RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute...

RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Like I said: Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. It's his thread. He can discuss whatever he wants to.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:07:08 PM)
As I said before: Any time baby. Thanks, but you're not my type. For those who were not paying attention the invitation was to discussion. Perhaps that is why discussion with you is not.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Young man please do not try that "walk around the shit house" with me. Why not? I'm having a blast. [:D] And just for the record, the "I'm older than you therefore I know better" attitude does not impress me. You are younger than I and seem quite happy to play children's games...thus the admonition to take that grammar school shit back to grammar school where it belongs. quote: My statement was and is that both sides were american. But your comment was in regard to U.S. aggression. South Carolina was not part of the union. Perhaps you can tell us just when the "states in rebellion" became a seperatge nation? Perhaps a knowleldge of the difference between the words rebellion and revolution would be helpful. For the ignorant s. carolina and the rest of the confederacy were never a seperate nation. the civil war was americans fighting americans...for any american to not know that is beyond comprehension.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Like I said: Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. It's his thread. He can discuss whatever he wants to. Posting ignorant peurile asanine mindnumbingly stupid shit does not consitute discussion...it constitutes moronic bullshit.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 4:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Like I said: Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. It's his thread. He can discuss whatever he wants to. Posting ignorant peurile asanine mindnumbingly stupid shit does not consitute discussion...it constitutes moronic bullshit. Look who's talking.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 7:00:27 PM)
Look who's talking. The one who spanks the ass of the ignorant is who is talking

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 12:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why did we issue an embargo on Japan? Would you like to join this discussion? If so, perhaps one should acquaint themselves with the particulars of that conflict before they seek to discuss it. No discussion, then, eh? Nicely played. Enjoy. How can we have a discussion when I am the only one who seems to know why the u.s. and their allies embargoed japan. When you wish to discuss something I am here. I am not here to teach the fundamentals of ww2. I am not here for you to send me running errands...do your own mother fucking research. If I make a statent I can back it up. If you do not agree that the u.s. knew about the attack in advance that is a bit of information that is ubiquitous. What the "enumerated powers" are is rather murkey and they are not ubiquitous. Thus my desire for you to enucniate what you believe them to be. As I said before: Any time baby. Ubiquitous does not mean what you obviously think it means.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 12:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and none of the electoral college could vote that. As I said the electoral college is strictly party hacks. When people vote for a candidate they are actually voting for a slate of electors to vote in the electoral college. Usually they are friends and party members of the party from which the candidate is running. But there are numerous examples of them not being 'party hacks'. And sometimes they even vote against the candidate.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 12:55:05 PM)
yes, the examples are so numerous, we do not see them enumerated anywhere. Sort of like the proof of widespread voter fraud.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 12:57:28 PM)
And sometimes they even vote against the candidate. That would be the point being made about how your vote does not count for shit.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 1:00:05 PM)
Ubiquitous does not mean what you obviously think it means. mind reader?[8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/26/2013 1:02:28 PM)
I will say you used it properly in the sentence and by god it looks like you know what it means, huntie.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875