Manhattan of the SDSAB

Re your comments in this thread: Prisoners at Gitmo

Fuck you, you fucking cunt.

Hopefully someone a little more articulate will be along to join in your condemnation.

Hopefully, someone more articulate will come along and explain just what your beef is, TLB (hint, hint).

Bor-ring!

Seriously. Manhattan’s comments are being rebutted and debated in that thread, with plenty of hackle-raising in there. Why the separate thread? Why the lack of specificity?

Hmmm… what are the odds.

The separate thread is because I wanted to tell Manhatten to get fucked in a way that simply isn’t allowed in great debates.

I’m not sure what specifics you want? I’ve provided a link, and my pitting is pretty much to do with with his entire contribution to that thread.

You’re pitting Manhattan based on a reply to a typical anti-US thread started by Rashak?

I see who the cunt is. :non-winking wally:

So if one points out that when you pay the Northern Alliance a tidy sum for every “terrorist” or “Al Qaeda member” they deliver to you, and they subsequently deliver pretty much anyone they can get their hands on, and after several years you realise that the Northern Alliance have, in fact, ‘done you up like a kipper’ as we say here, you are “pro-terror”?

“Anti-American” has lost its zing after 3 years of overuse. They had to go newer, fresher, improved! You can’t push that big a load of bullshit past the public without throwing them a diversion, you know.

Well, I looked at the thread? And his comments pretty much seem rather reasonable? (After the recent political season his dissing of lefties is quite tame?) So I’m still compelled to ask:

Where’s the beef?
?

p.s. Kudos to duffer for inventing the much-needed non-winking Wally.

Duffer, ever heard the saying, “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”?

Have you even bothered to read the thread you fuckwit?

Where is Rashak in all of this?

This is excellent. I like.

Oh, let’s see if I can make a pit post out of this. You have 3 lines in this quote, I’ll take them in order of 1,3,2.

Ever heard of not letting the facts get in the way of a pitting? Wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth. It’s unseemly, even here in the pit.

Uh, yeah. I read it toughguy. You, obviously, haven’t.

Rashak (it’s polite form to bold a doper’s name when bringing them into an argument) was the quoted party to the whole thread you’re talking about.

You’re seriously asking me where Rashak comes into this? Are you that fucking stupid? Quit looking for a fight with me if that’s your intention. Back your little choo-choo up a few stops and rethink this “battle” you want to start.

Rutro. Someone shield the hamsters’ eyes. This could get ugly.

Let us be generous and forgiving. Let us assume that friend Manny was driven temporarily bereft of his common sense by his feverish patriotism and fulsome love for the Shining One, and momentarily stepped away from his customary civility and respectful discourse. Let us assume that he now realizes his error, and understands that a phrase like “pro-terrorist” can be nothing but a slander, a slur and a corrupt ad hominem assault on legitimate political opposition.

Unless, of course, he should fail to apologize. In which case you are entirely justified in regarding him as a crude and callous pusbag. I retain faith, I have little doubt that he will rush to make amends and assuage the insult he has, unthinkingly, delivered.

Very soon now. Any minute.

Yes I am, because the thread had a quote attributed to Rashak, but was started by Zagadka and had quite a different slant on it compared to the one you’re trying to give it.

Just because I call you a fuckwit doesn’t mean I’m trying to start a fight, or a “battle”, it simply means that I think you’re a fuckwit.

I take it the offending comments are:

These days, that’s just par for the course for manny. If he feels aggrevieved about something, he’s happy to ratchet up the rhetoric to any level in response.

Times change. These days, it’s just the bitter motions of a neutered chiuaua who remembers Momma’s assurance - in a cathedral - that he had a particularly capatious scrotum for any dog, let alone one of his size.

What, Manhattan is allowed to be a partisan dimwit asshole, because someone else was?

Maybe because manhattan’s description of those who disagree with his position as the “pro-terror left” deserves a sharper reply than is allowed in GD.

And to the OP: you’ll enjoy yourself much more on these boards if you learn to ignore manhattan when he posts that sort of crap. He’s an attention whore who says stuff like that mainly to get a rise out of you, and he positively basks in the glow of pit threads like this. While ignoring him is often difficult, what with the offensive stupidity occasionally on display, it is probably the best course of action.

The thing you need to remember out the “pro-terror” quip is that—like so many of manhattan’s other comment—the fact that he says it doesn’t make it true.

Please try to keep up.

Being partisan isn’t problematic, and he’s allowed to be a dimwit asshole because it’s a fundamental part of his constitution. I can’t help being left-handed, gay people can’t help being homosexual, and manhattan can’t help being a dimwit asshole. We all just have to live with what we’re dealt.

Are you still doing this shit manny? Did you not catch on after all that pro-child prostitution crap? Knock it off already you’re making yourself look like an asshole. Reconciliation comes from both sides. You can’t expect people to back off calling you a fascist asshole if you call them pro-terror leftists.

Enjoy,
Steven