Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I got Obama

---

Dennis Kucinich, FTW!

;

---

I agreed with Joe Biden 10 out of 11

I'm gonna call him up and tell him that right now since my dad has his cell.

---

I was surprised, I got Guliani, Romney, and Clinton.

Though, there are a ton of other issues the poll didn't address such as gun control. I'm really surprised Clinton some how got in there. She's totally corrupt.

---

Ron Paul #1
Dennis Kucinich #2
John McCain #3

That's the first time I've taken one of these things that ACTUALLY reflects the candidates I like.....

....alright, this shit is way too accurate to be legit.....what's the catch?

---

Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, & John Edwards.

---

John McCain-Republican

Ron Paul-Republican

Mike Huckabee-Republican

---

My candidate wasn't on the list, I stand by Stephen T. Colbert for president of the United States of America.

---

I got Tancredo, though I find that hard to believe because I'm a big liberal.

---

Dennis Kucinich Followed By Chris Dodd, And finally Barrack Obama

---

Nylo what you should do is check the candidate websites of the people your want to get info on. Then wikipedia them and check they're voting records if they are senators, or other sort of legal intiation records. It shouldn't be a problem, and idealistically, this is the only criteria you should be basing your descision of who to vote on.

---

yeah that was real neat! I got this guy that I don't know and he was a Demacrat but I do like most of Hilary Clinton's answers :)

---

I got:

Most like: Ron Paul

2nd most like: Hillary Clinton

3rd most like: Rudy Giuliani

I am voting for Ron Paul, he is most definitely the best choice.

---

Dennis Kucinich FTW!

Who's Dennis Kucinich?

---

At 10/12/07 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

So you bumped the topic after 10 days to say that?

No, I bumped it after 10 days because this is a great topic, and saying *bump* would have gotten me banned.

Are you THAT damanged after humiliating yourself in the past with getting owned in every argument you engage in?
Cuppa-Contradictions... back to his old routine.

Funny: I counted, and I've been proven wrong (or "pwned) as many times as you have. Furthermore, the only contradiction you have arrised from you mistakinly thinking that "assasinate" and "kill" are the same word =)

And nothing will change the fact that you where told you support Hillary Clinton, which is easily the greatest pwnage ever. I need to remember to say that next time somebody insults my mother. I mean, how the hell can you counter that one?

Person A: Yeah, well, you're moms has a penis!
Person B: You support Hillary Clinton
Person A: [through tears] NUH-UH!

---

I got the leprechaun as #1, which surprised me a bit.

---

At 10/27/07 10:30 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 10/12/07 10:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

So you bumped the topic after 10 days to say that?

No, I bumped it after 10 days because this is a great topic, and saying *bump* would have gotten me banned.

Um you don't have to say "bump" to bump something.

You revived a dying thread after 10 days of no posts, therefore you bumped it. And the fact that your whole post was devoted to me makes it even more pathetic.

Are you THAT damanged after humiliating yourself in the past with getting owned in every argument you engage in?
Cuppa-Contradictions... back to his old routine.

Funny: I counted, and I've been proven wrong (or "pwned) as many times as you have.

Lol, you've been proved wrong and caught lying and contradicting yourself several times by myself.

I've had something I said discredited when I misread a link once, and the only time that I was actually proved wrong, having a political case fully discredited, was when poxpower proved me wrong about alcohol content in beer in Canada vs. the US.

This is way different from what has happened to you. I meticulously humiliated you several times by catching you just plain lying. Showing exactly what you said, and how it contradicted exactly what you said previously and/or thereafter.

Furthermore, the only contradiction you have arrised from you mistakinly thinking that "assasinate" and "kill" are the same word =)

Lol, actually I've proved you contradicted yourself on many issues, caught you in your mindless semantics and deceit several times, most notably: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

There are loads of more instances that I'd have to take time to find.

And nothing will change the fact that you where told you support Hillary Clinton, which is easily the greatest pwnage ever.

The fact that you actually made your sig about that, even though several people in this thread got contradictory results as well... well that shows how desperate you are.

Hell, you yourself got contradictory results:

--------------------------

At 9/30/07 12:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: John Edwards came out my candidate.

Guess who I'm still voting for? McCain.

Oh, and I think I saw one of those guys on law and order.

--------------------

Cuppa-contradictions strikes again! Caught in yet another instance of being a hypocritical, self-contradicting little jester.

---

At 10/28/07 03:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Um you don't have to say "bump" to bump something.
You revived a dying thread after 10 days of no posts, therefore you bumped it. And the fact that your whole post was devoted to me makes it even more pathetic.

I've never been banned just for bumping a dead topic. I HAVE been banned for bumping a topic without actually saying anything legitimate.

Lol, you've been proved wrong and caught lying and contradicting yourself several times by myself.

And, as I said, you've also been proven wrong numerous times. But please feel free to post examples of me "lying".

I've had something I said discredited when I misread a link once, and the only time that I was actually proved wrong, having a political case fully discredited, was when poxpower proved me wrong about alcohol content in beer in Canada vs. the US.

Not true. You've been proven wrong on a couple counts.

This is way different from what has happened to you. I meticulously humiliated you several times by catching you just plain lying. Showing exactly what you said, and how it contradicted exactly what you said previously and/or thereafter.

Actually, you never proved me lying. Once. The only time "lying" was brought up was when you called me a "liar" when I claimed (truthfully) that I had called multiple people N*gga's that day, and that I (truthfully) didn't get my ass kicked.

Lol, actually I've proved you contradicted yourself on many issues, caught you in your mindless semantics and deceit several times, most notably: 1,

Once again; the only contradiction comes from you mistakenly believing that "assasinate" and "kill" are the same.

2

I don't contradict myself in the least.

3

That's the same thread

:4

How you twist me not knowing the definition of a word into a "contradiction" is beyond me.

5

Funny, I see you CLAIM contradiction in the thread, yet I don't actually see any.

There are loads of more instances that I'd have to take time to find.

You know what the difference between you and I is? We are both frequently proven wrong. Yet when I say something false, I say is only as a way to prove my point, meaning that when I'm proven wrong it means just that; I was wrong, my point is moot. When you bring up a false point, you not only use it to prove a point, you use it to personally insult people. You'll use a false point to call someone an "Idiot", "Moron" "Liar", every dirty name in the book, so you look like an absolute ass when you get proven 100% wrong, and it turns out you where personally insulting someone for no reason whatsoever. In other words, your a troll. It wouldn't be that bad if you apologised, as in, "Gee, TestPoster, I'm sorry I called you a moronic half-breed waste of cum because Bush found WMD's, when it turns out he DIDN'T, so my whole reason to make myself look like an ass is moot".

It's funny; every single poster on the BBS seems to come here for fun; Me, Grammer, Memorize, Sevenseize... you're the only one I think I've ever seen who comes here to insult people for no reason. What, did daddy molest you as a kid? Mommy love the bottle more then you? Well, whatever causes the inferiority complex, I still love you. You're like my big angry teddy bear, and nothing you ever say or do will make me love you any less.

*Cuddles up to Cellardoor*

The fact that you actually made your sig about that, even though several people in this thread got contradictory results as well... well that shows how desperate you are.
Hell, you yourself got contradictory results:
Cuppa-contradictions strikes again! Caught in yet another instance of being a hypocritical, self-contradicting little jester.

How is it hypocritical or self-contradicting to have my result be the one person that I agree with on virtually every single important issue? It seems almost, *gasp* logical!

Besides, at least my Candidate is a human being.

---

At 10/28/07 04:34 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I've never been banned just for bumping a dead topic.

Who said anything about banning.

Cuppa-contradictions is resorting to semantics again!

I HAVE been banned for bumping a topic without actually saying anything legitimate.

Interesting, because you didn't say anything legitimate in this instance. You bumped a topic for a personal attack.

Lol, you've been proved wrong and caught lying and contradicting yourself several times by myself.

And, as I said, you've also been proven wrong numerous times.

Find them, because you're just making up bullshit.

But please feel free to post examples of me "lying".

Already did.

I've had something I said discredited when I misread a link once, and the only time that I was actually proved wrong, having a political case fully discredited, was when poxpower proved me wrong about alcohol content in beer in Canada vs. the US.

Not true. You've been proven wrong on a couple counts.

Um, no actually I haven't, but thanks for not providing any proof of what you say, further validating the fact that you're full of shit.

Actually, you never proved me lying. Once.

Lol actually I did.

The only time "lying" was brought up was when you called me a "liar" when I claimed (truthfully) that I had called multiple people N*gga's that day, and that I (truthfully) didn't get my ass kicked.

Actually I caught you lying when you changed your story several times in numerous threads, then denied it repeatedly, then I PROVED that you did it by going quote to quote proving what you said, and how it contradicted what you said previously.

Lol, actually I've proved you contradicted yourself on many issues, caught you in your mindless semantics and deceit several times, most notably: 1,

Once again; the only contradiction comes from you mistakenly believing that "assasinate" and "kill" are the same.

AHAHAHA

Actually you contradicted yourself, OVER, AND OVER again as I proved with quotes. And now you're just lying again.

And you're caught in your lie again.

2

I don't contradict myself in the least.

It's where your shenanigans began. You said some false shit about Castro, and you got proved wrong

3

That's the same thread

The next page, where you contradicted yourself, lied, and resorted to mindless semantics in order to salvage your dignity. You kept saying that grammar mistakes were what caused it, you just couldn't admit that you were wrong so you went through great lengths to pretend otherwise and got humiliated when I provided a quot by quot documentation of it all.

4

How you twist me not knowing the definition of a word into a "contradiction" is beyond me.

I caught you in a lie.

5

Funny, I see you CLAIM contradiction in the thread, yet I don't actually see any.

That's because you're delusional.

You entered that thread saying that black people don't have a problem with the n-word being said by white people. Then you later said that yo've seen black people get angry over it, right after in the same sentence you said you hadn't.

There are loads of more instances that I'd have to take time to find.

You know what the difference between you and I is? We are both frequently proven wrong.

Nope. You get humiliated all the time because you contradict yourself so much. All your arguments are incredibly incoherent and you repeatedly lie and deceive your way out of arguments when you start to get proved wrong.

Yet when I say something false, I say is only as a way to prove my point, meaning that when I'm proven wrong it means just that; I was wrong, my point is moot.

Um actually if you look here, after what you said about Fidel Castro was proved wrong, you kept LYING and saying that just simple grammar was the reason it looked like you were wrong. Then you admitted you were wrong, then you fell back on it again by saying it was grammar.

How is it hypocritical or self-contradicting to have my result be the one person that I agree with on virtually every single important issue? It seems almost, *gasp* logical!

Lol and now you're proving yet again that you're completely full of lies.

You went out of your way to make a point that my candidate was Hillary Clinton as some irony of some sort, as if I should vote for someone I disagree with and don't like. Yet you ignore that YOUR candidate was someone you didn't want to vote for. You also ignore that almost every single person here had a list of candidates that were contradictory because the political differences.

Your whole argument is based on idiocy, and a continual effort to play it off.

And now when you get confronted about your hypocrisy, you just deceive your way out of it AGAIN. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper.

---

At 10/28/07 05:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Who said anything about banning.

I did. Duh.

Cuppa-contradictions is resorting to semantics again!

Let's see; I said I didn't uselessly bump because I would have gotten banned, and Just then I said... the exact same thing!

Your right, that's one of my typical "Contradictions"; saying the exact same thing twice.

Interesting, because you didn't say anything legitimate in this instance. You bumped a topic for a personal attack.

Yes, but a personal attack doesn't get me banned. And, of course, it's really more of a personal attack on Hilary Clinton, the cunt-of-the-world.

Find them, because you're just making up bullshit.

That debate we're having in the other thread (elfer), The Airport Security, and Grammar's alts (the tax thread). Sure there are others, but I don't, you know, book mark examples of people I don't like making mistakes. That would make me a stalker or an obsessed psycho or something.

Already did.

You really didn't.

Um, no actually I haven't, but thanks for not providing any proof of what you say, further validating the fact that you're full of shit.

Now see, THIS is a lie; you even ADMITTED you where wrong on the Airport security issue, which means that by now denying you where wrong, ONE of those is a lie.

Lol actually I did.

Like when?

Actually I caught you lying when you changed your story several times in numerous threads, then denied it repeatedly, then I PROVED that you did it by going quote to quote proving what you said, and how it contradicted what you said previously.

No, you didn't. Show me one quote of me "lying". With actual evidence of me lying, not your secret weapon of "I don't believe you".

AHAHAHA
Actually you contradicted yourself, OVER, AND OVER again as I proved with quotes. And now you're just lying again.
And you're caught in your lie again.

I didn't "contradict" myself; I said I was for killing a certain terrorist, but against ASSASSINATING terrorists. Once again, Kill =/= assassinate.

It's where your shenanigans began. You said some false shit about Castro, and you got proved wrong

Where?

The next page, where you contradicted yourself, lied, and resorted to mindless semantics in order to salvage your dignity. You kept saying that grammar mistakes were what caused it, you just couldn't admit that you were wrong so you went through great lengths to pretend otherwise and got humiliated when I provided a quot by quot documentation of it all.

Except, once again, you started the semantics. You argued that he was re-elected, when I had said he was elected. Or vice versa. I don't remember, but it was something mindless that really didn't matter in the least. Then you got all pissy because you mentioned 2 men and said "He [did something]", without distinguishing WHICH "he", and I got confused and assumed you meant the other "he". To be fair, I also said "he" alot.

I caught you in a lie.

No, you didn't. You caught me saying you where wrong about the definition of arbitrary and continually arguing that. I now know that you where correct, and that I was indeed incorrect; you used arbitrary correctly. However, it's not "lying" to say otherwise, it's being incorrect. Now, if I said NOW, after I know the true definition of arbitrary, that you where wrong, THAT would be a lie.

That's because you're delusional.
You entered that thread saying that black people don't have a problem with the n-word being said by white people. Then you later said that yo've seen black people get angry over it, right after in the same sentence you said you hadn't.

I said I see black people getting angry when SOMEONE THEY DON'T KNOW says it and they don't know if he means it derrogatively. I still stand by my statement that when they KNOW you aren't being derrogative, they don't care.

Nope. You get humiliated all the time because you contradict yourself so much. All your arguments are incredibly incoherent and you repeatedly lie and deceive your way out of arguments when you start to get proved wrong.

Yeah yeah, typical shit. The fact is, as long as you believe whatever you want (me getting the definition of Arbitrary wrong is a "lie"), I'll be "wrong" even when I'm right. I could call you a "liar" for being wrong about Metallica's drummer being detained by security, I could call you a "liar" for thinking grammer had more alts then he did, but I don't think that because I'm not a troll. I, and everyone else on the BBS, debate to gain knowledge and see if their oppinions are correct. You argue to prove your opinions are correct.

Um actually if you look here, after what you said about Fidel Castro was proved wrong, you kept LYING and saying that just simple grammar was the reason it looked like you were wrong. Then you admitted you were wrong, then you fell back on it again by saying it was grammar.

Actually, no: You said I had brought up semantics, when in reality you had by arguing I was wrong in saying he was re-elected instead of elected.

Lol and now you're proving yet again that you're completely full of lies.

I agree with John Edwards on all the important points, so I'm a liar? Geez, by this logic I was lying when I put on my socks this morning for breakfeast.

You went out of your way to make a point that my candidate was Hillary Clinton as some irony of some sort, as if I should vote for someone I disagree with and don't like. Yet you ignore that YOUR candidate was someone you didn't want to vote for.

Yes, but A) There was a reason for my result: I actually agree with Edwards on the Important points, whereas you seem to disagree with what Hillary Clinton say's quite frequently. And B) The person it said I matched to is an actual human being.

You also ignore that almost every single person here had a list of candidates that were contradictory because the political differences.

Because it's not as funny with them.

Your whole argument is based on idiocy, and a continual effort to play it off.

My whole "argument" was a joke making fun of Hillarly Clinton and pointing out a bit of Irony, which you've turned into an argument. I don't know about you, but I don't strive to make my ironic jokes funny; I strive to make them point out Irony.

And now when you get confronted about your hypocrisy, you just deceive your way out of it AGAIN. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper.

Yet, once again, you have yet to point out the hypocrisy or the "lie" I commit when the candidate that comes up is one whom I agree with on all the key points.

---

At 10/28/07 05:37 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 10/28/07 05:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Who said anything about banning.

I did. Duh.

Yeah, and it was out of context, DUH.

Cuppa-contradictions is resorting to semantics again!

Let's see; I said I didn't uselessly bump because I would have gotten banned, and Just then I said... the exact same thing!

Um no, because I was criticizing you for the principle of bumping the topic. Then you mentioned being banned about it as resorting to semantics.

Your right, that's one of my typical "Contradictions"; saying the exact same thing twice.

No, by saying something that is irrelevant in attempt to shift the nuance in the wrong direction so that you can disregard how full of shit you are.

Yes, but a personal attack doesn't get me banned.

And once again, I said nothing about being banned and you bring it up again.

And, of course, it's really more of a personal attack on Hilary Clinton, the cunt-of-the-world.

Kind of like John Edwards, the person you should vote for.

That debate we're having in the other thread (elfer)

Which you are humiliating yourself in by lying and getting caught in your lies, k.

Already did.

You really didn't.

I really did. You're only further discrediting yourself when you intentionally deny things that you know are true just so you can save face. I figured you'd learn by now that everytime you get in an argument with me you get humiliated, you contradict yourself, and then just lie your way out of it, and get caught in those lies.

Now see, THIS is a lie; you even ADMITTED you where wrong on the Airport security issue

I linked to a legitimate news article that reported something that turned out to be wrong. I wasn't "proved wrong" in the same sense that you get proved wrong.

No, you didn't. Show me one quote of me "lying". With actual evidence of me lying, not your secret weapon of "I don't believe you".

You REALLY, REALLY need to read the links instead of just ignoring them. Actually go back over what transpired so you can have a little hindsight over how much you got caught contradicting yourself, only to lie about it later, like you're doing right now.

I didn't "contradict" myself; I said I was for killing a certain terrorist, but against ASSASSINATING terrorists. Once again, Kill =/= assassinate.

Nope, and I proved that killing terrorists was considered assassination, thus discrediting your semantics.

But if you actually read that thread, you'll see that your entire points were contradicted by what you said later. Just read it, actually read it instead of trying to deny the evidence I provided.

It's where your shenanigans began. You said some false shit about Castro, and you got proved wrong

Where?

RIGHT HERE. I already linked to it and your only way of perpetuating your denial is to do what you just did

You said that Castro wasn't democratically elected, and didn't need to be reelected, I proved you wrong and the ensuing bullshit you spewed was your attempts of resorting to semantics to play it off.

Except, once again, you started the semantics.

Actually that was YOU, and thanks for lying again.

Cuppa-contradictions CAUGHT in his lies again.

You argued that he was re-elected, when I had said he was elected.

Actually I proved that Castro was democratically elected, and needed to be democratically elected, proving both things you said wrong.

Or vice versa. I don't remember

That's why I link to it to document your mindless bullshit.

I caught you in a lie.

No, you didn't.

Yeah I did, and you're lying right now, getting caught in your lies.

I said I see black people getting angry when SOMEONE THEY DON'T KNOW says it and they don't know if he means it derrogatively.

After you said that black people don't have a problem with the word, and IMMEDIATELY after you said "I have NEVER seen anyone get angry over this".

Yeah yeah, typical shit. The fact is, as long as you believe whatever you want (me getting the definition of Arbitrary wrong is a "lie"), I'll be "wrong" even when I'm right.

I have documentation, anyone who actually reads what transpired will realize how full of shit you are. The fact that you continually ignore what happened and keep denying it also validates what I say when I call you a liar.

Actually, no: You said I had brought up semantics, when in reality you had by arguing I was wrong in saying he was re-elected instead of elected.

Actually you resorted to semantics because you pretended that you weren't wrong, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE, just because you claimed you had a grammar mistake.

Seriously, ACTUALLY READ IT.

"Castro wasn't democratically elected, nor does he have to keep getting elected to stay in office."

I proved you wrong, then you said:

"Yeah, I have a bad (and very grammatically incorrect) habit of calling re-elections "elections"."

YOU resorted to semantics, you tried to pretend that some bullshit "habit" caused you to actually say something that was actually FALSE on any level, no matter what you meant to say.

---

Your arguing about bumping a topic, you've just wasted ONE PAGE to have an argument about bumping a topic.

The two of you are pathetic.

---

At 9/30/07 04:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um...

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Mitt Romney
3. Joe Biden

I think that survey is wack.

May I ask how the hell you got a Republican and a Democrat on there? Haha, who're you really gonna vote for?

---

Ron Paul was whom I'm most compatible with. Guess who I plan on voting for? Ron Paul.

Now, unto other matters.
*Reclines in Lay-zee-boy, grabs a beer, and awaits the next round of Cellardoor vs Cappa.*

---

At 10/28/07 06:00 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Yeah, and it was out of context, DUH.

WHAT was out of context?This is basically how that conversation went (at least that top part)

Me: I actually said something, and didn't just say "bump" because it would have gotten me banned
You: You don't have to actually say *bump* to bump
Me: Yeah, but as long as you actually say anything when you bump you don't get banned
You: Who said anything about getting banned?
Me: Me.
You: OUT OF CONTEXT!

Need the actual quotes?

Um no, because I was criticizing you for the principle of bumping the topic. Then you mentioned being banned about it as resorting to semantics.

...Do you know what "semantics" is? It's arguing the definition of a word.

Arguing that what I did DIDN'T get me banned, wheas just posting a useles "*bump"*, would get me banned, is not arguing semantics.

No, by saying something that is irrelevant in attempt to shift the nuance in the wrong direction so that you can disregard how full of shit you are.

What are you talking about? I'm not wrong in the least; I DO get banned when I bump needlessly, and I DIDN'T get banned this time. Unless I have yet to get banned for this, then I wasn't "wrong"

And once again, I said nothing about being banned and you bring it up again.

I know. I brought up being banned a while ago. Did you not read then, when first explaining that this was a bump for the sake up bumping?

Kind of like John Edwards, the person you should vote for.

Eh, he's pretty damn bad, but I don't know if I would put Edwards on Clintons level. I sure as hell wouldn't be shocked if something else came out, though.

Which you are humiliating yourself in by lying and getting caught in your lies, k.

Lewls, so now disagreeing with you is a lie. Right-o.

I really did. You're only further discrediting yourself when you intentionally deny things that you know are true just so you can save face. I figured you'd learn by now that everytime you get in an argument with me you get humiliated, you contradict yourself, and then just lie your way out of it, and get caught in those lies.

Funny, because what I see is me disagreeing with your oppinions, you getting butthurt over the internet, and calling things "lies" and "contradictions" because they go against your oppinions. Like, for example, me being a "Hypocrite" for getting a voter result.... of exactly who the quiz should have given me.

I linked to a legitimate news article that reported something that turned out to be wrong. I wasn't "proved wrong" in the same sense that you get proved wrong.

Yes, you where. You posted a news article, when there where already corrections to it out there, and you used it to personally insult a poster over and over and over and over, instead of focusing on the point. When it was later revealed a few times you where full of shit, you clung to it, and then when it was PROVEN, and you looked like a complete ass for insulting someone multiple times for no reason at all, you didn't apologize.

You REALLY, REALLY need to read the links instead of just ignoring them. Actually go back over what transpired so you can have a little hindsight over how much you got caught contradicting yourself, only to lie about it later, like you're doing right now.

I am. I see lots of examples of what you call "lies" with absolutely no direct evidence.

Nope, and I proved that killing terrorists was considered assassination, thus discrediting your semantics.

No, you didn't "prove" that. You said that. But that's still FALSE: When you warn a terrorist, tell him he's wanted, make it KNOWN that if he doesn't come in and submit himself to the U.S he will be killed, that is "assassinating" him, since it's not by surprise; he had ample time to lay down his weapons and submit, he didn't. So when the Army bombs his ass, he has no excuse; he was warned to submit.

But if you actually read that thread, you'll see that your entire points were contradicted by what you said later. Just read it, actually read it instead of trying to deny the evidence I provided.

Except, once again; being for killing Zarqawi and Osama, WANTED terrorists who would have KNOWN they where wanted, and being against Assassinating potential terrorists who would have no idea they where wanted, let alone going to be shot, is not contradictory. It's not about who's getting shot, or why they get shot, or anything else; it's a matter of whether they are warned and have a chance to submit.

RIGHT HERE. I already linked to it and your only way of perpetuating your denial is to do what you just did
You said that Castro wasn't democratically elected, and didn't need to be reelected, I proved you wrong and the ensuing bullshit you spewed was your attempts of resorting to semantics to play it off.

Except that once again, YOU begin the semantics when you took offense to me using "re-election" instead of election, or some other tedious shit like that, a semantic which I then CONTINUED. Unless I am missing an entire point here, then it looks like I merely continued your semantics.

Actually that was YOU, and thanks for lying again.

No, it wasn't.

Cuppa-contradictions CAUGHT in his lies again.

What's that? You fired tracers on a video tape? I personally have never fired tracers, their stupid. SO STOP LYING. STOP LYING BY FIRING TRACERS.

Actually I proved that Castro was democratically elected, and needed to be democratically elected, proving both things you said wrong.

You also seem to take offense to the difference between "elected" and "re-elected".

Or vice versa. I don't remember

That's why I link to it to document your mindless bullshit.

Does it really matter WHICH stupid semantic it was you took offense too?

Yeah I did, and you're lying right now, getting caught in your lies.

No. I'm not.

After you said that black people don't have a problem with the word, and IMMEDIATELY after you said "I have NEVER seen anyone get angry over this".

Because I've never seen a white guy stupid enough to say it to someone they don't even know. When I said they never get angry over the world, that was clearly in the context of when they KNOW it isn't being used in a "KKK" style, since when a teen walks into a reocord shop and ask's for Nas' "N*gger" album, no one will think that. The argument was whether blacks are offended when white folk use it the same way black folk always do; as a friendly greeting.

I have documentation, anyone who actually reads what transpired will realize how full of shit you are. The fact that you continually ignore what happened and keep denying it also validates what I say when I call you a liar.

"Transcript"? I say you got the definition of Arbitrary wrong; you say no I don't, I say yes you do, and it goes on and on without a lick of actual thought being made. This isn't a "lie"; this is me being wrong. Theres a difference, since I didn't KNOW the definition of Arbitrary at the time, despite thinking I did.

Actually you resorted to semantics because you pretended that you weren't wrong, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE, just because you claimed you had a grammar mistake.
Seriously, ACTUALLY READ IT.

I did. You brought up semantics.

"
I
"
YOU resorted to semantics, you tried to pretend that some bullshit "habit" caused you to actually say something that was actually FALSE on any level, no matter what you meant to say.

No, you brought it up. What you leave out is that in "proving me wrong", YOU bring up that I should have said "election" when I said "re-election".

Once again; unless I'm missing something huge here, like a complete post that I'm not seeing, it would appear like YOU brought up the issue of semantics, which I then clung too.

---

At 10/28/07 09:11 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Your arguing about bumping a topic, you've just wasted ONE PAGE to have an argument about bumping a topic.

The two of you are pathetic.

Haha, are you kidding? This is perfect!

Cellar can go 50 pages of butt-hurtness insulting people, this thread won't die anytime soon.

On a practical side, how the hell do I change the slider on what I see as a key issue on the side? I try to, but it wont let me, and then all of a sudden my candidates just pop up.

---

Bookmarked for future reference.

Yet another instance where Cuppa-contradictions\ lies, contradicts, and deceives his way out of everything.

I have quite a collection of you humiliating yourself.

---

At 10/28/07 03:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol, actually I've proved you contradicted yourself on many issues, caught you in your mindless semantics and deceit several times, most notably: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

I only read one of them... It might've been a small error, but you contradicted yourself too. You regarded socialism as fascism in number 2. The definition of socialism lists it as a form of extreme leftism, while fascism is the extreme of the right wing. Everybody contradicts themselves, get over it.

No amount of posts warrants a god complex..

---

At 10/29/07 04:03 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 10/28/07 03:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Lol, actually I've proved you contradicted yourself on many issues, caught you in your mindless semantics and deceit several times, most notably: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

I only read one of them... It might've been a small error, but you contradicted yourself too. You regarded socialism as fascism in number 2.

That's not a contradiction at all.

Regimes that take power under the feign of benevolent socialism become almost identical to a fascist state.

Pointing that out is not a contradiction. Hell, the Nazi party was a socialist part. National Socialist German Worker's Party.

The definition of socialism lists it as a form of extreme leftism, while fascism is the extreme of the right wing.

Lol... extreme left and extreme right always end up becoming very similar. Socialism as exuded by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba etc... that is fascism, it's just shrouded in a clever disguise. It's fascism, that gains and maintains its powers by using socialism as a facade.

---

At 10/29/07 09:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The definition of socialism lists it as a form of extreme leftism, while fascism is the extreme of the right wing.

This is what i fail to understand. every conservative i know is in favor of small government while every liberal is in favor of big. so how is fascism extreme right wing?