Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Officers beating people, deserting their posts, and now "looting" allegations!!

This type of behavior didn't develop in these Officers overnight. It was brought on by the gradual corruption of many police forces over the years.

The lowering of standards for one to become a Police Officer is part of the problem. Many officers who are on forces now are actually "criminals" themselves.

Still..these officers are just small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. The real problems are with the corrupt politicians/systems/ and authority figures that assist in enlisting them.

So with all these degenerates floating about in authoritative posistions, Who do we..the common people have to support us when catastrophic events occur? And who will police the police when they happen?

Bump.

Well corruption is everywhere...and all the way to the top..

This only proves the lack of morality in our society today. In no time else in history were people as malevolent as now. Maybe AS malevolent, but not in such strong numbers..

The simple truth is, leave'em there. SpellJammer would've never given a penny to help these katerina victims in the first place. Screw them, they knew the risks involved in staying, now let them handle the chaos and the depravity. SpellJammer is sure they're radioactive messes anyway, they may as well live in that primitive hell-hole for the rest of thier very short lives.. And use it as an example of anarchy in this day of age. Because people today are too stupid to wield anarchy properly..

media?

Originally posted by finti
media?

Well that would work, if they are allowed to film....It was sad though with that big concert in Africa that the money sent was taken from the people and strengthened the government, so I have read...

The majority of cops are good. The bad ones get the most media attention.

My Uncle was a Sargent...and OHHHHHhhh what a great collection of guns he had......He kept the ones he thought were cool...

My dad's cousin is a Major. He seems really uptight, but other than that he's alright.

make up your mind

I mean, I don't mind talking to the guy for a few minutes but I wouldn't want to head down to the pub with him!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes- Juvenal.

Bump. Come on..you all can give more responses than that...

OK...Here's the deal....People only want to become cops because they can get away with driving really really fast and not get a ticket...

Don't bump threads with no new content just for the heck of it. If there are no responses that is the way of it.

There are plenty of mechanisms that regulate the police. If you say they are failing just because some police are still bad, that's like saying all police are failures because there are still criminals. It's silly logic.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't bump threads with no new content just for the heck of it. If there are no responses that is the way of it.


Look everybody..we have a new junior moderator...

Actually I bumped it because there was another thread that was opened after my own, regarding the same topic.



Explain.



Incidents like the one described in the article happen all to often in the United States. Many Officers adhere to an unwritten "Code" which enables any criminal acts commited by them to go unpunished. It's "silly" to trivialize an obvious problem..particularly when one doesn't even give an adequate explanation/description of what "mechanisms" are in place to remedy said problem.

Hey, maybe if no one posts in this thread we can set some new record for the thread with the most posts in a row with the word "bump" in it.

Don't give me that 'junior moderator' crap. I am perfectly at liberty to point out misuse such as pointless bumping and seeing as I am one of the oldest mods here- the oldest active mod other thn Raz, in fact- I think you will find I actually have some pull in these matters.

There are always organisations in western police forces whose job it is to 'Police the Police' and they work upon an independant basis of prmotion by results only- internal affairs workers who find nothing get nothing, hence they always work their ass off to find something. If anything they are too ready to make false cases to get promotion- but they still have to pass reasonable standards of evidence.

I don't see why I should have to have posted that, though, seeing as it is perfectly open informaton that such things exist; I may as well have blasted you for not defining your part of the problem- you make very broad statements with no backing evidence other than a single incident which could easily be an aberration, and even if it wasn't is not indicative of a failure of police-police.

The problem is not being trivialised- but you could easily exaggerate it.

There ARE some places where control of the police is inadequate but huge efforts are always made to combat this. Not all will succeed, but again, the lack of total success does not represent some kind of systematic failure like you imply.

In fact, in all Western countires, police forces are generally considered to be cleaner now than they ever have been.

Ahhhhh the age old question . 'Who watches the watchmen'

Originally posted by grey fox
Ahhhhh the age old question . 'Who watches the watchmen'

Apparently, it's Ush who watches the watchmen.

I've heard Roosters are pretty mean too......

Originally posted by debbiejo
I've heard Roosters are pretty mean too......


Who watches the cocks?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Who watches the cocks?


Roosters are cocks.....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't give me that 'junior moderator' crap. I am perfectly at liberty to point out misuse such as pointless bumping and seeing as I am one of the oldest mods here- the oldest active mod other thn Raz, in fact- I think you will find I actually have some pull in these matters.


The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands.



And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?

Unfortunately, not every solution to a problem can be derived from what's written in a textbook or what you've learned from your University Civics Class. In fact..much knowledge that we gain in life is received from the experiences that we go through..I believe this type of knowledge is given the label "Practical."

Have you ever had several Cops stop you on the street for doing nothing other than walking home from the club or bar? Have you ever been tasered or beaten by a police officer for doing nothing other then running a simple traffic light/sign? These things happen on a daily basis in poor communities my friend. You don't need to do a search on google or pick up a textbook to discern this obvious truth.

And who is "internal affairs"..well generally, they're a bunch of cronies who are in some way connected to the individuals who commited said offense. Their purpose is generally to gather evidence regarding said offense, and attempt to deflect any legal liability away from the offenders as well as the Police Force. If you believe otherwise, then I truly pity your naivety.



The problem is being trivialised- because you don't understand it. You lack the personal experience, the practical knowledge, and the common sense needed to discern that there is a problem. Reading books on Law and Justice will only get you so far my friend..as I've stated once before to you, I will state to you once again, try to think OUTSIDE of the box..just once...

"The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands."

You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.

"And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?"

WTF is this bullshit? I get my information that organisations like CIB and the IPCC in England (more recently re-organised into a single organisation) and other, similar organisations exist in the world simply because I keep my damn eyes and ears open and happen to k ow something about this world. The principles upon which they operate are public knowledge, as are some of their more spctacular takedowns. What are you doing, doubting their existence?

That whole thrust of yours is cripplingly dumb. If you are not making a constructive point or a reasonable refutation, then you are just wasting time. Your emotive example of cops doing wrong simply bounces off the points I already made- to say internal measures are failing because corrupt cops exist is like saying cops are failing because crime exists. It's a completely false link.

And based on the fact that you don't like my arguments you somehow get it into your head that I lack knowledge and am naive? Jesus, what an insufferably pompous position. Such muddle-headed idiocy. What the heck gived you the right to dictate that you can pronounce on the subject but I cannot?

Frankly, I find your analysis of the situation unintelligent, alarmist and juvenile. But if you want to step up to the plate... prove to me that police corruption is getting worse. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than pointing out a few isolated incidents. If you an prove it is worse than back in, say, the 20s, before regulations, and the people enforcing them, had any power, and when the media's exposure of such things was the tiniest fraction of what it was now, and when modern conceps of fairness and rights of such things were in their infancy, and when it was so much eaiser to conceal all such things you will have performed a miracle.

But you won't- because your point is bull.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"The problem being..you didn't point out misuse. However you did demonstrate "abuse." Abuse of power so to speak. If you actually did a little research, you would have found that another thread was opened up for this exact same topic after mine. You would have then used all of your "pull" on these forumns to redirect everyone to the initial thread opened on said topic, instead of making baseless allegations of me misusing forumn commands."

You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.

"And where did you get all of this information from? Let me guess..an internet website, or perhaps you have a degree in American Civics, or better yet your College Professor informed you?"

WTF is this bullshit? I get my information that organisations like CIB and the IPCC in England (more recently re-organised into a single organisation) and other, similar organisations exist in the world simply because I keep my damn eyes and ears open and happen to k ow something about this world. The principles upon which they operate are public knowledge, as are some of their more spctacular takedowns. What are you doing, doubting their existence?

That whole thrust of yours is cripplingly dumb. If you are not making a constructive point or a reasonable refutation, then you are just wasting time. Your emotive example of cops doing wrong simply bounces off the points I already made- to say internal measures are failing because corrupt cops exist is like saying cops are failing because crime exists. It's a completely false link.

And based on the fact that you don't like my arguments you somehow get it into your head that I lack knowledge and am naive? Jesus, what an insufferably pompous position. Such muddle-headed idiocy. What the heck gived you the right to dictate that you can pronounce on the subject but I cannot?

Frankly, I find your analysis of the situation unintelligent, alarmist and juvenile. But if you want to step up to the plate... prove to me that police corruption is getting worse. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than pointing out a few isolated incidents. If you an prove it is worse than back in, say, the 20s, before regulations, and the people enforcing them, had any power, and when the media's exposure of such things was the tiniest fraction of what it was now, and when modern conceps of fairness and rights of such things were in their infancy, and when it was so much eaiser to conceal all such things you will have performed a miracle.

But you won't- because your point is bull.


Dayum!...

*SNAP

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You didn't point that out at the time, you just said 'bump', which looked pretty pointless in of itself. If you don't make these things clear, expect to take flak for them. Besides which, it's still bad form to bump as you did.


I don't have to point that out. My job on this forumn is not to inform others. I'm just here to debate and discuss topics. It's a moderator's job to research what topics have already been created in a forumn, and then redirect individuals to the appropriate thread to discuss them in. Case in point, you didn't do your job..



So essentially what your stating is that if something exists, one should automatically come up with the assumption that this somehow justifies it's effectiveness when performing a particular function? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

How objective can an organization be when scrutinizing itself? That's what "internal affairs" offices essentially do. They are organisations..within organisations, that investigate their own "illegal actions" Does that make sense to you Ush?

Most individuals I know, aren't very objective when evaluating themselves. That same rule usually applies to various government and corporate bodies. If you truly believe that they are objective during these type of investigations..then again..I truly pity your naivety....



Once again you demonstrate your inability to objectively discern anything other than what you yourself have experienced. Just because you see it as an "emotive" example, doesn't make it any less of an example, and it doesn't nullify the existence of the problem.

I take it you don't live in the inner city my friend, and I'm certain you have very little knowledge of the type of "Police Brutality" occurs there on a day to day basis. With that being the stated..how in the hell do you deem yourself qualified to even comment on the severity of said "problem."

Incidents involving Police Officers abusing their power happen on a day to day basis, unfortunately your knowledge is limited to your worldly experiences, as well as your general close mindedness towards anything that does not exist within the "box" that you live in.



Answer: Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or some other "authoritative" source. I don't believe you've given one example of what makes your opinion valid..other than the typical

"Well the IPCC in England says.."

or the

"The CIB states..."




Spend a year or two in a lower income communities in South Central LA, Southeast DC, New Orleans, or any number of poor communities that exist within the United States. Perhaps then your opinion will be a bitt less naivete..and a bit more worldly...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't have to point that out. My job on this forumn is not to inform others. I'm just here to debate and discuss topics. It's a moderator's job to research what topics have already been created in a forumn, and then redirect individuals to the appropriate thread to discuss them in. Case in point, you didn't do your job..



So essentially what your stating is that if something exists, one should automatically come up with the assumption that this somehow justifies it's effectiveness when performing a particular function? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

How objective can an organization be when scrutinizing itself? That's what "internal affairs" offices essentially do. They are organisations..within organisations, that investigate their own "illegal actions" Does that make sense to you Ush?

Most individuals I know, aren't very objective when evaluating themselves. That same rule usually applies to various government and corporate bodies. If you truly believe that they are objective during these type of investigations..then again..I truly pity your naivety....



Once again you demonstrate your inability to objectively discern anything other than what you yourself have experienced. Just because you see it as an "emotive" example, doesn't make it any less of an example, and it doesn't nullify the existence of the problem.

I take it you don't live in the inner city my friend, and I'm certain you have very little knowledge of the type of "Police Brutality" occurs there on a day to day basis. With that being the stated..how in the hell do you deem yourself qualified to even comment on the severity of said "problem."

Incidents involving Police Officers abusing their power happen on a day to day basis, unfortunately your knowledge is limited to your worldly experiences, as well as your general close mindedness towards anything that does not exist within the "box" that live in.



Answer: Experience, Objectivity, and the ability to apply common sense and use practical knowledge, regardless of what is dictated to me by a textbook, professor, or som other "authoritative" source. I don't believe you've given one example of what makes your opinion valid..other than the typical

"Well the IPCC in England says.."

or the

"The CIB states..."




Spend a year or two in a lower income communities in South Central LA, Southeast DC, New Orleans, or any number of poor communities that exist within the United States. Perhaps then your opinion will be a bitt less naivete..and a bit more worldly...


Say What?!! OWNED!!!!....

You say this :

Then you say this in response to what makes your opinion so valid:

Seems you're doing the same thing you're criticizing Ush for doing, using your own experiences as the primary basis for your beliefs. Why is it okay for you to do it, but not him?

Also, it seems, according to you, only people who live or have lived in lower income communities have the right to judge the performance of the police force because they're the ones that are often being "abused" by the cops (often because they're the ones committing crimes)?

Is this what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Well we know the hurricane has shown the ugly side of the US to the world. I always thought New Orleans was a rich city.

It was a big tourist city, yes, but most of the people who actually lived there were quite poor.

And whob, I just gotta say, you're waaaaaay out of your league in trying to argue with Ush.....

All of the arguments Ush presented were based on crud he got off the net or a damb textbook. My point has been that a valid opinion can not be formed solely on such information.




Refer to the above...

Originally posted by Lana
It was a big tourist city, yes, but most of the people who actually lived there were quite poor.

And whob, I just gotta say, you're waaaaaay out of your league in trying to argue with Ush.....

What u talking bout? I consistantly own Ush in just about every debate we get into.

Here's one right here..

Whob Owns Ush on Evolution...

Whob owns Ush regarding Psychology

And the man get's owned on a consistent basis by many others..(ie Whirlyspatt, Alpha Centurai, etc..etc..)

Seriously..the man's been owned more times than black slaves in Mississippi.

You've never owned a damn person in a debate on here; maybe in your mind, but reality's a bit different.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What u talking bout? I consistantly own Ush in just about every debate we get into.

Here's one right here..

Whob Owns Ush on Evolution...

Whob owns Ush regarding Psychology

And the man get's owned on a consistent basis by many others..(ie Whirlyspatt, Alpha Centurai, etc..etc..)

Seriously..the man's been owned more times than black slaves in Mississippi.

I've never owned Ush because there's never been a debate in which we've had any time or reason to.

Thanks.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
You've never owned a damn person in a debate on here; maybe in your mind, but reality's a bit different.

Yes the same reality that tells you that Buddhism isn't a relgion..and that psychology is not a "psuedoscience"..

Bwahahahaha..

Back on Topic...

Who will Police the Police?

Sting.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sting.

-AC

Sting to Police:

Every step you take..
Every move you make..
Every single day..

I'll be watching you..

Although you more or less just built upon the joke I laid, I won't hold your joining in against you .

-AC

The net? Oh, you mean like the Geocities references you were leaning on in that Creationism/science thread? Your hypocrisy is grand.

OMG LOL OWNED ROFL LOL111!!!11. -Does it look good to you when I do that? Because it sure doesn't when you do, but then again, acting like a child and patting yourself on the back during a debate because no one else will rarely does.

The fact that you use the word "owned" in relation to a debate you've had only reinforces the factuality of your poor debating skills, which have been on display, and pointed out numerous times, since you've joined this site.

Also, you haven't answered my question beyond the classic whob move of dodging it. But I'll try and simplify it the best I can for you, and you do your best to give me a valid, relevent, unflawed and, maybe, just maybe, a straight forward response, okay? Okay. Damn

Are you saying that for an opinion to be valid in this subject, someone must have had a negative police experience or lived in a shitty, crime ridden town?

Backfire....

You're arguing with a guy that spells damn with a 'b'.


...in regards to a text book, no less.

If I knew all these big words and ideas, it'd be pretty cool to go against the moderators.

Closest thing to actual fist-fighting with these guys.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Backfire....

You're arguing with a guy that spells damn with a 'b'.


...in regards to a text book, no less.


Yeah.

Boredom does some crazy things to me, what can I say?

In response to the "Police the Police" bullcrap. I used to live in Louisiana, I have been to New Orleans many times. And to be honest a lot of those people are the LOWEST of LOW, they are the WORST in our entire society. Im not being mean or trying to start up and argument im just stating the facts.

Originally posted by Neo_Version 7
If I knew all these big words and ideas, it'd be pretty cool to go against the moderators.

Closest thing to actual fist-fighting with these guys.

Absolutely no logic behind that.

Basically, it'd be fun to debate with someone with power here, just because they have power. Even though it has no bearing on the level to which they can debate.

-AC

Good Christ, Whob. There isn't actually anything to your argument at all other than "I have a right to say things and you do not."

That's pitiful. Only in your wildest dreams have you ever come up with an argument that began to stand up to anything I said- and you will note that no-one else believes your egomaniacal ravings.

Until you do as I asked- and actually provide some sort of actual evidence that the problem is as big as you say, and not in fact getting better- then the value of what you say is zero. It's just you grandstanding and expecting everyone to value your opinion higher than anyone else's, despite the fact you are continuously lacking in logic, rationality, and brainpower behind an argument.

(And in reference to your links, no-one else sees you 'owning' anybody; only spouting more crap)

Most hilarious of all are your claims of objectivity- when to anyone with a brain cell reading your arguments, you are clearly biased against the police. And in arguing that you have superior experience that gives you the lowdown on this- something you have given no-one any real reason to believe, nor have you actually given a good reason as to why whatever particualar and limited experiences you have had trumps everyone elses, or indeed any other argument regardless of its rationality or logtic (your own logic seems to be 'doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't count because I say so"...

... you sink your own point there, because if it is entirely based on your 'experiences' it is, by definition, subjective.

You're in the nursery, whob. Try again when you can debate like an adult, and not try to shut everyone else's argument down by sheer fiat.

*giggles endlessly*

Originally posted by BackFire
The net? Oh, you mean like the Geocities references you were leaning on in that Creationism/science thread? Your hypocrisy is grand.

OMG LOL OWNED ROFL LOL111!!!11. -Does it look good to you when I do that? Because it sure doesn't when you do, but then again, acting like a child and patting yourself on the back during a debate because no one else will rarely does.


And that's the difference between myself on many others who post on this board...I don't need a bunch of cronies or stooges to validate what I say, nor do I go about seeking yours/others approvals when a topic is presented. The only thing you've done in yet another argument is demonstrate that you yourself are nothing more than another "stooge" who participates in "groupthink" mentality, and that you have no ability to present opinions/arguments that don't fit within the general "liberalistic" viewpoints that embody this forumn.




Your personal opinion of my "debating skills" does little to validate anything other than your inability to address the arguments that I've presented in this thread. Once again in typical BF fashion, you've done nothing but attack the arguer, rather than the argument.

We're now at BF post number 2, and as all can clearly see, you have yet again done little to present any relevant information which pertains to the topic at hand, and I sincerely doubt that you even carry the intellect necessary to do so.




And in classic Backfire style, you've proven your inablitity to produce a reasonable argument against any reasonable argument presented. But we can play your little game if you like. As one can see from the link below, you criticizing anyone's use of punctuation and grammar on this forumn is like the pot calling the kettle black..

BF interpretation of "Creationalist's"...lol


"Creationalist"...lol...


For those of you who don't know..that's how BF spells "Creationist."











If you can't interpret what's already restated multiple times throughout this thread, then you are a lost case my friend. It's fairly obvious that explaining it again will not help you. Perhaps you should participate in a topic that involves simpler subject matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Christ, Whob. There isn't actually anything to your argument at all other than "I have a right to say things and you do not."

That's pitiful. Only in your wildest dreams have you ever come up with an argument that began to stand up to anything I said- and you will note that no-one else believes your egomaniacal ravings.


Yes Christ is good my friend..Unfortunately your debating skills are not. Once again..your narrow minded rationale disables you from seeing anything outside of the orb in which you exist. Perhaps if you actually took the time to comprehend the argument presented before yourself instead of just blasting on about how much you've studied, then you would understand that my argument has centered around the following point...



Based on what you've informed us with during this debate, you have proven to have little practical experience involving Police Brutality in poor communities. How then can you justify yourself qualified to make an informed judgement regarding said problem based on this "inexperience" is perplexing..and quite "pitiful."



Do as you asked? The fact that you believe that others are required to submit to your juvenile requests is laughable, and proves your overall immaturity and naivety.

For the record..You've been given evidence..but you are to narrow minded to comprehend it. Your arguments are beginning to wane Ush..its quite apparent that you have nothing else to contribute to this debate other then typical "strawman" comments, which are always presented by those who have no substantive response to a valid argument.




My arguments are supported by two things...

1. Studied Knowledge
2. Personal Experience

Your arguments are based on three things...

1. Studied Knowledge
2. Your ego
3. The "groupthinkers" who tag along and give you a "high five" each time you post some non sensical tripe.(ie Lana, Captain Flamboyant, and Backfire)

Before I close this debate.I implore of you my friend. Go out and study the world. Experience life and observe the experiences of others. Life is made of a multitude of people and experiences, not just the one's we regularly associate with and gather our information from.

Seriously, is that all you come can up with? I'll let the public be your judge. Once again, you have failed to support your arguments other than with more rhetoric. It's bull and everyone will see it as such. You can yell and whine and lash out all you like... but you're never actually adding anything to your argument, hence you continuously fail. What I asked you was not to 'submit to my judgement', but to actually try and do anything solid to substantiate your argument other than say 'I know it, so there." You say I am too narrow-minded to see it? NO-ONE can see it. You haven't given any. You have't actually given an argument to provide a response to, though any point you've made I have show down already, so all I can really do is hope you read my posts again and do it properly this time.

It doesn't get much more pitiful than this, guys.

I think when a national catastrophic happens we can never be sure what will happen i mean most officers left there post because they were worried about there families i am not personally condoning what they did , but i understand why they did it.

i mean alot lessons will be learnt from this

Because NOTHING validates what you say because NOTHING you have said is backed up by anything valid. Your whole argument is based on your own limited and personal experience. Also, to generalize all of my opinions on matters as "liberalistic" is not only huge generalization, but a flawed, and factually incorrect one, at that.




Attack the arguer? You dare try to criticize me for "attacking" the arguer and then in the next post insult Captain Fantastic? Well done. You've been doing it the whole time you've been on this site, bringing up past arguments that you feel you've "owned" them in because you want to feel good about yourself and go about it in a very pathetic and sad manner. Not to mention the condescending attitude you often have towards those who disagree, which has no place in an adult debate. Yes, I attacked the arguer, the difference is, I did it for the sake of satire, I purposely did it to parody the juvenile way you continuously argue. You do it because that's just how you are. Big difference.




Yes, I misspelled creationism, and you misspelled "damn". Which is worse?



Yes, simpler subject matter, because running around claiming you've "owned" people in arguments and posting links that are completely irrelevant to the thread takes such a grand intellect that I could only hope to obtain one day. Yeah, maybe back in fourth grade, kid.

Again, you're basing your thoughts on your LIMITED experience with the police. You know what? So is everyone else, which by default makes their opinion just as worthy and "valid" as yours since it's based on the same type of source. Their limited experience with the police is just as valid as yours. Again, your being hypocritical once again. I could go and link to other threads where you've been hypocritical and then post a bunch of dimwitted laughy faces afterwards and claim ownership over your.....but, well, I don't really want to be an idiot today.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Captain Flamboyant

Insulting me doesn't make you right. I'm not flamboyant, at all. But, once again, you place your ingnorance on display for everyone. I very rarely "high-five" Ush...I don't need to.

However, you have assumed some closer relationship than exists. You're just mad because I verbalized you getting your naked ass spanked by him.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
However, you have assumed some closer relationship than exists. You're just mad because I verbalized you getting your naked ass spanked by him.

OH no not visuals......The written word is very powerful..!!!

Ush is good at debating:-)

Anyone can be provided they know what they're talking about and how to talk about it.

-AC