No not really burnzz. I didn't realize I needed an attorney by my side as I wrote my post, as if it were a contract to be dissected word for word. I guess I should have. The context is what it is, you have chosen to bastardize that context. It is a cheap shot, a sucker punch, I can not help. Be proud burnzz, if that is really the a victory you want to hang your hat on enjoy it, and go back to EE and "rate the girl above you" or something.13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3645115lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.
was this not your quote?okay dude, the spirit. you've set a new bar for d & stlowing wrote:
If you want to take the spirit of what I was saying
lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.
13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3645115#p3645115
was this not your quote?
if you concede that was in fact your quote, and i did answer it, i'd be happy to move on. until then, rest assured i'll allow you to get the last post in, thus assuring your talking point win in this particular argument.lowing wrote:
The context is what it is, you have chosen to bastardize that context
it's this kind of bullshit that endears you to the community. "I want my answers now!" and yet when confronted with with a legitimate answer to your own statement you log out. please, go find your talking points.lowing wrote:
still waiting.
just be less of a douche when you post them.
If you go back you will find I was more responding your previous smart ass post. I am not inclined to endearing myself to you or anyone else in this forum burnzz. and if you consider your answer "legitimate", well, we will just have to agree to disagree.13urnzz wrote:
it's this kind of bullshit that endears you to the community. "I want my answers now!" and yet when confronted with with a legitimate answer to your own statement you log out. please, go find your talking points.lowing wrote:
still waiting.
just be less of a douche when you post them.
Sure, I concede you have purposefully twisted the meaning of my post to fit your argument that YES INDEED there are white people in caucus's...congratulations, you have indeed taken the ground.13urnzz wrote:
lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3645115#p3645115
was this not your quote?if you concede that was in fact your quote, and i did answer it, i'd be happy to move on. until then, rest assured i'll allow you to get the last post in, thus assuring your talking point win in this particular argument.lowing wrote:
The context is what it is, you have chosen to bastardize that context
read up I conceded. was there anything else?13urnzz wrote:
okay, so you have elected to take the low road. fitting, i guess . . .lowing wrote:
and if you consider your answer "legitimate", well, we will just have to agree to disagree.lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3645115#p3645115
was this not your quote?if you concede that was in fact your quote, and i did answer it, i'd be happy to move on. until then, rest assured i'll allow you to get the last post in, thus assuring your talking point win in this particular argument.lowing wrote:
The context is what it is, you have chosen to bastardize that context
you are simply amazing. even when i gave you your own post, you say i have twisted it.lowing wrote:
Sure, I concede you have purposefully twisted the meaning of my post to fit your argument that YES INDEED there are white people in caucus's...congratulations, you have indeed taken the ground.13urnzz wrote:
lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3645115#p3645115
was this not your quote?if you concede that was in fact your quote, and i did answer it, i'd be happy to move on. until then, rest assured i'll allow you to get the last post in, thus assuring your talking point win in this particular argument.lowing wrote:
The context is what it is, you have chosen to bastardize that context
so tell me, oh great point talker, how did i twist your very own post?
You didn't twist my post, you twisted the context of my post from its known intent to something extremely literal. You know you did it and I concede you did it. Now, again, was there anything else?13urnzz wrote:
you are simply amazing. even when i gave you your own post, you say i have twisted it.lowing wrote:
Sure, I concede you have purposefully twisted the meaning of my post to fit your argument that YES INDEED there are white people in caucus's...congratulations, you have indeed taken the ground.13urnzz wrote:
lowing wrote:
DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.if you concede that was in fact your quote, and i did answer it, i'd be happy to move on. until then, rest assured i'll allow you to get the last post in, thus assuring your talking point win in this particular argument.13urnzz wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3645115#p3645115
was this not your quote?
so tell me, oh great point talker, how did i twist your very own post?
yes, since you are being civil about it -lowing wrote:
Now, again, was there anything else?
stop being like Horseman 77, you make a point and in arrogance you can be worse than any msnbc anchor about it.lowing wrote:
still waiting.
you think people hate your words, and some do. even if i agreed with 100% of the time i would still fight you til the last breath for your presumption, for that is what has undersold generations of this country.
i would beat such a fucking knot into your head for thinking the fight ends with talking points for simply saying them. you stupid fuck it's your arrogance that has turned generations into hands out, let the dog walk you, i won't grow up to be like dad that is letting the world go to hell in a handbasket.
put a civil tongue in your head or risk losing what of this current generation agrees with you.
speaking of context http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3653473 <-----this is the context in which I responded....your smart ass comment that I wasn't going to dignify.13urnzz wrote:
yes, since you are being civil about it -lowing wrote:
Now, again, was there anything else?stop being like Horseman 77, you make a point and in arrogance you can be worse than any msnbc anchor about it.lowing wrote:
still waiting.
you think people hate your words, and some do. even if i agreed with 100% of the time i would still fight you til the last breath for your presumption, for that is what has undersold generations of this country.
i would beat such a fucking knot into your head for thinking the fight ends with talking points for simply saying them. you stupid fuck it's your arrogance that has turned generations into hands out, let the dog walk you, i won't grow up to be like dad that is letting the world go to hell in a handbasket.
put a civil tongue in your head or risk losing what of this current generation agrees with you.
Do not mistake a lack of throwing a tantrum for arrogance. There is nothing I would like more than to have civil disagreements in this forum. If you and several others could only contain your tempers we could. Your admittance that you will argue against what I post, even if you agree with it, just because i am the one who posted it, pretty much speaks for itself.
and I love the pat where you lecture me about "putting a civil tongue in my head", in the same post where you would "beat such a fucking knot into my head". an instant classic in tantrums.
by the way, were you going to concede that you purposely twisted the context of what I wrote?
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 17:00:50)
the temper is seeing me answer a post, only to see you evade it.lowing wrote:
There is nothing I would like more than to have civil disagreements in this forum. If you and several others could only contain your tempers we could.
the temper is to see you demanding an answer from a member logged out.
the temper is seeing you sticking to talking points when one asks a reasonable question.
the temper is seeing you speak on behalf of the United States, when not all of it's citizens feel the same way.
the temper comes from the sheer obtuseness that seems like prevarication when a simple answer and a firm conviction suffice.
the temper comes from having a meathead answer where someone asks an honest question.
the temper comes from years of having 'Talking Point Joe' thinking louder is better.
the temper comes from someone not being civil to any members that express an interest in which you feel is your provenance.
you are not the end all, be all of all things.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative on this forum.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative that can speak for like minded members.
i guess my problem is having you = with American Conservatives and the way you go about it.
Last edited by 13urnzz (2011-09-27 17:03:29)
Burnzz, I have spent years in this forum putting up with you as well as others and your self proclaimed superiority complexes, as you all talk down to me as well as other members in this forum. The difference between you and me, I don't give a shit. Again, do not mistake a lack of emotional responses for arrogance.13urnzz wrote:
the temper is seeing me answer a post, only to see you evade it.lowing wrote:
There is nothing I would like more than to have civil disagreements in this forum. If you and several others could only contain your tempers we could.
the temper is to see you demanding an answer from a member logged out.
the temper is seeing you sticking to talking points when one asks a reasonable question.
the temper is seeing you speak on behalf of the United States, when not all of it's citizens feel the same way.
the temper comes from the sheer obtuseness that seems like prevarication when a simple answer and a firm conviction suffice.
the temper comes from having a meathead answer where someone asks an honest question.
the temper comes from years of having 'Talking Point Joe' thinking louder is better.
the temper comes from someone not being civil to any members that express an interest in which you feel is your provenance.
you are not the end all, be all of all things.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative on this forum.
you are not the end all, be all of all things American conservative that can speak for like minded members.
I speak for myself burnzz, my opinions are regarding my experiences and my obervations and what I have read or watched, just like everyone else. I would have no idea how to speak for you.13urnzz wrote:
i guess my problem is having you = with American Conservatives and the way you go about it.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 17:06:14)
okay, but i will take your lack of acknowledgement when i answered a question as evasion.
i agree with you on some things, and it pains me to see that you think i look down on you for political differences.
i look down on you for acting like a douche towards members.
i agree with you on some things, and it pains me to see that you think i look down on you for political differences.
i look down on you for acting like a douche towards members.
you gotta be kiddin me? I am one of the most calm, less reactionary members in this forum. I endure relentless attacks from all directions constantly and still rarely engage in the mud slinging. That is not to say I never have, however.13urnzz wrote:
okay, but i will take your lack of acknowledgement when i answered a question as evasion.
i agree with you on some things, and it pains me to see that you think i look down on you for political differences.
i look down on you for acting like a douche towards members.
I have read attacks on me in threads I am not even a part of, and YOU are one of the biggest offenders. so please do not tell me how I act like a douche toward other members. If anything I try harder than most to be respectful of the other members.
puh lease, i speak to the arrogance with which you post - even the half of the time that you are right you still are snarky and rote. your herd mentality is what i'm addressing, the smug belief that because you share an opinion with 46% of this country that elevates you to be both haughty and prideful.lowing wrote:
you gotta be kiddin me? I am one of the most calm, less reactionary members in this forum. I endure relentless attacks from all directions constantly and still rarely engage in the mud slinging. That is not to say I never have, however.13urnzz wrote:
okay, but i will take your lack of acknowledgement when i answered a question as evasion.
i agree with you on some things, and it pains me to see that you think i look down on you for political differences.
i look down on you for acting like a douche towards members.
I have read attacks on me in threads I am not even a part of, and YOU are one of the biggest offenders. so please do not tell me how I act like a douche toward other members. If anything I try harder than most to be respectful of the other members.
that's ok though, you keep keepin on. Nixon politics is bound to be back in fashion and you'll be in the front line.
What arrogance? I post, I get ripped apart by you and others in the form of personal attacks, and you tell me I have the problem? Ok well, again, nothing I can do about that, so agree to disagree.13urnzz wrote:
puh lease, i speak to the arrogance with which you post - even the half of the time that you are right you still are snarky and rote. your herd mentality is what i'm addressing, the smug belief that because you share an opinion with 46% of this country that elevates you to be both haughty and prideful.lowing wrote:
you gotta be kiddin me? I am one of the most calm, less reactionary members in this forum. I endure relentless attacks from all directions constantly and still rarely engage in the mud slinging. That is not to say I never have, however.13urnzz wrote:
okay, but i will take your lack of acknowledgement when i answered a question as evasion.
i agree with you on some things, and it pains me to see that you think i look down on you for political differences.
i look down on you for acting like a douche towards members.
I have read attacks on me in threads I am not even a part of, and YOU are one of the biggest offenders. so please do not tell me how I act like a douche toward other members. If anything I try harder than most to be respectful of the other members.
that's ok though, you keep keepin on. Nixon politics is bound to be back in fashion and you'll be in the front line.
My opinions are genuine and I do not sell them for popularity points in this forum. sorry. I have no party line I tow. I have opinions that are not part of conservative ideology, I am pro abortion, I am pro drug legalization, I am pro same sex marriage, and I pretty much despise religion to name a few, so spare me your nonsense that all I do is parrot conservative ideology. That is far from the truth.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 17:46:10)
apology accepted.lowing wrote:
Ok well, again, nothing I can do about that, so agree to disagree.
in the future i would counsel you to be more approachable, come off your lofty peak, and be genuine. really, talking points get you nowhere, and even in these brief 18 pages, in only half of them have you appeared to be bull headed, intractable, and domineering. in the other half you've shown real improvement by only being stubborn, unyielding, and thick headed.
you've demonstrated real strides in moving towards the near right of Fascism, and for that i applaud you.
yeah ok whatever, was that it, or should I brace myself for another tirade/tantrum?13urnzz wrote:
apology accepted.lowing wrote:
Ok well, again, nothing I can do about that, so agree to disagree.
in the future i would counsel you to be more approachable, come off your lofty peak, and be genuine. really, talking points get you nowhere, and even in these brief 18 pages, in only half of them have you appeared to be bull headed, intractable, and domineering. in the other half you've shown real improvement by only being stubborn, unyielding, and thick headed.
you've demonstrated real strides in moving towards the near right of Fascism, and for that i applaud you.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 18:51:05)
sure. would you like the last post, so you can proclaim victory in another thread that belittled and berated those that would have debate and serious talk with you?
lol, neh, you can have it if you promise to throw another fit, while I grab some orange juice and watch some hard core pawn.13urnzz wrote:
sure. would you like the last post, so you can proclaim victory in another thread that belittled and berated those that would have debate and serious talk with you?
I am no longer answering things I've already answered.lowing wrote:
lol, actually you didn't. So I will try again....What rights do white people have that blacks don't?Pug wrote:
Answered that.lowing wrote:
what rights do white people have that black people don't? So white people can gather in whites only allowed groups to defend white rights.......and that won't be racist right??? got any examples? cuz I sure as fuck can't think of any?
Ask something new.
Is it your opinion that white people can gather in whites only allowed groups to defend white rights without being considered racist, EVEN under the same rules you cling to as an argument? If this is your opinion, do you have any examples that support your opinion?
Answer the questions and feel free to throw in "special needs" to make it look like its not a double standard in your logic.lowing wrote:
Get back with me when the CBC recognizes the tea party or any whites only allowed group as something other than a organization of racist. When the CBC recognizes whites only allowed groups, you will have an argument. Until then, it is a double standard on which they exist. That is the discussion. You did see the video right?Pug wrote:
Why isn't there one penis in the women's caucus?lowing wrote:
No I will admit you have proved there is a caucus with white people in it, I do not admit you have shown it is a whites only allowed, caucus the context of the discussion..
Why isn't there one person over 30 in the Under 30 Caucus?
Since its perfectly logical to think women are not equal than men, and being under 30 is a disability.
Right? That's your argument why only non black caucuses arent discrminatory? Or was it that I proved the cbc was discrimatory, but you believe only the cbc is discriminatory despite using your same logic and applying it elsewhere?
Oh yeah, I think I made that argue a few times already. I hope you didn't accidentally fall asleep there
Lol I wonder why the black caucus is getting so much media attention. I love that Obama ripped them.
