SHITEATERS: The Final Countdown!

[600#gorilla]

wow, you got me there.

[wild beast]

The issue is that your entire schtick is based on some crap you can't get over since 2004. I'm addressing how fucking pathetic that is.

And since I'm responsible for it, I will manage your content as I see fit.

quit making things up, d00sh.

that's called "obfuscating". you are like a shiteating politician.

if you can man-up for long enough, just address the issues i posted and let's you and BOTH dispense with the insults.

[600#gorilla]

yeah lets fucking dispense of the insults you shitheaded cuntfaced shortfatbald dooosh.

[bostonlurk0r]

OBFUSCATE MY ASSHOLE!

[Lox]

I am addressing the non-political issues you posted, about how you are too bitchmade to get over shit that hurt your FEELINGS in 2004. The main issue is how fucking pathetic your shitlife must be to choose to base your whole persona on something I said or did years ago.

As for the political discourse, I won't participate in it until your "point" is made and you can have a big-boy conversation. Until then, I'll just prune your content as I please and watch your temper tantrum. It's kinda fun to watch you try to use the big words, when you're just crying like a bitch.

[wild beast]

lox, you are a poor, angry, confused child. full of hate and rage. i've already discussed why on many occasions. you follow the pattern to a textbook example.

you are scared to address the very current and pertinent political-social issues i have addressed. WHY? because they will further expose your confusion - the very same confusion that i have been outing you publicly about for about 6 months.

you say this, but do that.. you are all over the place. you have no foundation, no guiding principals. you are a feather in the wind. you go with the popular whims but are clearly guided by your negrophillia, liberalism and hatred of those you feel are mentally and physically superior to you.

THAT is why you are incapable of having a rational adult discussion about current social-political issues. you are scared.

now go on and berate and/or threaten because you are the "BIG MAN" of the internet with all sorts of "pruning" powers.. if you could only make your dick bigger, maybe you could get over that self-hating loser inside you that you love to bring to the Internet. maybe you should brag about some girl you had sex with? might make you feel more the man.

just keep it up. i am ready to quit when you are - AS I HAVE SAID IN PM'S AND PUBLICLY HERE. keep up that middle-school persona that is more fact than fiction.

EDIT: get over 2004. talk about NOW. the current social-political atmosphere that shiteaters have created.

[wild beast]

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the "settled law" of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

is that you in there, lox? reading the pages of the founding documents for the greatest nation that has ever existed? the one you grown to hate and despise? do you feel a "wise latina" is more apt to understand Constitutional law than white men?

[600#gorilla]

will somebody please hold up a mirror to this poor soul?

wild beast - are you kidding?

[wild beast]

lols..

600#sackofretardeduneducateddiarhea... wow, i see you follow me around. i don't read what you write, you are ignored. but man.. for a loser dipshit, you are pretty persistent. oh! just like your idol lox!

[wild beast]

you do see what see is saying lox, et. shiteater. she's saying that even though that is one of the original amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

you know, the "Bill of RIGHTS"!

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[wild beast]

but your "wise latina" - and the rest of the shiteaters therein don't believe that.

hmm...? you still getting tired of getting called to speak here, ??

[wild beast]

you need to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

"well regulated".. while that might mean nowadays "takes a shit at least once a day", back then it meant "well equipped".

but you are shiteaters and thus love shitting on America. HELL! your party - DEMOCRATS - was founded by the Ku Klux Klan!

you do realize Robert S. Byrd was a grand wizard or something of the KKK, right? i mean you shiteaters are shiteaters, right?

[600#gorilla]

you are pretty persistent.

..................and you say this as though you are not?

you are the contradictotorian of the world!

did i make up a word?

you are like the valedictorian of contradiction.

ignore,

whatever.

[skav]

The bitch has a point, wb. The language of that amendment suggests arms held in order to uphold the state. You could argue that arms used in self defense DO uphold the state, but that is a bit more reaching. As for the "well-regulated" bit, you're going to have to do better than point out that militia members were required to arm themselves.


I don't always disagree with you, but I do always think you poorly represent your position.

[600#gorilla]

+1

[wild beast]

skav, i appreciate your response. i was soliciting responses to find out if a broader spectrum of shiteaters hold the same beliefs as the "wise latina". and you certainly do.

hence, i am not here to DEBATE the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but merely to find out the personal beliefs of the liberal shiteaters herein

however your response is obtuse and narrow mindedly thought out (if you can call that thinking). you only take into the account the verbiage of the amendment, not the political, cultural, social and historical climate that gave birth to the Bill of Rights. it's like you are commenting on your breakfast, which prolly consists of Fruit Loops laden with 2% milk and a couple of Pop Tarts then commenting that "food sure is pretty" with no regard to the manufacturing processes that made and the source materials from which the food came from. NO CLUE.

while i don't know what #apeshit said, my presumption is that he wholeheartedly endorses your response and de facto the "wise latina's".

skav, you exclusively come on here with whimsical, fanciful ideology just like your icon does. it is not grounded. your words are both careless and capricious and on any given series of issues, your opinions bounce around arbitrarily.

by not taking into account WHY the amendment was written, you've missed the entire point of it. by using the verbiage as your main point of argument (i.e., agreement with the 'wise latina') AND using their meanings in modern context, not the period they were written, you have once again fallen on your "lil' boy" face.

but i am sure it was "dumbed-up" {intentionally or otherwise} enough to let #apeshit digest it - just like his bowl of Fruit Loops and Pop Tarts.

OK - not going to argue the 2nd Amendment. just want to know if you agree with what the "wise latina" wrote (and CLEARLY she believes herself to be smarter than the "icky" white men that wrote the damn thing!)

[skav]

I agree that her view isn't unfounded and that your ilk will have to do better than reference a nebulous past you swear agrees with your views.


Of course you're not here to debate anything. You aren't capable of understanding the weakness of your own viewpoints. Debate is an impossibility for you.

[600#gorilla]

you (WB) aren't capable of understanding the weakness of your own viewpoints. Debate is an impossibility for you.

wb has no viewpoints. only dogmas.

[600#gorilla]

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

i needs me some edjewmacation!

[wild beast]

skav, glad to see that you have ideas, that you think you believe you know how you formed those ideas and that you believe in those ideas which are your "beliefs". also, that they are in-line with the "wise latina's". i never thougth you were not a shiteater, i just wanted to see if you agreed with that particular instance of shiteaterism idealogy (you do).

since i got one shiteater on here to answer a currrent social/political question (and presumably another one "ditto" / "what he said"), let's go back to this one in which none of the local chickenshit shiteaters would touch:


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/13/ ... tml?hpt=T2

The superintendent has been targeting an ethnic studies curriculum in Tucson that he says "divided the kids into different races" -- African studies for African-Americans, "Raza" studies for Latino youths and Asian studies for Asians.

"In the Raza studies, they were teaching kids that the United States is oppressive, they were making them angry. They used a Marxist book, the 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed,' " he said.

Signed into law on Tuesday, the new legislation forbids classes "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" that advocate "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." It also forbids classes that "advocate ethnic solidarity" instead of treating pupils as individuals.

The measure has drawn criticism from educators and citizens who say the classes don't promote resentment.

does the steaming cauldron of shiteaters (or just one vocal turd) on here think the PUBLIC SCHOOL s/b doing this or do they feel this falls outside the boundaries of education (in China, Soviet Russia, this would be called "re-education").