quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
You don't fucking understand my original argument you village idiot - fuck, you don't even understand your own because you're now making the same point I did.

Christ, how the hell do you function in everyday life if you can't keep a single thought straight in your head? You're on fucking medication aren't you?

Remember saying this?

quote:

I don't think you understand how this works. You're the one claiming there's more to Charlie Hedbo beyond its obvious anti-religious bigotry, it's up to you to support that claim.

(post 33)

quote:


Or this?

quote:

Actually, it's "magazine dedicated to anti-religious bigotry".

(post 31)

quote:


Your inability to construct a coherent argument and follow it through, rather than insisting that what you said doesn't mean what you said means when you realise your argument is unsustainable, does call your claims of intellectual superiority into doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
You don't fucking understand my original argument you village idiot - fuck, you don't even understand your own because you're now making the same point I did.

Christ, how the hell do you function in everyday life if you can't keep a single thought straight in your head? You're on fucking medication aren't you?

Remember saying this?

quote:

I don't think you understand how this works. You're the one claiming there's more to Charlie Hedbo beyond its obvious anti-religious bigotry, it's up to you to support that claim.

(post 33)

Yes and I was the one who supported the claim that they're racial as well as anti-religous bigots. You've utterly failed to contradict that point or demonstrate that Charlie Hebdo's remit extends beyond simply indulging their atheist pretensions. I can appreciate you're trying to eke out some kind of win here because I utterly demolished your primary contention, but trying for scraps now is just pathetic.

quote:


Or this?

quote:

Actually, it's "magazine dedicated to anti-religious bigotry".

(post 31)

Yes and I was right, although it's clear the magazine is also a racist/cultural bigot as well.

quote:


Your inability to construct a coherent argument and follow it through, rather than insisting that what you said doesn't mean what you said means when you realise your argument is unsustainable, does call your claims of intellectual superiority into doubt.

Irony much. You've had your ass handed to you and now you want to claim victory. Christ, you are so appallingly bad at this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Talk to me like a queen or suffer the consequences. Your choice."

Say that to me and you just met the wrong motherfucker. I'll wrap your cunt around your left ear.

But you didn't, so this was just a warning.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
All any of this demonstrates is that you are a liar.

quote:

You stated that Charlie Hebdo has no agenda besides anti-religious bigotry, a statement that you failed to substantiate, and are now denying that you made once it was disproven. You are even trying to argue that statements you've made that confirm this point do not say what they appear to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Talk to me like a queen or suffer the consequences. Your choice."

Say that to me and you just met the wrong motherfucker. I'll wrap your cunt around your left ear.

But you didn't, so this was just a warning.

T^T

I wouldn't publically admit your a motherfucker. This is incest and frowned upon. Wrap my cunt around my ear? I'm terribly sorry but I'm not into that rough sexual treatment. I recommend a contortionist with a huge labia.
Lmao.
No I was not talking to you so you may save warning me though I do find this Tarzan me big ass man stimulating. Fans myself.
At this point you can be a king but be a king and heed the queen. Now watch your language the subjects are watching.
Example. Example. Example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
All any of this demonstrates is that you are a liar.

No, it demonstrates that you're a fucking moron who can't put together an argument to save his life.

quote:

You stated that Charlie Hebdo has no agenda besides anti-religious bigotry, a statement that you failed to substantiate, and are now denying that you made once it was disproven. You are even trying to argue that statements you've made that confirm this point do not say what they appear to say.

No, fucktard, I made the point that Charlie Hebdo was not part of the regressive left - a point I've substantiated with a critique from a noted international journalist who is a member of the regressive left. I also pointed out that the magazine is basically a bunch of atheists indulging in their usual penchant for anti-religious bigotry. Which is correct. Glenn Greenwald pointed out that even their religious bigotry has an anti-Islam bias, thus not only reinforcing my point, but adding the charge of anti-Islamic bias.

All in all, conclusively demonstrating that Charlie Hebdo are a bunch of anti-religious bigots who are obviously not part of the regressive left. Thus supporting my point and demolishing your foolish, uninformed contention.

So no. All this demonstrates is that you can't argue your way out of a fucking paper bag and are just basically fucking intellectually incompetent. Stick to finger-painting, fuckwit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
All any of this demonstrates is that you are a liar.

No, it demonstrates that you're a fucking moron who can't put together an argument to save his life.

quote:

You stated that Charlie Hebdo has no agenda besides anti-religious bigotry, a statement that you failed to substantiate, and are now denying that you made once it was disproven. You are even trying to argue that statements you've made that confirm this point do not say what they appear to say.

No, fucktard, I made the point that Charlie Hebdo was not part of the regressive left - a point I've substantiated with a critique from a noted international journalist who is a member of the regressive left. I also pointed out that the magazine is basically a bunch of atheists indulging in their usual penchant for anti-religious bigotry. Which is correct. Glenn Greenwald pointed out that even their religious bigotry has an anti-Islam bias, thus not only reinforcing my point, but adding the charge of anti-Islamic bias.

All in all, conclusively demonstrating that Charlie Hebdo are a bunch of anti-religious bigots who are obviously not part of the regressive left. Thus supporting my point and demolishing your foolish, uninformed contention.

So no. All this demonstrates is that you can't argue your way out of a fucking paper bag and are just basically fucking intellectually incompetent. Stick to finger-painting, fuckwit.

Charlie Hebdo is pro immigration and anti-racist. Obviously part of the regressive left.
Lie, bullshit and blather all you want: your previous statements are spread through the thread for anybody to read, and are clearly incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
All any of this demonstrates is that you are a liar.

No, it demonstrates that you're a fucking moron who can't put together an argument to save his life.

quote:

You stated that Charlie Hebdo has no agenda besides anti-religious bigotry, a statement that you failed to substantiate, and are now denying that you made once it was disproven. You are even trying to argue that statements you've made that confirm this point do not say what they appear to say.

No, fucktard, I made the point that Charlie Hebdo was not part of the regressive left - a point I've substantiated with a critique from a noted international journalist who is a member of the regressive left. I also pointed out that the magazine is basically a bunch of atheists indulging in their usual penchant for anti-religious bigotry. Which is correct. Glenn Greenwald pointed out that even their religious bigotry has an anti-Islam bias, thus not only reinforcing my point, but adding the charge of anti-Islamic bias.

All in all, conclusively demonstrating that Charlie Hebdo are a bunch of anti-religious bigots who are obviously not part of the regressive left. Thus supporting my point and demolishing your foolish, uninformed contention.

So no. All this demonstrates is that you can't argue your way out of a fucking paper bag and are just basically fucking intellectually incompetent. Stick to finger-painting, fuckwit.

Charlie Hebdo is pro immigration and anti-racist. Obviously part of the regressive left.
Lie, bullshit and blather all you want: your previous statements are spread through the thread for anybody to read, and are clearly incorrect.

That's funny - the regressive left doesn't think they're part of the regressive left. In fact the regressive left thinks they're anti-Islam bigots. But of course you know better, right?

There's an old proverb that says if a man's not a socialist by his 20's he has no soul - but if he's not a capitalist by his 30's he has no brains. Which is why socialists come off as a bit socially retarded and lacking in growth. I'm sure you exemplify exactly what I mean.

quote:

That's funny - the regressive left doesn't think they're part of the regressive left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

That's funny - the regressive left doesn't think they're part of the regressive left.

The term 'regressive left' is only used by frothing right wing farties who've picked it up off the internet and think that using it makes them sound vaguely knowledgeable about social issues, Awareness. In general, I'd advise: Wikipedia is your friend ... but only if you're almost entirely uneducated in a particular subject-area and have the humility to realise that fact. Re the matter at hand: you qualify for the first, but not the second, I'm afraid. I hope that helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
One regressive lefty you've been able to cite thinks that they don't make the cut. Unless you can demonstrate that any others agree with him, claiming that he speaks for the whole of the regressive left seems a bit off. Or are you happy to have Anders Breivek as a spokesman for the whole of the right if you're fine with picking out a single individual from a political movement, and using them as an exemplar whose statements are inarguable and can be applied to all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
One regressive lefty you've been able to cite thinks that they don't make the cut. Unless you can demonstrate that any others agree with him, claiming that he speaks for the whole of the regressive left seems a bit off. Or are you happy to have Anders Breivek as a spokesman for the whole of the right if you're fine with picking out a single individual from a political movement, and using them as an exemplar whose statements are inarguable and can be applied to all?

Look, we've already established you're a fucking moron, so I'll explain how this works.

If you want to contradict Glenn Greenwald, you've got to contradict his contention. His argument. You don't get to contradict him because you don't understand who he is, what is politics are and his relevance to the discussion.

Since you're unable to contradict his contention and you don't even appear to understand what the regressive left actually is, you've got no fucking chance whatsoever. You're engaged in a discussion, the parameters of which you barely understand.