Utopia Talk / Politics / A Teabagger's Belief System

miltonfriedman Member	Mon Sep 20 15:47:07 A compendium for studying molester Rod's beliefs and sayings. (NB: I am going to compile a list of retard Rod's greatest sayings to post them here. They will come with links for easy indexing.) 1. Alligators are dinosaurs http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=38599 More are expected as retard Rod continues to troll with remarkable stupidity
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Sep 20 16:19:38 2. Separation of church and state is different from separation between church and state. http://www...hread=38584&time=1285016678224
The Politician Member	Mon Sep 20 16:20:39 dabbling in witchcraft doesn't mean she did anything with witchcraft?
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Sep 20 16:23:32 3. Because dinosaurs are reptiles, dinosaurs are still alive http://www...hread=38599&time=1285017594345
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 20 16:24:01 Sometimes I think that is all they can do to win a discussion. Misconstrue their opponents statements. ~Hot Rod
The Politician Member	Mon Sep 20 16:24:50 There was no misconstruing. You said alligators are dinosaurs. You're epically stupid.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Sep 20 16:26:29 The links are all there for people to judge the veracity of the statements.
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 20 23:17:12 Criticizing someone for a statement they made is violating their first amendment rights, according to Sarah Palin.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 20 23:23:11 Got a link for that?
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 20 23:25:28 http://www...hlesinger-dont-retreat-reload/ "On Wednesday night, Palin posted tweets to her Twitter followers: Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America! Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair") "
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 20 23:36:31 Palin is talking about liberal activists attacking Laura and trying to violate Laura's 1st Amendment rights by criticizing her comments on her show. She is encouraging Laura not to back down.
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 20 23:41:04 Yes, I know exactly what Palin is talking about, but thanks for informing me. She merely illustrates that she has no idea what the Constitution is if she thinks criticizing someone's comments is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, and neither do you if you're supporting her. Criticizing someone has nothing to do with censoring their freedom of speech.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 20 23:56:43 So the activists can attack Laura and it is not violating The Constitution, but if Palin urges her to ignore them and not quit her show then Palin is denying their Constitutional rights. What happened to Laura's freedom of speech to make the comments in the first place. I did not follow this when it happened, but I recall it caused a huge flap with those activists demanding they take the show away from her IIRC.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 00:10:29 " but if Palin urges her to ignore them and not quit her show then Palin is denying their Constitutional rights. " No, she is not denying them their constitutional rights, and I don't think you'll find many people claiming that. "What happened to Laura's freedom of speech to make the comments in the first place." She's free to make whatever comments she likes, but she isn't free from the consequences of her comments. "but I recall it caused a huge flap with those activists demanding they take the show away from her IIRC. " Aaaand that has nothing to do with the first amendment. Look, you're taking an argument that's guaranteed to lose. The first amendment applies only to the government taking away her freedom of speech. She has the freedom to make whatever comments she chooses, but she doesn't have the right to keep her job after making those comments. She can then make those comments once again after she's fired. If you think her constitutional rights were violated, you are clueless about the purpose of the Constitution.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 00:34:14 >-No, she is not denying them their constitutional rights, and I don't think you'll find many people claiming that. I think some are. Laura's job is to voice her opinions, right or wrong. She is a talk show host, that is what they do. By trying to get her fired the activists are violating the freedom of speech that she enjoys with her audience. By taking away her audience they are interfering with her rights. All Palin is doing is offering advice not to give in to those trying to get her fired. It is really not their call, it is between Laura and the Network. They have the freedom to criticize, they can even call Laura and tell her what they think of her. They can even turn their radios off and refuse to listen to her and refuse to buy her sponsor's products. But I think trying to get her fired from her soap box is directly interfering with her rights and overstepping the line.
Nekran Member	Tue Sep 21 00:39:04 "But I think trying to get her fired from her soap box is directly interfering with her rights and overstepping the line." How? I mean I wouldn't care enough to try to get someone fired myself, but I don't see how it violates her rights. I'm pretty sure your constitution doesn't provide the right to a job in radio.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 00:43:28 My thinking is that you would be taking away her audience thus restricting the number of people she could exercise freedom of speech with. Not sure if The USSC would uphold my theory or not, but that is my opinion.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 00:43:43 "By trying to get her fired the activists are violating the freedom of speech that she enjoys with her audience. By taking away her audience they are interfering with her rights." Freedom of speech is not inherently linked to having a syndicated talk show. The Network is quite free to cancel or continue her show based on any criteria it chooses. Cancelling her show at a whim or for any other reason. Which you obviously agree with. But if you believe she must have her syndicated soapbox or have her rights violated, then those rights would be violated by the network cancelling her show. Off to the Gulag with the executives then you reckon? Along with the owners themselves perhaps?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 00:47:26 Not totally violated, but severly restricted without her show. Of course the network can fire her for whatever reason the wish. She has no right to the job.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 00:53:17 I thought you said her amendment rights would be violated if she were fired from her job. In fact, you said something worse. Even wanting to replace her is a violation of her amendment rights. You do see that the Network would be the violator of her rights if indeed losing her show had been a violation?
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Sep 21 02:09:31 Hot Rod Member Thu Oct 22 09:19:41 You might think that is what you meant, but *I KNOW* what you really meant. ------------------------------------ Hot Rod Member Sun Sep 06 20:18:36 I am trying to be patient with you. I do not care how you interpreted it. Your interpretation is your opinion of what *you think* I said. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK I MEANT. YOU ARE NOT SOME FUCKING GOD THAT KNOWS MY THOUGHTS. Now please bugger off.
roland Member	Tue Sep 21 03:05:50 "By trying to get her fired the activists are violating the freedom of speech that she enjoys with her audience" Nope, the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, but does not exclude you from the consequences of what you say.
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Sep 21 03:19:01 Q: Why is HR trying to silence the activists? A: He hates free speech
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 06:14:16 jergul - I thought you said her amendment rights would be violated if she were fired from her job. In fact, you said something worse. Even wanting to replace her is a violation of her amendment rights. You do see that the Network would be the violator of her rights if indeed losing her show had been a violation? No, I didn't.
Nekran Member	Tue Sep 21 07:08:27 "By trying to get her fired the activists are violating the freedom of speech that she enjoys with her audience." So trying to get her fired is worse than actually firing her? Gotta admit that isn't entirely logical.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 08:31:38 full quote: "I think some are. Laura's job is to voice her opinions, right or wrong. She is a talk show host, that is what they do. By trying to get her fired the activists are violating the freedom of speech that she enjoys with her audience. By taking away her audience they are interfering with her rights. All Palin is doing is offering advice not to give in to those trying to get her fired. It is really not their call, it is between Laura and the Network. They have the freedom to criticize, they can even call Laura and tell her what they think of her. They can even turn their radios off and refuse to listen to her and refuse to buy her sponsor's products. But I think trying to get her fired from her soap box is directly interfering with her rights and overstepping the line." You need the entire post to complete the thought. Bear in mind, this is just my *opinion.* As I said later in the thread, "Not sure if The USSC would uphold my theory or not, but that is my opinion."
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 08:40:38 While I appreciate the conversation, I hope this won't carry on for too long as I hope to preserve this to compile many of retard Rod's hilarious sayings.
Nekran Member	Tue Sep 21 08:41:30 I'm pretty much saying that I'm rather sure the USSC wouldn't agree with you.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 08:47:01 Probably not, but if all of my opinions were perfect then I would be perfect. From being involved in this forum for nine years it has been firmly impressed upon me that only liberals are perfect.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 10:06:57 Nekran The rights of ownership trump the right of free speech in Hot Rods mind. Thus asking the network to cancel a show is an attack on free speech. Actually cancelling the show is not an attack on free speech because the rights of ownership allow the company to do that and free speech is not important enough a consideration to trump that. Thus is the logic of hot rods mind.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 10:18:06 jergul, are you losing your comprehension skills along with the ret of the lefties? ""Not sure if The USSC would uphold my theory or not, but that is my opinion." "if all of my opinions were perfect then I would be perfect." Ergo my conclusion: "From being involved in this forum for nine years it has been firmly impressed upon me that only liberals are perfect." And I believe that we can all agree that you fall into that catagory. :)
Nekran Member	Tue Sep 21 10:21:50 He's got a point, HR. I really don't follow your logic here either. I mean... sure it's just your opinion, but it has to be based on something, right? It does seem to logically follow that you consider the rights of ownership to be higher than that of free speech. Otherwise I don't see the rationale behind your opinion either.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 11:27:11 "Of course the network can fire her for whatever reason the wish. She has no right to the job. " Exactly. Only the government can suppress someone's First Amendment rights, not private citizens. Her being fired by a radio station for saying "nigger" 11 times to a caller is not a violation of her right to free speech.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 11:32:13 "sure it's just your opinion, but it has to be based on something, right?" Do you understand what a troll is, Nekran?
Adolf Hitler Member	Tue Sep 21 12:37:13 Indeed. If you play Dinosaur Rods idiot game of 'you cant catch me 'cos I'm running round and round in circles', you deserve everything you get.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 12:59:04 Hot Rod Yes, we understood you admitted to being illogical, we are just looking at the method to your madness. Don't worry about it. The analysis is about as comprehensible to you as a post mortem report done on your corpse would be. Its more a discussion point for the rest of us.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 16:10:25 Nekran, it has to do with the initiation of force which no one has a right to. Passively, the antagonists can say whatever the please as long as they don't violate any laws. They can individually refuse to listen to Dr. Laura or refuse to buy her sponsors products. That is passive resistance. Once they initiate a movement to get the network to take an action they had not contemplated, fire her, they are initiating pressure on the network to do what they want the network to do. That is a form of force.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 16:38:26 You are insane. Nekran "Force" is the key word here. You see, by asking the Network to cancel a show, they are coercing the corporation and in that sense are using force - which is an insult to the extension of self concept. In effect, they are holding a gun to the head of the Network to compel it to do their will. So the network is innocent, the shrew a victim of amendment violations and the criminals responsible should be taken out and shot. Such is the insane world of a semi-literate pseudo libertarian. PS. Hot Rod, you owe us a funeral and are fast reaching the point of being too stupid to live.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 16:47:00 Stop ranting and make sense if you want to discuss this. If not kindly move on to another thread. Coercing the network to fire her is applying a form of force. Or are you saying that you believe that force should be used to deprive someone of their Constitutional Rights? Coerce: 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience. 3. to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 16:49:42 Pedophile Rod is pulling the same old faggotry trick again.
Signal 2 member	Tue Sep 21 16:50:47 Milty, why do you always have to pick on people? :)
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 16:53:23 The thread is only intended to compile some of the most hilarious musings. It just happened that they all come from one dead person.
Signal 2 member	Tue Sep 21 16:55:44 I admit claiming that dinosaurs are not extinct in references to alligators is god damn hilarious.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 17:07:51 As I told Nimatzo last night, when you guys get to be my age you will discover you are carrying around a lot of misconceptions. Guess what, then everyone will laugh at you. :)
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 17:13:20 Was raping a young boy okay back then?
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 17:19:35 We know you do not understand how stupid you are hot rod. As I said, the topic is quite out of your reach. You have not established the use of force at all. And of course, even if you did, it would be the use of force against the corporation seeking to have it do what it has every right to do - Cancel the shrew's show. Which of course is not her amendment right to have. You really should just lay down and die. Just on the off-chance you might infect someone with your semi-literate pseudo libertarian ways if you persist in breathing.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 18:09:54 Calling for someone's resignation has absolutely nothing to do with violating their first amendment rights. Only the government can violate the first amendment. Schlessinger is perfectly free to say whatever she wants, so obviously her rights were not violated. Their is no constitutional right to be guaranteed an audience listen to you.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 18:16:21 People calling for Nixon's resignation was a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 18:19:34 jergul - it would be the use of force against the corporation seeking to have it do what it has every right to do - If they coerce the network into doing something the network had no intention of doing though boycotts or whatever means they are exercising the use of force. That the network has the 'right' to fire her is irrelevant. The networks intention is what is relevant. If outside coercion is used against the network to force them to fire Dr Laura then force is being used, indirectly, to limit her freedom of speech by taking away her soap box which is her access to her audience. It is really quite simple. No person, group and especially, no government has a right ti *initiate* force.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 18:21:37 So a boycott is a violation of someone's 1st Amednment rights? WTF?
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 18:27:24 "If they coerce the network into doing something the network had no intention of doing though boycotts or whatever means they are exercising the use of force." Even if we took for granted your loony premise that nobody has the right to boycott a company, this still has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. But the fact is, people do have every right to initiate pressure on a business or the government- it happens all the time. See Don Imus, Ward Churchill, etc, etc. And you're fucking loony, btw.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 18:33:39 "While I appreciate the conversation, I hope this won't carry on for too long as I hope to preserve this to compile many of retard Rod's hilarious sayings. " I think Rod's current argument trumps the dinosaurs quote, and even the separation of church and state one.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 18:35:44 Ruggy We are terrorists if we do not shop with corporations see.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 18:47:15 Of course you believe in initiating force. You are liberals. Go write in your little book and keep it on the shelf next to your copy of Mein Kampf.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 18:53:16 So no one should be allowed to boycott, Rodney?
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 18:53:54 Since you just called all of us liberals and compared the act of boycotting to worshipping Hitler, I'm going to assume that you've conceded the point and admit defeat.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 19:09:23 No, I'm not conceding the point. Not my fault you cannot understand that coercion is a form of force and that the initiation of force is wrong. That is, you either misunderstand the concept or it is your belief that your political ends justifies the means. I don't think boycotts to achieve political ends is proper. Boycotts have their place, but interfering with a talk show hosts right of free speech is not one of the.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 19:10:29 *-them.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 19:13:24 4. Boycotting someone is a violation of that person's 1st Amendment rights. http://www...hread=38605&time=1285114229126
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 19:19:50 1. Alligators are dinosaurs http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=38599 2. Separation of church and state is different from separation between church and state. http://www...hread=38584&time=1285016678224 3. Because dinosaurs are reptiles, dinosaurs are still alive http://www...hread=38599&time=1285017594345
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 19:28:42 "I don't think boycotts to achieve political ends is proper. " So you would have been against the Civil Rights movement, I see. You're also against people choosing what businesses they want to give money to. "Boycotts have their place, but interfering with a talk show hosts right of free speech is not one of the. " Again, no one interfered with her right to free speech. She said "nigger" 11 times on air, she got fired for it. She spoke freely and she faced the consequences, and she can continue to say what she wants. You are fucking insane.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 21 19:29:10 Messr "Libertarian" truly knows freedom.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 19:48:27 MadCow - So you would have been against the Civil Rights movement, I see. You're also against people choosing what businesses they want to give money to. As much as I approve of what the Civil Rights Movement accomplished, sans certain particulars, I think it was achieved at the expense of property rights. You can frequent any business you choose or you can avoid any business you choose. But, when you organize a boycott to achieve political ends you are violating the business' property right by initiating force, or coercion as jergul pointed out. Just as Dr Laura had the right to say what shed did, the business has a right to function without outside coercion.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 19:52:08 MadCow - she got fired for it. Wrong, she said she would step down when her contract expired, she was not fired. The last I heard anyway.
Madc0w Member	Tue Sep 21 19:52:39 Boycotts don't force businesses to do anything. The business has the choice of either adjusting to meet the boycotters' demands, or maintain their status quo. That's the free market for you. Not giving a business service in no way violates their rights for anything.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 19:55:13 madc0w, don't even bother. This fucking troll argues one day that corporations should have no limits in how much of their money is allowed to go to candidates in an election, but then turns around and says that the moment a single dollar is diverted by a boycott organized by common citizens, that is impingement of free speech.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 19:59:33 Corporation A to Politician B: "I am giving one hundred billion dollars to your opponent to make sure you lose in the next election." Hot Rod: "Freedom in action!" Individual C to Broadcast Company D: "I didn't spend a dollar today on products your advertisers push because one of your media personalities said "nigger" repeatedly on the air." Hot Rod: "ZOMG FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION" --- Stupidity at its finest.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 20:08:19 MadCow - Boycotts don't force businesses... MadCow - choice of either adjusting to meet the boycotters' demands... How can the boycotter 'demand' anything without the use or threat of force? MadCow - Not giving a business service in no way violates their rights for anything. Under normal circumstances I would agree. What I am saying is to go out and organize a boycott to serve your political ends is wrong. Then you are violating the business' property rights and right to choose their political ends. It is coercion which is a form of force. Rugian, you are not even trying to understand and to mislead the others about my previous statements concerning some of my other opinions is underhanded and counter productive to this discussion.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 20:10:43 Hot Rod, SHUT THE FUCK UP and just directly answer a question for once in your goddamn life, rather than lying and saying "Oh, no, I didn't say that" when you clearly did, or "stop twisting my comments" when no twisting has been done. You fucking snake, just answer a post honestly once in your goddamn life you fucking son of a whore cunt.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 21 20:11:44 It sounds like you're saying that any boycott has a political end. When is a boycott not a political agenda?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 20:16:21 Beings you brought it up your little scenario is hogwash. I am against corporate financing of election. I AM ALSO AGAINST UNIONS FINANCING ELECTIONS. But they have been gett away with it for decades and much of what is wrong with America today is directly related to the unions supporting liberals and their causes. Ergo, if unions are to be allowed to finance union causes then corporations must be allowed to finance consevative causes in order to mantain a semblance of balance at least. If you are half the libertarian you claim to be will agree with that simple truth. If not, then you are far less the libertarian than I am.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 21 20:21:01 You're not a libertarian. Period.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 20:22:18 Rugian, you are just as big a pig as AH and mf and renzo. You can't discuss rationally and reasonably so you have to attack my deceased mother. That might make you BMOC among the low breeds on this forum, but it SHOUTS FROM THE ROOFTOPS the kind of thing you are. You Sainted Mother is probably turning over in her grave so she doesn't have to look at you anymore. So pissoff.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 21 20:24:04 You haven't discussed anything rationally in the last 6 years.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 20:29:05 And you are an ass, a stupid ass at that.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 20:31:24 Rugian - You're not a libertarian. Period. If you are right then that is two of us.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 21 20:38:01 When you have practically the entire board calling you out on how stupid you are behaving the way you have for the past few years. People just don't care about having a discussion with you because you always resort to this type of behavior. You are always so quick to accuse others or say they are always twisting or not understanding you. In fact, Messr "Libertarian" we understand you completely. Most of us are college educated and have established ourselves as pillars in our own respective communties and made great accomplishments in our lives. We do not resort to faking deaths, or whining when we are accused of abusing mod powers, or threat to leave only to comeback in some reincarnation of a fake brother, or if you have a brother made them liars in your stead. Some of us try our best to be civil with you. Some of us try to debate with you, try to understand you, but you always resort to the most inane behavior. In fact I am done even trying to bring this to your attention, I and so many others have done this before and it doesn't do anything. A big example of this is when you were totally wrong about your claim that dinosaurs still exist, people were trying to tell you but you keep post information and THAT information was opposite against what you were saying. Then someone that you see eye to eye with frequently says you're wrong too and then -poof- you concede. So it really doesn't matter what is said by others that do not share any political beliefs or what ever you. You have a fixed bias. And no one here should try to disuade you. It's a waste of time and your a waste of this boards time as well. I do not mind those who have opposing views as long as they articulate it and try to be reasonbal for their views. You do not show the respect for that. And you haven't for years. What I am trying to say after my soapbox rant is that... Hot Rod, go fuck yourself.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 21:16:51 Kryp - People just don't care about having a discussion with you because you always resort to this type of behavior. What in the fuck is the matter with you dip shit. I have been trying to explain it is not right to initiate force to achieve political ends and my opponents maintain there is no a problem with using force to achieve *THEIR* political ends. That is what the fucking Nazis did. Then Rugian comes up with this shit, "you fucking son of a whore cunt." AND YOU HAVE THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO SAY I ALWAYS RESORT TO THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. You funking little cockroach, when I 'm prooven wrong I admit it, when Rugian is proven wrong he talks filth about my dead mother. You fucking things are all alike, not worth stepping on. SO FUCK OFF.
KrYpToNiTe Member	Tue Sep 21 21:18:20 I'm sorry apparently I didn't make myself clear. Hot Rod, go fuck yourself.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 21:20:43 ^-cockroach
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Sep 21 21:29:24 ^pedophile
Hot Mother Rod Member	Tue Sep 21 21:38:49 I just got tagged team by Stalin and Mao!
jergul Member	Tue Sep 21 23:46:24 Hot Rod The problem is really that your views are insane in a mildly interesting way. The boycott bit for example - Well guess what buddy, my money is my property and an extension of myself too. Which I am free to do what I like with. I can talk to people and agree that no way in hell is my property going to be used to support organizations allowing the use of the word "nigger". I can also inform such organizations that they will not see any of my property pass their way until they change their ways. Anyone arguing different is supporting the use of force to compel me to use my property in certain ways.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 22 03:19:46 Generally, you are equating not doing something as the same thing as doing something. I am not spending money at a store. I am therefore threatening the existence of that store by my inaction. A threat to its existence is the use of force against an extension of self. Thus I am a criminal and should be shot. If you extend that to every area where inaction causes harm, then you will see how insane your view is. For example - the harm I am causing you by not supplementing your SS with say 100d dollars a month from my pocket. My goodness the things you could do to enhance your amendment rights if only I had sent you some cash. My not doing to is obviously an attack on your amendment right to free speech. I feel terrible. Truly.
Nekran Member	Wed Sep 22 04:06:15 Wow
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 06:36:10 jergul, you are about as funny as a sackful of dead babies, and about as intelligent as the person who filled it.
The Rotting Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 07:13:20 I died and then I came back to life to troll and lie on UP.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 07:15:59 I'm to chickenshit to identify myself. That makers me less than a man don't you think? ~The Rotting Hot Rod
Disclaimer Member	Wed Sep 22 07:19:46 I'm to chickenshit to leave the forums. "Suicide" did not work. ~Hot Rod
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 07:21:19 ^-That sums it up pretty well.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 22 09:52:38 Not meant to be funny HR. You just need an interpreter - because most cannot recognize the pattern in your semi-literate madness. And no, you are not getting 100 USD a month from me. Your amendment rights be damned.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 10:01:01 I express an opinion and I get vivisected. Not sure how that makes me insane. You are a communist which has proved to be a failed system, does that make you insane? Isn't a definition of insanity to keep repeating an action, which every good communist is willing to do, over and over again?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 22 10:05:06 "I'm to chickenshit to identify myself. That makers me less than a man don't you think?" I agree. Who is behind the handle "The Guardian," molester Rod?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 10:06:59 ^-troll
roland Member	Wed Sep 22 10:08:44 It's just lovely HR wish to ask me a question and then seconds later deliberately spam out the thread. Oh well.... guess he's not interested in an answer.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 22 10:10:26 lulz. Molester Rod talked about people being chickenshit for hiding behind multis.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 10:11:31 No, not from you. I will wait for an intelligent answer the next time I see an iron ball.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Sep 22 10:11:50 Item No. 5 from Pedo Rod: 5. You are a chickenshit if you create multis http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=38605
Hot Rod Member	Wed Sep 22 10:13:01 Dmn mf, that was brilliant.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 22 10:13:37 Hot Rod Its not so much the opinion as how you twisted libertarianism to anchor that opinion. Its completely insane. Which I demonstrated in many ways by applying your opinion to other circumstances. Even you should be able to see that now.
	show deleted posts