2 of Bali 9 executed early this morning.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, March 29, 2026 18:51
VIEWED: 9919
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Did you see Age of Ultron ? Pretty sure it was there that I heard the 'thug' reference.
I think I meant your ref of convoluted Bobo using the word.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Boston bomber Tsarnaev sentenced to death for 2013 attack
As well he should. I defy anyone who tries to tell me that this piece of go-se deserves to live. He's an unrepentant mass murdering Muslim psycho.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yeah, 'cause NOBODY thinks of lynching as a great southern tradition of mob justice, ending in the hanging of nigrahs from the nearest tree. NOBODY thinks of the song "Strange Fruit".
'Cause all of those photos that KIKI found were just abberations from the REAL definition, possibly originated by Charles Lynch, whose portraiture and name are forever and indelibly linked with the word itself. [/sarcasm]
First of all, RAPPY, you took a POSSIBLE WORD ORIGIN, and mixed it up with the current definition. It's a common dodge, when a word means something that you don't want it to mean, but the reality is that many words change their meaning over a couple hundred years, and in current lingo no longer mean what they meant "back then". During the times of the American South, "lynching" meant hanging - whether for blacks or whites. Most commonly, blacks.
Furthermore, even the origin (which you cite) is a weak one. Notice the word obscure, and the fact that two people (not one) are listed as the possible/ likely originators.Quote:
The origins of the word lynch are obscure, but likely originates during the American revolution. The term originates from the phrase "Lynch Law", a term for a punishment without trial. Two Americans during this era are generally credited for the phrase: Charles Lynch and William Lynch, who both lived in Virginia in the 1780s. Charles Lynch has the better claim, as he was known to have used the term in 1782, while William Lynch isn't known to have used the term until much later. There is no evidence that death was imposed as a punishment by either of the two men.
Nice try, but no joy. The word means what it means.
I suppose you probably also think that niggardly is a racist term, right?
And "thug" is a black criminal?
Illiterate much?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Again? When was the first time?
Again
First time is long in the past, but in this thread you have repeatedly tried to claim that word meanings do not mean what the word means.
Quote:Quote:Mine?
you have failed to recognize your ownQuote:What?
devices
First of all, what is a "device"? Makes no sense in the context as you used it.
Do the synonyms trick, dodge, flimflam, gimmick, ploy, sleight help?
Quote:
Secondly... you claim these "devices" (whatever they are) are mine. Is that because you presume that anyone who isn't a rightwing idiot must be a liberal?
No, but it is fair and normally accurate assumption that most of you illiterate are Libtards.
Quote:
Thirdly, you seem to think this has happened previously. Well I don't remember it happening at all. If fact, I'm not sure what "it" is. So please explain. if you can.
You have repeatedly in this thread tried to claim that words do not mean what they mean, that words have no relation to their origins.
I used as example the word niggardly because it has been redefined by the Libtards to mean a racial slur, having no relation to it's original definition, merely because the Libtards are (surprise) illiterate.
I also used the term Thug because it was originally derived from the Thuggee tribe of nomadic assassins of India, which were known to be dark skinned, but after the reported eradication of that tribe the meaning has diluted to include any color or shade of skin. But now Preezy of Da Steezy has decreed that it is a racial slur, changing it's meaning to only those of black skin, or "African" descent.
I was using further examples of where your illogical claims have failed. Do you not have the intellectual capacity to make the connection? the comparison? the pattern recognition?
RapKnight also followed with a contribution, posted prior to your ignorant post, pointing out that Black Hole has been
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, again, I have failed to recognize my own devices?
I've never argued that a word doesn't mean what it means. What I have often done is press people to define what THEY mean when they us a word. Quite often, I've found that people don't understand the meanings of the words they use.
Words often give us the feeling that we understand something. But just try defining what a "bowl" is, and distinguishing it from a Japanese teacup, drinking glasses, and other containers meant to hold liquids, and you'll find that the word "bowl" is a little hazy on the edges. Words suggest that objects, events, and processes are focused, laser-like, idealized, but actual reality exists on a spectrum. There is running, and there is jogging, and walking, and strolling. There is life and there is not-alive. There is human, and there is non-human. Now, tell me where one begins and the other ends, and you will have defined your words.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Boston bomber Tsarnaev sentenced to death for 2013 attack
As well he should. I defy anyone who tries to tell me that this piece of go-se deserves to live. He's an unrepentant mass murdering Muslim psycho.
So the death penalty is fine so long as it is administered by Mericans, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then don't be shocked, offended, and terrified, RAPPY, when somebody in some foreign land decides that they've gotten tired of Americans smugly dealing death at random, and so they decide to deal death here.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Then don't be shocked, offended, and terrified, RAPPY, when somebody in some foreign land decides that they've gotten tired of Americans smugly dealing death at random, and so they decide to deal death here.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
I will be, and we all should be.
The sentencing of Boston bomber wasn't by any stretch " smugly dealing death at random ", you witless clod. But I'm sure you equate blowing the legs off of spectators at a marathon to be on par w/ spraying bullets around as revenge for drawing a cartoon of Mohammad, huh ?
Psycho.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's your arrogance and completely, brainless hypocrisy that's the problem. You get all exercised when "someone else" executes a prisoner, but it's plain (you said so yourself) that when we do it, "that's different".
You've been saying that ever since you got to this board: That WE can invaded and kill hundreds of thousands - if not millions- of civilians for completely specious reasons, that WE can execute prisoners, that WE can torture suspects, that WE can economically waterboard the poor and impose our "way of life" on others.
Why?
Because we WE do it, "that's different". But when someone else does it to us ... OMG! PANIC!
You don't even recognize your kindred spirits when you look at jihadists, do you? People who do exactly what we do but with far less technologically-advanced resources, who wind up being a lot less effective at killing by the millions.
Of course not.
Well, we set the rules of the game. We installed terrorist-supporting tyrannies, we killed wide swaths in the middle east. So, the rules of the game will come back to us. Like I said, just don't be surprised, and TRY not to panic this time, you unaccountable moral relativist, you worthless piece of amoral shit, you sub-human orc-like creature who deserves to be exterminated. At least, by YOUR reckoning. 
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just so everyone knows, Sig supports the Boston bomber.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME