$500

The word "seem," in that instance, was most definitely 100% wussified. It's like saying "it seems like some politicians are corrupt, but we can't be sure."

And why are you still posting here?
 
Onceler said:
The word "seem," in that instance, was most definitely 100% wussified. It's like saying "it seems like some politicians are corrupt, but we can't be sure."

And why are you still posting here?
Click to expand...

its not wussified. you're just incapable of accepting view points that don't conform to your world view.

i'll post here as long as i want. you never actually found the link and the link nigel gaves is me JOKING and making fun of you for your stupid seem comments. if i actually accused you of being in favor of union money, i wouldn't have asked the question i did after that sentence. but you know this, you just love to play these dishonest games and twist what people say. you're a petulant brat.
 
Yurt said:
its not wussified. you're just incapable of accepting view points that don't conform to your world view.

i'll post here as long as i want. you never actually found the link and the link nigel gaves is me JOKING and making fun of you for your stupid seem comments. if i actually accused you of being in favor of union money, i wouldn't have asked the question i did after that sentence. but you know this, you just love to play these dishonest games and twist what people say. you're a petulant brat.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "accepting" a viewpoint. It's not some fringe theory that money corrupts politics. It's 100% fact, and has been for thousands of years of history. It does not "seem" to; it does.

And you are dishonest to keep posting here. As long as you're accepting of that...
 
Onceler said:
It's not a matter of "accepting" a viewpoint. It's not some fringe theory that money corrupts politics. It's 100% fact, and has been for thousands of years of history. It does not "seem" to; it does.

And you are dishonest to keep posting here. As long as you're accepting of that...
Click to expand...

how about its the PEOPLE who corrupt....

i'm perfectly honest posting here, you're perfectly dishonest by claiming i wasn't making fun of you....i even put the joke smilie after the comment. i'm not at all surprised you would lie about it. you can't even explain why i asked that question i did afterwards...because if you did, you would have to admit you lied about me actually claiming you support unions. i really fail to see why you enjoy lying so much.
 
Yurt said:
you don't have a horse, yet here you are repeatedly claiming the same bullshit and dishonestly cutting my sentence apart....if you leave the sentence intact, including the joke smilie, you will see i only said that to poke fun of onceler for his stupid view that the word "seem" is wussified.

i'm relaxed, its you who is having a hard time, for some odd your reason you have to dishonestly portray someone else's words by chopping the sentence up...you knew that if you didn't chop the sentence, then i never actually claimed it.

it would show class if you stopped dishonestly cutting my sentence apart. context means everything. i think you know that, else you would have left the entire sentence intact.
Click to expand...

No chop.

Yurt said:
i see...so no matter what, if your political opponents use actual words that have meaning, their wussified. no wonder you have issues reading. you ignore what words truly mean.

look, i don't know if it absolutely corrupts or not. it SEEMS like it. but what you're saying is, because i don't know 100%, its wussified. so if anyone has an opinion other than yours, their wussified.

where is your 100% proof that corporate money (ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...:awesome:) corrupts? if a union spent the same, is that corruption?
Click to expand...

Complete, and in context.

Man up, dude. If you can't raise the $500, why'd you make the challenge?
 
i've explained it over half a dozen times it was a joke, the smilie proves it and the entire context proves it...

if you want to be dishonest and ignore my explanations, have at it
 
lol...3 people is "everyone"....

obviously me, as i wrote it and know what i meant...you and nigel don't count as you both lie frequently when debating with me....booyah is just a freak who is a former poster...

anyways, like i said, i explained it over half a dozen times, if you want to dishonestly ignore my explanations, have at it
 
here are english words, i wonder if "everyone" can understand them

1joke noun \ˈjōk\
Definition of JOKE
1a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : kidding <can't take a joke> c : practical joke d : laughingstock
2: something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter <consider his skiing a joke — Harold Callender> —often used in negative constructions <it is no joke to be lost in the desert>
 
Yurt said:
nigel and onceler are liars....i clearly made the statement as a joke because onceler thinks the word "seems" isn't a real word



i clearly state that i am only saying he supports union money because he doesn't recognize the word "seem" as it is a wussified word. i would have said he "seems" to support union money, however, since he thinks the word doesn't count, i made a smartass comment to rib his stupidity about the word seem. further, my next sentence after this reenforces that i am not claiming he supports union money because i asked him if he believes union money corrupts.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that "seem" is not wussified...why would I even "seem" to support union money?

As for the last assertion, what does supporting union money have to do with a question about union money corrupting? If anything, your asking me if I think union money corrupts is a natural follow-up to the idea that I "seem" to support union money.

Face it - you stepped in it, and now you want to back out. You shouldn't be posting here anymore.
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's not what you said before. Why are you running away from this?
Click to expand...

How is that not what I said before?

See, your line of reasoning is an admission. If it's about "agreeing with Onceler," you never will, because you perceive me as a liberal.

If it's about "comprehending English"....well, that's another story. Why are you running away from the comprehension issue?
 
Onceler said:
How is that not what I said before?

See, your line of reasoning is an admission. If it's about "agreeing with Onceler," you never will, because you perceive me as a liberal.

If it's about "comprehending English"....well, that's another story. Why are you running away from the comprehension issue?
Click to expand...

I'm not running away from anything. Are you asserting that I don't comprehend the written language?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Take it up with Yurt. I'm not going to waste time tracking who said what because you're whining about a bet that you didn't make.
Click to expand...

I was taking it up with Yurt, when you interjected. I assumed based on your tone & what you wrote that you knew who said what.

Apparently not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top