Bennett91
Bennett91's Forum Posts

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 9:12:13 AM, Procrastine wrote:
At 12/9/2016 9:04:17 AM, Cubswin wrote:
What can you say to leaders of nations that purposely and deliberately invite terrorists into their nation??? They are trying to destroy their own nation obviously,.. it's national suicide and it is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the Free World!

I'm surprised the guillotines have not been brought out yet. There is a right wing revolution taking place worldwide right now and the liberal left will be lucky to survive it. Liberal is a cancerous, ugly word now and anyone associated with it are branded as traitors... and rightfully so

I am convinced at this point... that most Americans want to see liberals deported as they are traitors and have zero patriotism or any sense of nationality. They simply exist to make money with no love of nation

The left are globalists that are subservient to and worship of the Beast! The left is Satanic and anti-Jew

See, this is the sort of comment I assumed was trolling before the election result. Is it sarcastic or do you really mean what you say?

I got $5 on him being serious.
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 5:09:15 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 4:55:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

And what does it mean to be German that is so inaccessible to brown people born in Germany?

How about being ethnically German? I could never be German either and I'm not brown.

So if you moved to Germany as a permanent resident and had children there, your children could never be German either? Even if they embraced the culture?

Indeed I do. The US hasn't been destroyed, we're still here.

What has transpired exceeds the founders worst fears of democracy.

Repeated for posterity: The US still exists and your complaints about the changing society is a romanticization, longing for a crueler more bigoted era.

The conflict being that the predecessor ethnicity was bigoted towards incoming migrants perpetuating marginalization and the problems associated with it. But today we can see that the Germans, Irish, Chinese etc. have not destroyed the US but added to it.

They CHANGED the US. You can call that "adding to" but I guarantee you that no 18th century American would find it a worthy or beneficial change. They changed it to be more like the society they wanted, not the one the previous population wanted...and indeed the native born resisted mass immigration at every turn. Because it's a bad idea.

Yea many 18th century Americans also didn't want slavery to end or women to vote. You say conservatism is about preserving the "good" - that is clearly false, it's about preserving the stats quo regardless of changing trends, regardless of the flaws involved.

When was the last European street brawl in the US?

It continued into the early 20th century, mostly ending around the time of the two world wars. That's the blink of an eye. It was stopped by policies such as the ones I listed below, which you would never implement.

You rely on hyperbole too much and you can't even provide a source.

They move on their own because they don't want to be surrounded by a hostile, foreign people. People want to live with others like themselves and naturally self-segregate.

Hostile? What a loaded racist assumption to make about immigrants. It's the same racist assumption whites made in the 50's that kept blacks from moving to their neighborhoods. Segregation doesn't improve a community, being in an isolated bubble does not improve a community.

Because of pressures like mass immigration the US suffers from a lot of social decay and atomization and always has...this country is largely composed of rootless cosmopolitans willing to move halfway across the country for a pay raise because they have no connection to the land, no long term friends, and little extended family.

This has nothing to do with immigrants.

Obviously you didn't read the argument. Demographic pressures (and forced integration--think things like busing) provide a ton of perverse incentives to never set up roots.

Busing, are you kidding me? Busing wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the force segregation of Jim Crow laws and red lining practices. Racists not wanting blacks in their school is not a cause for pity or support. In fact busing did as it was suppose to do - it improved the grades of black students while not harming that of whites [https://www.washingtonpost.com...] [http://www.ascd.org...]. Also it contributed to less racist atmosphere where other types of people could meet and learn that they aren't so different. Exposing people to other cultures reduces racism and feelings of bigotry - your solution merely promotes it. And I don't think you care about that.

To the extent that assimilation was achieved, it was only through the kind of extreme brutality that would never fly today, especially in Europe. Mercilessly beating any child caught speaking a language other than English, cruelly and cold heartedly mocking/disparaging other cultures, literally bulldozing ethnic neighborhoods, ect.

There are more enlightened ways to integrate a foreign population - the main difference being that instead of demonizing/erasing differences we strive for mutual understanding.

Like what?

Seriously, like what? If you don't FORCE them to abandon their native culture, why would they? It's a HUGE and frankly unfair thing to expect from someone.

Immigrants don't have to abandon their culture, they just have to embrace the existential values of the home country. There are ways to integrate both foreigner an and natives to foster a more cohesive society. Exposure to other cultures does reduce feelings of animosity - it rewires learned apprehensions in the brain. [http://www.strategicleadershipinstitute.net...] Some European countries have muslim immigrants take cultural classes to teach the language and customs of society, that's a great start. Another part is to stop fear mongering on the part of the natives, understand that the vast majority are trying to escape war, not conquer. This kind of cultural conversation most definitely needs to happen for everyone involved but especially in rural areas because that where most prejudice lies and that's where the most land to move immigrants is.

Genuine conversations about race can be very powerful in creating understanding and easing tensions, the Color of Fear goes into this to bring understanding on both sides []. Racism is learned and it does caused justified indignation in those targeted [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]

2nd, Europeans came to the US with the explicit intention of conquest and did so violently - unlike today's Mexican and Muslim immigrants.

...what? No they didn't.

Wow so those flags being put down in North and South America weren't about land?

The war between the puritans and the indians was started by the indians. The relationship between the settlers and the native Americans was complex, but yes they didn't come to assimilate.

They came for native lands in the name of sending limited resources to European kings. That's what colonies do. http://www.legendsofamerica.com...

The same thing is true of far more immigrant groups than you would willingly admit, who view the US as a giant cash register--and who could blame them? For many Mexican immigrants there is indeed a triumphalist narrative surrounding their arrival in this country. The reconquista of the lands taken in the Mexican-American war

Citation needed.

And if you think things are any better in Europe you're totally off base. There's DEFINITELY a conquest narrative there.

The only place I hear that from is scared whites afraid of terrorist propaganda.

That's not a matter of sovereignty.

It isn't? If one population can mass rape the girls of another population with no consequence, who is in charge?

You see, the way you talk as if the entire muslim pop is doing this. You have no context for the fact whites also engage is child sex trafficking in the UK. It's not an immigrant issue but you want it to be. [http://www.thedailybeast.com...]

Nobody called for genocide. Either Germany (and other western nations) will forcibly expel their foreign populations or they will cease to exist. This is a fact that deeply depresses me, it's not a call to action

You continue to insist there are only 2 options - extinction or violence. It's not a fact it's moronic.

I'll change my mind when you give a compelling solution.

I don't think you would.
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 4:02:17 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 3:37:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

The low birth rates of Germany has nothing to do with foreigners. Like Japan it's part of the culture, part of the high cost of living in western society and most importantly low infant mortality rate. Those workers have to be imported because of the market demand. Don't like it? Blame Western society.

I do.

So you blame the capitalist free market value that underpin conservative philosophy? Do you think Trump would do any better when he himself imports immigrants using worker visas?

But what can be said is once those migrants do get to Europe they'll be under similar birth constraints. They won't be able to afford giving birth to an average of 5 or 8 kids to out pace the native pop.

It takes a while for those constraints to kick in and lower the birthrate. If you have mass immigration to a country in demographic decline you'd be surprised at how quickly demographic shifts can occur.

In terms of hostility, as YYW points out the Turks have actually done a decent job adapting - showing Islam is not antithetical to western values. Germany has engaged in a humanitarian mission, they are trying to save lives that would be lost in Syria or other war torn areas. Yes there are obvious set backs and crime, but I'm willing to bet more refugees are grateful and not engaging in heinous crimes.

How long can you do that until your people are destroyed? War or genocide are the only things that can stop it because millions of muslims already live in the west, and indeed hold de-facto sovereignty over parts of the west and would have to be forcibly dislodged. This is why it probably won't happen--welcome to Islamic Europe.

Again you're insisting extreme violence is the only answer. There are other less extreme methods, some more 'hands on' than others but killing people is not the answer.

It isn't. There is no answer. Germany is gone.

Hyperbole. Nothing more.

Germany is more than the color of it's people skin. Nothing is being destroyed, that's alt right tribal thinking; culture inevitably changes over time and it's very possible that brown people can enjoy German things and carry on and add to said traditions.

Only ethnic Germans can carry the mantle of Germany. The idea that Germany would still be Germany if it was repopulated with Turks is self evidently absurd. The GERMAN part of GERMANY is important.

And what does it mean to be German that is so inaccessible to brown people born in Germany?

Germany IS much more than the color of it's peoples skin. If the Germans were replaced by the French or the Swedes it wouldn't be Germany either.

Take the US for example, every time a new group came to our shores they've been accused of undermining American values, from the Germans to the Irish to the Chinese to the Mexicans to the Muslims it's a repeating pattern of fear and bigotry that in the end has no come to fruition and in fact has strengthened our country.

You actually believe this?

Indeed I do. The US hasn't been destroyed, we're still here.

I don't want to talk about immigration to the US because I've beaten it to death on this forum (without ever getting a good response), but suffice to say that it is not at all what you think. Each successive wave of immigration has moved the country away from what the people living there before would've wanted, and immigrants brought a lot of social conflict.

The conflict being that the predecessor ethnicity was bigoted towards incoming migrants perpetuating marginalization and the problems associated with it. But today we can see that the Germans, Irish, Chinese etc. have not destroyed the US but added to it.

Street battles between different European ethnicities only stopped fairly recently.

When was the last European street brawl in the US?

Hundreds of thousands of neighborhoods all across the country have been depopulated and repopulated with each successive immigration wave, destroying social capital built up over generations and resulting in a constant demographic churn.

It's the depopulation that causes the destruction of social capital, not the repopulation. The immigrants aren't the ones driving out the native population., they move on their own.

Because of pressures like mass immigration the US suffers from a lot of social decay and atomization and always has...this country is largely composed of rootless cosmopolitans willing to move halfway across the country for a pay raise because they have no connection to the land, no long term friends, and little extended family.

This has nothing to do with immigrants.

To the extent that assimilation was achieved, it was only through the kind of extreme brutality that would never fly today, especially in Europe. Mercilessly beating any child caught speaking a language other than English, cruelly and cold heartedly mocking/disparaging other cultures, literally bulldozing ethnic neighborhoods, ect.

There are more enlightened ways to integrate a foreign population - the main difference being that instead of demonizing/erasing differences we strive for mutual understanding.

Mass immigration has never benefited the host population. Ask the Native Americans about it.

2 things, 1st the US still exists and your complaints about the changing society is a romanticization longing for a crueler more bigoted era. 2nd, Europeans came to the US with the explicit intention of conquest and did so violently - unlike today's Mexican and Muslim immigrants.

You reference no go zones, yes? Those have been widely overblown.
Fox News Apologizes for No Go Zone claims: http://www.nytimes.com...
Even the Blaze has retracted their claims: http://www.theblaze.com...

I'm talking about scandals like Rotherham where muslim gangs raped 1400 children over 15 years and the hapless police did nothing. If that's not control, I don't know what is.

That's not a matter of sovereignty. Like I said we can prosecute them without saying they're representative of Islam. Even Muslims in Britain are disgusted by it. http://www.express.co.uk...

We can acknowledge heinous crimes and seek to prosecute those responsible without typecasting all Muslims/refugees as criminals, thugs, pedophiles and terrorists and we can do it especially without resorting to calls for genocide.

Nobody called for genocide. Either Germany (and other western nations) will forcibly expel their foreign populations or they will cease to exist. This is a fact that deeply depresses me, it's not a call to action

You continue to insist there are only 2 options - extinction or violence. It's not a fact it's moronic.
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 3:08:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 3:04:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:49:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:19:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:09:32 AM, Vaarka wrote:
"People were violently attacked! This is a good thing!"

What I got from the OP ^

"Unless a major war or genocide happens, Merkel literally destroyed the German people forever." -Thet

Alt right thinking 101: the final and apparently only solution.

Liberal thinking 101: acknowledging something means you support it

I didn't say you necessarily supported it, I just "acknowledged" how your myopic frame of things is myopic. You're retarded if you think the German people are destroyed forever, or that war and genocide are practical solutions to the problem.

What do you think happens if your people don't reproduce and you import hostile foreigners en masse to replace your non existent native workers?

The low birth rates of Germany has nothing to do with foreigners. Like Japan it's part of the culture, part of the high cost of living in western society and most importantly low infant mortality rate. Those workers have to be imported because of the market demand. Don't like it? Blame Western society. But what can be said is once those migrants do get to Europe they'll be under similar birth constraints. They won't be able to afford giving birth to an average of 5 or 8 kids to out pace the native pop.

In terms of hostility, as YYW points out the Turks have actually done a decent job adapting - showing Islam is not antithetical to western values. Germany has engaged in a humanitarian mission, they are trying to save lives that would be lost in Syria or other war torn areas. Yes there are obvious set backs and crime, but I'm willing to bet more refugees are grateful and not engaging in heinous crimes.

How long can you do that until your people are destroyed? War or genocide are the only things that can stop it because millions of muslims already live in the west, and indeed hold de-facto sovereignty over parts of the west and would have to be forcibly dislodged. This is why it probably won't happen--welcome to Islamic Europe.

Again you're insisting extreme violence is the only answer. There are other less extreme methods, some more 'hands on' than others but killing people is not the answer. Germany is more than the color of it's people skin. Nothing is being destroyed, that's alt right tribal thinking; culture inevitably changes over time and it's very possible that brown people can enjoy German things and carry on and add to said traditions. Take the US for example, every time a new group came to our shores they've been accused of undermining American values, from the Germans to the Irish to the Chinese to the Mexicans to the Muslims it's a repeating pattern of fear and bigotry that in the end has no come to fruition and in fact has strengthened our country.

You reference no go zones, yes? Those have been widely overblown.
Fox News Apologizes for No Go Zone claims: http://www.nytimes.com...
Even the Blaze has retracted their claims: http://www.theblaze.com...

We can acknowledge heinous crimes and seek to prosecute those responsible without typecasting all Muslims/refugees as criminals, thugs, pedophiles and terrorists and we can do it especially without resorting to calls for genocide.
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 2:49:07 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:19:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:09:32 AM, Vaarka wrote:
"People were violently attacked! This is a good thing!"

What I got from the OP ^

"Unless a major war or genocide happens, Merkel literally destroyed the German people forever." -Thet

Alt right thinking 101: the final and apparently only solution.

Liberal thinking 101: acknowledging something means you support it

I didn't say you necessarily supported it, I just "acknowledged" how your myopic frame of things is myopic. You're retarded if you think the German people are destroyed forever, or that war and genocide are practical solutions to the problem.
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 2:27:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:19:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2016 2:09:32 AM, Vaarka wrote:
"People were violently attacked! This is a good thing!"

What I got from the OP ^

"Unless a major war or genocide happens, Merkel literally destroyed the German people forever." -Thet

Alt right thinking 101: the final and apparently only solution.

doesn't exist

Lol starts a thread to criticize liberal denialism; engages in right wing denialism. If the alt right doesn't exist, even though people self identify as it, how would you characterize thets opinion?
Forums Home > Politics

Sweden Yes!Posted 3 years Ago

At 12/9/2016 2:09:32 AM, Vaarka wrote:
"People were violently attacked! This is a good thing!"

What I got from the OP ^

"Unless a major war or genocide happens, Merkel literally destroyed the German people forever." -Thet

Alt right thinking 101: the final and apparently only solution.
Forums Home > Politics

Walter Scott IncidentPosted 3 years Ago

At 12/6/2016 5:30:40 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
White privilege apparently is only checked against a black victim.

It runs far deeper than that and you know it.


It does and it doesn't.

I'm surprised you'd even concede it does at all.

I am not going to deny that some racists exists.

How do you know they exist?

Me getting the benefit of the doubt or not getting looked at side ways when I enter a convenience store isn't because I am white.

It plays a part.

So a white homeless guy is going to get the same privilege? (apples to apples, and right now, that only apple is "white", here)

When race is the same other factors are obviously what come into play in terms of treatment. Get serious. Apples to apples mean you compare similar things - when the races are different you compare similar economics. Simple science "bro". Had you read my succes maybe you'd understand.

Its because I don't carry a threatening posture, its because I present myself in an open and friendly manner, its because I talk in an easily understood, usually slang-free method, its because I take pains to look like a functioning member of society.

Key phrase there "look like a functioning member of society."

No other key phrases? THAT is what you wanted to focus on?

Seeing how it encompasses everything you just said encapsulated into a simple phrase - yes. At least for this section of response. But you really don't seem to understand.

That right there is chalk full of normative assumptions. There are many functioning members of society that aren't given that benefit of the doubt, race being the most noticeable factor. [http://money.cnn.com...]

Race contributes to the economic factors that would support ones ability to dress in a more acceptable manner. It's well know through job and loan application studies that POC are at a disadvantage. [http://www.politifact.com...] [https://www.bostonglobe.com...]

Agree, so money seems to be a theme here.

... Seriously? Reading comprehension, use it. Read the sources. Race takes precedent over economics - it is a factor that excludes minority from economic resources. That's why we see wealth mostly along rational lines . That's why my sources are showing race is the factor that influence economics - not the circular logic you seem trapped in where economics begets economies. Look at the history of this country for gods sake. Look at how policing practices and the war on drugs perpetuates poverty and largely operates disproportionately along racial lines EVEN AFTER factoring crime rates.

Even little things you wouldn't think of, like receiving medical attention are influenced by race. [http://www.pbs.org...] [http://www.nursingworld.org...]

So still keeping the money theme, here....

You're not even reading the sources. Money wasn't even mentioned! Not a factor!! Seriously.

Why is it all these white homeless dudes have no privilege?

Lets compare apples to apples.

"White" to "White", bro. Its not a very effective privilege if only certain whites get it.

... Jesus man you don't even know what apples to apples means. If you want to compare white people to each other in terms of anything then you look at other socioeconomic factors - race wouldn't be a factor in that case - there are other forms of privilege than just race. But when you compare different races you have to look at similar economic situations. If you had bothered to read the studies provided they take these factors into account, and all things the same besides race we consistently find blacks and Latinos are treated worse than whites. Do you think it's because they're too thuggish? They walk and talk funny and don't look socially acceptable?

They have a racial advantage compared to black homeless people - and blacks make up a disproportionate amount of homeless people [http://citylimits.org...]. And as I've already noted it's easier to get a housing loan if you're white.

Still keeping with the money theme, it seems.

... you keep living in that bubble.

Why is it all these white biker-types have no privilege?

Who says they don't have privilege?

... I can't imagine why you didn't lead with this about the homeless whites. ;)

There's a lot of things going on in this country you can't imagine.

Its not about skin color. What we are observing is whether or not the perks of living in a Huuuuuge social contract are worth extending to those around us, and those that have the semblance of honoring said contract are given that benefit of the doubt.

Again, there's a whole heeping helping of assumptions you're not looking at. As if what a coincidence that statistically racial minorities don't seem to have the 'semblance' of honoring said contract it must be their fault ignoring the historical barriers of the past that play into the present.

Minorities like the eastern (Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Taiwanese)?

Do you think their experience invalidates the experience of the larger minority groups? Do you think the argument you're trying to make, that because Asians experience less racism that must mean other races racism is over blown?

White privilege works really well when black or latino is the basis for comparison. Its not about minorities, its about specific minorities that get smeared for the worse actions of those in their demographic, because that demographic, for whatever reason, disproportionately has a higher rate of things that don't work well in society. Crime being the most prominent.

For what ever reason seriously you're not even trying. Why do you think that is? We know there's a correlation between poverty and crime - why do you think blacks and latinos are disproportionately poor? Think historically. Think cyclically.

You apparently have no appreciation of what it means to be given the benefit of the doubt,

Aside from the fact I literally outlined what I do to try an encourage it?

I see no outline. Mere you repeating assumptions about 'economics' and 'whaddabout the asians' while you ignore the data I've presented that clearly indicates race is a factor.

to be treated as an equal. You don't seem to appreciate how racism compounds and crushes out hope leading to a cycle of disparity.

I can appreciate it without buying into victim mentality.

I don't think you can, even without the appeal to victimhood.

[http://www.mintpressnews.com...]

Do you ever wonder why so many black people talk about racism? Do you think they're just making it up?

In some cases? Ab-so-lutely. Racism accusations are beautiful things, it immediately puts the onus back on the accused as opposed to possibly bettering oneself to find what the circumstances for failure might have been.

The thing about racism is regardless if a person betters themselves racism still remains a barrier. Racists don't care about how well adjusted a minority is.
Forums Home > Politics

Walter Scott IncidentPosted 3 years Ago

At 12/6/2016 2:49:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/6/2016 1:11:58 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/6/2016 12:56:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You say all this yet you reject the concept of white privilege ... where's the disconnect??


Where everyone falls over themselves over a white cop shooting a stoned out PCP addled dude that parks his car in the middle of the road and shouts its going to blow up as a victim, and where a guy has a gun on him, gets out of the car, the narrative is that he was holding a book, and everyone falls over themselves to make him a victim, too.


White privilege apparently is only checked against a black victim.

It runs far deeper than that and you know it.


It does and it doesn't.

I'm surprised you'd even concede it does at all.

Me getting the benefit of the doubt or not getting looked at side ways when I enter a convenience store isn't because I am white.

It plays a part.

Its because I don't carry a threatening posture, its because I present myself in an open and friendly manner, its because I talk in an easily understood, usually slang-free method, its because I take pains to look like a functioning member of society.

Key phrase there "look like a functioning member of society." That right there is chalk full of normative assumptions. There are many functioning members of society that aren't given that benefit of the doubt, race being the most noticeable factor. [http://money.cnn.com...]

Race contributes to the economic factors that would support ones ability to dress in a more acceptable manner. It's well know through job and loan application studies that POC are at a disadvantage. [http://www.politifact.com...] [https://www.bostonglobe.com...]

Even little things you wouldn't think of, like receiving medical attention are influenced by race. [http://www.pbs.org...] [http://www.nursingworld.org...]

Why is it all these white homeless dudes have no privilege?

Lets compare apples to apples. They have a racial advantage compared to black homeless people - and blacks make up a disproportionate amount of homeless people [http://citylimits.org...]. And as I've already noted it's easier to get a housing loan if you're white.

Why is it all these white biker-types have no privilege?

Who says they don't have privilege?

Its not about skin color. What we are observing is whether or not the perks of living in a Huuuuuge social contract are worth extending to those around us, and those that have the semblance of honoring said contract are given that benefit of the doubt.

Again, there's a whole heeping helping of assumptions you're not looking at. As if what a coincidence that statistically racial minorities don't seem to have the 'semblance' of honoring said contract it must be their fault ignoring the historical barriers of the past that play into the present.

You apparently have no appreciation of what it means to be given the benefit of the doubt, to be treated as an equal. You don't seem to appreciate how racism compounds and crushes out hope leading to a cycle of disparity. [http://www.mintpressnews.com...]

Do you ever wonder why so many black people talk about racism? Do you think they're just making it up?
Forums Home > Politics

Atheists being introduced to RealityPosted 3 years Ago

At 12/6/2016 2:10:48 PM, ethang5 wrote:

If you think I'll stop you from being stupid, you're gonna be surprised. Be as stupid as you like. You've been stellar thus far.

It takes 2 to tango.

Worry isn't the word I'd use.

Vocabularies can be increased you know. Learn.

You under the impression I care about showing of diction.

But even children's retorts can have validity, case and point.

So was there a risk of you sounding immature? You did, and still do sound immature. Sheltered. Living in the basement of mom's house. Gender confused.

Now the first 2 I can see, typical internet troll fodder. But where is the gender confusion angle coming from? Really it makes me think your repression runs much deeper than anticipated.

Ha like you're anything akin to royalty.

lol. Whats akin to royalty?

Akin is a word meaning 'similar' https://www.merriam-webster.com...

lol. Ok, what's similar to royalty?

It's funny, you call Faustian dishonest,....

I call him sleazy. He's way past run-the-mill dishonesty.

You're a match made in heaven no doubt.

...but ....... perhaps you're not blind - just willfully retarded.

lol. Beginning to regret that "blind retardation" stupidity huh? And you think "willfully retarded" is less idiotic? Do you know what retarded means?

Who said anything about regret? You're the one who plans to pull a dictionary out of his @ss and brag about how dumb I must be because I redundantly use the retarded as in 'hindered' along with blind which is already a hindrance - but little does the thumper know that one can be mentally retarded while metaphoracally blind to such. Oh what a tangled web I weave it's hard to keep up.

I said: We? Does being a militant theist douche make one plural?

Then you said: No, but royalty will. And you aren't a theist.

To which I essentially responded you're nothing akin to royalty.

And then I asked you, what is "akin" to royalty? You autistically defined "akin" as "similar". So then I repeated the question with your word of choice. Whats "similar" to royalty? You spazed out.

I suppose it's my fault for assuming you didn't have Alzheimers and I assumed you'd remember the part that you referred to yourself using the royal We. I know it must be hard to keep up. Pitying an old man surely isn't funny.

Let's. Because you use militant to insult every atheist that disagrees with you - it's pathological.

Only the aggressively stupid atheists are called militant. Religious boards just seem to be catnip for them that is all. The real world doesn't have such a high density of the morons I assure you.

And I see you're attracted to religious boards as well and play along quite well.

Should I post an irrelevant video explaining such - or is that your domain of stupidity?

You are welcome to any domain of stupidity which tickles you. Which domain do you currently command?

Why thanks for the welcome, that's why I'm here in a thread you started.

You're here to post an irrelevant video in your domain of stupidity? Please don't. Start your own thread.

No no dumb dumb, I'm here in your domain.

Does it feel weird for you not being in a domain of stupidity?

I'm used to talking to religious people in their domain.

Not if you keep annoying the forum with your blind retardation.

lol. The burden of trying to make insulting quips with a poor vocab. "Blind retardation"?? Funny. You won't get it but never mind.

If I missed bashing you by a mile, how come you're here whining like you've been bashed?

Whining? Like I said, this is for the lulz.

Thanks. Your whining does elicit lolz.

That fact you think it's whining is the real source of lols. You have to project a tone from text in order to feel better? As Trump would say, SAD!

...sex and gender are 2 different things.

You would know Pat.

Lol is that suppose to mean something? I know you're referring to the androgynous tv show character....

lol. Is her name Pat too? BTW, which do you prefer to be referred to as? Her or him?

Wait so you didn't know where 'Pat' as a term came from? You just threw that out there thinking it would trigger something and you didn't even know it's origin? How did you even know what it meant? Man you're dumb, yet functional.

....but if you're going to pretend responses have to be clever then you should really try harder.

Well. I don't want to actually break you. You may mentally handicapped. Even I would hesitate on beating up a cripple.

Ha. Yea classic narcissist thinks he can 'break' people over the internet.

I mean having basic knowledge about human sexuality makes me Pat? How repressed are you?

And you've had lots of practice haven't you? No, you were probably born a Pat. Would account for the unfocused anger and self-loathing.

Practice learning? I guess that would be a source of insult from a sexuality repressed bible thumper. But really where is the desire for me to be androgynous coming from? Is this conversation stirring up feelings in you that you feel more comfortable getting b!tch slapped by a genderless internet figure? That's deep repression you got their.

And seeing how both sexes are capable of masturbating I don't see what that depends on. Unless by 'explore your gender' you mean something akin to cross dressing,

(ding! ding! ding!)

Is that the noise you make when you tap out from your wife using the strap on?

You were right about someone coming unhinged, just wrong about who.

It's your wife then? Does she unhinge the cage that she keeps you in inbetween bible sessions?

Do you ever get tired of being confused?

......, yes.

Then do something about it man, Err....M'aam......person? There is no need to remain in confusion.

No really, where is genderless aspect coming from. Did a priest touch you? It's ok, you're still a big boy, he didn't make you any less of a person.

But oh no, you're the 'royal we' with the clever quips.

C'mon 91, that one burned you. You thought you had scored with the wife thing and I whipped a 360 on you and pimp-slapped you with a living-in-your-moms-basement-gender-fluid-masturbating-loser thing. Give up the props dude, you know they're due.

I can't tell if you're self aware enough to use memes. You do realize a 360 is not reversing course right? Also you never mentioned a basement or gender fluidity if not masturbation.

ROFL!! We may have an authentic autistic here.

Ummm being aware that 360 isn't a 180 makes me autistic? Right right. Pretty low standards you got there.

An anal retentive too.

It's preferable to whatever syndrome you have.

Hey Forrest, what do you see in this series of numbers? 3875563958268354989898989

The number of bibles you've thumped.

Nope, you were off by 2. You aren't rainman, you're just stupid.

Now that's a 180!

No I figured you being a narcissist douche by thinking you know anything about me was enough to validate my above points. It was fun though.

Eh this new autistic angle is working for ya - projecting just makes you look bad ya know?

Dude, you were having conniptions about 360 and 180! You could use a clue.

Yea this whole projection about me being flustered is only 'between your ears'. You did a 360 with a pimp slap, unless you're a cool skater bro you come off as retarded.

Do you have an irrational fear of vegetables?

Only if they've been left in a room alone with you.

Why would you ever be left in a room alone with me

#pizzagate
Forums Home > Religion

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.