1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
At 11/20/07 10:56 PM, Euroc wrote:
Gimme a break! It was about 20 years ago, right? But now that you mention it...
Lol. I remeber also the guys campaigning for each site were in tuxedos and top hats. What the fuck were guys wearing tuxedos and top hats doing at a race anyway?
At 11/20/07 07:38 PM, Hostile-Eagle wrote: god
Leave god out of this, I don';t think he wants part in this argument.
yall are
We are what? That sentence fragment makes no sense.
fking
Who's this king of f that you speak about.
morons
Yes, morons support the war on drugs, thanks for agreeing with me.
your picking
What exactly are we picking? You make no sense.
apart every little
What does little things being apart have to do with this.
thing i say
What specific thing you say do you refer to, and what of it? Don't just write, "thing i say" and expect us to get it.
like im fkin bush
No you're not "fkin bush", whatever "fkin bush" even is.
always trying
Correct and you're always failing too.
to find some
To find some what?
shit wrong with
Yeah I agree, there's plenty of shit wrong with the war on drugs.
what i say
You're kidding right? You don't even know what you say and have to ask us?
if you would
If I would what? Be specific.
fking
There is no "fking."
actually read a
Actually read a what? Be specific.
whole sentance
What's a "whole sentance?" Is there even a non-whole sentance?
you would see
I do see, that is how I am able to read your post.
that
That what? Be specific.
i never said
You never said what? Be specific.
people that are addicted to beer fking dont steal and kill for the gd money
There you go making that moronic statement again.
At 11/20/07 04:41 PM, NintendoMadness wrote: Finally got me Bronze back. :D
Yes, we know your back is bronze already, stop repeating yourself.
At 11/20/07 02:33 PM, neon-dude wrote:
How did you do that? I have less than 30 blams! It's not like I'm a n00b, I'm lv. 7 and have been here about a year. I vote on movies under judgement, but nothing happens other than me getting +2 experience points!
You should have more than 430 exp if you've been here over a year.
At 11/19/07 10:32 PM, Euroc wrote:
I remember that too. In fact, the rabbit legitimatly won a race where the prize was a bowl of trix cereal. It was some time in the late 80s if I remember right. It kind of pissed me off that they had to vote if he should be allowed to get the prize he earned. He did get them. I remember that specifically.
Well actually, it was a silver trophy cup full of Trix cereal. It had been done not long after they introduced the lime green flavor into the mix.
That's not what he said. He said he got his "Bronze Back", sounds like his back is now bronze to me.
At 11/19/07 09:59 PM, NintendoMadness wrote: Yes got my Bronze back.
Your back got bronzed?
At 11/19/07 09:38 PM, NintendoMadness wrote:At 11/19/07 09:29 PM, BlueYoshi77777 wrote: My second post!Hmmm. Does this count as an acheivment?
No but 1191 does.
Hey remember when I said I'd reach 16000 protects before Supreme Commander? Well now I have.
Regardless of the seriousness of the website, I did enjoy this site:
If Trix are for kids, at least buy the guy a fucking sandwich! The amazing part about this advertising campaign is that children absolutely hate it. In 1976, there was a promotion wherein children had to vote whether or not Trix Rabbit should get to eat some of his own cereal. Ninety-nine percent of the kids voted to feed the poor bastard. Kids were apparently embarrassed he'd been reduced to begging. So Trix was fed a single bowl of his own cereal and then, against the wishes of 99 percent of their consumers, Generalissimo Mills returned to their policy of oppression.
Thank fuck someone else said this. I NEVER approved of those commercials, and I knew 0 others that did either. Ohj but I knew plenty who agreed with me that those commercials were cruel and stupid.
In fact, there was another after 1976 in which kids also said the trix rabbit deserved to eat. I know this for a fact because I was born in 83, long after 76. And I specifically remember being part of the overwhelming majority that voted he should get to eat. After seeing the commercial where he got to eat(finally) I thought that shit was over. But oh fuck no, they decided to go right the fuck back to the, "Trix are for kids" shit. I swear, they are as oblivious to their stupidity as those mythbusters guys are to how fallacious their science is.
Supporting the ability for terrorists to sell drugs on the black market is dumb. If we legalized all drugs, not just marijuana, people would stop turning to the black market for them. There'd also be much less crime rings running through our streets because people would be going to the store to buy drugs, not looking for an undergound crime ring. And guess what? Less crime rings means less murder and violence on our streets.
If people wanna do drugs and ruin their lives, who the fuck cares? It's their problem. So what if it kills them? They've got themselves to blame. I'd rather the people who do drugs gave our corporations their money and helped our economy instead of giving osama bin laden the money so they can support his habits. It's not like having to find drugs on the black market is stopping anyone to begin with.
This is what I got:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:tTc vMoMva3AJ:www.buildfreedom.com/tl/pt/vis ion.shtml+%2B%22Five+Flag+Theory%22&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Are you talking about the thing where a business man exploits differing laws of differing places to secure his assets and retire early?
At 11/19/07 02:22 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: We don't necessarily have to stay there. Once we get a Democratic President, we are getting our asses out of there. We never needed to be in Iraq and we sure as hell don't need to fuck with Iran.
Dude, I don't think we should have gotten in there in the first place either. I did at the time, but looking back it was a major fuck up.
BUT, to say that we should just pull out abruptly is either uninformed, stupid, or both. We are facing terrorists who want us out. Problem is giving terrorists what they want is showing them that their methods work, which in turn leads to more terrorism. They'll be able to rally more people to their cause and will have a stronger will to come at us in the future. We can not sensibly say that is a good thing.
We just need a situation we can vaguely call a victory(and we need someone other than Mr. Mission Accomplished to call it), then we can safely pull out. To pull out now would be to tell terror organizations that they can fuck with us and we'll do what they want us to.
At 11/17/07 01:14 PM, EmperorQuintana wrote: *Pfft*. Riiiight... Once you start a cult, you might have a chance to believe in pagan/demonic stupidities, and in the later run, like all the other cults, you and your members might commit suicide with such method of your choosing!
Huh? WTF? Are you a blowhard or did you just post in the wrong topic?
At 11/17/07 12:59 PM, homor wrote:
*sigh* you deserve a better apolige then that.
im sorry for all the personal attack and slander, i let my haterd of PETA could my judgement.
again, im very sorry for what i said.
Heh, well I completely understand, I hate PETA too. Yeah if I was from PETA there would plenty of substantiation right there calling me stupid.
At 11/17/07 11:24 AM, homor wrote:
i like how you say i don't have logic, but you don't even try to back it up.
You have demonstrated it yourself with you multiple fallacies, and your claim that what you think is not irrelevant to the facts. In fact, no person's thoughts have any bearing on the facts at all, they fact that you tried to claim that yours did is proof that you lack logic.
E
its common fucking sence that a fishermen would kill a fish first before grinding it up.
That's your problem, you are assuming that they kill them first, when in fact, they do not:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin
It's rather common knowledge that they do not kill the dolphins before grinding them up. Substantiatenow think about this for a minute:
I did, and I think that you are erroneously presupposing things withoutdoing any research, which just goes to show how illogical your argument is.
oh, and they site cannot be owned by a member of peta or someone with the animal rights movment, it has to be completely unbiased and it has to be relieble, and no, it can't be wikipedia.
American animal rights groups do not care about this shit. I'm convinced all they care about is dicking around with the political system.
is you best debate strategie repeating youself?
No, that is yours.
stop it right there.
so you think that killing someone in an awful way is ok if they did it to a fish?
YES, a fish is a living creature too. Kill it for food? Sure, but don't do it so cruelly.
hes insult an entire race because of what a few fishermen may or may not of done to a fish.
Strange that you erroneously presuppose this. He was only talking about the cruel fishermen in Japan, not Japanese americans, or Japanese people who dislike that part of their culture, or Asian people in general for that matter. Sorry, you fail again.
is that all you can fucking say?
There is no need to address your childish, angry little personal attacks with more than a dismissal. Especially since they hold no truth.
ugh.
its like talking to a 4 year old.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. Note: homor had no counter point to make.
use common sense.
Substantiated.
Sorry butyou erroneously presuming that your argument was you using common sense is not a substantiation of your claim.
you know what? im not taking that shit anymore, im deleteing anything from you along the lines of
"This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous."
"thats irrelevent"
"thats illogical"
Considering the terribly stupid nature of your arguments in the first place, suffice it to say that this is a cop-out on your part to avoid sustantiating your claims(since you can't), proving relevance where there is none(since you can't), or putting together a logical argument(since you can't).
what the fuck are you talking about? i 've never said that.
Wow, that's pathetic. You can't even remember what you said on this very page, which is ironic, considering that you are calling other people stupid. Yes, you did in fact say that, here:
At 11/17/07 10:59 AM, homor wrote:At 11/17/07 10:51 AM, JerkClock wrote:NO IT ISN'T, you're just pulling that out of your asshole to make yourself look better.What you think is irrelevant.At 11/17/07 08:03 AM, homor wrote:i thinkyou sould go suck a fucking dick for wanting to kill humans because of what they did to animals WHILE THEY WERE ALRADY FUCKING DEAD.
So yes, you did say that, congratulations, you have proven yourself to be lacking in IQ points.
THEY DON'T GRIND THEM ALIVE.
Ad Nauseum, how ironic, considering you don't like when others repeat themselves. Not unexpected either, considering that you lack a logical argument.
moronic slack jawed saying
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
a fishs family won't miss them.
a human family will miss them forever.
That is irrelevant to whether or not grinding it up is right. It still suffers.
At 11/17/07 10:59 AM, homor wrote:
no it isn't, you're just pulling that out of your asshole to make yourself look better.
So you're telling me that your thoughts, effect the factual nature of this world? Somehow I doubt anyone buys that, but this is not unexpected, considering that you lack a logical argument.
and now you start insulting asain leaders and goverments and cultures.
The fact that Asian countries grind and cook animals to death as if it is nothing is a fact. Whether or not stating so insults them is irrelevant.
nice.
Thank you for agreeing that I had a nice argument.
you're like a broken record, when you have nothing better to say and have no way to win an arguement you pull that stupid "This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous."
You are erroneously presupposing that your untrue personal attacks amounted to winning, which they did not. In fact, they were not only irrelevant, but also proved nothing other than that you can not handle a debate without throwing a shit fit. None of this is surprising, considering that you lack a logical argument.
im willing to bet you don't even know what you're saying, but you act like you do to look cool.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
but it is relevent to te fact that you said we should shred them to death
No it isn't. Whether they deserve a gruesome death is unnaffected by whether they have families.
for killing a few fish AND THEN shreding them.
Again you have not substantiated this erroneous claim of yours that they kill the fish before shredding them. This is pretty expected by now, considering that you lack a logical argument.
At 11/17/07 10:52 AM, homor wrote:
you're puting words in my mouth,
This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it is erroneous. Not unexpected, considering that you lack a logical argument.
and they don't get shredded you retard, they're long dead when that hapens.
Perhaps you would like to submit proof of this being the case? It's rather common knowledge that they do not kill the dolphins before grinding them up. Substantiate you claims for a change, if you are capable.
plus they were only trying to save the cute dolphins, not the other fish, whitch is stupid.
That's irrelevant to whether or not the actions of the fisherman were wrong.
but when it comes to other humans you insult them and treat them like scum of the earth.
See here's your problem. Torturing a heartless bastard who mercilessly grinds up innocent animals is not the same as torturing innocent animals. That fact that you lack the intelligence to understand that is not unexpected, considering that you lack a logical argument.
he insulted an entire fucking country
That does not mean that he treats human beings like shit as you claimed. You still fail.
you fucking idiot.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
no one was protesting to save them.
That is irrelevant to whether or not the action was wrong.
and for the second fucking time in a row they aren't shreded to death you fucking idiot,.
Substantiate your claim then. Argumentum Ad Nauseum does not make your argument valid.
you're a fucking idiot,
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
making life harder for you, because you do stupid things.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
At 11/17/07 08:03 AM, homor wrote:
i thinkyou sould go suck a fucking dick for wanting to kill humans because of what they did to animals WHILE THEY WERE ALREADY FUCKING DEAD.
What you think is irrelevant. Besides, it's not like they aren't still doing this shit. Asian countries are the worst offenders when it comes to torturing animals for food. They way the kill animals that they eat is inexcusable.
seriously, i think we sould grind you and beat you mercauslessly and piss on your dead corspes you fucking idiot.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
also, those fishermen you suggerst grinding up probebly have fucking familys that love and care about them,
That's irrelevant to whether or not what they do to the fish is wrong.
and the fucking fish only have memeroy spans of 5 minutes.
That's not true, it's an urban legend. Marine biologists would tell you otherwise.
At 11/17/07 07:58 AM, homor wrote: you're the reason the animal rights movment is failing, because people like you lie thru your teeth, (like the people saying milk causes pimpels to get people to stop drinking milk) and defend people doing stupid and crazy things just so you can say you helped some stupid ugly fish.
I don't see how not wanting the poor dolphins to get shredded to death, and attempting to free them is stupid or crazy.
but when it comes to other humans you insult them and treat them like scum of the earth.
You presupposition here is unsubstantiated and erroneous. Perhaps you wish to describe the reasoning(if there's any) behind this statement.
plus those fishermen were killing tons of other fish,
And shredding them to death as well is also wrong.
i would say go to hell, but you've already made life into its own personal hell by being a dumbass.
THis unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
In all fairness, with our currentt system we have riots in Washington. It can also be argued that losing the right to vote would make most people even more afraid to protest the government, causing less riots to happen.
At the same time, you are assuming that no democracy means tyranny. It does not, as if it did, enlightened absolutism(aka benevolent dictatorshipism) would not exist.
At 11/16/07 08:09 PM, Jokeen wrote: No, its because the more intelligent people are more emotional and have imagination,
No, you might wish to keep telling yourself that because you are emotional and have imagination, but that isn't the case.
At 11/16/07 06:06 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: stuff
Yeah, but we need to cut our pork barrel spending out so that we can afford it first.
At 11/16/07 06:35 PM, Sekhem wrote: I'm glad they arrested that whore.
She's not arrested just in case you were wondering.
At 11/16/07 05:30 PM, Jokeen wrote:
Its the more intelligent who are more easily swayed then the dumb and witless.
Sorry but you're trying to tell me that smart people are somehow going to not be able to think for themselves, you'll have to forgive me for not buying into that.
Personally, I think instead they should grind their fishermen to death(Show them what it feels like) and leave our citizens who protest cruelty to dolphins alone.
At 11/15/07 11:14 PM, poxpower wrote:
So, what would God do? Could he trick someone if it meant having two people happy?
He could create another good person who you would like, but would like you too.
At 11/16/07 01:30 AM, Imperator wrote: The weakness has always been in the ability to sway people.
Intelligence actually doesn't matter all that much. Even smart people can be swayed away from smart decisions.
Not really, not if they're actually smart anyway.
