NationStates Jolt Archive

Ardchoille, from your earlier post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012699&postcount=352

Since I cannot reply in thread, as per your request, I bring this to your attention:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065787&postcount=34

And what is this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14060692&postcount=1956

I won't, but that's because I'm just that annoying. I'm also that infuriated by now at the sheer notion of supporting a person that sings songs about bombing people over someone else because that someone else ran against the candidate of choice of a few.

John McCain, the person some of Clinton's poor little disaffected supporters now support (how dare that n*gger steal the nomination from her by running against her, eh? That's throwing her under the bus, I tell you! Unlike her, who simply said he's not a Muslim "as far as she knows" and used racism, which, by the whole bus analogy, might open a whole new can of worms. Hint, Rosa Parks got into trouble for her color, not for her gender) sang, off-key and giddily, a song about bombing human beings. To be a bit more graphic, let me tell you what bombs can do: They can blow members off, rendering a person unable to walk or manipulate objects for the rest of their lives, with phantom pains, including on children. A child victimized by such a bomb may come to ask if the hands they lost will grow back. Will the people who support the candidate singing the song in that video kindly tell them they do not? Of course, bombs may also simply kill, or maim. Human beings can live having the near entirety of their bodies deformed by second-degree burns after all. Or they might come unscathed, save for watching their friends and relatives die and suffer. But do go on, supporters of John McCain, and pretend he didn't sing a song about it, and didn't enjoy himself with such thoughts while he was at it. Furthermore, do go on pretending like John McCain is closer to Clinton than Obama. And after this big fat jug of doublethink, maybe you'll finally go on to admit you wouldn't vote for that "uppity n*gger", innit?
I wonder if those inbred racist morons in a few places will somehow find a way to send a noose to the White House when Obama is elected.

Edit: This post is directed to no one in this thread, I'm just venting.
Methinks that his disclaimer is bogus.

I also find it interesting that the only one referring to Obama as a n*gger in these threads is Heikoku.

PLEASE ONLY MODS TO REPLY

Edit: sorry for the misspelling of your name. :-(

Ardchoille, from your earlier post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012699&postcount=352

Since I cannot reply in thread, as per your request, I bring this to your attention:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065787&postcount=34

And what is this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14060692&postcount=1956


Methinks that his disclaimer is bogus.

I also find it interesting that the only one referring to Obama as a n*gger in these threads is Heikoku.

PLEASE ONLY MODS TO REPLY

Edit: sorry for the misspelling of your name. :-(

So, now, CH is the theme of every second-person pronoun usage in English? Gee, I wonder how we'll use pronouns to refer to any second person that isn't CH. I knew language changed, but didn't know it was that much and in such weird ways. Live and learn. I'm glad most of the works I translate are technical ones in which "you" doesn't tend to be used, or else there'd be no way to use "you" in any text without referring to CH. As for calling Obama a n*gger, I'm representing a position I believe to be in tandem with that of some people who don't want him elected, yes. A position which many, though not all, of the people who do not want to see Obama elected DO, indeed, hold.

So, now, CH is the theme of every second-person pronoun usage in English? Gee, I wonder how we'll use pronouns to refer to any second person that isn't CH. I knew language changed, but didn't know it was that much and in such weird ways. Live and learn. I'm glad most of the works I translate are technical ones in which "you" doesn't tend to be used, or else there'd be no way to use "you" in any text without referring to CH. As for calling Obama a n*gger, I'm representing a position I believe to be in tandem with that of some people who don't want him elected, yes. A position which many, though not all, of the people who do not want to see Obama elected DO, indeed, hold.
I guess you are just going to gloss over the first two links?

I guess you are just going to gloss over the first two links?

Considering that the first one is a tenuous case at best in which you came running to moderation because I asked you if you were gonna start going "Osama Obama", and that in the second post it was YOU who essentially made the claim that the shoe fits, I didn't really think they needed addressing.

Both of you, stop interacting with the other.

CanuckHeaven, grow some skin.

Once again, Fris has said everything I intended to say in about one-fifth of the time and space I was taking. Damn, I wish I could do that!

Both of you, stop interacting with the other.

CanuckHeaven, grow some skin.
I have not been interacting with him at all since we were both told not to. It appears that he can continue to do so without retribution.

He is the one that went past the stop sign and I'm the one that needs to grow some skin. Gotcha.

He is the one that went past the stop sign and I'm the one that needs to grow some skin. Gotcha.

You raised two points. I answered them both.

Both of you were encouraged to stop interacting.
Second person plural does not automatically mean you.

Quit wasting our time with your martyr routine. It's gotten old.

Once again, Fris has said everything I intended to say in about one-fifth of the time and space I was taking. Damn, I wish I could do that!

Yet you proceed to use twice the space Fris did to say that you need to use less space like Fris does.

True. But I'm gonna take remedial lessons at the John Wayne School of Brevity. Yup.

Think we're done here. iLock.