Jump to content

The politcal storm continues


466 replies to this topic

#301 Pht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 05:50 PM

View PostCatamount, on 24 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

PhT, are you trying to strawman?


You've refused to refute the content by showing how it's fallacious so far. I've been pointing this out by illustrating the basis that you actually have posted so far that you expect people to accept.

Quote

No, my argument is that the logic was fallacious, because the conclusions didn't follow from the evidence provided (namely, that Obama was a "socialist", based solely on a sketchy set of associations), and it was stunningly obvious. Whether something is or isn't non sequitur has nothing to do with disagreement, as though it were a matter of opinion. I addressed those articles, and you didn't substantively respond on that point (you gave other points of evidence that you thought made Obama a "socialist", but they seemed irrelevant to the articles themselves). Right now, that's where we stand.


A statement of position/opinion is not an argument. Your position is stunningly obvious. Your actual demonstration of a counter-argument to support your position is pure vapor, so far.

"Does not follow" = irrational. It means that your conclusion is not required by your premises and is thus not warranted by your premises.

You did not address the content in the articles. You stated that nobody should belive them because of where they came from - and I addressed that.

You posted that the claim was being made on the basis of assocation; that was addressed as well.

I do find it funny that you think a life-long self expressed preference to associate with marxists, life long actual association with said, having his self-declared mentor being an actual communist... and having marxist/communists in his administration is ... "sketchy."

Quote

You asked me to show that the sources are unreliable; does it matter what topic one uses to show consistent ignorance and/or
dishonesty? How so?


The sources would be the actual SOURCES quoted/linked. Not "I'll choose and pick from multiple different authors from a website that aggregates many authors."

Quote

It might be, if it was anything of the sort. I already said I was willing to address a history of dishonesty within those sources, and if you really want me to pick a topic in which I'm knowledgeable and do just that, I'm still happy to.


So far nobody has any reason to believe you will do what you're claiming you will.

Either you'll address the content of the actual articles linkedin a substantive manner or you won't, and so far you haven't.

#302 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:13 PM

Pht, I did address those articles, in the very first post of mine your responded to, and in a way that had nothing to do with attacking sources. In fact, the entire point of that post was to warn against attacking sources. Your responses here imply the exact opposite, and since you directly responded to those statements, that means your misrepresentation is intentional, because you didn't miss those statements. So at this point, it's clear that you are trying to strawman. If gross misrepresentation is the only way you can try justify your outlandish claims about how Obama is a "socialist", then all I can say is have fun with that. I know a few 9/11 conspiracy theorists who'd love to have you in their tin foil hat knitting circle (I think they meet on Tuesdays, if that works for you).

The rest of us have real political issues to discuss, not some dire fear that Obama is going to topple the foundations of capitalism (or whatever you think is involved in being a "socialist"), based on guilt by association logic and the fact that he moved us infinitesimally closer to the health care system used by virtually every other industrialized nation on Earth (oh, the horror!), or the fact that he's expressed some measure of in-principle agreement with some things that have been said by some "socialists", at some point in his life, or that he rescued one dying industry, which your "credible" sources claimed probably wasn't necessarily, based on the age old journalistic trick of citing agreement from an unnamed group of "experts" who may or may not actually exist (not that you bothered to respond to those aspects of me addressing that article), or whatever other connection you want to desperately accuse him of, none of which establishes him as a socialist in any way that's tangibly meaningful to his policies. Maybe contorting the definition of the word socialist so that you can point to something someone does and yell "that's socialist!" amounts to an argument in your world, but here in the corporeal world, it really doesn't mean much.

Some of us would rather discuss actual policy, rather than trying to shoehorn labels. Of course, that discussion came and went, and all that's left is you insisting that we believe that Obama is a "socialist", whatever that's supposed to entail, based on whatever contorted definition of that word you've managed to convince yourself is correct. Your choice of words for name calling doesn't amount to an evaluation of the tangible effects of his actual policies, nor anyone else's. George W Bush may well have had association with secessionists (I'm not sure I buy it, but that's neither here nor there), and by your logic I probably could have called him a "neo-confederate", but I never had fears he'd try to reignite the Civil War based solely on the possibility that might be able to attach a label to him, because again, unlike you, some of us have more important things to discuss than what label we can shoehorn onto a person, or had, before those things were given a good discussion.

With that said, you seem to think this is of dire importance, so again, have fun with that. When you can demonstrate that Obama is a "socialist" in any way that has any bearing on what we can expect from his policies, maybe someone will care about this absurd line of argument of yours (whatever you're even trying to argue anymore).

For my part, since you're not actually addressing what I've even been saying beyond intentional misrepresentation at literally every step of the way, let alone dozens of other posts that cut directly to your...eccentric point of view, and no one else is holding a substantive conversation, I think this thread has about run its course (actually, it did that about a half dozen pages ago). I know I haven't seen anything actually worth real discussion in quite awhile.


As far as you go, you know what? If you're that desperate to establish definitions being so subject to your arbitrary whim, then fine, Obama is a "socialist", emphasis on the parentheses. What does that mean in any way that is usefully revealing about his policies? Absolutely nothing, just like all labels. Congratulations, you win the Internet.

View PostInsidious Johnson, on 24 August 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Agreed. He also sniffs donkeys and fondles elderberries.


...what if you have those two backwards? :(

Edited by Catamount, 25 August 2012 - 10:14 PM.


#303 plaguebreath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 101 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 26 August 2012 - 02:07 AM

View Postred devil2, on 15 August 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Just to be precise, "Persona non grata" is latin, not italian. If you try to translate in italian, you get something like "ungrateful person" instead of "unwelcome person". Which is quite strange :(

However, I didn't know that about Romney. Interesting.

EDIT: Just finished to see the video. Yeah, bunga bunga is everywhere :( :blush:


The right sentence is Persona non gradita as well as unwelcome person can be sound as a translation. I will not talk about U.S. political stuff coz I've already enough of Italian trouble here but I'd love to know who have not to say bad things about his/her prime minister/president of now or in past years. Sadly everyone forget that we think that presidents or prime ministers is the most powerful person above everyone but forget that Corporation now have more and more power in their hands to just stop all good things to come. As per my Italian perspective, our politics is just **** coz our political party is so pointless that just let a staff of so call "Tech's" to menage the hot potato for them (offcurse in the meantime criticize every movement they do for promote open market or things more interesting then what they did in past) all of that just waiting for the Rating Agency word that will make market go up or down. Government now it's just menaged by the Market not by the free will of peoples and sadly this is more true in Europe then in the other place in World coz we don't have a central state as the US have, as well as neither a unique currency (Euro is just a fake coin) that we can choose menage as US can do. And every country just never want to cooperate for wellness of the unity but they just want to keep the profict as they are doing now while other country (Greek, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and so go on) will suffer the consequence of it. Just my 2 cents (of euro) on the story, ah btw lapdog is not really the terms I will use for a country where US deposit good part of Nuclear Weapons beneath mountains, set bases on most part of the country (and make people in vicinity kick out from lands near them) just for make easy the raid for the good of freedom in the middle-east, or just make easy to the WW2 freedom force to make alliance with southern Mafia for free up Italy from the German hands first, and from the comunist terror before and after they give them weapons and power just left them like they are now, stupid but with lot's of weapons (oh that's resemble me story of Sadd.am, Laden, ecc, ecc) Let's say just we are "Persona Gradita" for the US at the moment.

Edited by plaguebreath, 26 August 2012 - 02:08 AM.


#304 SakuranoSenshi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 26 August 2012 - 04:25 PM

It's persona non grata precisely because it's Latin. It's a stock phrase and wasn't used because of the Italian connexion. Just FYI.

#305 plaguebreath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 101 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:52 PM

View PostSakuranoSenshi, on 26 August 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

It's persona non grata precisely because it's Latin. It's a stock phrase and wasn't used because of the Italian connexion. Just FYI.


Yeah I know it's Latin, I mean the Italian traslation of it it's "Persona non gradita", thank you.

#306 Insidious Johnson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,417 posts
  • Location"This is Johnson, I'm cored"

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:19 AM

Political C R A P Storm Isaac for the win(d)
Posted Image

Edited by Insidious Johnson, 28 August 2012 - 12:20 AM.


#307 Pht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:53 AM

View PostCatamount, on 25 August 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Pht, I did address those articles, in the very first post of mine your responded to, and in a way that had nothing to do with attacking sources.


Ok, to unscramble the eggs:

View PostPht, on 17 August 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

View PostCatamount, on 15 August 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Monsoon, you're right, of course. American Thinker, Heritage, et al, are basically tantamount to linking to Micheal Moore or AE911,


Nice claim. Care to actually back it up?


*Where* are you supposed to have shown that said sources, or even the articles linked, are "basically tantamount to linking to Micheal Moore or AE911" ... Or, in normal usage... Where have you show that the articles linked were conspiracy theories? Or for that matter, grossly misinformed as you seemed to imply?

what you did was try and say that people were cherry-picking from obama's associations and trying to make that "particular stretch to cover the general" of obama's life - which the articles didn't do.

On the GM article you made the accusation that it was based upon assumptions and that it supposedly only had one citation - and you didn't give a citation to back your accusation that it was based on assumptions!

You made a claim that you have not backed up; you haven't shown (well, poorly, or otherwise) that they are conspiracy theories, or that the sources and/or articles linked were grossly misinformed (on this latter one, the only support you've given it is your opinion alone).

Quote

In fact, the entire point of that post was to warn against attacking sources.


Than why did you post:

View PostCatamount, on 15 August 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Monsoon, you're right, of course. American Thinker, Heritage, et al, are basically tantamount to linking to Micheal Moore or AE911,


?

Quote

If gross misrepresentation is the only way you can try justify your outlandish claims about how Obama is a "socialist", then all I can say is have fun with that.


So the *fact* that obama gave 65% ownership of chry to the unions, the *fact* that obama gave 17% ownership of GM to the unions, the *fact* that obama pushed for and put his name on a pice of legistlation that makes all medical care socialized, the *fact* that obama has been signing regulations into law at a break-neck rate... these facts... the somehow ... don't exist?

Or the *fact* that obama has a life-long self-expressed desire to choose other socialists as his friends, co-workers, and confidants, ... the fact that the main mentor in his life, as he says, in his own auto-biography, was a fanatical socialist, who told him to be careful to not loose his socialist "edge" when he went to college - again, in his own auto-biography - that doesn't count either?

Or the *fact* that he has said that nobody builds their own buisness; meaning that the society did it? Or the *fact* that in his speech at osowatami, kansas is a blatant socialist style attack on free markets - which he says have never worked - doesn't count? Or the *fact* that he said "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" ...

And appointing a pay-czar, to control payment at banks who were *forced* to take tarp bailouts?

http://www.judicialw...lout-documents/

http://articles.busi...-bank-documents

#308 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:21 PM

I'm touched that you came back just to continue arguing with me, but unfortunately, you've again managed to misquote me at every step of the way.

Quote

On the GM article you made the accusation that it was based upon assumptions and that it supposedly only had one citation - and you didn't give a citation to back your accusation that it was based on assumptions!


I never said that article was based on assumptions; I said it didn't cite sources. That means the information is unverifiable.

The rest of your supposed quotations of me are equally unrepresentative. I never accused anyone of cherry-picking, for instance; I have no idea what percentage of Obama's associations are with socialists, self-identified or otherwise, merely that it wasn't a basis to frame policies. I noted that their logic was such that individual associations were being used as evidence, anecdotal case after anecdotal case, which is what they displayed, but if I never mentioned that his list of such associations might be quite large, it's only because it went without saying. The relevance of such associations to the tangible effects of his policies doesn't change based on that number, and so, nor does the soundness of the logic. If you felt I downplayed the percentage of his associations that were socialist, and want me to retract those statement, then show me a source that outlines what percentage of Obama's friends and colleagues are socialist. I mean, what if 70% of them are capitalists? Doesn't that mean his associations would more establish him as a capitalist? I could point out that Obama's treasury secretary worked for Goldman Sachs for ten years, a seemingly capitalist person, but just pointing that out is to say nothing about actual policy. Again, that was the point; the line or argument is inane, because the cases are both anecdotal and irrelevant to an evaluation of policy.

If you're going to take exception to what I say, then it should be to what I actually say, not invented strawman statements.

You see, this is the me (albeit from a number of years ago):

Posted Image

and this is who you're quoting:

Posted Image

Now, if, per chance, I did mistakenly claim that an article made up or assumed all its statements, based solely on a lack of citations to verify its claims, then feel free to quote that exact statement to me, and I will happily retract it, because I lack the information to make such a statement.

If, on the other hand, the above shown straw man said it, then I can't take responsibility for it. If you want to argue with him, then I'll give him an account, but please don't ascribe his statements to me.

Quote


So the *fact* that obama gave 65% ownership of chry to the unions, the *fact* that obama gave 17% ownership of GM to the unions, the *fact* that obama pushed for and put his name on a pice of legistlation that makes all medical care socialized, the *fact* that obama has been signing regulations into law at a break-neck rate... these facts... the somehow ... don't exist?

Or the *fact* that obama has a life-long self-expressed desire to choose other socialists as his friends, co-workers, and confidants, ... the fact that the main mentor in his life, as he says, in his own auto-biography, was a fanatical socialist, who told him to be careful to not loose his socialist "edge" when he went to college - again, in his own auto-biography - that doesn't count either?

Or the *fact* that he has said that nobody builds their own buisness; meaning that the society did it? Or the *fact* that in his speech at osowatami, kansas is a blatant socialist style attack on free markets - which he says have never worked - doesn't count? Or the *fact* that he said "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" ...

And appointing a pay-czar, to control payment at banks who were *forced* to take tarp bailouts?

http://www.judicialw...lout-documents/

http://articles.busi...-bank-documents



And this is where my last post was either entirely ignored, or just not understood.

Look, PhT, Obama is hardly the first president to vastly empower unions. Unions have had a long history in this nation, always under a system that was mostly fundamentally capitalist. But if you define these things as meaning he's a "socialist", then fine. I already conceded that if you take what Obama does, define it as socialism, then clearly Obama is going to meet that definition, in that oddly circular sort of way.


The problem is: no one cares. What you're doing is little more than characterization; it's name calling. If you want to take exception to his policies in terms of their tangible effects, then you're free to do so. I might even agree; I'm not a party-line liberal. But simply looking at policies and yelling "that's socialism" ISN'T AN ARGUMENT.

As Gauss correctly noted, we utilize a hybrid system, like all industrialized nations. Some aspects of it are in common with laissez faire capitalism, some with socialism, some even with the corporatist nature of fascism. The only disagreement is a historically relatively slight difference of opinion on how much to tinge various individual systems. Again, this is true of all nations. The UK has a completely socialist medical system (and it's not very good compared to hybrid systems like France's or Australia's), but most of the UK's money is still spent in a market economy. Even a large part of government contracts are to private entities who compete for that money, like BAE (and it's counterpart holders of Eurofighter GmbH), which is getting billions because they convinced the government that the Eurofighter was a worthwhile investment.


So if you point at an individual aspect or policy and say "that's socialism", it's a statement of the obvious. It doesn't mean Obama is purely socialist, anymore than Bush was purely fascist. These are extremes that the whole of the policies of a given president have never come close to meeting, as they tinge our hybrid system this way or that way. And again, what one chooses to call a set of policies is irrelevant.
So if you want to object to the policies, make an argument that actually has something to do with the tangible effects of the policies, not what kind of name-calling you can attach to them.

Edited by Catamount, 28 August 2012 - 03:43 PM.


#309 Joanna Conners

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 1,206 posts
  • LocationEn Route to Terra

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:40 PM

View PostChargerIIC, on 13 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why O Why did you bring the political **** storm here?

Edited by Demona, 28 August 2012 - 04:20 PM.


#310 Flyingpants

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:46 PM

How can you think that regulation has any benefit? Name one piece of regulation that is superior over a free market.

View PostCatamount, on 25 August 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

When you can demonstrate that Obama is a "socialist" in any way that has any bearing on what we can expect from his policies


heh, maybe you should take a look at obama's history, he descends from commies and was surrounded by commies, and was himself, a commie.
Do you really think he's substantially changed from his community organizer days?

#311 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:56 PM

View PostFlyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

heh, maybe you should take a look at obama's history, he descends from commies and was surrounded by commies, and was himself, a commie.
Do you really think he's substantially changed from his community organizer days?


I didn't know Obama during his community organizer days anymore than I do now. I've never even met the man. Who knows, maybe in the years since he's picked up a new flavor of ice cream, or changed his favorite color to red, or become more aggressive towards camels, but you won't get those answers from me. I'm afraid I can't comment on "who Obama is", despite that apparently being an obsession with some here.

Edited by Catamount, 28 August 2012 - 03:57 PM.


#312 CowRocket

    Rookie

  • 5 posts
  • LocationIn My Kitchen

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:14 PM

I read here that "trickle down don't work". When was the last time a poor man gave you a job? If you tax the poop(cr4p is banned?) out of the rich they just pass the tax down to consumers and/or hire less people.

Marxism would work wonderfully if people weren't inherently lazy and it didn't squash inovation.
The whole political scene is a large pile of steaming excrement. That 3 ft sex toy idea is a good one ^_^

Edited by CowRocket, 28 August 2012 - 04:15 PM.


#313 LogicalTightRope

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 146 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina, USA

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:18 PM

View PostFlyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

How can you think that regulation has any benefit? Name one piece of regulation that is superior over a free market.

Well, where I'm certainly a believe in the free market, I also know that monopolies will not help the consumer, for example. I hate the fact that a 'true' free market has plenty of potential to be just as bad as a command market, but hate it as you will, you can't fight the truth.

View PostCowRocket, on 28 August 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Marxism would work wonderfully if people weren't inherently lazy and it didn't squash inovation.

Both 'perfect' Marxism and 'perfect' Capitalism would be wonderful, if the people inhabiting this world were fit for it. If people weren't lazy and thought as a collective hive mind, Marxism would be wonderful. If people were all able to get off to a decent start in life and learned to actually support themselves and never rely on anyone else, Capitalism would be perfect.

Neither scenario is very likely.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 28 August 2012 - 04:24 PM.


#314 Flyingpants

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:31 PM

View PostLogicalTightRope, on 28 August 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Well, where I'm certainly a believe in the free market, I also know that monopolies will not help the consumer, for example. I hate the fact that a 'true' free market has plenty of potential to be just as bad as a command market, but hate it as you will, you can't fight the truth.


Monopolies do not occur in the free market, every example of a monopoly throughout history has had the government backing it through force.

View PostLogicalTightRope, on 28 August 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Both 'perfect' Marxism and 'perfect' Capitalism would be wonderful, if the people inhabiting this world were fit for it. If people weren't lazy and thought as a collective hive mind, Marxism would be wonderful. If people were all able to get off to a decent start in life and learned to actually support themselves and never rely on anyone else, Capitalism would be perfect.

For support you have family, parish, community, charity, etc.
The government stepping in only an underclass of serfs who do not work. It also destroys the bonds which form voluntarily between people, after all who cares about anyone else when you will never need their help?

#315 SakuranoSenshi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:40 PM

View PostCatamount, on 28 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

The UK has a completely socialist medical system (and it's not very good compared to hybrid systems like France's or Australia's), but most of the UK's money is still spent in a market economy.


Not true, by the way. UK has had private healthcare basically forever but even the NHS is actually heavily privatized in many areas and the individual hospitals and trusts run as businesses. What it does have is guaranteed access that is free at point of delivery for everyone, just that for some operations the queue is large enough that many people will pay for private care instead without having to wait so long (obviously they need to be able to afford to do this, one way or another).

#316 Dirty Starfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 477 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:40 PM

If we vote in Obama, who seems to be a serial liar, again, I am renouncing my citizenship. The man is honestly too moronic to slice bread, let alone lead the country.

#317 SakuranoSenshi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostFlyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Monopolies do not occur in the free market, every example of a monopoly throughout history has had the government backing it through force.


Ahahahahahaha! Oh, wait! You were trying to be serious? *facepalm*

Alright, I was mean there but honestly that's the most unintentionally funny thing said in the thread, so far.

View PostSerial Peacemaker, on 28 August 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

If we vote in Obama, who seems to be a serial liar, again, I am renouncing my citizenship. The man is honestly too moronic to slice bread, let alone lead the country.


You mean the graduate who managed to get elected to the highest office in the land? Aye, a real moron that one. Also, spare us the hyperbole, you won't do anything of the kind and probably have no idea how to even do it.

Pro Tip: Dept. of State requires a specific form of words before their officials or certain actions which would also be crimes in most cases.

#318 LogicalTightRope

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 146 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina, USA

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostFlyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:


Monopolies do not occur in the free market, every example of a monopoly throughout history has had the government backing it through force.


For support you have family, parish, community, charity, etc.
The government stepping in only an underclass of serfs who do not work. It also destroys the bonds which form voluntarily between people, after all who cares about anyone else when you will never need their help?

While I still disagree on the monopoly part (I think what your saying is true because the only monopolies the government lets happen are ones it wants to happen), you've made a decent point about people working for more than themselves even in an anarcho-capitalist system. I suppose a sense of community is as necessary to capitalism as it is to marxism (ok, maybe not quite, but still necessary). I just wonder whether we'll ever be able to fully remove welfare - as much as I dislike it, it's necessary, at least for now.

View PostSerial Peacemaker, on 28 August 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The man is honestly too moronic to slice bread, let alone lead the country.

Lol. I like that.

I don't think Obama is a moron, however; I just think that he has a completely different view on the US, what it is, and what it should be than what is (in my viewpoint and opinion) the truth.

I do agree that he's let a few lot of lies slip deliberately escape his maw.

#319 HybridTheory

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 281 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationBC, Canada

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:51 PM

View PostRovertoo, on 14 August 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:


Wait, what? Why? And Canada's always just been Northern U.S.A anyways.


Please face palm yourself repeatedly until you knock yourself out...

#320 Andreis

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:55 PM

View PostStormwolf, on 14 August 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:


That's the same with politics from all over the world.

you say that as if it makes it better.



3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users