Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="qutorial" data-source="post: 561448" data-attributes="member: 555411">Despite the overwhelming amount of things that were flawed and not logically analyzed in your post (ie bullshit), I will only focus on a few of the issues I feel you need to be corrected on gauntlet.First of all, I would like to point out that your entire response post was bullshit, yet you dress it up in fancy, non daily language to make it appear like you know what you're talking about, or that it is correct or valid.OPEN YOUR EYES. You said this:...again, if you were anywhere in the US anytime in the past few years, or you read this thread, you should understand that Bush spent a ****load of money on the war. GET IT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Yet you used the deficit problem in your arguments to defend Bush:The point is that Bush will put us further and further into debt more than Kerry will if he is elected. That IS pretty simple. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I hope so, I wouldn't want you posting more nonsense because you can't understand that what you are saying. There are plenty of tax cuts for them elsewhere. There are many loopholes and allies in congress that let businesses pay vastly lower taxes than they should. Don't pretend it isn't a problem.I didn't say I detest taxes. I think it is selfish to not pay what you owe to your government and to help better the community.In case you are a dipshit like my buddy sly gauntlet over here and you can't comprehend a general idea, I'll explain. I said this:I was speaking generally here. Speaking generally means that you refer to something in a broad sense, and in this case, I refer to anything George Bush is being a stubborn *** on. If the president is wrong, he needs to stop doing what is wrong and fix it, not continue to do it because he thought that it was right at one time.Here is another simple concept (a hypothetical scenario, in this case, that is by no means meant to be taken literally, and only means to clarify another group's viewpoint) that gauntlet does not understand.  It's ok buddy, we'll help you understand it if it's too hard for you on your own. I said this:This is supposed to make you understand the situation or see the situation from the world's viewpoint. Also, Iraq was in no way, shape or form a threat to us. Anything old Saddam could have thrown at us (assuming we would not already have prevented it) we could deal back tenfold. He would have been destroyed if he had tried to attack us. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. Period. Argue that, please. I would also like to reiterate that Kerry supposedly flip flopping (which isn't really an issue at all) on spending is no comparison to changing your reason for shifting the focus of the war on terror to an unrelated country, and then changing your reason for going there completely. HYPOCRISY:Try this one out:This would not be an issue if George had not ****ed everything up. This again goes back to spending and the deficit. Get a clue; most of this could have been solved if you had understood the deficit and spending problems.As you can see, gauntlet has little ability to form logical thoughts, or analyze concepts and ideas. Well, that's all for now. As for you gauntlet, you should join some kind of mental retardation clinic...and learn the basics again. BYE BYE.</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list