Or baked in one of those disgusting Sugar Pies they love up there.JimC wrote:He will be boiled alive in maple syrup...

Or baked in one of those disgusting Sugar Pies they love up there.JimC wrote:He will be boiled alive in maple syrup...
I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.Coito ergo sum wrote:LOL - exactly the answer I'd expect.tattuchu wrote:Being a Dick.Coito ergo sum wrote:What's the worst one?tattuchu wrote:The same war crimes that everyone else in the entire fucking world without their head up their ass think he's guilty of.Coito ergo sum wrote:What war crimes do the canucks think he is guilty of again?
People who make this allegation tend to not know what they're talking about, and you haven't betrayed that expectation.
What a wonderful way to goJimC wrote:He will be boiled alive in maple syrup...
That about sums it up.tattuchu wrote:I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.
Is that supposed to be an "oh, snap" quip?maiforpeace wrote:Exactly.sandinista wrote:plus, since he went over to "help" the people you would think they would actually throw a lavish welcome for him. Greeted as a hero!mistermack wrote:He should be made to do a speaking tour of Afghanistan. As he was so keen to send other people there.
If he's so innocent, then traveling to speak in Canada shouldn't be problem then, should it CES.
That the only response because likely it's the only coherent response you can give. It's not a difficult or lengthy answer. "Obama is guilt of war crimes!"tattuchu wrote:I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.Coito ergo sum wrote:LOL - exactly the answer I'd expect.tattuchu wrote:Being a Dick.Coito ergo sum wrote:What's the worst one?tattuchu wrote:
The same war crimes that everyone else in the entire fucking world without their head up their ass think he's guilty of.
People who make this allegation tend to not know what they're talking about, and you haven't betrayed that expectation.
No limit. They are culling the herds.Tyrannical wrote:Well, the Canadian Bar association should be relived.
What's the daily bag limit on lawyers up in Canada anyways?
Tat, this is a reminder that personal attacks are against the rules.tattuchu wrote:I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.
No, actually, my reason is precisely as stated.Coito ergo sum wrote:
Look - the reason you have gotten so upset is that you know you don't have a coherent answer. You just want to fling poo.
No problem. Coito, apologies if I came across as a bit harsh. I like you and have quite a lot of respect for you. Hope you don't think I was being a cunt. Just really not interested in engaging in a debate.Pappa wrote:Tat, this is a reminder that personal attacks are against the rules.tattuchu wrote:I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.
Doubtful. You're dodging.tattuchu wrote:No, actually, my reason is precisely as stated.Coito ergo sum wrote:
Look - the reason you have gotten so upset is that you know you don't have a coherent answer. You just want to fling poo.
I don't think it is me you owe an apology to, since I highly doubt Pappa cautioned you because of anything you said to me. Nothing that you said directed at me was a personal attack, and I did not report the post. If my suspicion is correct, you were cautioned for calling Seth a "fucktard."tattuchu wrote:No problem. Coito, apologies if I came across as a bit harsh. I like you and have quite a lot of respect for you. Hope you don't think I was being a cunt. Just really not interested in engaging in a debate.Pappa wrote:Tat, this is a reminder that personal attacks are against the rules.tattuchu wrote:I was making a joke because that's the only response you're going to get out of me. I have no intention of taking your bait, nor playing your game. We've had this conversation before and you know goddamn well what this scumbag's crimes are. You're being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant in denial. Whatever. If you want a debate, go play with that fucktard Seth. I'm not interested.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests