$500

Yurt said:
its yours if you can link the post or give the post number that proves onceler's claim:



http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=31040

^ the thread ^
Click to expand...


Yurt said:
i see...so no matter what, if your political opponents use actual words that have meaning, their wussified. no wonder you have issues reading. you ignore what words truly mean.

look, i don't know if it absolutely corrupts or not. it SEEMS like it. but what you're saying is, because i don't know 100%, its wussified. so if anyone has an opinion other than yours, their wussified.

where is your 100% proof that corporate money (ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...:awesome:) corrupts? if a union spent the same, is that corruption?
Click to expand...

PM me for wiring instructions.
 
Yurt said:
jayzues.....you're as dishonest as onceler....



no where in that post did i say onceler supports union money. you should forfeit $500 of your money for making such a bullshit post. your money can go to damo's charity of choice.
Click to expand...


Seriously?
 
Yurt said:
yes. did you see the smilie and the context? of course not.....because you're dishonest
Click to expand...


But under the terms of the bet, regardless of your intent when you wrote what you wrote, I win. Oncelor is correct. You wrote that he supports union money. You can claim you were just kidding, but you still owe me $500.

Crawfishin' bastard.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But under the terms of the bet, regardless of your intent when you wrote what you wrote, I win. Oncelor is correct. You wrote that he supports union money. You can claim you were just kidding, but you still owe me $500.

Crawfishin' bastard.
Click to expand...

no....

a joke is a joke....apparently you don't know the difference. and you apparently want to ignore my question after the joke that actually sought clarification as to where onceler stood.

you ignore that, because you're a cheap whore. but i do applaud you for giving a link and trying. your best buddy onceler would never do that. he lacks your courage.
 
Yurt said:
i see...so no matter what, if your political opponents use actual words that have meaning, their wussified. no wonder you have issues reading. you ignore what words truly mean.

look, i don't know if it absolutely corrupts or not. it SEEMS like it. but what you're saying is, because i don't know 100%, its wussified. so if anyone has an opinion other than yours, their wussified.

where is your 100% proof that corporate money (ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...:awesome:) corrupts? if a union spent the same, is that corruption?
Click to expand...

Looks simple enough, to me.
 
nigel and onceler are liars....i clearly made the statement as a joke because onceler thinks the word "seems" isn't a real word

ALONE, as i don't want to use "seem" as that is wussified, so you of course support union funds...:awesome:
Click to expand...

i clearly state that i am only saying he supports union money because he doesn't recognize the word "seem" as it is a wussified word. i would have said he "seems" to support union money, however, since he thinks the word doesn't count, i made a smartass comment to rib his stupidity about the word seem. further, my next sentence after this reenforces that i am not claiming he supports union money because i asked him if he believes union money corrupts.

maybe you two can grow up and just admit onceler lied about what i said. the context is crystal clear and the smilie at the end also shows i'm just kidding. but i highly doubt onceler or nigel will be honest about the context. they're weird like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top