Wingnuts fail again.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} Here's a "Personal Comment" that won't get displayed!
Next: Douchebag "john" posts recall alerts, obtains attention he missed out on as child.
From: Aratzio on 11 Aug 2010 19:36 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:13:09 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:39:46 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:30:31 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali >> <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>In article <e00466tahmjeb0j8onjc8fk6t2l97q725r(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio >>>a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... >>>> >>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:32:52 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>>> writing: >>>> >>>> >Who said fascism? I never said that. >>>> >>>> How many times had Hachoo used "I didn't say that" as his first >>>> backpedal. >>> >>>He was posting about nationalized socialism! HAHAHAHA! >>> >>>Still waiting on the definition. >> >> You will be waiting, he never stands up for his own writings. It is >> always the fault of the reader for not grasping his elegant >> incoherence. > >Not to you, you ficking idiot. Kali still has the benefit of the doubt of >maybe having a brain. You have proved a long time ago there is nothing >more than a pea rattling around your cranium. > > WAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA Poor little Hachoo, fails to stand up for himself and then proves what kind of failure he is.
From: Aratzio on 11 Aug 2010 19:36 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:13:43 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:44:42 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:33:41 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >> writing: >> >>>k0000000000000k. >>> >> >> Yes, he really did screed that. > >yup! I call em like I see em. > So, you admit you write screed
From: pandora on 11 Aug 2010 21:41 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:16:47 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:21:52 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:50:42 -0700, Anyone wrote: >> >>> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on 29-Jul-10 13:22 ... >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000, Jeff The Drunk wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>>>> So a temporary hold on some aspects of SB1070 constitutes being >>>>> "gutted"? In what universe? >>>> >>>> There is an easy way around this: >>>> >>>> ANY person arrested may be required to provide proof of citizenship >>>> or legal residence. The easy way around all this is to just arrest >>>> everyone who runs afoul of any law ("You spit on the sidewalk. You're >>>> coming with me.") >>> >>> Technically that is possible, if such a law were to exist, if someone >>> were to be observed violating that law, if said observer were >>> empowered to enforce and inclined to do so. (so much for a straman) >>> >>> There are more than a few ways to 'break' a society's infrastructure >>> of rules and law. Is that what you really want? You'd prefer that >>> things fail, rather than work? You prefer 'arrest first, ask >>> questions later'? >>> >>>> It will put a hell of a load on the legal system, but this way cannot >>>> be removed by a Liberal thinking judge anywhere. >>> >>> Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least >>> in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they >>> either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or >>> simply chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of >>> all legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. >>> >>> No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, >>> but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer. >> >> Completely agreed. > > > Why would anyone expect anything different from you? You're just jealous because I never agree with you. Live with it, stupid.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 11 Aug 2010 22:10 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:41:47 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least >>>> in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they >>>> either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or >>>> simply chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of >>>> all legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. >>>> >>>> No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, >>>> but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer. >>> >>> Completely agreed. >> >> >> Why would anyone expect anything different from you? > > You're just jealous because I never agree with you. Live with it, stupid. HELL NO! I am quite thankful I don't have a k00k like you agreeing with me! As far as stupid, there is a question there as to who the stupid one is. Did Ratzoo put that word into your head? I know you couldn't think it up all by yourself. And, is everyone who disagrees with your Liberal k00k ideas stupid, too?
From: pandora on 11 Aug 2010 22:12
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:10:40 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:41:47 -0500, pandora wrote: > > >>>>> Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at >>>>> least in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, >>>>> they either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, >>>>> or simply chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the >>>>> rights of all legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay >>>>> enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> No one can argue that we don't need better management of >>>>> immigration, but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not >>>>> the answer. >>>> >>>> Completely agreed. >>> >>> >>> Why would anyone expect anything different from you? >> >> You're just jealous because I never agree with you. Live with it, >> stupid. > > HELL NO! I am quite thankful I don't have a k00k like you agreeing with > me! > > As far as stupid, there is a question there as to who the stupid one is. > Did Ratzoo put that word into your head? I know you couldn't think it > up all by yourself. And, is everyone who disagrees with your Liberal > k00k ideas stupid, too? Only a stupid person would believe as you do and you've proven your stupidity over and over again. |