thought so.
Sorry slick, you really need to try and stay in the context of the argument.13urnzz wrote:
try again, son.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.
why, so you can change it yet again?lowing wrote:
Sorry slick, you really need to try and stay in the context of the argument.13urnzz wrote:
try again, son.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.
whatever, you got outclassed at your own arguement, got schooled like a whelp, and then change it.lowing wrote:
While you are at it, be sure to dig up where whatever whites only caucus's you cite, have banned all other races from joining.13urnzz wrote:
reserved - looks like it will take a while to match names with pictures, to confirm Whites Only caucus, brb
How convenient for you.
Not really, I just did not account for a dip shit like you coming in with your smart ass attempts at trying to prove me wrong by going outside the context of the conversation....thats all. I really should've known better to be honest.13urnzz wrote:
why, so you can change it yet again?lowing wrote:
Sorry slick, you really need to try and stay in the context of the argument.13urnzz wrote:
try again, son.whatever, you got outclassed at your own arguement, got schooled like a whelp, and then change it.lowing wrote:
While you are at it, be sure to dig up where whatever whites only caucus's you cite, have banned all other races from joining.13urnzz wrote:
reserved - looks like it will take a while to match names with pictures, to confirm Whites Only caucus, brb
How convenient for you.
Now run a fetch a mod with your report button.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 14:03:43)
o k a y , i w i l l p o s t m o r e s l o w l y f o r y o u t h e n -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..13urnzz wrote:
sure, sore loser. your M.O. is get the last post in, not really winning an argument. despite showing you your own quotes and definitively answering them, you won't admit that there is in fact a white caucus.lowing wrote:
as long as you leave.
i will let you have the last post to salve your shredded ego.
here's your context;lowing wrote:
Not really, I just did not account for a dip shit like you coming in with your smart ass attempts at trying to prove me wrong by going outside the context of the conversation
here's your answerlowing 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.
i listed, and cited, and even provided photos for you. call me all the names you want, son.
Last edited by 13urnzz (2011-09-27 14:37:54)
no burnzz, that was not the context...but I know you know that, so move along.13urnzz wrote:
here's your context;lowing wrote:
Not really, I just did not account for a dip shit like you coming in with your smart ass attempts at trying to prove me wrong by going outside the context of the conversationhere's your answerlowing 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.i listed, and cited, and even provided photos for you. call me all the names you want, son.
you are a sore loser, and i can live with that.
do you think i created the quote? bless me, i gave you way too much creditlowing wrote:
no burnzz, that was not the context...but I know you know that, so move along.
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.
now don't be a sore loser, surely even you cannot deny what you posted in the face of proof.
nice try though.
Hey, how about sticking to the argument for once? FBI and KKK? seriously?lowing wrote:
Hold on a second there pal....Are YOU saying the govt. is the governing body behind the CBC?
I used "overseeing" in the context of keeping an eye on, observing, not governing........If you are saying overseeing means governing, well then you pretty much lost the argument that the govt. is not involved in the caucus's. So in fact, based on your opinion, the govt. does sanction blacks only meetings within our govt. Is this your position now? Think it would be ok for our govt. to sanction a whites only meeting of our elected officials?
Government oversight = general rules to follow.
FBI oversight = i'mgonnafuckyouup.
Nice
And asking the question again. And again and again.
Same answer lowing. The group can exist as long as the LSO rules are in place.
Just waiting for how I "dodged that question yet again"
and yet again, I never argued or even asked if it could exist. I asked if it could exist WITHOUT being considered a racist organization under the same rules you love to cite?Pug wrote:
Hey, how about sticking to the argument for once? FBI and KKK? seriously?lowing wrote:
Hold on a second there pal....Are YOU saying the govt. is the governing body behind the CBC?
I used "overseeing" in the context of keeping an eye on, observing, not governing........If you are saying overseeing means governing, well then you pretty much lost the argument that the govt. is not involved in the caucus's. So in fact, based on your opinion, the govt. does sanction blacks only meetings within our govt. Is this your position now? Think it would be ok for our govt. to sanction a whites only meeting of our elected officials?
Government oversight = general rules to follow.
FBI oversight = i'mgonnafuckyouup.
Nice
And asking the question again. And again and again.
Same answer lowing. The group can exist as long as the LSO rules are in place.
Just waiting for how I "dodged that question yet again"
Why are you not understanding this?lowing wrote:
and yet again, I never argued or even asked if it could exist. I asked if it could exist WITHOUT being considered a racist organization under the same rules you love to cite?
I've answered the question the same everytime.
It's not racist if it defends rights.
whatever burnzz.13urnzz wrote:
do you think i created the quote? bless me, i gave you way too much creditlowing wrote:
no burnzz, that was not the context...but I know you know that, so move along.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.
now don't be a sore loser, surely even you cannot deny what you posted in the face of proof.
nice try though.
well Pug, you have more patience than i. after clearly showing him, even in his own words, he still can't put up a fight without using preset talking points.
good luck, i'm afraid if i keep arguing with this idiot he'll drag me down to his level and beat me up with his experience.
good luck, i'm afraid if i keep arguing with this idiot he'll drag me down to his level and beat me up with his experience.
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?Pug wrote:
Why are you not understanding this?lowing wrote:
and yet again, I never argued or even asked if it could exist. I asked if it could exist WITHOUT being considered a racist organization under the same rules you love to cite?
I've answered the question the same everytime.
It's not racist if it defends rights.
as long as you leave.13urnzz wrote:
well Pug, you have more patience than i. after clearly showing him, even in his own words, he still can't put up a fight without using preset talking points.
good luck, i'm afraid if i keep arguing with this idiot he'll drag me down to his level and beat me up with his experience.
sure, sore loser. your M.O. is get the last post in, not really winning an argument. despite showing you your own quotes and definitively answering them, you won't admit that there is in fact a white caucus.lowing wrote:
as long as you leave.13urnzz wrote:
well Pug, you have more patience than i. after clearly showing him, even in his own words, he still can't put up a fight without using preset talking points.
good luck, i'm afraid if i keep arguing with this idiot he'll drag me down to his level and beat me up with his experience.
i will let you have the last post to salve your shredded ego.
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?Pug wrote:
Why are you not understanding this?lowing wrote:
and yet again, I never argued or even asked if it could exist. I asked if it could exist WITHOUT being considered a racist organization under the same rules you love to cite?
I've answered the question the same everytime.
It's not racist if it defends rights.
Ask something new.
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..13urnzz wrote:
sure, sore loser. your M.O. is get the last post in, not really winning an argument. despite showing you your own quotes and definitively answering them, you won't admit that there is in fact a white caucus.lowing wrote:
as long as you leave.13urnzz wrote:
well Pug, you have more patience than i. after clearly showing him, even in his own words, he still can't put up a fight without using preset talking points.
good luck, i'm afraid if i keep arguing with this idiot he'll drag me down to his level and beat me up with his experience.
i will let you have the last post to salve your shredded ego.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 14:36:36)
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?
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?Pug wrote:
Why are you not understanding this?
I've answered the question the same everytime.
It's not racist if it defends rights.
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?
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?
o k a y , i w i l l p o s t m o r e s l o w l y f o r y o u t h e n -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..13urnzz wrote:
sure, sore loser. your M.O. is get the last post in, not really winning an argument. despite showing you your own quotes and definitively answering them, you won't admit that there is in fact a white caucus.
i will let you have the last post to salve your shredded ego.
here's your context;lowing wrote:
Not really, I just did not account for a dip shit like you coming in with your smart ass attempts at trying to prove me wrong by going outside the context of the conversation
here's your answerlowing 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.
this isn't "white people from a caucus",
This is the caucus.
just because you want to change context when someone pins you down, doesn't mean that i haven't answered your question.
but go ahead, post again thinking that last post will somehow vindicate you.
Don't need vindication burnzz, you are purposely neglecting the context of the post for your chest beating. If you feel you need to do so for your self gratification, so be it, enjoy it. However, we both know what the context was, and it certainly was not finding a caucus that had only white people in it. It was to find a caucus that did not allow any other race except white people.13urnzz wrote:
o k a y , i w i l l p o s t m o r e s l o w l y f o r y o u t h e n -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..13urnzz wrote:
sure, sore loser. your M.O. is get the last post in, not really winning an argument. despite showing you your own quotes and definitively answering them, you won't admit that there is in fact a white caucus.
i will let you have the last post to salve your shredded ego.here's your context;lowing wrote:
Not really, I just did not account for a dip shit like you coming in with your smart ass attempts at trying to prove me wrong by going outside the context of the conversationhere's your answerlowing 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.this isn't "white people from a caucus",
This is the caucus.
just because you want to change context when someone pins you down, doesn't mean that i haven't answered your question.
but go ahead, post again thinking that last post will somehow vindicate you.
lowing wrote:
However, we both know what the context was, and it certainly was not finding a caucus that had only white people in it. It was to find a caucus that did not allow any other race except white people.
okay dude. it's obvious to me that you will not concede, even at the expense of you looking like a Democrat logo.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.
I am not going to concede my point based on your purposeful bastardization of the context of what I was saying....You ain't a lawyer, I ain't your witness, and this ain't a court of law. If you want to take the spirit of what I was saying in the context of the conversation feel free to do so, until then.........13urnzz wrote:
lowing wrote:
However, we both know what the context was, and it certainly was not finding a caucus that had only white people in it. It was to find a caucus that did not allow any other race except white people.okay dude. it's obvious to me that you will not concede, even at the expense of you looking like a Democrat logo.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.
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
Last edited by 13urnzz (2011-09-27 15:32:49)