Jump to content

CdnFox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    27,630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    287

Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    LOL..."hitting you" not "hitting ON you".

    I think takin' the Mick out of robo-bot and Barbie all day, has you reading sideways.

    But the comment was funny.

    All the threads are blending together for me today....  russia attacked bud lite because nato sent someone's panties to a ukrainan trans girl in a bar,  - that's what we're talking about, right?

    Imma just gonna have a nap for a bit i think...

  2. 40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    Lets say you're in a bar and some guy next to you starts hitting you and won't stop. Lets say you turn to the guy on the other side of you and get him to fight for you.

    Question: Are you proud of yourself afterwards? I mean...the objective was reached. The 2 guys fought and lets even say your guy won. But when you go home and look yourself in the mirror...are you happy with what you see?

    But ....what if the guy on the other side of you was ALSO gay and you just didn't want to be accused of being a straight guy who beats on gays?  that way it's gay on gay and you can't be accused of picking on someone just because they're gay.

    Also, how did he hit on you? Did he try to buy you a drink? Was it a bud light? Because that's just asking for it right now.

     

    I'm probably over thinking this. Carry on.

  3. 5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    What amazing heights of foolishness you've abtained.

    Awww muffin -  you mad? is it time for your cookie and your nap?  :) Seems like insults is all you have left

    5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    You guys just carry on with your angry underwear talk.

    Oh my ANGRY underwear talk is quite different, and you have to pay extra for THAT!

    5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Y'all got skills when ragging on one another over women's undergarments.

    Whereas you've got no skills at all - i guess we know why YOU'RE bitter, nobody's offering YOU their panties it would seem :)

    Seriously girl, i don't mind having a little fun at your expense but don't take this TOO seriously. it's the net. When you get to the point where you're just lashing out at people like that it's time to take a step back.

  4. 8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    LOL... @CdnFox

    Figure we've tugged on the poor, blind silly person enough?

    Figure he's even figured out yet that he's just a source of mild amusement?

    Fair enough - you're probably right - he's about one post away from being discovered later foaming at the mouth with a pair of woman's panties on his head for no clearly explained reason.

    • Haha 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Everyone has the right to be hired by anyone who desires to hire them.

    That's the dumbest thing i've heard.  On several levels :)

    First off they don't actually. For example you can't hire someone do commit a crime, even if boht parties are willing. No right to do that. So 'right' off the bat you're wrong :)

    Second - you literally said 'you have the right to do something as long as other people agree".  LOLOL - yeah, that's not what a right is kiddo.

    3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Uuuuuhhh - that's the declaration of independance. Did you mean to post the constitution?  There's nothing in the declaration about having the right to be hired by people who want to hire you :)

    ROFLMAO - you couldn't even get that right :)   You must be furious at yourself right now :)

  6. 2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Nope.

    Yep. But i get it - like many on the left you believe if you repeat a lie often enough it'll become true.

    2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Because you believe buying a gift means it's being USED? LMAO

    Well that's what you said - you insisted that they MUST be used if they were HIS - so they MUST be used if they were YOURS!  And why would you bother owning them at all if you're not going to use them?

    Look - i understand that this must be a little embarrasing for you and tough to discuss - but we're not here to judge you.

    2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    We all know you can't really read because you demonstrated that ^here.

    LOL - awww that's so cute, now you're copying me :)  my little nephew does that, have your mommy call me, we'll set up a play date. (wear underwear for god's sake tho)

  7. 9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    The issue would also be if this was part of the institution moving in a new direction. Which is what would be needed. As well, many positions could simply be made redundant as there is an awful lot of deadwood and bureaucracy there.

    there are very strict rules around all of that.  Fire a writer because you're going in a new direction and you have to hire that one back or nobody for the next year or two.

    It's just not a real thing. Especially not with a union.

     

    9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Doug Ford has no balls or spine. The media made a fuss and he backed down and ran away.

    I'm sure you think that's how it went. But there were other problems. I followed that closely because i was interested to see if he could get away with it.' Nope.

    9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

     

    He's hardly the right example. Someone like Mike Harris would do it in a second. In fact, Mike Harris would already have slashed the size of the bloated Ontario public sector by thousands of jobs.

    So mike harris would have just defunded them and been done with it. Not tried to fix it.

  8. 3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Not ONLY a lifetime of PERSONAL experience observing and THINKING, but ALSO READING and LISTENING to what EXPERTS have to say.

    Give us a break. We know you can't really read :)

    3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    One observation is that conservatives have a very simple minded way of believing ONLY the MOST OBVIOUS interpretation of phrases.

    ROFLMAO -

    YOuR ClAiM is JUST an OPINION without FACTS!!!!!

    Dude you're a joke, constantly insisting that eveyrone else provide proof of their statements and refusing to do so with your own.  And nobody believes for half a second you've 'observed' anything other than whatever your confirmation bias will let you.

  9. 1 hour ago, eyeball said:

    So where was I called out exactly? In a post that predates the timestamped post you keep pointing to as evidence of something presumably. Perhaps this missing post contains a copy of the horrifically shameful quote that I publicly devastated your character with. Have you got anything like that perchance? 

    You know precisely where - and now you follow me around desperaetly trying to pretend it didn't happen :)

    But we know it did. And the fact you spend so much energy trying to bury it like a cat in a litterbox shows you know you did something pretty pathetic' ;)

  10. 1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Oh? So now you've accepted the fact that trans folk deserve to enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

    You would be the one who insisted they didn't.  I've said that all along - in fact i've said i'm not sure this is even about that.

    So why are you trying to push others into believing that this ISN"T the case?

    Also - her rights weren't affected. Nobody has done anything to her - Bud light is the one who's getting pounded on.

    Are you saying somehow Bud Lite is 'trans'?   I could buy the idea that they're water that identifies as beer i guess.

    1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    You are such a giving soul.

    True.  Whereas you're a bit of a hypcrite and very dishonest  :)

     

  11. 1 hour ago, robosmith said:

    Yes, he COULD buy panties for his wife AND retain ownership, IF she was his slave.

    I think you'll find ownership doesn't require actual indentured servitude to be a thing :)

    1 hour ago, robosmith said:

    REAL men give their wife ownership of a GIFT.

    So - just to be clear, you're saying you gave YOUR panties to  your wife as a gift?

    1 hour ago, robosmith said:

    HIS statement is AMBIGUOUS. Mine chose one of the OBVIOUS meanings.

    Uuhhh yeahhhhh - definitely obvious. Well. LIke i said - not here to judge.

    1 hour ago, robosmith said:

    Back atcha.

    That's what she said i bet :) LOLOLOL

    (probably followed by 'do your own laundry!')

  12. 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    I'm presenting the NATO argument, acting as a proxy of NATO

    nope. One cannot act as a proxy without written authorizaiton stating the date time and place of the event for which you are being a proxy, or stating a date range and the type of meeting you can be proxy for.  You have absolutely no authority in any way to be a proxy for nato.

    THis is why i point out from time to time that nobody gives a crap what you care about. Your delusions about being a proxy for nato have no merit in the real wolrd regardless of what the voices in your head say.

    3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    saying that my argument is "chickenshit" is ad hominen

    It isn't even close. Please learn what words mean before using them.

    3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    NATO is not a person, NATO cannot be "chickenshit"

    Oh? Define what he meant by chickenshit. I suspect that nato can be.

    But - he did specifically reference the actions of nato rather than nato itself. I'm pretty sure actions can be referred to as 'chickenshit'. 

    I agree overall more with you than him on this as he knows but you DO have a very bad habit of pretending things are fallacies when they very clearly are not

    And your statement that you are a proxy for nato is just like 'scary-delusional'. You're just a nobody on the net, not a

    proxy for anyone.

    3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    "chickenshit" is attacking the people, or persons within the alliance, not the 1949 Washington Treaty itself

     

     

  13. 1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    Wow... Two whole paragraphs without once asking me to prove your claims for you.

    Impressive.

    ROFLMAO!!!! HOooooly crap that's hilarious - i actually snickered out loud :)  You could be a hypcrite for the olympic team :)

    What kind of person writes paragraphs demanding that peopel MUST provide sources - then gets this bent out of shape because someone asked her for a source :)

     

    LOL - @Nationalist is right you know - you HAVE been owned :)  Thanks for letting me live rent free in your head - very spacious in here, lots of air. ;)

  14. 41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
    48 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    To me...its chickenshit.

    that is an ad hominem fallacy

    so not an argument

    Just a point of order - that is not an ad hominem fallacy.

    Ad hominem is where you dismiss the argument because of a flaw with the presenter of the argument. SO - if he had said To me your argument is wrong because YOU are a chickenshit and chickenshits are always awrong" -  THAT would have been an ad hominem.  Claiming the argument is a 'chickenshit' argument is actually a statement about the quality of the argument itself, not the presenter.

    You can address why the argument is or is not a 'chickenshit' one. ALthough i admit i'm not sure what makes it 'chickenshit' in his mind

    You really do have to brush up on logical fallacies, you're using the term wrong fairly frequently these days.

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...