/dev/null Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Usually somebody has to perform the magic... Like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jesus. Or Oriental Fish
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Usually somebody has to perform the magic... Like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jesus. Or Satan.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Or Satan. Yeah... Speaking of Miro Satan... He really could weave some magic from time to time!
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Usually somebody has to perform the magic... Like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Jesus. It was Charlie Sheen.
meazza Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 It was Charlie Sheen. Not only is he bi-winning, he's also a mod
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Gotta hand it to Charlie Sheen... He is bats out crazy... But if he can keep it together without really going off the real deep end... He the man!
Delete This Account Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Not really because Canadians are so dumb that when they get stoned they don't even try to start in with all the crap regular hippies do. You know what I mean, stuff like: "Whoa man, what if red is really blue and blue is really red." Wow man, I'm glad I smoked all of this pot to open up new like horizons for myself man. A stoned Canadian is generally comatose. Intolerable yes, but not as much as a regular hippy. now i'm drunk but not stoned, and there is a big difference there. so, where was i? oh yeah, goddam hippies crap. jw
Nanker Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Gotta hand it to Gene. He sends out a bat signal that the board's gone deeply off the right end and, voila! The Joker's buddies rally round the hookah.
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 We need to get this back on topic. What was that again? Dank is an idiot?
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 We need to get this back on topic. What was that again? LA is an idiot? Fixed.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Fixed Fine... I am a troll. That means this board does have an agenda and conservative leaning/slant... A slant that nobody ever wants to admit... I mean come on... LA seems to be in bed with this movement... There is nothing wrong with that. Now the main paradigm here on the board is telling Dank "to do his own homework." I gotta admit, this Tea Bagger party is an interesting thing. I would like to hear about it right from the horse's mouth... Or should I look elsewhere? Why is Dank taking the heat? Sure he made "the south" comment... I should have fixed Tom's post to include both LA and Dank. But he explained what he thought of the video. The balls in the other side's court... Which now, they cite the "NJSue Rule" and will not answer. If the movement is so righteous... Why don't the board's Tea Bagger establishment speak up and explain things. Just maybe they would get people to agree with them. Again... It is a cop out to say go elsehwere. If Dank took things out of context... Refute that with facts.
meazza Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Fine... I am a troll. That means this board does have an agenda and conservative leaning/slant... A slant that nobody ever wants to admit... I mean come on... LA seems to be in bed with this movement... There is nothing wrong with that. Now the main paradigm here on the board is telling Dank "to do his own homework." I gotta admit, this Tea Bagger party is an interesting thing. I would like to hear about it right from the horse's mouth... Or should I look elsewhere? Why is Dank taking the heat? Sure he made "the south" comment... I should have fixed Tom's post to include both LA and Dank. But he explained what he thought of the video. The balls in the other side's court... Which now, they cite the "NJSue Rule" and will not answer. If the movement is so righteous... Why don't the board's Tea Bagger establishment speak up and explain things. Just maybe they would get people to agree with them. Again... It is a cop out to say go elsehwere. If Dank took things out of context... Refute that with facts. Of course it has a conservative slant but I think it has more to do with the libs left are nuts, but I'm surrounded by socialists (partie quebecois) and liberals so I feel them (the rest of the board). With respect to the video, I didn't watch it as I feel if I get caught up in the debate, not much will come from it. I'm just trolling you trolling LA
Booster4324 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) We need to get this back on topic. What was that again? Dank is an idiot? Fixed. Neither of those are mutually exclusive. Edited March 5, 2011 by Booster4324
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I mean come on... LA seems to be in bed with this movement... There is nothing wrong with that. Now the main paradigm here on the board is telling Dank "to do his own homework." I gotta admit, this Tea Bagger party is an interesting thing. I would like to hear about it right from the horse's mouth... Or should I look elsewhere? Why is Dank taking the heat? Sure he made "the south" comment... I should have fixed Tom's post to include both LA and Dank. But he explained what he thought of the video. The balls in the other side's court... Which now, they cite the "NJSue Rule" and will not answer. If the movement is so righteous... Why don't the board's Tea Bagger establishment speak up and explain things. Just maybe they would get people to agree with them. Again... It is a cop out to say go elsehwere. If Dank took things out of context... Refute that with facts. In order to successfully refute anything with facts, we must first fully understand what we're trying to refute. By default, Dank left the perceived belief that these people were protesting because they hate people who try to help the needy. He wouldn't admit that per se, but for the lack of really wanting to engage in the discussion that he started, he essentially said, "Yes, let's assume that's what they're doing." At that juncture I asked him the following: "...we will then extend your "lazily perceived" confirmation that these people were protesting specifically because they hate people who help the needy. We will start with where you know this for a fact (where there signs saying "We have those who help the needy?" because I must have missed them), and then we'll move on to where the video actually states that these people are there because they hate those who help the needy, since that seems to be where you came to this lazily perceived confirmation. After you're done with that useless effort, we will follow it with who specifically created and posted that video, followed by how the creator of the video came to the conclusion that those people were there specifically because they hate, in your lazily perceived confirmation, people who help the needy. "Your task is before you. Please try to stick to the actual questions I'm asking, not what you THINK you're reading from either me or some website, because once you do that, there is a chance...a very slight chance...you'll understand this conversation." It is difficult to dispute anything when you actually have no idea what he really believes. We can assume we know, but before I fall into that lazy trap, I just asked for specifics. His response was to close the thread. Your response becomes "LA seems to be in bed with this movement." More assumptions for the sake of trying to create an argument that only a fool like yourself wants to have. The simple truth -- a truth so simple that even YOU almost see it -- is that he has absolutely no clue what was really going on that day. Because if he did, he could argue some assemblance of a point rather easily (though probably not successfully). Instead, he closes the thread. And the ultimate insult is that he somehow has you coming to his defense. He'd have been better off leaving the thread closed.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Was he stoned again when he reopened the thread? Because it seems like he's have to be stoned again to reopen the thread. We still don't know who re-opened the thread. Was it Dank or a mod?
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 We still don't know who re-opened the thread. Was it Dank or a mod? Wasn't Dank. He's too much of a chickenshit to reopen it, as he showed when he closed it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Wasn't Dank. He's too much of a chickenshit to reopen it, as he showed when he closed it. So what gives with LA laying into him here: He'd have been better off leaving the thread closed. Dank must of touched a nerve. So, if Dank didn't re-open it... Who did and why do they want him to be worse off? What gives around this place? I mean come on.. Why are people so touchy about this thread... There have been worse... Why are people so worked up? Why are people riding to the defense of these California loons? Maybe he is right with the premise of his thread... Dealing with the elitist, brie and wine liberals is a lot more tolerable then the worked up people hating loons from Cali. Edited March 6, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois
Recommended Posts