The Cysko Kid Posted April 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Why would I question mark something I believed to be absolute truth. That would make as much sense as your pointless and petty semantic arguements. Why don't you riddle me that super-slueth? What is the function of a question mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 I question marked it, jackass, because clearly I don't know. I already said I didn't read it, and neither did you so you don't know what's in there either. It's so clear a third grader could see it, but heckofajobbrownie can't. Uh, once again, no. I haven't read the entire bill, but I have read the part lunatics think refers to microchipping humans, and you have too. You posted it. And I read it back when T posted it three years ago. And after looking at it for 10 seconds I can see that it doesn't say that. Just like I haven't read the J. Crew catalog cover to cover, but I know what the price of the shirt I want is. This shouldn't be a tough concept to grasp. But you did say that you thought this was the intent of the bill, and that it was taken out. I can go back and quote you all the times you did that. It also doesn't even matter what you wrote before, because it's clear. I'm also not asking you about what a question mark is. I'm asking you a simple question: Do you acknowledge that the Obama health care bill did not include a provision that allowed for the microchipping of human beings for purposes of government control, or for any other purpose? Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Did you or did you not think that was in the health care bill? Simple question. And seems clear to us the answer is yes. Because you keep writing that it was. So, did you or did you not think that was in the health care bill? All I'm looking for is some acknowledgement that you understand that "microchipping humans" wasn't in the bill. That's all. You keep posting about how mad you are because you don't want to answer this. So just answer it. I take personal offense to your assertion that on some sort of idiot that takes everything I read at face value. You are an idiot that can't tell the difference between a question mark and a period but doesn't care as long as youre right about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yes or no. Never mind what you wrote before. What do you think now? Did that section of Obama's health care bill allow for microchipping humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Uh, once again, no. I haven't read the entire bill, but I have read the part lunatics think refers to microchipping humans, and you have too. You posted it. And I read it back when T posted it three years ago. And after looking at it for 10 seconds I can see that it doesn't say that. Just like I haven't read the J. Crew catalog cover to cover, but I know what the price of the shirt I want is. This shouldn't be a tough concept to grasp. But you did say that you thought this was the intent of the bill, and that it was taken out. I can go back and quote you all the times you did that. It also doesn't even matter what you wrote before, because it's clear. I'm also not asking you about what a question mark is. I'm asking you a simple question: Do you acknowledge that the Obama health care bill did not include a provision that allowed for the microchipping of human beings for purposes of government control, or for any other purpose? Yes or no. For the last time you absolute child, I told you I did not read the bill. I read an article and posted it here, to talk about. Nothing more, nothing less. I never claimed to read the bill. Only you ever claimed that. You would rather argue about how you perceive my intelligence and I promise you if we were face to face you wouldn't have the balls to do that. You're just a sad kid, an internet troll so bent on being right that all you can argue is what you think I thought. You don't know me and you obviously don't know what a question mark means. Seriously, fuck you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Let me answer for you. Um...uh...no. you're wrong I'm right, I'm always right, mommy told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 That was strange. Why can't you just answer the question? I'm wondering why you're running all around and getting so upset instead of just answering the question. Here's what you wrote: "Even if its not in the current bill it was in the original. ...The first bill indicates that in obamas perfect world we'd be fitted with them." Do you still really believe that? Or never mind what you wrote before. Just tell me what you believe is true today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yes or no. Never mind what you wrote before. What do you think now? Did that section of Obama's health care bill allow for microchipping humans? How much more can I say I don't know. I don't fucking know, Retard. I never said I read it. However I wouldn't be surprised if it were insidiously hidden in the 1000+ page health care farce. I would not be surprised at all. Does that make your balls feel bigger, like you've won something? It shouldn't, because its what I've said all along. Again point out where I said this is truth. Please point that out or shut your quacking mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Well, I know. Every one of those articles I posted knows. Everyone who isn't a nut on a Ron Paul or Browns Board message board knows. And you can trust us all when we tell you that it's absolutely, 100% not in the bill. Sleep easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well, I know. Every one of those articles I posted knows. Everyone who isn't a nut on a Ron Paul or Browns Board message board knows. And you can trust us all when we tell you that it's absolutely, 100% not in the bill. Sleep easy. Nope. All opinion pieces. Proves nothing, as usual. Please once again find my statement where I said anything more than its scary and I oppose it or its just more of your arrogant child's buffoonery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Nope. All opinion pieces. Proves nothing, as usual. Please once again find my statement where I said anything more than its scary and I oppose it or its just more of your arrogant child's buffoonery. Wow. Okay. We can stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 Shit. I just deleted a post by mistake instead of editing it. Just go look at the Stand Your Ground thread. It really shows how these "policy" arguments go. It was me asking a policy question and you saying you didn't know what the policy was, then me basically saying "then go look up the law and we'll go from there" and you saying "I don't see how this is different from self-defense" and me saying "It is different - go look at the law" and then you not being able to find it, and then ...doing a 180 and saying I didn't know what the law was, and me saying "Yes, I do know" because everyone had been reading about it for two weeks and then telling you to go look it up. From there you took it to accusing me of not knowing, and saying I might go back and edit my posts. Finally, I posted the text of the law for you and you said, "It's good you did some research and dropped the pretense." Oh, and before that, and after saying you didn't know what the law said, you wrote, "By the way, stand your ground is something of a gray area but it is based on the idea that you have no responsibility to retreat when threatened." So to recap: - My policy question. - You saying you don't know what the law is, and that you're not a lawyer. - Me saying you should look up the law so we could talk about it. - You saying you don't see the difference between SYG and self-defense. - Me telling you there is a big difference in the legal standard - You implying that I don't know what the law says. - Me assuring you that i do. - You insisting I don't, then suddenly posting the difference in the legal standard. - Me posting the text of the law, since you couldn't find it. - You insisting this was the first time I'd read it, and had finally dropped my pretense. It's mind-numbing stuff. It is indeed. You spent maybe thousands of words on a snow job. You say you don't have time to look up all this evidence for me! I maintain you weren't sure. If you do one sentence " under stand your ground you are not required to try to retreat" would have done the trick but no.... That's why I assume you didn't know for sure either, and instead tried to bluff your way out under a flurry of words. Now maybe you will admit it's a pretty gray area. But we can take that up over on its own thread.. The only relevance it has here is your stubbornness and willingness to change a subject or twist the facts to make your opponent seem wrong. Whether he is or not. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 21, 2012 Report Share Posted April 21, 2012 The only relevance it has here is your stubbornness and willingness to change a subject or twist the facts to make your opponent seem wrong. Whether he is or not. WSS ****************************** The question is, does Heck do it ALL THE TIME, or just most of the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 And the prize goes to Cysko for winning the debate and putting up with Hecks dribbling and pouting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 Cysko kicked Heck's arse. But Heck is programmed to never admit it. Liberal emotions do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 Cysko kicked Heck's arse. But Heck is programmed to never admit it. Liberal emotions do that. It's impossible that your emotions chose the winner though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 It's impossible that your emotions chose the winner though, right? Hello all, I just returned from T's reeducation Happy Camp. Only liberals decide by their emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 22, 2012 Report Share Posted April 22, 2012 Hello all, I just returned from T's reeducation Happy Camp. Only liberals decide by their emotions. Were you able to pray the gay away while you were there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 Were you able to pray the gay away while you were there? Yes, and you can too, Woody. If you pledge $750 and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 Yes, and you can too, Woody. If you pledge $750 and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Wow. Yet another anti Christian post. Heck will be proud of you boys! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm happy when people make fun of Christian-based gay reparative therapy, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm happy when people make fun of Christian-based gay reparative therapy, yes. So, just to be clear, you support making unprovoked fun of minorities if they don't like homosexuals? Just making sure. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 I certainly don't mind that someone makes a crack about Christian-based gay reparative therapy, or that people make jokes that you didn't expect them to make given the conversation. In this case, I happen to agree with the premise of the joke, which is that Christian-based gay reparative therapy is wrong and bigoted and ill-conceived and often dangerous, which is why I appreciate when people highlight this disgusting practice with humor. If someone wants to make a joke about how anyone who believes in Christ is an asshole, that's not a premise I agree with, and therefore wouldn't appreciate the joke. If you want to "make things clear" you'll have to do better than obscuring the point, and doing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 Wow. Yet another anti Christian post. Heck will be proud of you boys! WSS I'll continue to do this until T starts being an impartial moderator. That means until he starts moderating cal's off topic posts that happen to pop up in every thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 As you can see from this thread, Vapor, you missed some real good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'll continue to do this until T starts being an impartial moderator. That means until he starts moderating cal's off topic posts that happen to pop up in every thread. Everybody's gotta obsess over something I suppose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 Everybody's gotta obsess over something I suppose... I don't like the way something's run, so I'd like to see it changed. Appealing to reason doesn't work, so I'll fight bullshit with bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 I've read a bunch of threads, and I don't see one instance where I "changed the subject". That makes Vapor a liar. See, it's what libs do. They try to control the message. One way, or another. mz the pussy the pussy tried that . He complained that he was "offended" that I called him "MosquitoZits" after he was constantly belittling me on the board. So, I heard about it, and quit it, made a truce, as to not muck up the board. THEN? mz the pussy the pussy went crazy with giving me even worse, more repulsive garbage.So, I went back to calling him "mosquitozits". They try "divide and conquer"... and they try badgering someone so much, that they can infer that others shouldn't disgree with them, or they will get the same treatment. They try isolating one or two members, because they disagree with them, and try to manipulate them out of conservations. When that doesn't work, they bring out "moron" monicers again and again and again and again and...... When all else fails, they complain that the mod who wouldn't ban a member they disagree with for some made up reason. Like, all Vapor would have to do, is to let me know where I was bugging him by changing the subject... and I would try to not do it. But, I don't see where I did - I see where I responded to woody's constantly doing it with off the wall comments. BTW, Vapor - you mucked up my email - I don't appreciate it. I guess you want to ruin stuff like the occupiers. After all, your feurer ObaMao told you followers to "get in their faces". It will backfire. Just like Heck's nonsense post - the RFID chips WERE IN THE FIRST BILL THAT COULDN'T PASS. It was kept out of the subsequent bill. They tried. That's nearly as worrisome as it being in THIS bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 Yes, we have another "Obama wanted to microchip humans" maniac. Steve, talk some sense into this guy. Just once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 Heck, you seem to have lost your superiority rating around here. You keep making a fool of yourself. Perhaps you need Shep to come back. Even snopes admits that the RFid chips WERE in HR3200. It did fail. That's what I'm saying. The fact that it was TRIED in LEGISLATION is an atrocity. A lot of people just confused HR3200, with the latter ObamaoMarxistCare bill. If you ever once cared about the truth about anything around here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.