Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In defense of Clang , et al
#19
(05-28-2013, 02:58 PM)Duchess Wrote:
(05-28-2013, 02:05 PM)sally Wrote: Clang is not a fucking infant Duchess. He's a fat, potato headed welfare leach.


I know. I KNOW! I have moments of temporary insanity when I worry about some of these people. I don't like feeling it any more than you like reading it. I am so ashamed. I am. I'm going to go find a hole to crawl into now. Hibye



Unless Clang is blind, I'm pretty sure he already knows how you really feel about fat lazy bastards/bastardettes taking welfare. Pretty much the same as most of us, except the bleeding hearts.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Mohammed - 05-28-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by crash - 05-29-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Midwest Spy - 05-28-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Maggot - 05-28-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:22 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:23 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 01:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 06:57 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-29-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by HairOfTheDog - 05-29-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by aussiefriend - 05-30-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 04:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 06:24 PM