·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Peeing on Afghans is A-OK by Perry.
Peeing on Afghans is A-OK by Perry.Follow
So its ok for an embalmer to charge the dead people's families to clean the bodies up with ammonia, but when the soldiers try and donate it for free, in the name of international solidarity, they get in trouble.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
lolgaxe wrote:
Whatever helps you hide from reality. 
The reality is in the AR.. where is it again? You know, the AR that states your claim?
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're confused.
x < y = y > x... This is a grade school concept. Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch
Nope, I reread it and it was x <y = y > x. You got confused.. It's ok. I switched from stating the left side and the right side.
This is Post 206. 
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch
If only he had some flash cards...
Almalieque wrote:
This is Post 206.
This one is 100% more accurate, concise, and understandable than your last.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
This is Post 206.
This one is 100% more accurate, concise, and understandable than your last.
Curse Algebra...
MOAR LIEK LOLGEBRA, AMIRITE?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend. That's fine, already knew he was hiding from reality. I'm most amused that on his first day of vacation he spent it posting here. 
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend.]
Sir Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend.]
Nope, he was just sure he wouldn't.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
NaughtyWord wrote:
Not all of us Right-wingers are driveling idiots. Gbaji is what I call a Republican-Hack. He will make excuses for, defend, or otherwise stonewall bulletproof evidence against a Republican. I'll bet my left nut and a 12 pack of beer he thinks Newt Gingrich is the greatest thing on Earth next to Jesus himself.
You'd better get with the sending of beer and cutting off of half your jewels. Amazing how circular your perceptions are. For the record, I am *not* a Gingrich supporter and never have been. I personally believe that he only ran for President to increase his own name recognition in order to make money on his political brand. The guy has basically been selling political influence as his primary form of income for the last decade.
Quote:
I, not for one minute, will defend, make excuses, or otherwise dismiss Cain's or Gingrich's poor behavior. You Leftists can have your fun with them. Hell, I might even join in on the prodding.
I, not for one minute, have defended, made excuses, or otherwise dismissed Cain's or Gingrich's poor behavior. WTF? Were you absent the day (week really) I basically slapped Varus around for being a blind Cain supporter during the 3 weeks in which Cain was riding high? Um... I'm also fairly certain Cain never intended to go far in the Presidential race either. He was doing it to build up name recognition and sell some books, make money giving speeches, etc. Who knew that he'd have his brief day in the sun, get examined closely, and folks would learn about all the crazy stuff he did back in the day at all those business conventions. Shocking!
Quote:
Though I dislike most of the GOP as much as I do the Leftists and often I see too many similarities.
Sure. Find me a perfect politician. Can't do it? Then find the least imperfect politician you can who promotes an agenda that is most aligned with your own principles. That's why I'm a Republican.
Quote:
Which is why I'm a Libertarian.
I have my own issues with Libertarians as well (those who vote libertarian, not just those who espouse the political position). Different topic though, I suppose.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
No, you just had fun vilifying the woman who accused him of sexual harassment.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No, you just had fun vilifying the woman who accused him of sexual harassment.
Er?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
For the record, here's me back in June commenting about Gingrich:
Yeah. While he's useful as an idea/opinion guy, I've just never seen him as presidential material. I suppose I could theoretically see him as a VP choice though. Hard to say.
Here's me back in Oct commenting on Cain:
And here's me following up on him in mid Nov:
I'm not sure how anyone ever got the mistaken impression that I supported either of those candidates. Your assumption cart is leading the reality horse by quite a bit.
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gingrich was always a weird run. There's about a dozen old guard GOP pundits or analysts or think tank guys who are just convinced that he'd be awesome... and that's about it. Everyone else is either sick of him or doesn't remember who he is.
Yeah. While he's useful as an idea/opinion guy, I've just never seen him as presidential material. I suppose I could theoretically see him as a VP choice though. Hard to say.
Here's me back in Oct commenting on Cain:
gbaji wrote:
Cain is just this months Perry. If he can survive closer and broader examination, he may have a shot. I have a suspicion he wont though. He's so far shown an amazing ability to fall right into pretty rookie campaign pitfalls. Rhetoric to the contrary aside, there is something to be said about a candidate who has run successfully for office before.
And here's me following up on him in mid Nov:
Quote:
Is this where I pipe up with the same "There's a reason we tend to elect career politicians" bit? I like Cain. I think he's got some interesting ideas and a willingness to say what he thinks, but he's hitting every single branch of the political-fail tree.
I'm not sure how anyone ever got the mistaken impression that I supported either of those candidates. Your assumption cart is leading the reality horse by quite a bit.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You people are goofs. Gbaji is a stock-standard party line "Here's your daily talking points" Republican. Who does the Republican establishment back? Romney. Who does Gbaji back? Surprise! Romney.
You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention
You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
You people are goofs. Gbaji is a stock-standard party line "Here's your daily talking points" Republican. Who does the Republican establishment back? Romney. Who does Gbaji back? Surprise! Romney.
You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention
You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention
Um... So why did I back Romney in 2008? Funny that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You were on a "Obama has no chance in hell against McCain" kick in early 2008, too.
Edit: Oh, and December 2007 you said you "don't really like Romney as a candidate, but for reasons having nothing to do with his religion nor his positions on religion as it relates to politics." Some backing.
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 5:26pm by lolgaxe
Edit: Oh, and December 2007 you said you "don't really like Romney as a candidate, but for reasons having nothing to do with his religion nor his positions on religion as it relates to politics." Some backing.
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 5:26pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
You've never gotten your news from anywhere, huh?
Romney WAS the initial establishment pick until his disastrous losses in the early primaries and McCain's unlikely wins (with McCain running as the "maverick"). At which point you immediately jumped full bore onto the McCain Train and praised his virtues along with the rest of the rank and file.
Why do you suppose Romney was considered "next in line" back in 2010 and early 2011 and not Huckabee (before he said he wouldn't run)? Huckster was the real second place in 2008, right? But Romney was always the establishment darling. Review this Oct 2011 Politico article about GOP heavyweights hesitant to back Romney again after throwing their support behind his failed 2008 bid.
Funny that I know so much more than you do about the church you attend
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:04pm by Jophiel
Romney WAS the initial establishment pick until his disastrous losses in the early primaries and McCain's unlikely wins (with McCain running as the "maverick"). At which point you immediately jumped full bore onto the McCain Train and praised his virtues along with the rest of the rank and file.
Why do you suppose Romney was considered "next in line" back in 2010 and early 2011 and not Huckabee (before he said he wouldn't run)? Huckster was the real second place in 2008, right? But Romney was always the establishment darling. Review this Oct 2011 Politico article about GOP heavyweights hesitant to back Romney again after throwing their support behind his failed 2008 bid.
Funny that I know so much more than you do about the church you attend
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:04pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Romney WAS the initial establishment pick until his disastrous losses in the early primaries and McCain's unlikely wins (with McCain running as the "maverick").
That's some revisionist history right there.
Quote:
At which point you immediately jumped full bore onto the McCain Train and praised his virtues along with the rest of the rank and file.
Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.
Supporting McCain after he won the nomination does not magically transform into me *not* wanting Romney to be the candidate in the first place. I'm not sure why you'd think that was true. And it's not like because I preferred one candidate that this means that I must oppose and hate the other if he wins the nomination anyway. I mean, you make it sound like there's some unspeakable crime in supporting your party's candidate even though he wasn't the guy you wanted to win the nomination. If I'm somehow hypocritical for doing that, then so are a large majority of all voters in each party in each presidential election.
So I'm vilified in your eyes for doing nothing out of the ordinary at all? Lol!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
This deserves its own response:
No. You are much more versed in what liberals say about my party though. Seriously? A Politico article from January of 2011 proclaiming that Romney has a problem because heavy hitters haven't yet jumped behind him? Bit of a push story, isn't it?
Jophiel wrote:
Funny that I know so much more than you do about the church you attend
No. You are much more versed in what liberals say about my party though. Seriously? A Politico article from January of 2011 proclaiming that Romney has a problem because heavy hitters haven't yet jumped behind him? Bit of a push story, isn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
That's some revisionist history right there.
Compelling argument but... ummm... no.
Quote:
A Politico article from January of 2011 proclaiming that Romney has a problem because heavy hitters haven't yet jumped behind him? Bit of a push story, isn't it?
You missed the point. It wasn't to talk about Romney's 2012 chances, it was to note how much of the GOP establishment was behind Romney in 2008. Sometime you seem hellbent on pretending never happened.
Quote:
Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.
Wiki wrote:
The California Republican primary, 2008 was held on February 5, 2008
Wow. "Months later", huh? You mean, less than a month after McCain started winning primaries and during the Super Tuesday loss that crushed Mitt's chances?
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 6:04pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
You missed the point. It wasn't to talk about Romney's 2012 chances, it was to note how much of the GOP establishment was behind Romney in 2008.
When he was one of the two leading contenders for the nomination? I'm not sure what you think your point is here. So somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/2? Again, what the hell is your point? That math escapes you? That the GOP isn't nearly as focused on "the next guy's turn" as your liberal media sources tell you they are? Isn't this really you spouting facts that refute your own false assumptions, but then instead of thinking "hey! maybe my assumptions are wrong", you're casting about for some other bizarre explanation?
What do *you* think that means Joph? Have you done an historical study of the GOP establishment support in January of the year before an election year for the guy who was second place in the nomination the last time around and determined that Romney is unusual in some way? Or are you just repeating innuendo that you heard somewhere?
Quote:
Sometime you seem hellbent on pretending never happened.
What happened? I'm honestly scratching my head trying to figure out what you're trying to say. So more people were behind Romney at the end of the 2008 primary season than were behind him one year before the 2012 primary season? And? Is that significant?
Quote:
Quote:
Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.
Wiki wrote:
The California Republican primary, 2008 was held on February 5, 2008
Wow. "Months later", huh? You mean, less than a month after McCain started winning primaries and during the Super Tuesday loss that crushed Mitt's chances?
And? I continued to argue that Romney was my preferred candidate long after that point. I just refused to do what you and Smash wanted me to do, which was apparently to insist that McCain was the worst candidate ever, and couldn't win, and I should just abandon any support for him. Kinda childish isn't that? I mean, you do understand how the whole primary process works, right?
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:58pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yeah, I know you're trying to bog it down and act all confused but it's pretty crystal clear:
You're for the establishment GOP candidate. This should come to the surprise of no one since you really just parrot whatever the GOP party line is. People who think you'd be supporting anyone except the party line establishment choice don't know you -- adhering to the party line is exactly what you do.
You tried to refute this by pointing at 2008 but Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008 heading into the first month of primaries. You're trying to call it "revisionist history" because you don't like what it says about you but oh well. It's not. I backed this up by citing the number of prominent GOP establishment backers Romney had in 2008. Despite the focus of the article being whether they'd back him in 2012, my point was that Romney had the establishment backing in 2008. NOT McCain since you seem to think "I voted for Romney in 2008!" was some badge of independence or something rather than you doing exactly what the party establishment wanted you to do.
Once Romney lost, you fell lockstep into McCain's camp as one would suspect. You know this is true and started in with the strawmen about how we wanted you to "say McCain was the worst ever" because your little brain only understands black/white or something. If you want to say your reactions through the 2008 primary were all normal or whatever, that's great. So just admit that I'm correct and we're all winners
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 7:27pm by Jophiel
You're for the establishment GOP candidate. This should come to the surprise of no one since you really just parrot whatever the GOP party line is. People who think you'd be supporting anyone except the party line establishment choice don't know you -- adhering to the party line is exactly what you do.
You tried to refute this by pointing at 2008 but Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008 heading into the first month of primaries. You're trying to call it "revisionist history" because you don't like what it says about you but oh well. It's not. I backed this up by citing the number of prominent GOP establishment backers Romney had in 2008. Despite the focus of the article being whether they'd back him in 2012, my point was that Romney had the establishment backing in 2008. NOT McCain since you seem to think "I voted for Romney in 2008!" was some badge of independence or something rather than you doing exactly what the party establishment wanted you to do.
Once Romney lost, you fell lockstep into McCain's camp as one would suspect. You know this is true and started in with the strawmen about how we wanted you to "say McCain was the worst ever" because your little brain only understands black/white or something. If you want to say your reactions through the 2008 primary were all normal or whatever, that's great. So just admit that I'm correct and we're all winners
Edited, Jan 30th 2012 7:27pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 338
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (338)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Peeing on Afghans is A-OK by Perry.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC