don't say that wasn't the focus because it clearly was--in a section of the forum you know is mostly frequented by the site's main demographic, straight males and women who don't like disappointing cocks. If you want to consider it "porn", hop on over to the gay section...

Well at first it was the attention-seeking "HAI EVERYONE LOOK AT MY WILLY" posts, then it was the childish name-calling. We get it. You're insecure and only feel happy when you think a woman likes your dick, and the second someone isn't clambering to get near it, the claws come out. Just find a...

He pay many somoni to take from mountain-high. Is bad work, must kiss often little stick, but is better than yurt on fire.

Didn't I grab a few DAP WADs for Doom back in the day?

Her with the tattoo. Moar.

He never stated this, and you never answered the question.

Because someone still refuses to retract their desire to see civilians ********, actually.

So you're continuing to refute documented history? Are you willing to come out and admit that you don't believe any of those crashes happened?

But you're not a lefty and you're the only one who wished for dead civilians.

Only if it's committed by people who also ****** civilians and is powered by the eternally infinite fossil fuel supplies we have.

I'm just firing out facts, you're the one who's ignoring them, posting emoticons instead of responses, and acting like you're above this when you're not even capable of understanding it. (cue smilie in 3... 2...)

But you're wrong, there's no disagreement here. Only you being a petulant little **** who should have been ****** long ago, and us adults trying to communicate that to you in simple terms.

Proving your idiocy is only one of several things I've done today, don't worry. I can finish up here and go about my evening (it's still only dinnertime over here), but you apparently will never stop being an ignorant *****.

That's not an answer. Why do you want civilians to be ********? Also way to steal the same artists' work twice in a row without credit, you're a stand-up fucking guy.

But if I prove you categorically incorrect then why should I "agree to disagree"? You said something, it was proven to be entirely incorrect. That's not a disagreement. That is you being wrong. If I "agree to disagree" then I'm accepting falsehoods and incorrect statements as being okay, when...

roooooald!

You said you hoped to see civilians ********. That's not got a single fucking thing to do with anyone's job. Then you denied that you said it, even though it's there for everyone to read. Why do you want to see civilians ********?

The point that you're a ***** who won't actually debate intelligently, and only posts emoticons because you can't think of a reasoned response? The point that when you're confronted with several factual examples of why your statement was incorrect you can't respond to it at all except with...

Go ahead and point out a single thing I've said that's a lie. I'll wait.

...You're just proving my point here. Thanks.

So fossil fuels are infinite now?

Where would you be without emoticons to post instead of real words? Probably playing with safety scissors and crayons I imagine.

It's not answer, I can't take what isn't an answer.

Denying factual history now? You want to actually come up with an intelligent response to explain your position or do you just want to ignore documented facts?

No you didn't. You just denied that you stated something that you clearly did state. That's not an answer. That's bullshit back-pedalling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipper_und_Wipper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania...

Figured as much, you ignorant little *****.

No you didn't. Stop lying and grow up. You also still have a page of questions from me about your inability to understand peak fuel, too.

No you didn't. Stop lying, man up and explain why you can't even stand by your own words instead of pretending that's not what you said.

Why do I need to accept the fact that you clearly stated something then tried to lie to us by claiming you didn't? Why can't you just show some backbone and explain yourself like a (disgusting and shameful) grown man?

You didn't answer a thing, you tried to back away from something that you wrote as plain as day.

Yeah I'm not fucking buying it.