Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 242

Thread: Shillary!

  1. #1

    Default Shillary!

    I made my own name.


  2. #2

  3. #3
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    I'm not sure what your problem is Sap. Or Pox really. Would I vote for Hillary if I was a yank? Probably. She's a politician. It is almost as if you don't even know how politics works. Sure both Bernie and trump have fewer filters on what they say, but that is not always a good thing. Everyone changes their minds. I do, hopefully you do when you should as well. The email issues are pure politics, and anyone who was in her position has probably done similar.

    Do I think people like her should be president? Nope, she's a politician, and I think anyone who wants to be president should be disbarred. But the reality is that they are the only ones who can work with the system.
    It is the system that is bad and makes this the only option. If bernie gets in he won't be able to to do anything (except inspire hope). If trump gets in, he is such a dipstick, that he will also be ineffectual, but will probably allow some truly terrible things through that he shouldn't.

    Hillary is a politician. A nasty sub species that lusts after power and runs things. They all are. None of the stuff on that video was of much interest to me, it was all just politics. Her support of israel marks her down more than any of it.

    It gob-smacks me that you have a system that pits the liberals against each other and the conservatives against each other so publicly before the election. SO MUCH AMMUNITION distributed!!

    And Pox, did you read the article? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. Does her being a woman come into my decision to vote for her (If I was able) - yes it does. I know (and you can all see) how much flak she gets for being a woman. So getting to that position in the state of female is no small achievement. Just like Obama being black. She's not "one of you" for sure, and that is a bit of an anomaly for white men, but you don't ever get to even ask yourself "am I voting for him because he's white/male". They usually are, so it's just not a question. But you do it anyway.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  4. #4

    Default

    See, that's sexist. I look pastv their gender, past their race, and look at their voting records, at their stances, and at their content as a whole.

    And Hillary screams of corruption, she is funded by wall street, she lies about Bernie's Healthcare costs to perpetuate a failed system of privatized insurance, probably since she shilled some money from them.

    She supported DADT, DOMA, the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA of 2012, she supported the TPP. She committed treason by selling TS/SCI secrets in exchange for Clinton charity donations. She was the lawyer of wall street, all her large contributions are by wall street, big pharma, big media, etc. She is the epitome of this failed political system.


    I refuse to support a candidate who is so blatantly inconsistent and feels like she is entitled to the position. The person (not woman, since I wholly embrace a female president), is the denotation of what is wrong with this country.

    So no, I will not let her gender, nor the landmark that that would set, sway me from my decision to vote away from her. She is disgusting. And seeing how the FBI has more than enough evidence to put her away, I hope she rots in a jail cell rather than winning the Democratic primaries.

    *I am rather inebriated, so my post may have been rather critical, to a fault. Though I do dislike her, and her being "on par with the politics of the time" does not make her any more favorable in my eyes.
    Last edited by Sapient; 02-14-2016 at 12:47 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I'm not sure what your problem is Sap. Or Pox really. Would I vote for Hillary if I was a yank? Probably. She's a politician. It is almost as if you don't even know how politics works. Sure both Bernie and trump have fewer filters on what they say, but that is not always a good thing. Everyone changes their minds. I do, hopefully you do when you should as well. The email issues are pure politics, and anyone who was in her position has probably done similar.
    I thought you where more pro-Bernie? And I view voting for someone because of their race/gender to be as equally racist/sexist as voting against them because of said race/gender.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Do I think people like her should be president? Nope, she's a politician, and I think anyone who wants to be president should be disbarred. But the reality is that they are the only ones who can work with the system.
    And now you realize why I was cynical of the Canadian PM when he's done what he's done. Lack of trust and all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    And Pox, did you read the article? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. Does her being a woman come into my decision to vote for her (If I was able) - yes it does. I know (and you can all see) how much flak she gets for being a woman. So getting to that position in the state of female is no small achievement. Just like Obama being black. She's not "one of you" for sure, and that is a bit of an anomaly for white men, but you don't ever get to even ask yourself "am I voting for him because he's white/male". They usually are, so it's just not a question. But you do it anyway.
    She hasn't gotten any flak for being female. Her 'flak' has been because of her flimsy stances on positions, the email scandal (which could be shrugged off as her just being old and not understanding technology), her ineffective time as Sec. of State (She really didn't do much at all), the fact she plays really dirty pool (Almost House of Cards level) and her very rich background. Her gender is only being brought up by her and those who wish to accuse Sanders fans of being sexists.

  6. #6
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I thought you where more pro-Bernie? And I view voting for someone because of their race/gender to be as equally racist/sexist as voting against them because of said race/gender.
    I Am, but I don't think he can do anything. I think she would be more effective at getting useful stuff done. I also don't think bernie can win against anybody except maybe trump. And even then, probably not. So I'd vote for hillary as a pragmatic choice. I think bernie would be a better choice, he certainly has more of my values, but it's not a realistic choice in the USA today.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    And now you realize why I was cynical of the Canadian PM when he's done what he's done. Lack of trust and all.
    What has he done now to upset you?

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    She hasn't gotten any flak for being female. Her 'flak' has been because of her flimsy stances on positions, the email scandal (which could be shrugged off as her just being old and not understanding technology), her ineffective time as Sec. of State (She really didn't do much at all), the fact she plays really dirty pool (Almost House of Cards level) and her very rich background. Her gender is only being brought up by her and those who wish to accuse Sanders fans of being sexists.
    Complete and utter bollocks. She gets stick for her stances and scandals, sure, but the level is higher than it would be for a good ole boy. Just like obama got far more stick for his americanism (or not) because of his race. You live the life of a white man, and you can only see life through your eyes. But that is a filtered view you have.

    The whole "vote for hillary because she's a woman" outrage just proves it. Why do you care what some people are saying about it? Are you outraged that people are saying that (without even looking at the reasoning) or likely to do it? Are you outraged that it is becoming yet another stick to beat her with? Do you get just as riled up when some famous god-botherer says you should vote for an evil git like cruz? Does it become a massive media storm? No? Why not? It's far worse. Oh, that would be because it's normalized. Why can christian candidates openly flout it?

    Just like the football supporters who boo'd Adam Goodes here "just because they didn't like him", it is almost impossible for you to dissociate from her being female, let alone the millions of worse chauvinists out there. She's strong and determined. That alone is enough to mark her down in a very large part of the population. Women aren't supposed to be. Dominance, assertiveness, competitiveness, and power-seeking - all things that get donnie votes, lose them for her. It's just the way things are. She's not liberal enough for me, but she could be conservative enough to get elected.

    Sanders is playing a clever game (and I really wish him luck), but he's also playing politics with gender too by default. Just like her. He can "get angry" and "pound the podium" and he's being righteously determined. She can't get angry at all without it being seen as a negative. But she's been playing the game a long time, so she's pretty good at it.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I Am, but I don't think he can do anything. I think she would be more effective at getting useful stuff done. I also don't think bernie can win against anybody except maybe trump. And even then, probably not. So I'd vote for hillary as a pragmatic choice. I think bernie would be a better choice, he certainly has more of my values, but it's not a realistic choice in the USA today.
    Funny, that's the same reason I'm voting for her. That and I'm actually Ok with dirty pool as long as it gets results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    What has he done now to upset you?
    Nothing that upset me. I just am cynical of all 'good deeds' by politicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Complete and utter bollocks. She gets stick for her stances and scandals, sure, but the level is higher than it would be for a good ole boy. Just like obama got far more stick for his americanism (or not) because of his race. You live the life of a white man, and you can only see life through your eyes. But that is a filtered view you have.
    It's not any higher at all. The only thing that saved her in the email scandal is her power, allies and pull. Her gender has nothing to do with anything.
    And for Obama: There where those birther idiots. Then there are those who have an IQ above double digits who saw it for the ***-hattery it was. It's like Cruz's 'born in Canada' and Trump's mom not being born here, either. People of actual intelligence don't give **** because the rules aren't that idiotic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    The whole "vote for hillary because she's a woman" outrage just proves it. Why do you care what some people are saying about it?.
    I find that it demeans her talking points and discredits what her message is. And there are women who are very against her BECAUSE he harps on "As a woman" like it's a special badge. For instance: Jaclyn Glenn has about stated she's not voting for Hillary because she uses the uterus as a crutch for her campaign. That and she's super pro-Bernie.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    See, that's sexist. I look pastv their gender, past their race, and look at their voting records, at their stances, and at their content as a whole.

    And Hillary screams of corruption, she is funded by wall street, she lies about Bernie's Healthcare costs to perpetuate a failed system of privatized insurance, probably since she shilled some money from them.

    She supported DADT, DOMA, the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA of 2012, she supported the TPP. She committed treason by selling TS/SCI secrets in exchange for Clinton charity donations. She was the lawyer of wall street, all her large contributions are by wall street, big pharma, big media, etc. She is the epitome of this failed political system.


    I refuse to support a candidate who is so blatantly inconsistent and feels like she is entitled to the position. The person (not woman, since I wholly embrace a female president), is the denotation of what is wrong with this country.

    So no, I will not let her gender, nor the landmark that that would set, sway me from my decision to vote away from her. She is disgusting. And seeing how the FBI has more than enough evidence to put her away, I hope she rots in a jail cell rather than winning the Democratic primaries.

    *I am rather inebriated, so my post may have been rather critical, to a fault. Though I do dislike her, and her being "on par with the politics of the time" does not make her any more favorable in my eyes.
    Not to mention the pro-Iraq war stance and bellicose positions she held during her tenure as Secretary of State. It's certainly right to say that Libya today is a disaster and U.S. involvement in Syria has made the country worse. Hillary's stated agenda is to impose a no-fly zone that would threaten Russian and Syrian aircraft in the while of working with the Saudis to send ground troops against ISIS. What exactly would be the end-game? If the Saudi Islamic Coalition does gain territory from the Islamic State, it's unlikely that that territory would be annexed by Syria, and the Saudis would likely impose a state in their image... much like the, Islamic State.

    I'm quite anti-war and in the end my vote will be cast for the candidate that is the least likely to impose regime change that ushers in much blood, death, and destruction. I wouldn't care about the domestic situation as long as their promise is no more stupid wars, I'd be willing ride a bicycle around and eat crickets and snails if it meant no war - but as you all know, I do that anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Do you get just as riled up when some famous god-botherer says you should vote for an evil git like cruz? Does it become a massive media storm? No? Why not? It's far worse. Oh, that would be because it's normalized. Why can christian candidates openly flout it?
    Some Christian godbotherers like Cornell West have openly supported Bernie Sanders, actually quite a number of them. The reason is because like Bernie, Jesus did go on quite a lot about helping the poor and least fortunate.

    It is actually quite funny to me that possibly the most Christ-like of all candidates for a long time now, is a socialist non-practicing old Jew.
    Last edited by Summer; 02-14-2016 at 07:09 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    She is trying to frame this as a gender issue, but of course it is not. You are all right, but I will do it a little more clear:
    ... Billary, Bushillary, Obillary, Hillary, Tedillary, Rubillary, ETC...

  10. #10

    Default

    Your grasp of the English language still astounds me.

  11. #11
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    I respect the impact of the first woman president, but I am extremely concerned about Clinton's unashamedly hawkish foreign policy. Her election will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of middle eastern people at the hands of cynical American intervention, and in my opinion this outweighs all the other noise about domestic issues.

    I also resent her '08 primary strategy of explicit racism from surrogates and implicit racism/dog-whistles from the top. And, although it is unfair to see her as responsible for all of Mr. Clinton's mistakes, she was a highly public advocate of the administration's awful crime policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  12. #12
    Villager
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    I respect the impact of the first woman president, but I am extremely concerned about Clinton's unashamedly hawkish foreign policy. Her election will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of middle eastern people at the hands of cynical American intervention, and in my opinion this outweighs all the other noise about domestic issues.
    Yes - if only the U.S. would just totally leave things alone, there would be no trouble in the Middle East.

    You'd think a female President would be less hawkish, and women in general are not at all the warmakers that men are, but you still may have a point.

    However, seems to me that U.S. action has to be weighed in the balance. I heard that 20% of the population of Syria has been killed in the past few years. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been at each others' throats for what - 1600 years? 1700? And there is a rumor that Jews and Arabs have some problem with each other....?

  13. #13
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PorkLoin View Post
    Yes - if only the U.S. would just totally leave things alone, there would be no trouble in the Middle East.

    You'd think a female President would be less hawkish, and women in general are not at all the warmakers that men are, but you still may have a point.

    However, seems to me that U.S. action has to be weighed in the balance. I heard that 20% of the population of Syria has been killed in the past few years. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been at each others' throats for what - 1600 years? 1700? And there is a rumor that Jews and Arabs have some problem with each other....?
    So what does that have to do with america? How well have you been at picking peace winners so far? Whatever you do will come back to bite you for sure. Currently, dealing with russia, turkey and assad diplomatically would save more lives and reduce the refugee issue more than any amount of bombing runs. They just produce more terrorists.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  14. #14
    Villager
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So what does that have to do with america?
    Jono mentioned the hypothetical of Hillary being President.


    How well have you been at picking peace winners so far?
    Some good, some bad.

    Whatever you do will come back to bite you for sure.
    Could be - when I first read about the deal in Syria, there were 12 factions with substantial presence there, so no way to keep everybody happy, no matter what.


    Currently, dealing with russia, turkey and assad diplomatically would save more lives and reduce the refugee issue more than any amount of bombing runs.
    There really is no defending ISIS. They deserved to get hit. Also, do you think Assad should stay in power? Good grief, he really is a nasty bugger. Would it have been better to just try and "be diplomatic" with ******? In late 2014, there was a coalition of 59 countries that agreed that ISIS should have action taken against them - it's not like this is a unilateral action on the part of the US.

    They just produce more terrorists.
    I don't think anybody feels that it's not a real mess.

  15. #15
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PorkLoin View Post
    Yes - if only the U.S. would just totally leave things alone, there would be no trouble in the Middle East.
    That's exactly what I said, you got me.


    You'd think a female President would be less hawkish, and women in general are not at all the warmakers that men are, but you still may have a point.
    It's true that women are less hawkish than men in a general sense, but applying it to a specific woman is pretty hollow since Clinton is a real person with actual policies. She has been on the hawkish side of most foreign policy issues (Iraq surge being an exception, although only via a flip flop) in the last two decades, and continues to explicitly advocate interventionist policies that scale well past what Obama is already doing (which I already oppose). Which isn't particularly surprising coming from someone who looks up to Kissinger


    However, seems to me that U.S. action has to be weighed in the balance. I heard that 20% of the population of Syria has been killed in the past few years. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been at each others' throats for what - 1600 years? 1700? And there is a rumor that Jews and Arabs have some problem with each other....?
    The middle east has of course had its problems over the years, but in modern times they have been primarily augmented by various forms of Western action, from early imperialism to modern interventions. I support the US maintaining a peacekeeping role, especially since so much of the post 60s violence is our responsibility, but anything else will almost certainly backfire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  16. #16

    Default

    This is like watching Fox News...


    By the way, at least in the last debate Trump's foreign policy made a lot more sense than the other's.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    2

    Default

    blahhblahblaaaa

  18. #18
    Villager
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    It's true that women are less hawkish than men in a general sense, but applying it to a specific woman is pretty hollow since Clinton is a real person with actual policies. She has been on the hawkish side of most foreign policy issues (Iraq surge being an exception, although only via a flip flop) in the last two decades, and continues to explicitly advocate interventionist policies that scale well past what Obama is already doing (which I already oppose). Which isn't particularly surprising coming from someone who looks up to Kissinger.
    I agree with you there, and well said. What I am really disagreeing with you about is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Her election will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of middle eastern people at the hands of cynical American intervention
    Nobody knows exactly what would happen, and it also would not be happening in a vacuum, i.e. with no American intervention it is a sure thing that many deaths would still occur. In no way is it impossible that American intervention would result in less deaths overall.




    The middle east has of course had its problems over the years, but in modern times they have been primarily augmented by various forms of Western action, from early imperialism to modern interventions. I support the US maintaining a peacekeeping role, especially since so much of the post 60s violence is our responsibility, but anything else will almost certainly backfire.

    Well, on the peacekeeping role, I don't think the U.S. should try to be "the world's policeman." It costs too much, it's certainly not always successful or even a net benefit, and we are already the world's largest debtor nation. We've had some big failures, even if at the outset it seemed quite reasonable, such as supporting Ho Chi Minh because he was fighting the Japanese in World War II, and helping the Taliban back when they were against Russia in Afghanistan.

    I do think it would have made a big difference were there not the large oil reserves in the Middle East - American interest would be less, perhaps vastly less.

    If you want the U.S. to have only a "peacekeeping role," then what would you advise us to do in Syria? It looks to me like Assad will kill any amount of his own people to retain his own power.

    If we are considering the post-1960s time period, I think the amount of blame to be put on "western action" in the Middle East is a good question. Some is due, without doubt, but I'm not so sure about your contention that the problems have been "primarily augmented" by the west.

    I have 21 nieces and nephews, the oldest of them now being 24 years old. In the past decade, I've talked with several people from the Middle East, most of them being college students here in the U.S. What strikes me is how deep-seated the animosity between the factions is, i.e. Arab vs. Jew, Sunni vs. Shiite, etc. Not saying these are "bad people," innately - it's very easy to see how growing up with deaths in the family, etc., due to the fighting would give a massively strong sense of "them being the enemy."

    Also, the strongest loyalty is often not simply to one's country, but to one's region or tribe, one's home village. Not saying this has any great bearing on the larger matters we're discussing, but I found it interesting.

  19. #19

    Default

    I found someone crazier than Trump.

    My boss is ranting that all f*****s, n*****s, and Mexicans need to be shot on sight.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    I found someone crazier than Trump.

    My boss is ranting that all f*****s, n*****s, and Mexicans need to be shot on sight.
    I didn't know you were a policeman.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I didn't know you were a policeman.
    Commercial Electrician.

  22. #22
    Philosopher Toucan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    **** Travian.
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    You guys honestly might be worse than reading The Onion. Maybe I'll direct their audience here.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toucan View Post
    You guys honestly might be worse than reading The Onion. Maybe I'll direct their audience here.
    Care to enlighten us on our mistakes? Or do you have nothing to contribute but a tossed stone?

  24. #24
    Philosopher Toucan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    **** Travian.
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Care to enlighten us on our mistakes? Or do you have nothing to contribute but a tossed stone?
    Let's start with the fact that you're arguing to an audience of like... 5 people! Don't you have friends outside this forum that you could have a far more meaningful conversation with? I assume not, or you'd have left here.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toucan View Post
    Let's start with the fact that you're arguing to an audience of like... 5 people! Don't you have friends outside this forum that you could have a far more meaningful conversation with? I assume not, or you'd have left here.
    Who's to say I don't have simultaneous conversations? One mode of communication doesn't exclude the rest.

    And I guess that answered that. You never enlightened us on our mistakes, instead you threw more stones.

    You're a sad excuse of a person.

  26. #26
    Philosopher Toucan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    **** Travian.
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Who's to say I don't have simultaneous conversations? One mode of communication doesn't exclude the rest.

    And I guess that answered that. You never enlightened us on our mistakes, instead you threw more stones.

    You're a sad excuse of a person.
    Considering the fact that I can trace your posts from dusk til dawn, I can assume with reasonable accuracy that you have no friends outside of this forum. It can be also reasonably assumed as such considering you took things too far with a man in the military and winded up on the back end of some legal troubles. So why are you discussing politics for anyway, primarily when things come down to choices and legality. Seems like you didn't make the best of choices in that situation.

  27. #27

    Default

    I never post from the time I wake up (5 am) to the time I get off work (4 pm). So I claim bull****, sir.

    Also, not relevant to Hilldawg.

  28. #28
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Ah Toucan, what are you doing back here? If you have something to say, say it and let the rest of us attack you for it. That's how it works. If you have a personal grievance or objection to the sappy one, get a room. Or just shut up. We don't care unless it's interesting. This is just boring.
    American interventionism.. when HAS it worked Porky?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  29. #29

    Default

    Porky? xD

  30. #30

    Default

    Let's get em Rok!

  31. #31

    Scarecrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Just below the tropic of Capricorn.
    Posts
    6,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toucan View Post
    Post
    I'm sorry, but I do have to wonder why you care to spend your time here when you obviously aren't getting any enjoyment out of it or from the people who still post... What is the point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonothan Crane
    Patients suffering delusional episodes often focus their paranoia on an external tormentor. Usually one conforming to Jungian archetypes. In this case, a scarecrow.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    I'm sorry, but I do have to wonder why you care to spend your time here when you obviously aren't getting any enjoyment out of it or from the people who still post... What is the point?
    It's hard to be an anonymous bully in real life.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  33. #33

    Default

    Fellows I am very sorry, this is all my fault
    The NSA is tracking my steps cause of my anti-establishment speech, so they have infiltrated our forum by activating two of their sleeping cells, the propagandist and the shamer.

    Hold strong and remember all I have tough you <3

  34. #34
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Porky? xD
    Sounded better than"Loins".
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    I'm sorry, but I do have to wonder why you care to spend your time here when you obviously aren't getting any enjoyment out of it or from the people who still post... What is the point?
    His goofy fugly *** isn't getting any attention from the *ahem* girls he likes so he's back here to get verbally bashed on.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    His goofy fugly *** isn't getting any attention from the *ahem* girls he likes so he's back here to get verbally bashed on.
    Is he stalking Sap? or is he really into Grannillary?

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drystan View Post
    Is he stalking Sap? or is he really into Grannillary?
    No, he's annoying the forums. This is why I have him on block.

  38. #38

    Default

    I never understood the block feature, it's fun to see some of the stuff people say. It's like watching "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" but the adult version. You know back before we knew Bill was behind stage prepping drinks.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    I never understood the block feature, it's fun to see some of the stuff people say. It's like watching "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" but the adult version. You know back before we knew Bill was behind stage prepping drinks.
    I just got tired of listening to his whining and defending his special form of 'love'.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I just got tired of listening to his whining and defending his special form of 'love'.
    It's weird really, why come back here when everyone knows your deepest, darkest, most disgusting secrets, and hate you for it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •