The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='d0ren']Okay so there's a lot more to it.. I'll take your advice and do just that, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Economics is the art of doing your best to lie less than everyone else.
Economics is the art of doing your best to lie less than everyone else.
[quote name='speedracer']Economics is the art of doing your best to lie less than everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Good stuff!
d0ren, you are very polite on here, good for you. Don't believe everything you read. Even someone as smart as myself has been fooled before.
Check out a lot of sources. Freakonomics is pretty cool, but, like everyone else, they espouse their findings to be the only logical conclusion. As speed mentioned, a lot of these economic issues have so many factors and variables that bias leads most people in finding trends in data versus cold, hard fact. If you are gonna subject yourself to talk radio or MSNBC/FOX, mix it up so you get both sides propaganda. Be careful because they will misinform you almost as often as informing you. Sometimes it's spin, other times it's straight up lying. Get both sides and decide for yourself.
Good stuff!
d0ren, you are very polite on here, good for you. Don't believe everything you read. Even someone as smart as myself has been fooled before.
Check out a lot of sources. Freakonomics is pretty cool, but, like everyone else, they espouse their findings to be the only logical conclusion. As speed mentioned, a lot of these economic issues have so many factors and variables that bias leads most people in finding trends in data versus cold, hard fact. If you are gonna subject yourself to talk radio or MSNBC/FOX, mix it up so you get both sides propaganda. Be careful because they will misinform you almost as often as informing you. Sometimes it's spin, other times it's straight up lying. Get both sides and decide for yourself.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='egofed']Check out a lot of sources.[/QUOTE]
If you're like egofed, Lew Rockwell and Conservative Chicks on LSD (or whatever it is) are the best sources of information to cite.
If you're like egofed, Lew Rockwell and Conservative Chicks on LSD (or whatever it is) are the best sources of information to cite.
[quote name='mykevermin']If you're like egofed, Lew Rockwell and Conservative Chicks on LSD (or whatever it is) are the best sources of information to cite.[/QUOTE]
Myke! My friend, your back. Care to admit your fault in our little exchange earlier? Or are you just gonna pretend it didn't happen. No worries, mate, I'm used to it from you guys.
Myke! My friend, your back. Care to admit your fault in our little exchange earlier? Or are you just gonna pretend it didn't happen. No worries, mate, I'm used to it from you guys.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
, sure, what a huuuuuuge error on my part, I shall never be more ashamed in my life and stuff.Meanwhile, you're still hanging your hat on the idea that no solutions were presented in that segment - no apology, no realization of how preposterously
ing *imbecilic* you're being in that regard - willful, flagrant pants-on-backwards ignorance. Yet if you want to be that way and have a dance because you won a pitiful semantic argument, by all means.Go treat yourself to a
ing cupcake.EDIT: You know what? I take it back. Eat a
ing dick. Go get me a timestamp on that segment when someone SAYS "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy." You hung your hat on that, you bitched and moaned for your Pyrrhic victory, and you got it - when you shouldn't have. Go watch that segment (again, if you're to be believed). Give me a time stamp when a person on that segment SAYS anything about "giving" people money. Past tense, present, future, past perfect - any conjugation.
Then disappear from this thread 'cause you have no
ing dignity.[quote name='mykevermin']"give" is your verb, so perhaps you could improve your stance by not attributing *your* verbiage to other people, and then using that stance to show what "they" said.
(and that's without getting to the core of needing to define a term as the last bastion for internet debate. just give up now, gramps.)[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahahahahaahahahahhaaaaa.....way to man up and admit you made a mistake.
Have a little dignity, man. People up from time to time. You sound like a little bitch when you get all crybaby like that. You accused ME of putting that word in other mouths, so, yeah, I take false accusations strongly.
Anyway, I said no "real" solutions were presented. They talk about "incentives", which I strongly believe in, but welfare and SNAP are just incentives to many to continue generational poverty. The gov't should ensure equal treatment, Not equal outcomes, it should NOT be a nanny state offering treats and rewards to selfish, lazy people who are too ignorant or stupid to want to better themselves. Communities need to come together and arrange childcare and work programs. You don't work, you don't eat. Having kids without resources is the parents' fault, not society. Do you think we are doing the kids a favor by leaving them in the hands of these morons? Detropia has the idea of urban farmlands. The residents interviewed were down on the idea while demanding more services from the bankrupt city. Culturing dependency on a failing system is not a viable solution.
(and that's without getting to the core of needing to define a term as the last bastion for internet debate. just give up now, gramps.)[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahahahahaahahahahhaaaaa.....way to man up and admit you made a mistake.
Have a little dignity, man. People up from time to time. You sound like a little bitch when you get all crybaby like that. You accused ME of putting that word in other mouths, so, yeah, I take false accusations strongly.Anyway, I said no "real" solutions were presented. They talk about "incentives", which I strongly believe in, but welfare and SNAP are just incentives to many to continue generational poverty. The gov't should ensure equal treatment, Not equal outcomes, it should NOT be a nanny state offering treats and rewards to selfish, lazy people who are too ignorant or stupid to want to better themselves. Communities need to come together and arrange childcare and work programs. You don't work, you don't eat. Having kids without resources is the parents' fault, not society. Do you think we are doing the kids a favor by leaving them in the hands of these morons? Detropia has the idea of urban farmlands. The residents interviewed were down on the idea while demanding more services from the bankrupt city. Culturing dependency on a failing system is not a viable solution.
[quote name='mykevermin']That someone in that segment used the word "give"? , sure, what a huuuuuuge error on my part, I shall never be more ashamed in my life and stuff.
Meanwhile, you're still hanging your hat on the idea that no solutions were presented in that segment - no apology, no realization of how preposterouslying *imbecilic* you're being in that regard - willful, flagrant pants-on-backwards ignorance. Yet if you want to be that way and have a dance because you won a pitiful semantic argument, by all means.
Go treat yourself to aing cupcake.
EDIT: You know what? I take it back. Eat aing dick. Go get me a timestamp on that segment when someone SAYS "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy."
You hung your hat on that, you bitched and moaned for your Pyrrhic victory, and you got it - when you shouldn't have. Go watch that segment (again, if you're to be believed). Give me a time stamp when a person on that segment SAYS anything about "giving" people money. Past tense, present, future, past perfect - any conjugation.
Then disappear from this thread 'cause you have noing dignity.[/QUOTE]
At the end of the first segment, as I've already stated. The MSNBC "anchors" offer up their solutions to poverty via written word. The little guy with glasses holds up his saying "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy."
I pointed this out three times now. Will you remove yourself from the thread now?
I prefer that you didn't actually, you are hilarious when you throw a sissy fit.:lol: Way to keep the conversation civil, rational, and clean.
Hahahahahahaaa...just thought of the image of you feverishly watching and rewatching that terrible segment hoping to not see that word.....
, sure, what a huuuuuuge error on my part, I shall never be more ashamed in my life and stuff.Meanwhile, you're still hanging your hat on the idea that no solutions were presented in that segment - no apology, no realization of how preposterously
ing *imbecilic* you're being in that regard - willful, flagrant pants-on-backwards ignorance. Yet if you want to be that way and have a dance because you won a pitiful semantic argument, by all means.Go treat yourself to a
ing cupcake.EDIT: You know what? I take it back. Eat a
ing dick. Go get me a timestamp on that segment when someone SAYS "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy." You hung your hat on that, you bitched and moaned for your Pyrrhic victory, and you got it - when you shouldn't have. Go watch that segment (again, if you're to be believed). Give me a time stamp when a person on that segment SAYS anything about "giving" people money. Past tense, present, future, past perfect - any conjugation.
Then disappear from this thread 'cause you have no
ing dignity.[/QUOTE]At the end of the first segment, as I've already stated. The MSNBC "anchors" offer up their solutions to poverty via written word. The little guy with glasses holds up his saying "Giving People Money. It's Actually That Easy."
I pointed this out three times now. Will you remove yourself from the thread now?
I prefer that you didn't actually, you are hilarious when you throw a sissy fit.:lol: Way to keep the conversation civil, rational, and clean.
Hahahahahahaaa...just thought of the image of you feverishly watching and rewatching that terrible segment hoping to not see that word.....
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='egofed']I pointed this out three times now[/QUOTE]
Links. Make it happen.
Links. Make it happen.
[quote name='mykevermin']Links. Make it happen.[/QUOTE]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...lution-to-ending-poverty-giving-people-money/
Heheheheh...here's a link to your requested info from the BLAZE!!!
This forum has been really dead since all the scandals have hit. Big ups to those on the left who have called the admin out on this BS. The Repubs would do just as bad if they could....Power corrupts, happens almost every time.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...lution-to-ending-poverty-giving-people-money/
Heheheheh...here's a link to your requested info from the BLAZE!!!
This forum has been really dead since all the scandals have hit. Big ups to those on the left who have called the admin out on this BS. The Repubs would do just as bad if they could....Power corrupts, happens almost every time.
[quote name='UncleBob']Imagine, for a moment, China, Iran or North Korea seriously made statements in the press saying that they were going to start using unmanned drone strikes on US soil against individuals they have declared to be enemies of the state.
Yeah.[/QUOTE]
I hear you and agree, but we seem to do a decent job of self policing our terrorists within our own borders. If Pakistan "took care of business", so to speak, then the drone strikes wouldn't be necessary. I do believe in "blowback", not as an excuse but as a motivation. We would definitely be up in arms over any foreign army's incursion into the US, but the die has already been cast, and, much like in gang related violence, it appears to be cyclic in nature. How do we call a truce with "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? Close all foreign bases and bring everyone home? Isolationism? Pay even more tax payer money to hopefully buy good will?
Yeah.[/QUOTE]
I hear you and agree, but we seem to do a decent job of self policing our terrorists within our own borders. If Pakistan "took care of business", so to speak, then the drone strikes wouldn't be necessary. I do believe in "blowback", not as an excuse but as a motivation. We would definitely be up in arms over any foreign army's incursion into the US, but the die has already been cast, and, much like in gang related violence, it appears to be cyclic in nature. How do we call a truce with "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? Close all foreign bases and bring everyone home? Isolationism? Pay even more tax payer money to hopefully buy good will?
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='egofed']How do we call a truce with "terrorists" or "freedom fighters"? Close all foreign bases and bring everyone home?[/QUOTE]
Yes, in addition to removing all sanctions, trade and travel restrictions, and foreign aid. Especially aid sent to dictators in the region.
Yes, in addition to removing all sanctions, trade and travel restrictions, and foreign aid. Especially aid sent to dictators in the region.
[quote name='egofed']I hear you and agree, but we seem to do a decent job of self policing our terrorists within our own borders.[/QUOTE]
True - but do we do a decent job of taking care of the folks that Iran, China and North Korea would consider terrorists?
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.
True - but do we do a decent job of taking care of the folks that Iran, China and North Korea would consider terrorists?
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']True - but do we do a decent job of taking care of the folks that Iran, China and North Korea would consider terrorists?
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
It's unacceptable. Most sensible people would agree with you. Our foreign policy has sucked by and large since WW II when the U.S. decided it ruled the world. It's been especially bad since 2001 though.
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
It's unacceptable. Most sensible people would agree with you. Our foreign policy has sucked by and large since WW II when the U.S. decided it ruled the world. It's been especially bad since 2001 though.
[quote name='UncleBob']True - but do we do a decent job of taking care of the folks that Iran, China and North Korea would consider terrorists?
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
The person they targeted was involved with an attack at a US base in afghanistan that killed 7 people. He was also supposedly responsible for attacks on Pakistani civilian and military targets.
I don't believe this is a case of "terrorist or freedom fighter". That assumption is getting popular these days though.
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
The person they targeted was involved with an attack at a US base in afghanistan that killed 7 people. He was also supposedly responsible for attacks on Pakistani civilian and military targets.
I don't believe this is a case of "terrorist or freedom fighter". That assumption is getting popular these days though.
[quote name='Knoell']The person they targeted was involved with an attack at a US base in afghanistan that killed 7 people. He was also supposedly responsible for attacks on Pakistani civilian and military targets.[/QUOTE]
Says who? The US Government? Or was he tried by a jury of his peers that we didn't know about?
[quote name='willardhaven']It's unacceptable. Most sensible people would agree with you.[/QUOTE]
So... then why did roughly have of the population vote for a man who had a 3 1/2 year history of doing just that? ...and the other half-ish voted for a man who showed every indication that he'd continue the same policies in office?
Says who? The US Government? Or was he tried by a jury of his peers that we didn't know about?
[quote name='willardhaven']It's unacceptable. Most sensible people would agree with you.[/QUOTE]
So... then why did roughly have of the population vote for a man who had a 3 1/2 year history of doing just that? ...and the other half-ish voted for a man who showed every indication that he'd continue the same policies in office?
[quote name='UncleBob']Says who? The US Government? Or was he tried by a jury of his peers that we didn't know about??[/QUOTE]
Yeah b/c the US Gov't said so, he's a terrorist. The US Gov't is always right aabout that. They're never right about anything else but, they're always right when they deem someone a 'terrorist'.
Yeah b/c the US Gov't said so, he's a terrorist. The US Gov't is always right aabout that. They're never right about anything else but, they're always right when they deem someone a 'terrorist'.
[quote name='UncleBob']Says who? The US Government? Or was he tried by a jury of his peers that we didn't know about?
[/QUOTE]
Was bin laden tried by a jury of his peers? What about the countless other Al Qaeda operatives we have killed?
I see what you are saying, "that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder", but you guys have to quit acting like the world is one happy place. It is still divided by countries with their own interests all over the globe. Those interests clash. When will it be one happy place? When there is unlimited wealth and resources to support all life on earth, ie never.
That being said, I do believe there needs to be more oversight on the use of drones.
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah b/c the US Gov't said so, he's a terrorist. The US Gov't is always right aabout that. They're never right about anything else but, they're always right when they deem someone a 'terrorist'. [/QUOTE]
Yeah because the government said it needs to take that right away, they need to restrict you from being able to do things, simply to protect you from everything domestic, and care for you when you are down. Except when it comes to terrorists. Then they just make shit up because they are power hungry murderers who like blowing stuff up.
PS: I never said the government wasn't right about anything.
[/QUOTE]
Was bin laden tried by a jury of his peers? What about the countless other Al Qaeda operatives we have killed?
I see what you are saying, "that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder", but you guys have to quit acting like the world is one happy place. It is still divided by countries with their own interests all over the globe. Those interests clash. When will it be one happy place? When there is unlimited wealth and resources to support all life on earth, ie never.
That being said, I do believe there needs to be more oversight on the use of drones.
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah b/c the US Gov't said so, he's a terrorist. The US Gov't is always right aabout that. They're never right about anything else but, they're always right when they deem someone a 'terrorist'.
[/QUOTE]Yeah because the government said it needs to take that right away, they need to restrict you from being able to do things, simply to protect you from everything domestic, and care for you when you are down. Except when it comes to terrorists. Then they just make shit up because they are power hungry murderers who like blowing stuff up.
PS: I never said the government wasn't right about anything.
[quote name='Knoell']Was bin laden tried by a jury of his peers? What about the countless other Al Qaeda operatives we have killed?[/QUOTE]
I would suggest you go back to the thread that was created when it was announced that Bin Laden had been killed and review my posts at the time. You'll find I was one who didn't celebrate in the death and bloodbath.
I would suggest you go back to the thread that was created when it was announced that Bin Laden had been killed and review my posts at the time. You'll find I was one who didn't celebrate in the death and bloodbath.
[quote name='UncleBob']True - but do we do a decent job of taking care of the folks that Iran, China and North Korea would consider terrorists?
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
I'm not clear on who you are saying Iran, China, and N. Korea would deem as terrorists that we are not dealing with. Our armed forces? Israel? My point is that we generally do not harbor individuals in our country who have arranged or directly attacked other nations (unless you are counting our military). So I agree with the point that we are basically wrong in exercising the power to strike in sovereign nations, but want to emphasize the point that we are in a different situation versus these other nations. To my knowledge, not many Americans are committing terrorists acts in other countries. Non military versus military being the huge difference here.
Right now, our government believes it has the right to determine any individual, anywhere on the planet to be a "terrorist" and do virtually whatever it takes to eliminate them. Just pretend that any other country was to decide they wanted that same power.[/QUOTE]
I'm not clear on who you are saying Iran, China, and N. Korea would deem as terrorists that we are not dealing with. Our armed forces? Israel? My point is that we generally do not harbor individuals in our country who have arranged or directly attacked other nations (unless you are counting our military). So I agree with the point that we are basically wrong in exercising the power to strike in sovereign nations, but want to emphasize the point that we are in a different situation versus these other nations. To my knowledge, not many Americans are committing terrorists acts in other countries. Non military versus military being the huge difference here.
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah b/c the US Gov't said so, he's a terrorist. The US Gov't is always right aabout that. They're never right about anything else but, they're always right when they deem someone a 'terrorist'.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that hilarious? The government can't do anything right, typically screws up anything it touches, but somehow is able to be sure that everyone it drone strikes is legitimately a terrorist. So in short, it will almost certainly up the health care system, but is extremely accurate about terrorist recognition.
[/QUOTE]Isn't that hilarious? The government can't do anything right, typically screws up anything it touches, but somehow is able to be sure that everyone it drone strikes is legitimately a terrorist. So in short, it will almost certainly
up the health care system, but is extremely accurate about terrorist recognition.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']
So... then why did roughly have of the population vote for a man who had a 3 1/2 year history of doing just that? ...and the other half-ish voted for a man who showed every indication that he'd continue the same policies in office?[/QUOTE]
The same reason people eat chicken raised in its own shit. Willful ignorance.
So... then why did roughly have of the population vote for a man who had a 3 1/2 year history of doing just that? ...and the other half-ish voted for a man who showed every indication that he'd continue the same policies in office?[/QUOTE]
The same reason people eat chicken raised in its own shit. Willful ignorance.
[quote name='egofed']I'm not clear on who you are saying Iran, China, and N. Korea would deem as terrorists that we are not dealing with.[/QUOTE]
Whomever they want, for whatever reasons they wish to claim. Why not, we do?
[quote name='willardhaven']The same reason people eat chicken raised in its own shit. Willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]
This is about the best summation of modern politics ever.
Whomever they want, for whatever reasons they wish to claim. Why not, we do?
[quote name='willardhaven']The same reason people eat chicken raised in its own shit. Willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]
This is about the best summation of modern politics ever.
I don't understand why anyone with that attitude thinks that anybody is capable of leading our government. It seems like plenty of folks think that way, except for when it comes to the Pauls for some reason. For some reason they believe the Paul's bullshit, the Pauls are different somehow in their minds.
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
Breaking my rule of not discussing politics on the Internet (because it is mostly a pointless exercise that accomplishes nothing).
This country is a joke.
Until I see changes, I'm just gonna keep assuming that all politicians are impotent corporate puppets.
Gonna assume that everyone who posts in this forum also washes the Doritos dust off their fat fingers, gets off their asses, and is actually active in their communities. I know I am. I hope you are too. Action is far more important than spending two hours on a forum post.
This country is a joke.
Until I see changes, I'm just gonna keep assuming that all politicians are impotent corporate puppets.
Gonna assume that everyone who posts in this forum also washes the Doritos dust off their fat fingers, gets off their asses, and is actually active in their communities. I know I am. I hope you are too. Action is far more important than spending two hours on a forum post.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Anybody reading about Prism? It's all starting to unravel.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/chris-hayes-apologizes-george-wallace-party-92660.html
Hayes is such a joke. Can we believe anything these 24 hour news channels produce?
I'm still waiting for your "apology", Mykevermin.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24332-obama-has-strong-words-of-disagreement-with-obama
Hahahahahahahahahhhehheheheheheeee...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxNixPQ60Y
Here's a classic....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smwn5ksm7YE&feature=player_embedded
"If it was a different president....." what an idiot.
Hayes is such a joke. Can we believe anything these 24 hour news channels produce?
I'm still waiting for your "apology", Mykevermin.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24332-obama-has-strong-words-of-disagreement-with-obama
Hahahahahahahahahhhehheheheheheeee...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxNixPQ60Y
Here's a classic....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smwn5ksm7YE&feature=player_embedded
"If it was a different president....." what an idiot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that's good, because it's not like we'll have a different president in 4 years that will have the exact same powers.
http://www.ronfutrell.com/2013/06/11/defending-those-without-a-voice/
Stay classy and tolerant, Bill. Is this a war on special needs kids???
On Rangle's comment, that was my point exactly, Cantatus.
Stay classy and tolerant, Bill. Is this a war on special needs kids???
On Rangle's comment, that was my point exactly, Cantatus.
That guy has as much credibility as you do: which is none.http://www.ronfutrell.com/2013/06/11/defending-those-without-a-voice/
Stay classy and tolerant, Bill. Is this a war on special needs kids???
On Rangle's comment, that was my point exactly, Cantatus.
Nice of you to knee-jerk-off about a joke that you didn't even read or hear. Keep trolling buddy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you talking about Rangle, Maher, or Cantatus?That guy has as much credibility as you do: which is none.http://www.ronfutrell.com/2013/06/11/defending-those-without-a-voice/
Stay classy and tolerant, Bill. Is this a war on special needs kids???
On Rangle's comment, that was my point exactly, Cantatus.
Nice of you to knee-jerk-off about a joke that you didn't even read or hear. Keep trolling buddy.
#1. I guess the winking smiley face didn't clue you into the sarcasm that was intended.
#2. Credibility? On a video game forum??? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAaaaaa......you are great, bro. Please never change.
Are you questioning if Bill would use the word retarded????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe57F77ZKIs
Last edited by a moderator:
Who do YOU think I'm talking about?
You're the type of person that says outrageously reprehensible things with a straight face and then say that you weren't being serious a second later. I want to let you in on a little secret about that: it doesn't work when you say those types of things ALL the time.
A little reading comprehension might do you some good too, but that's probably too much to ask.
So you are the only one who can use sarcasm? Lighten up, Francis. You don't think Maher would say this? He loves controversy. I think he would admit to using that word in a joke if he actually did. We might find out for sure. I agree with him on a lot of issues also, but does he really have a position on the board of PETA? I thought he was totally against extremism of any type. Maybe he serves as a limiting factor on their more "crazy" notions.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've already gone over what constitutes your type of "sarcasm," but what I really want to know is if you are having issues with your masculinity. A little insecure about it, perhaps? I guess that why most conservatives tend to go with emasculation as their go-to flavor of insults.
Short Version:
Long Version:
Think about the premise of your argument for more than a second. You're arguing that a comedian that's known for using lurid language in his material, said the word "retard" in one of his jokes about an often mocked family with a child with down syndrome. And you think this is a robust argument because you think I'm saying that he didn't used the word in a joke when I've said countless times that his humor can be too crass at times? Sorry, but that's just dumb as shit.
It's fully believable that he said "retard," but I'm not going to take the word of some conservative blogger that uses the "someone intolerant of my intolerance is the REAL intolerant one"-argument or "liberal anti-tolerantism" crap when it comes to context, of which he provided almost none. So Maher said "retard." No surprise there, but instead of being critical of your sources, content, and context, you decide to jump on someone else's bandwagon because their ideology matches your own.
THAT is what I'm critiquing.
It's fully believable that he said "retard," but I'm not going to take the word of some conservative blogger that uses the "someone intolerant of my intolerance is the REAL intolerant one"-argument or "liberal anti-tolerantism" crap when it comes to context, of which he provided almost none. So Maher said "retard." No surprise there, but instead of being critical of your sources, content, and context, you decide to jump on someone else's bandwagon because their ideology matches your own.
THAT is what I'm critiquing.
So Maher supports PETA. Queue that up with the other long list of questionable things he supports. Not that it's even remotely relevant to what we're discussing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow! I can only imagine that you believe half of the crap you spew out here. You were the one who took great offense to my post that was in jest because no one expects Maher to be politically correct. You insulted my credibility about said post, then you assume my retort was meant to imply that you are gay, when in fact it is a quote from the movie "Stripes" said to a dude who is acting tough and upset about something as trivial as someone calling him by his given name. You see homophobia and racism in everything, dude. They probably have some pills for that paranoia....And you refer to my "argument", what are we even arguing about? I posted something that I found interesting in a "Stay classy" thread. I even posted a video of Maher using the "R" word and being quite proud of himself for doing it. Take the stick out of your ass, (uhoh, is that another gay insultI've already gone over what constitutes your type of "sarcasm," but what I really want to know is if you are having issues with your masculinity. A little insecure about it, perhaps? I guess that why most conservatives tend to go with emasculation as their go-to flavor of insults.
Short Version:
Long Version:Think about the premise of your argument for more than a second. You're arguing that a comedian that's known for using lurid language in his material, said the word "retard" in one of his jokes about an often mocked family with a child with down syndrome. And you think this is a robust argument because you think I'm saying that he didn't used the word in a joke when I've said countless times that his humor can be too crass at times? Sorry, but that's just dumb as shit.
It's fully believable that he said "retard," but I'm not going to take the word of some conservative blogger that uses the "someone intolerant of my intolerance is the REAL intolerant one"-argument or "liberal anti-tolerantism" crap when it comes to context, of which he provided almost none. So Maher said "retard." No surprise there, but instead of being critical of your sources, content, and context, you decide to jump on someone else's bandwagon because their ideology matches your own.
THAT is what I'm critiquing.
So Maher supports PETA. Queue that up with the other long list of questionable things he supports. Not that it's even remotely relevant to what we're discussing.
) and learn to choose your battles. You attack every source I cite, who do you trust? Who has a 100 % non bias and perfect track record that reports news? You are my favorite liberal clown, and haven't failed to make me chuckle at you yet. Would you be willing to work parties and events?PS:I picked up a lady who had just returned from a cruise the other day. She handed me her SNAP benefit card by mistake. We both laughed and laughed.... :lol:
If you don't like the blowback you get from posting the intellectual equivalent of imitation dollar store imitation junk food made out of imitation sawdust, then maybe you shouldn't post it or post it in places where it'd be better received. Watching paint dry provides more intellectual stimulation than the dreck you post on a regular basis. Maybe if you were able to discern fact from bullshit with a critical mind, you know better than to be linking to horseshit sites as if were going out of style. But no. You'd rather let some ideological snake oil salesman speak for you and accept it as gospel truth while shouting Amen! at the top of your lungs.Wow! I can only imagine that you believe half of the crap you spew out here. You were the one who took great offense to my post that was in jest because no one expects Maher to be politically correct. You insulted my credibility about said post, then you assume my retort was meant to imply that you are gay, when in fact it is a quote from the movie "Stripes" said to a dude who is acting tough and upset about something as trivial as someone calling him by his given name. You see homophobia and racism in everything, dude. They probably have some pills for that paranoia....And you refer to my "argument", what are we even arguing about? I posted something that I found interesting in a "Stay classy" thread. I even posted a video of Maher using the "R" word and being quite proud of himself for doing it. Take the stick out of your ass, (uhoh, is that another gay insult
There's a difference between laughing with someone and laughing at them. No surprise that you don't see or care to acknowledge the difference. It's a pity that even after pointing this out on numerous occasions, you still don't seem to understand this...or maybe you're just not as magnanimous as you think you are. Same shit really...PS:I picked up a lady who had just returned from a cruise the other day. She handed me her SNAP benefit card by mistake. We both laughed and laughed.... :lol:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9086646
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/welfare-fraud-investigations-virginia-beach-rise
http://www.uticaod.com/m/news/x1048855085/Our-view-Work-to-reduce-welfare-fraud#axzz2WFblV7Iu
Here's a few more articles for you to whine about, doh. Enjoy!
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/welfare-fraud-investigations-virginia-beach-rise
http://www.uticaod.com/m/news/x1048855085/Our-view-Work-to-reduce-welfare-fraud#axzz2WFblV7Iu
Here's a few more articles for you to whine about, doh. Enjoy!
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
Obama's trip to Africa could cost up to $100 million.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/white-house-defends-high-bills-africa-trip/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/white-house-defends-high-bills-africa-trip/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8klboyEiPQ&feature=player_embedded
Does Obama really believe that this is a good time to crush the coal industry? I only support this type of crap if it is globally initiated and accepted. Otherwise, it just puts us at an even larger disadvantage versus China, etc.
Does Obama really believe that this is a good time to crush the coal industry? I only support this type of crap if it is globally initiated and accepted. Otherwise, it just puts us at an even larger disadvantage versus China, etc.
LOLZ...please tell me more about how classless he is and why he belongs where he is. I'm trembling in anticipation for your well-reasoned response.
bread's done