Are You For or Against Separatism in Canada?
Previous 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Mr_Canada old @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:12 am
Tricks Tricks:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Sweet. His rants are always fun. 
Well I got a doozy of one soon. My fuckface of a manager decided to write up pretty much everyone who worked last night. 
Sweet.
As much cursing as possible,
When I get even on the smallest rant I'm known for using "fuckign" (spelt like so) around 3S (3 times a sentence).
Tricks @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:12 am
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
Arctic,
You know who I'm really disappointed in? Dummy Matt. First he gets himself thrown off another website for piling on the racial slurs, then he comes back here, gets huffy and drops down for a duel but fucks off for the bottom of a whiskey bottle when I respond.
I can't believe I own his soul that much that he can't even muster a defence, drunkenly racist or otherwise.
You know who I'm really disappointed in? Dummy Matt. First he gets himself thrown off another website for piling on the racial slurs, then he comes back here, gets huffy and drops down for a duel but fucks off for the bottom of a whiskey bottle when I respond.
I can't believe I own his soul that much that he can't even muster a defence, drunkenly racist or otherwise.
Dummy Matt = MCB, right?
Tricks @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:14 am
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Tricks Tricks:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Sweet. His rants are always fun.
Well I got a doozy of one soon. My fuckface of a manager decided to write up pretty much everyone who worked last night. Sweet.
As much cursing as possible,
When I get even on the smallest rant I'm known for using "fuckign" (spelt like so) around 3S (3 times a sentence).
French_Canuck @ Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:42 pm
I am against. What kind of stupid idea is it to split up from the rest of a country for the sole reason of being different.
Im from Québec, and I am TOTALLY against separation. Look everywhere, it lead to civil war, Russia, USA, and more.
Another reason why I am against separation is because it's pretty much like racism. Keeping all the white ones on one side and the black ones on the other side, and the yellow ones, red ones and orange or blue and purple ones. Lets all split up.
Yes we can always help each other, but you know what? That's what we're supposed to do with the Americans, and see? We fight over the price of wood.
For example, Québec splits, cause we are french speaking pussies and we are too lazy to learn english in a 99% english North America. Fine.
I am from Beauce, which is in Southern Québec. We have a very different accent than that of people who live in Québec, and we live 25 Km from the US border.
Beauce is heavily industrial and 95% of our sales are outside Québec.
Economically speaking, politically stable countries attrack more investors than unstable countries. Take the march 26th 2007 elections in Québec, where the PQ got bashed out of the parliament. The very next day, the loonie went up 1/3rd of a dollar. Not much, but still shows that investors saw that separatism was out of the way for a while and decided that it was safe to invest.
Now Alberta wants to split because its getting filthy rich with oil. Well, before that, they liked that Canada fed their poor agricultural asses cause they had nothing, just like the Atlantic provinces. Well, guess what, that's what a country is about. Redistributing resources where they are needed.
One major drawback of our country, it is HUGE and there are too few people. Too many resources for too little people. We waste all we have, cause we "think" we have plenty.
That's sad. In 20 years from now, when 30% of all drinkable water is on Canadian soil, wtf is gonna happen? Its not a bunch of lone provinces that's gonna help. It's a whole country, united, setting aside their petty differences, to join a greater cause. We already show the world that there are other ways than violence and discrimination. Let's not start that shit.
I think we have much to learn and splitting up is not a solution.
The more differences there are, the more problems will arise. Diversity is nice, but as a race, humans are not made to be different, cause if we were, there would be no KKK, no genocides, no racism...
Think about it.
Motorcycleboy @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:45 pm
Forgive me one and all. I've been away, and upon my return have found some nonsense from Dayseed that requires a handy dispatch. I realize this thread has gone out over 18 pages. I'm not going to read over every one to see if someone else has put the obnoxious ex-con, in his place yet. So I'll just quickly shut him down now and be done with it.
$1:
Dayseed:
Here we go Dummy Matt!
Here we go Dummy Matt!
Who the fuck is Matt?
$1:
Dayseed:
I take issue with your argument that Quebec has a "right" to separate if they choose to do so democratically.
I take issue with your argument that Quebec has a "right" to separate if they choose to do so democratically.
What are you trying to say here? Obviously, if the separatists won a vote for separation they would have earned the right to secede. Do you dispute that?
$1:
Since you claim to be a big fan of the law, you should be able to breeze through these with specific examples of how you would negotiate the troubled waters.
Not really. I don't think anyone alive today knows the answers to all the Constitutional questions that would arise in the event of a move by Quebec to separate. Not Lucien Bouchard, not Stephen Dion, and not Stephen Harper. I'm just saying the Quebecois have a right to it if they elect to do so.
$1:
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that they have this "right"? The Supreme Court of Canada found no "right" for Quebec to unilaterally secede, how did you?
The Clarity Act makes it quite clear that Quebec is well within its right to begin separation negotiations upon receiving a mandate on a clear question with a clear majority of the population.
$1:
2. How is "democratically" decided? Is it 50%+1? Says who and why would such a thin majority be acceptable as opposed to a super-majority?
What constitutes a "clear majority" has yet to be determined. You know that and so do I.
$1:
3. How do you propose the Canadian government own up to its obligations under S.7 of the Charter where it must protect the life, liberty and security of a person who has voted no to separation and chooses to remain Canadian? Quebec has no right to nullify Canadian citizenship, independent or not.
I would suggest this is one of the more problematic areas that will be up for negotiation. I would also suggest that the right of citizenship is up to the country that chooses to recognize it. Quebec has no right to "nullify" any Canadian's citizenship. However, Canada has every right to determine who it chooses to recognize as its citizens. What's your opinion on the subject?
$1:
4. The Clarity Act is pretty specific about what would happen in the event of another referendum. How do you propose to nullify this Act of Parliament in regards to a unilateral declaration of independence?
The Clarity Act allows for a Quebec Government to begin negotiating secession upon receiving a clear mandate from the populace of Quebec.
And if you take issue with that mandate, how exactly do you propose to prevent that secession?
Is a Canadian version of General Sherman going to march on and burn Trois Rivieres and Chicoutimi to the ground? Whose going to lead them Dayseed? You?
$1:
Dayseed:
I'll leave these little things with you. In the meantime, you can go back to combing the thesaurus to fake intelligence you don't have or to pontificating why brown people need to be killed. Try not to get kicked off this site too for being a racist though!
I'll leave these little things with you. In the meantime, you can go back to combing the thesaurus to fake intelligence you don't have or to pontificating why brown people need to be killed. Try not to get kicked off this site too for being a racist though!
Thanks for the advice jailbird, however, your posts are the only ones who are so vituperative as to have warranted a term of censure by the RCMP on this site.
I'm a grown up. So I think I'm pretty safe.
Arctic_Menace @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:00 pm
$1:
Forgive me one and all. I've been away, and upon my return have found some nonsense from Dayseed that requires a handy dispatch.
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but it's you who are usually dispatched by either Dayseed, Mustang1, o some other random forum member.
Motorcycleboy @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:09 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
Forgive me one and all. I've been away, and upon my return have found some nonsense from Dayseed that requires a handy dispatch.
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but it's you who are usually dispatched by either Dayseed, Mustang1, o some other random forum member.
By all means, cite an example my learned friend.
Istanbul @ Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:59 pm
Back on topic.
Yes and no.
Depends!
Dayseed @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:49 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Forgive me one and all. I've been away, and upon my return have found some nonsense from Dayseed that requires a handy dispatch. I realize this thread has gone out over 18 pages. I'm not going to read over every one to see if someone else has put the obnoxious ex-con, in his place yet. So I'll just quickly shut him down now and be done with it.
Dummy Matt has been travelling in a far away land, getting kicked off various websites for his adventures in racism! Dummy Matt still holds the dubious distinction of being the first person kicked off of the Dunkin’ Donuts donut-forum for racial slurs against Muslims during a debate about powdered donut filling!
$1:
Who the fuck is Matt?
This folks wins the MOST CHILDISH DEFENCE EVER AWARD ! Here we have a supposedly grown man attempting to disguise who he is by merely changing a single letter on his profile name ! That’s right! Much like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming the ticket is wrong because you now drive an Ontiac Solstice and you’re keeping the scratched off “P” in your pocket, Dummy Matt/Mate is no less a stranger to being just that pathetic!
So, the books are open on Dummy Matt/Mate/Sue Ellen DaForge, friend of the Doukhabors! You really take being an idiot to new heights Dummy Sue Ellen DaForge!
$1:
What are you trying to say here? Obviously, if the separatists won a vote for separation they would have earned the right to secede. Do you dispute that?
By gum Dummy Matt/Mate, you figured out the intent of my post without getting kicked off the site for being racist! Mazeltov!
$1:
Not really. I don't think anyone alive today knows the answers to all the Constitutional questions that would arise in the event of a move by Quebec to separate. Not Lucien Bouchard, not Stephen Dion, and not Stephen Harper. I'm just saying the Quebecois have a right to it if they elect to do so.
No Dummy Matt/Mate, we’re not using what you think to be evidence. You think brown people should be shot by the army rather than captured. And simply repeating your ignorant statement that you “say” the Quebecois have a right to separate doesn’t give them that right. See below Dummy Matt/Mate.
$1:
1. Where in the Constitution does it say that they have this "right"? The Supreme Court of Canada found no "right" for Quebec to unilaterally secede, how did you?
The Clarity Act makes it quite clear that Quebec is well within its right to begin separation negotiations upon receiving a mandate on a clear question with a clear majority of the population.
The Clarity Act makes it quite clear that Quebec is well within its right to begin separation negotiations upon receiving a mandate on a clear question with a clear majority of the population.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand where is your answer to the Supreme Court stating that Quebec has no “right” to unilaterally secede? Christ Almighty Dummy Sue Ellen DaForge, are you literate?
$1:
What constitutes a "clear majority" has yet to be determined. You know that and so do I.
Actually, I’m going on precedence. By removing Quebec or any other province from the Constitution, it would require an amendment to said Constitution. The amendment formula is quite clear in that 7/10 provinces must agree representing over 50% of the population. Why not stick with the formula what works? You wrestle with that one mightily for a while and get back to me.
$1:
I would suggest this is one of the more problematic areas that will be up for negotiation. I would also suggest that the right of citizenship is up to the country that chooses to recognize it. Quebec has no right to "nullify" any Canadian's citizenship. However, Canada has every right to determine who it chooses to recognize as its citizens. What's your opinion on the subject?
Thanks for agreeing Dummy Sue Ellen DaForge, but if you’ve granted (and you have there dipstick) Quebec the right of unilateral separation, then how do you propose Canada live up to its obligation under S.7 of the Charter to protect Canadian citizens residing in a separated Quebec? You didn’t answer the question I had posed to you so I had to ask it again. Sorry, but you won’t find the answer to it by going around getting kicked off websites for hating Doukhabors.
$1:
The Clarity Act allows for a Quebec Government to begin negotiating secession upon receiving a clear mandate from the populace of Quebec.
And if you take issue with that mandate, how exactly do you propose to prevent that secession?
And if you take issue with that mandate, how exactly do you propose to prevent that secession?
I don’t think you understand the Clarity Act and how it relates to your stated position that Quebec has the “right” to separate once they declare it. Simply put Dummy Matt, Quebec has no “right” to separate period. That was the question put to you. But, I already knew you were an ignorant dodger, so I’m not at all surprised you don’t answer sweet shit all about anything.
$1:
Is a Canadian version of General Sherman going to march on and burn Trois Rivieres and Chicoutimi to the ground? Whose going to lead them Dayseed? You?
Your argumentative fallacy of argument by extension doesn’t win you any points. I asked YOU how the government of Canada would own up to its obligations under S.7 of the Charter and you still haven’t answered. Nice try Truck-Stop Sally, but you’re going to have to actually think of an answer and not change your name to avoid answering.
$1:
Thanks for the advice jailbird, however, your posts are the only ones who are so vituperative as to have warranted a term of censure by the RCMP on this site.
I'm a grown up. So I think I'm pretty safe.
I'm a grown up. So I think I'm pretty safe.
Yup. But YOU got kicked off a website for being a racist! You win Dummy Matt/Mate! You finally beat me! I’ve only been censured but never kicked off a website entirely! Hurrah Dummy Matt/Mate, hurrah!
Dayseed @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:10 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
Forgive me one and all. I've been away, and upon my return have found some nonsense from Dayseed that requires a handy dispatch.
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but it's you who are usually dispatched by either Dayseed, Mustang1, o some other random forum member.
By all means, cite an example my learned friend.
Ooh! Ooh! I know some examples!
Here is a great one of Dummy Matt fucking up the difference between a street in Burlington and an entire university.
$1:
Guelph! Are you serious? I thought you said you went to University!
Don't get me wrong. I mean, if you're learning to be a pig farmer or a dog doctor, then Guelph is a fine institution. I have a few ancestors who attended there myself. Of course, they were involved in Agriculture.
But you aren't seriously suggesting that Guelph is a real institute of higher learning for those who are serious about other subjects? Are you?
Don't get me wrong. I mean, if you're learning to be a pig farmer or a dog doctor, then Guelph is a fine institution. I have a few ancestors who attended there myself. Of course, they were involved in Agriculture.
But you aren't seriously suggesting that Guelph is a real institute of higher learning for those who are serious about other subjects? Are you?
Just remember, Dummy Matt/Mate got his education faxed to him with a couple of “Good Job Lil’ Buckaroo!” stickers adorning it and that’s enough for him to dismiss the academic worth of a reputable Canadian university.
Check it out the rest of Dummy Matt/Mate getting his ass rocked off its hinges at “Iran Eyes Badges For Jews”, it’s a 39 page beat-down of Dummy Matt/Mate like you wouldn’t believe!
Here’s another gem from Dummy Matt/Mate’s past that just won’t ever go away:
$1:
"Little frieind" and " a grown retard"? Most of the retards I've seen are fat and overweight. So which is it Dayseed? Am I "little" or "retarded"? Contradiction in the same paragraph!
Yup, this just about represents the most astute thinking you’re going to see from Dummy Matt/Mate. Check out the rest of the Matt’s ass on a silver platter at “New Orleans Police Beating Caught on Tape.” But, here’s yet another hilarious nugget from that thread:
$1:
Dayseed, you can claim victory if you like. Hey, Nixon did that when he withdrew from Viet Nam, so there is precedent for it!
Have fun everybody. It's my weekend off, and I'm heading out to get good and loaded!
Have fun everybody. It's my weekend off, and I'm heading out to get good and loaded!
Nothing quite like conceding victory to me to support Arctic’s claim! The drunk part is well, it’s just so you Dummy Matt/Mate Sue Ellen DaForge, Friend of the Doukhabors, that I just had to leave it in.
You do understand, don’t you?
Banff @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:50 am
Too many provinces are already their own country but they all tend to use federalism as their welfare safety net to the point that federalism is God or Daddy even for the Largest Corps.
MGX @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:12 pm
Most people identify themselves as Canadians even if federalism in Canada is flawed due to the nature of our flawed constitution but what democracy isn't flawed? If anything its human nature that is flawed.
Motorcycleboy @ Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:27 pm
$1:
Dummy Matt has been travelling in a far away land, getting kicked off various websites for his adventures in racism! Dummy Matt still holds the dubious distinction of being the first person kicked off of the Dunkin’ Donuts donut-forum for racial slurs against Muslims during a debate about powdered donut filling!
And how does your point about so-called "powdered donut filling" relate to the topic at hand? That being, specifically, Quebec Separation? I know it's hard Dayseed, but...try to keep up.
$1:
$1:
Who the fuck is Matt?
This folks wins the MOST CHILDISH DEFENCE EVER AWARD ! Here we have a supposedly grown man attempting to disguise who he is by merely changing a single letter on his profile name ! That’s right! Much like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming the ticket is wrong because you now drive an Ontiac Solstice and you’re keeping the scratched off “P” in your pocket, Dummy Matt/Mate is no less a stranger to being just that pathetic!
Who the fuck is Matt/Mate?
$1:
So, the books are open on Dummy Matt/Mate/Sue Ellen DaForge, friend of the Doukhabors! You really take being an idiot to new heights Dummy Sue Ellen DaForge!
Who the fuck is Sue Ellen Daforge?
$1:
$1:
What are you trying to say here? Obviously, if the separatists won a vote for separation they would have earned the right to secede. Do you dispute that?
By gum Dummy Matt/Mate, you figured out the intent of my post without getting kicked off the site for being racist! Mazeltov!
So you agree with me? Excellent. There is hope for you yet son.
$1:
No Dummy Matt/Mate, we’re not using what you think to be evidence. You think brown people should be shot by the army rather than captured. And simply repeating your ignorant statement that you “say” the Quebecois have a right to separate doesn’t give them that right. See below Dummy Matt/Mate.
Dayseed, when discussing Constitutional issues, you'll find your arguments have much more merit if they have a point. Seriously. Dude. Try having a point. It makes your point so much more interesting for the listener!
$1:
Actually, I’m going on precedence. By removing Quebec or any other province from the Constitution, it would require an amendment to said Constitution. The amendment formula is quite clear in that 7/10 provinces must agree representing over 50% of the population. Why not stick with the formula what works? You wrestle with that one mightily for a while and get back to me.
Sorry Dayseed, I was just reading over the Constitution. I was trying to find Rene Levesque's signature on it. I found one for Lougheed, Davis...etc...etc. But no Levesque. Maybe you could help me find it?
$1:
I would suggest this is one of the more problematic areas that will be up for negotiation. I would also suggest that the right of citizenship is up to the country that chooses to recognize it. Quebec has no right to "nullify" any Canadian's citizenship. However, Canada has every right to determine who it chooses to recognize as its citizens. What's your opinion on the subject?
$1:
how do you propose Canada live up to its obligation under S.7 of the Charter to protect Canadian citizens residing in a separated Quebec? You didn’t answer the question I had posed to you so I had to ask it again. .
Once again for the slow kid named Dayseed. Canadian citizenship is only significant as long as Canada chooses to recognize it. Quebec can separate if it likes. Canada can choose to recognize the citizenship of the Cree of Ungava, or the Anglos of Beaconsfield if it likes. But unless those people choose to move to the Maritimes, Ontario, or points west, they're at the benign mercy of the Pequistes.
$1:
$1:
The Clarity Act allows for a Quebec Government to begin negotiating secession upon receiving a clear mandate from the populace of Quebec.
And if you take issue with that mandate, how exactly do you propose to prevent that secession?
And if you take issue with that mandate, how exactly do you propose to prevent that secession?
I don’t think you understand the Clarity Act and how it relates to your stated position that Quebec has the “right” to separate once they declare it. Simply put Dummy Matt, Quebec has no “right” to separate period. That was the question put to you. But, I already knew you were an ignorant dodger, so I’m not at all surprised you don’t answer sweet shit all about anything.
$1:
Is a Canadian version of General Sherman going to march on and burn Trois Rivieres and Chicoutimi to the ground? Whose going to lead them Dayseed? You?
Your argumentative fallacy of argument by extension doesn’t win you any points. I asked YOU how the government of Canada would own up to its obligations under S.7 of the Charter and you still haven’t answered. Nice try Truck-Stop Sally, but you’re going to have to actually think of an answer and not change your name to avoid answering.
Blah, blah, blah. Avoiding the question won't stop me from asking it Dayseed.
And once again for you Dayseed.
How exactly do you propose to physically prevent a secessionist Quebec government from separating from Canada?
C'mon General Sherman. Are you going to lead the carpetbaggers?
Dayseed @ Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:15 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
And how does your point about so-called "powdered donut filling" relate to the topic at hand? That being, specifically, Quebec Separation? I know it's hard Dayseed, but...try to keep up.
Okay, who the fuck are you this time? Are you now Dummy Ricardo DaForce and your KLF is going to rock me? If you want the simple answer (and I know you do), it's a rebuke of your idiotic opening about coming back from a sojourn of being thrown off websites for being a racist. The point being here Dummy Matt/Mate, that you are so racist, you can't abstain from hating Muslims when you're mangling your point about cherry kicking the ass of lemon filling. Then you attacked Guelph University and fucked up the law.
$1:
Who the fuck is Matt/Mate?
Oh Dummy Matt/Mate, I salute your steely dedication to suffering your own stupidity, inflicting it like AIDS onto others and the overall unintentional comedy it brings. I don't know how this reconciles with the MARBLE OF GARBLE THAT IS THE SUPERDUMB INTELLECT OF DUMMY MATT/MATE, but fuck, it is so nice to know that I have broken you that much, this is the depths to which you'll resort to score anything, write anything or do anything to keep up with me.
I own you there, titty.
$1:
Who the fuck is Sue Ellen Daforge?
It's hard keeping up with the number of name changes you make to avoid answering questions, getting thrown off websites for being racist or avoiding retraction of stupid declarations. Who knows who you'll be next?
$1:
So you agree with me? Excellent. There is hope for you yet son.
No dumbell I don't agree with you. Quebec has no "right" to secede at all. The Clarity Act says the government will honour a clear question by agreeing to negotiate. It doesn't mean separation is a sure thing at all. The Supreme Court has stated, quite clearly, Quebec has no right.
$1:
Dayseed, when discussing Constitutional issues, you'll find your arguments have much more merit if they have a point. Seriously. Dude. Try having a point. It makes your point so much more interesting for the listener!
If you had read the whole thing Dummy Matt/Mate (which I know you didn't), the point was that your mere repetition of saying "Quebec has a right" "Quebec has a right" doesn't give them a right. I know you're rather slow and you can only handle an education that is faxed to you (also, you think that retarded and little are opposites), but when you're reading something, in this case text, you're not listening, therefore, you can't be a listener. Do you honestly not know the difference between the functions of the eyes and ears there Dummy Matt/Mate?
$1:
Sorry Dayseed, I was just reading over the Constitution. I was trying to find Rene Levesque's signature on it. I found one for Lougheed, Davis...etc...etc. But no Levesque. Maybe you could help me find it?
What on earth does Quebec's lack of ratifying the Constitution Act 1982 have to do with using the Constitutional amendment formula as a basis for deciding what constitutes a clear majority of the population? I can't help you with this one, you're going to have to wade through your own intellectual mess to dig up a nugget. Try polishing your MARBLE OF GARBLE or getting loaded and hating Muslims.
$1:
Once again for the slow kid named Dayseed. Canadian citizenship is only significant as long as Canada chooses to recognize it. Quebec can separate if it likes. Canada can choose to recognize the citizenship of the Cree of Ungava, or the Anglos of Beaconsfield if it likes. But unless those people choose to move to the Maritimes, Ontario, or points west, they're at the benign mercy of the Pequistes.
Sigh, here we go again explaining the basics to Dummy Matt/Mate. You must have been a terror in kindergarten. While the other kids were onto reading, you were back at the beginning of the alphabet learning the sequence of A, B, C and pissing the carpet from all the mental effort. The Charter dictates that Canada must protect the life, liberty and security of the person of every Canadian. There's no clause that Canada chooses to recognize it. There's going to be a vote in the House to decide if Canadian life is worth protecting? Are you that retarded Dummy Matt/Mate?
Once again, what I asked you (and you still haven't answered) is: How do you propose Canada live up to its obligation under S.7 of the Charter to protect Canadian citizens residing in a separated Quebec?
$1:
Blah, blah, blah. Avoiding the question won't stop me from asking it Dayseed.
And once again for you Dayseed.
How exactly do you propose to physically prevent a secessionist Quebec government from separating from Canada?
C'mon General Sherman. Are you going to lead the carpetbaggers?
And once again for you Dayseed.
How exactly do you propose to physically prevent a secessionist Quebec government from separating from Canada?
C'mon General Sherman. Are you going to lead the carpetbaggers?
Dummy Matt/Mate, don't you see the answer above? THIS is the question that's been asked to you! If you don't have an answer or nobody at your edumakashun place has yet faxed you an answer, don't expect to be able to deflect the responsibility of answering it to me with your argumentative fallacy. I can't help it if you're too stupid. My advice would be not to wade into things you can't read on the Coffee News at Burger King.
But, you sit down and have a great big think about this one and get back to me. Try not to get kicked off canadaka.net for being racist in the meantime though! If you do, just change your screen name and come on back and get kicked off again!
God I love bitch-slapping you around. It's so much fun!
Clogeroo @ Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:29 am
Looks like someone forgot to take their medicine this morning.
Previous 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next